Tom Porteous | ukwatch.net

Turn Off the Aid Tap

Ellie Keen — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 02:35:02 +0000

So far the UK government has responded to General Musharraf's crackdown in Pakistan with words but no action. In formulaic statements Gordon Brown and his ministers have called for the lifting of the state of emergency, the release of those arrested, an end to restrictions on the media and the holding of elections next January. But there is little sign of any willingness to put serious pressure on Musharraf to do any of this.

Annual UK economic aid to Pakistan has increased from £12.8m in 2001 to more than £100m this year. It is set to double over the next four years. On top of that, there's military and counter-terrorism assistance. Much of this aid package is conditioned on good performance on human rights and governance. Yet the aid tap remains firmly on.

Furthermore, the UK has signally avoided calling for the reinstatement of Iftikhar Chaudhry, the sacked chief justice who, along with his colleagues on the supreme court, has fought with persistence against Musharraf's one-man rule and sought to expose the abuses of his government. Apparently the UK is relaxed about the appointment of pliant supreme court judges who will rubberstamp an unconstitutional political process, which keeps Musharraf in power indefinitely.

The threat this week to suspend Pakistan from the Commonwealth unless it lifts the state of emergency by the time of the Commonwealth summit in Uganda on November 23 is little more than a symbolic gesture. Under Musharraf, Pakistan has already been suspended from the Commonwealth and the sky did not fall on his head.

The British government's rationale for a softly-softly approach is the same as its rationale for supporting the military dictator in the first place. As the foreign secretary, David Miliband, puts it, the UK is "very much aware of the terrorist threat with which the government of Pakistan has to grapple" and has reiterated its "support and determination to work in partnership with the Pakistani authorities to counter this menace".

The problem with this argument is that the military government in Pakistan is as much part of the terrorist problem as its solution. The style and methods of Musharraf's unaccountable military dictatorship, including widespread torture and disappearances, and a war of attrition against the Pakistani judiciary, have done nothing to reduce the influence of those who advocate terrorist violence in Pakistan. On the contrary, with every day that Musharraf delays a return to civilian rule, he stokes the flames of violent extremism in Pakistan and beyond.

Under Musharraf, the Taliban and other extremist groups have grown stronger, while Pakistani moderates and progressives have been persecuted. While Musharraf cracks down on liberal civil society and the media, his army is relinquishing more and more territory to Islamist militants in north-western Pakistan on the border with Afghanistan.

Just this month, scores of paramilitary troops and police surrendered their weapons to militants and retreated from yet another town, Kalam, in the Swat Valley of Pakistan's strategically important North West Frontier Province. The pro-Taliban cleric, Mullah Fazlullah, announced "victory" over his pirate FM radio station as militants hoisted their flag on government buildings and installations in the area.

Meanwhile, thousands of police and intelligence officers have been diverted from fighting terrorism to implementing a state of emergency whose main victims are the lawyers, human rights activists and progressive politicians who have spearheaded the restoration of civilian rule.

A return to some semblance of democratic governance and respect for the rule of law and human rights is no panacea, but it is a necessary condition for an effective strategy to stabilise Pakistan and neutralise the threat of terrorism. Aid spent propping up an abusive dictator in Pakistan is worse than a waste of taxpayers' money. It should be switched off.

To keep pumping economic and military assistance to Musharraf's military government in the current crisis sends a dangerous message that London does not care about the plight of the beleaguered democrats and moderates in Pakistan. Such a signal gives succour to abusive and unaccountable governments around the world, and hands another victory to the violent extremists in the battle for the hearts and minds of the Muslim world.

Turn Off the Aid Tap

Ellie Keen — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 00:30:39 +0000

The British government's rationale for a softly-softly approach is the same as its rationale for supporting the military dictator in the first place. As David Miliband puts it, the UK is "very much aware of the terrorist threat with which the government of Pakistan has to grapple" and has reiterated its "support and determination to work in partnership with the Pakistani authorities to counter this menace".

The Refugees Fleeing Iraq are Our Responsibility

Ellie Keen — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 22:16:07 +0000

If the Prime Minister has refused to apologise for invading Iraq, he should at least accept responsibility for its consequences. Two million Iraqis have fled the violence unleashed by the invasion and occupation. And as the violence escalates, so does the exodus.

Yet, at the beginning of 2007, the British had still given no support either to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), or to Jordan and Syria, the two countries which are currently bearing the main burden and who are both now acting to close their borders to refugees, with which they say they can no longer cope.

There is no British programme for resettling Iraqis in the UK, even for those who have served the UK authorities. And the vast majority of asylum seekers who manage to get here on their own are seeing their applications refused. In the 12 months to September, out of 780 applications processed only 55 were granted some form of asylum.

The British policy on Iraqi refugees is not only morally indefensible, but also extraordinarily shortsighted. Experience from elsewhere - Afghanistan, West Africa, Somalia and Sudan - has shown very clearly that refugee flows on the scale now seen in Iraq can often contribute to serious regional instability.

The last time so many people were on the move in the Middle East was in 1948 in the aftermath of the war which led to the creation of the state of Israel. We are still living with the consequences of that refugee crisis.

Having engaged in a pre- emptive war of choice that directly or indirectly caused this massive displacement, the US and the UK have a clear and compelling duty, as well as an interest, to take the lead in addressing the refugee crisis their actions have precipitated. Belatedly, the US government has begun to pay attention. On 14 February, Condoleezza Rice announced a programme under which 7,000 Iraqi refugees will be resettled in the US this year. It's not much, but it is a start. And the UK must follow suit.

Here's what the UK should start doing now. First it needs to provide financial and logistical support to the Jordanians and the Syrians, as well as to other countries in the region, in order to help them to provide support for Iraqi refugees living in their midst. As Human Rights Watch has documented, refugees from Iraq (including 20,000 stateless Palestinians) need international support and protection, particularly inside Syria and Jordan, where many face acute hardship, a lack of access to education and health services, and discrimination.

Second, the Government should establish its own resettlement programme for Iraqi refugees. Priority should be given to those who have worked for the British authorities in Iraq, who may be particularly at risk of reprisals as UK forces withdraw. One former Iraqi employee wrote in an e-mail in February: "Most of my old CPA, FCO, and DFID colleagues are disappeared, killed or moved out of Iraq, I do not think that I or my family have much luck here in Basra."

Third, the UK needs to review its approach to Iraqi asylum seekers already in the UK. Hundreds of Iraqis have fled the violence and insecurity of Iraq only to be caught up in the legal and bureaucratic nightmare of the British asylum system. According to the Refugee Council, thousands have been denied asylum since 2003. Of those, almost a hundred Iraqi Kurds have been forcibly returned to northern Iraq on the grounds that it is stable there and they face no risk. The rest are waiting in the UK without any clear legal status until the British Government deems that the rest of the country is safe enough to consider returning them home, too.

Continued British inaction could result in a breach of the most fundamental principle of international refugee law - that refugees should not be forcibly returned into the hands of their persecutors - with all its tragic and horrifying consequences.

It may be too late for this British Government, with its US partner, to succeed in making Iraq a safe place for Iraqis to live in or return to any time soon. But it is not too late for the Government to address a massive refugee crisis that is a direct or indirect consequence of its actions in Iraq.

The author is London director of Human Rights Watch

Ethiopia's Dirty War

Tim Holmes — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 02:38:41 +0000

While the west agonises over Darfur, another humanitarian and human rights disaster is brewing in the Horn of Africa.

In June, the Ethiopian government launched a major military campaign in the Ogaden, a sparsely populated and remote region on Ethiopia's border with Somalia. The counter insurgency operation was aimed at eliminating the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF), a rebel group which has been fighting for years for self-determination for the Ogaden's predominantly Somali population.

In less than two months, Ethiopia's military campaign has triggered a serious humanitarian crisis. Human Rights Watch has learned that dozens of civilians have been killed in what appears to be a deliberate effort to mete out collective punishment against a civilian population suspected of sympathising with the rebels.

Villages have been attacked, sacked and burnt. Livestock - the lynchpin of the region's pastoralist economy - have been confiscated or destroyed. A partial trade blockade has been imposed on the region leading to serious food shortages. Relatives of suspected rebels have been taken hostage. Thousands of civilians have been displaced, fleeing across the borders of Ethiopia into northern Kenya and Somaliland.

Last week, with little objection from the international community, the Ethiopian government expelled from the Ogaden the International Committee of the Red Cross, one of the few neutral observers of the crisis left in the region.

This is not Darfur. But the situation in Ogaden follows a familiar pattern of a counter insurgency operation in which government forces show little regard for the safety of the civilian population and commit serious abuses, including deliberate attacks on civilians, mass displacement of populations and interference with humanitarian assistance.

Unlike in Darfur, however, the state that is perpetrating abuses against its people in Ogaden is a key western ally and recipient of large amounts of western aid. Furthermore the crisis in Ogaden is linked to a military intervention by Ethiopia in Somalia that has been justified in terms of counter terrorism and is firmly supported by the United States and other western donors.

Ethiopia has often justified military action in Somalia on grounds of cooperation between what it calls "terrorist" groups in Somalia and the rebellion in Ogaden. The ONLF certainly has strong ethnic and political links to Somali insurgents now fighting against the Ethiopian military presence in Somalia. It may have decided to escalate its rebellion in Ogaden in response to Ethiopia's full-scale military intervention in Somalia in December last year.

Now there are reliable reports that, as a result of Ethiopian military pressure inside Somalia, Somali insurgents including members the militant Islamist al-Shabaab have sought refuge in Ogaden where they could be regrouping. Thus instead of containing and calming the situation in Somalia, the actions of Ethiopia's forces there may well be exacerbating the conflict and regionalising it.

The emerging crisis in the Ogaden is indicative of an increasingly volatile political and military situation in the Horn of Africa. Predictably civilians are bearing the brunt of the crisis both in the Ogaden and in Somalia where hundreds of thousands have been displaced by fighting since the Ethiopian intervention. Predictably human rights abuses and violations of the laws of war are being perpetrated by all sides. It could all get a lot worse, especially if it leads to a resumption of the war between Ethiopia and Eritrea.

So why isn't the international community doing more to address this crisis. Hasn't the UN being saying for years that crisis prevention is better than cure?

The EU and the United States have significant leverage over Ethiopia in the form of foreign aid and political influence. They should use it instead of turning a blind eye to abuses carried out by the Ethiopian security forces in the name of counter terrorism.

Western support for Ethiopia's counter insurgency efforts in the Horn of Africa is not only morally wrong and riddled with double standards, it is also ineffective and counterproductive. It will lead to the escalation and regionalisation of the conflicts of the region and may well help to radicalise its large and young Muslim population.

Iraqi Refugees - Britain's Responsibility

Alex Doherty — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 18:42:41 +0000

Finally, a demonstration of the British Government's willingness to help Iraq's neighbours cope with the financial and human refugee burden must be combined with intense diplomacy to convince Jordan and Syria, in particular, to keep their borders open for Iraqi refugees. Both countries already host as many as one million Iraqi refugees each, and both have recently taken measures to close their borders or to restrict residency permits for Iraqis.
Continued British inaction could result in a breach of the most fundamental principle of international refugee law - that refugees should not be forcibly returned into the hands of their persecutors - with all its tragic and horrifying consequences.

A Fig Leaf for Britain

Alex Doherty — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 18:28:38 +0000

There is a chronic epidemic of torture in the Middle East and it feeds directly into political militancy, conflict and terrorism. Extremist groups like al-Qaida have long been led and inspired by victims of state torture.

The west has winked and nodded at torture in the Middle East for decades. It has provided billions of dollars of military and economic aid to governments like those in Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia which practise torture on a routine basis. This is one reason why the rage of Islamist militants is now directed against the west as well as against their own abusive governments. The CIA calls it blowback.

The Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) "ruled":http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,2022047,00.html on Monday that a Jordanian cleric, Omar Othman, aka Abu Qatada, should be sent back to Jordan, a country where he faces a serious risk of being tortured. For millions of Muslims around the world this judgment will provide yet more evidence (and there is already plenty) that the links which bind western governments with Middle Eastern states which practise torture are getting stronger and cosier in the post 9/11 security climate.

Thus the SIAC has taken a step which will help do further damage to the UK's reputation among Muslims in the Middle East, and make it less likely that Muslim communities in the UK will cooperate with the police in their efforts to thwart terrorism. In short the SIAC's judgment will make the UK more vulnerable, not less, to terrorism.

The British government has argued, and the SIAC now agrees, that a memorandum of understanding signed with Jordan provides adequate guarantees that Abu Qatada will not be tortured. But "extensive research":http://hrw.org/reports/2005/eca0405/ by Human Rights Watch has shown that such MoUs or "diplomatic assurances" are not worth the paper they are written on. Why should Jordan respect an unenforceable bilateral agreement with the UK if it has shown on countless well-documented occasions that it does not respect its legally binding international obligations not to practice torture?

The real purpose is not to provide protection for the likes of Abu Qatada. Rather these MoUs have been invented to provide the British government with a legal fig leaf, and a flimsy one at that, behind which the UK hopes to get rid of turbulent Muslim clerics and terrorist suspects like Abu Qatada while appearing to comply with its obligations under the Convention Against Torture (according to which it is illegal to deport people to places where they face is a serious risk of torture).

The SIAC has now given credibility to this legal sleight of hand. In doing so it has ignored or dismissed much evidence - presented to the SIAC by Human Rights Watch and others - that diplomatic assurances against torture cannot be effectively monitored, that they have not worked in the past and that they are unlikely to work in the future.

Only this week the underlying principle of diplomatic assurances was undermined when it was reported that two Algerians recently deported from the UK to Algeria have been detained and face trial on terrorism charges, in spite of clear assurances given to London by the Algerian government that they would not face legal proceedings.

The SIAC ruling will have won the support of many people in the UK across the political spectrum who feel that Abu Qatada and his like have abused the hospitality of this country and should be sent back to their countries of origin as soon as possible, whatever the consequences for them.

But the fact that a measure may be popular does not make it wise or lawful. If the allegations against Abu Qatada and other suspects are as serious as they are made out to be, then these individuals should be vigorously prosecuted with the full weight of the law.

Sending them to countries like Jordan and Libya where they risk torture not only has consequences for them, but also for us. It makes our elected politicians and society indirectly responsible for torture, it binds us ever more closely to unpopular and repressive states in the Middle East, and it undermines the values we say we are fighting for.

None of that makes us any the safer.

An Explosive Issue

Alex Doherty — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 21:27:19 +0000

According to the police report, Kamaleddine Mohammad was gathering wood near the Rashidiyeh Palestinian refugee camp outside Tyre in Lebanon last month when he stepped on an unexploded submunition from a cluster bomb. Mohammad was yet another victim of Israel's cluster bombing campaign at the end of last summer's war between Israel and Hizbollah. He is one of the tens of thousands of civilians killed or injured by cluster munitions in war zones throughout the world in recent decades.

This week, "Norway is leading":http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/02/20/global15362.htm an effort to initiate negotiations that would, if successful, lead to an international ban on most, if not all, cluster munitions, thus preventing thousands of further civilian deaths and injuries. The initiative deserves the support of all states that profess to care about the rules of war and the protection of civilians caught up in armed conflict.

Cluster munitions, dropped from aircraft or shot out of artillery and ground rocket systems, explode in mid air and scatter hundreds of submunitions over an area as big as, or even bigger than, a football pitch. When used in populated areas, they are almost certain to cause large numbers of civilian casualties. Furthermore, because many of these submunitions fail to explode on impact but remain volatile, the target area effectively becomes a minefield. Long after hostilities have ended these weapons continue to reap a bitter harvest in civilian deaths and injuries. Children are particularly vulnerable.

In southern Lebanon, which, in the last days of last summer's war, the Israel Defence Forces blanketed with millions of submunitions, 186 people have been injured and 30 killed by unexploded cluster submunitions since the end of the fighting.

The British government is a major producer, user, exporter and stockpiler of cluster munitions. Britain used them in Iraq in 2003, Kosovo in 1999, Iraq and Kuwait in 1991, and the Falkland Islands in 1982. It has sold them to armed forces around the world. And it has been opposing efforts to prohibit the use of inaccurate and unreliable cluster munitions through international negotiations such as those which led to the landmark Mine Ban Treaty of 1997.

At a five-year review conference of the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW) last November, Britain, standing shoulder to shoulder with the United States, Russia, and China, among others, opposed a proposal to start negotiations on cluster munitions within the framework of the CCW. Instead, the UK offered a weak alternative proposal: to continue talks on explosive remnants of war, but with a focus on cluster munitions. This go-slow approach was readily accepted by those loath to deal with the cluster bomb problem in a serious and urgent fashion.

In response, Norway has invited a "progressive coalition":http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/11/17/global14629.htm of more than 30 countries to Oslo in an effort to begin hammering out an international cluster treaty outside of the CCW. The pro-treaty coalition has been growing rapidly. It is spurred in part by well-informed public opinion in democratic countries which rightly views the use of cluster munitions as unacceptable. But it is also backed up by a strong legal argument: in every conflict where the use of cluster munitions has been well documented, they have been used in ways that violate international humanitarian law. Most notably, cluster munitions used in populated areas cannot be directed at a specific military target, and thus are invariably indiscriminate, striking military targets and civilians without distinction.

This week's meeting in Oslo will get the ball rolling for negotiating an international treaty to ban all cluster munitions that cause unacceptable humanitarian harm. What weapons fall inside or outside the prohibition will be determined during the negotiations, but governments will have to demonstrate conclusively that any particular cluster munition does not cause avoidable harm to civilians. Non-governmental organisations, led by the "Cluster Munition Coalition":http://www.stopclustermunitions.org/ (which Human Rights Watch helped found in 2003 and now co-chairs), are calling for the meeting to agree on a declaration committing to the conclusion of a new treaty by 2008, and to develop an action plan for getting there.

One of the surprises of the Oslo meeting is that the UK government is sending a delegation. But it is still not clear what the British government's intentions are. As recently as last December, Foreign Office minister Kim Howells stated that "compelling and legitimate conditions may occur when our armed forces need to use these weapons."

However, the government is divided. Last year, a memo was leaked to the press in which the International Development secretary, Hilary Benn, urged his cabinet colleagues to support an international ban on cluster munitions, arguing that their use was "pushing the boundaries of international humanitarian law". If the British presence at Oslo indicates that such dissident views are prevailing, and that the UK is now serious about an international treaty, then so much the better for the thousands of potential victims of clusters whose lives will be saved by such a treaty.

If, on the other hand, it turns out the British have gone to Oslo to hinder rapid international action, then we can only cry "shame" ... and hope that Tony Blair's successor seizes on this important issue to give the protection of civilians in wartime the priority it deserves.

__Tom Porteous is the London director of Human Rights Watch. As a journalist he worked for the Guardian and the BBC World Service. He has written extensively on Africa and the Middle East.__