Dictators - the main cause of war in 2015

There has been a slight shift in the causes of current wars.

Last time I looked, in August 2015, separatism (one regional group wishing to be an autonomous state) was the cause of 50% of then-current wars. Before that, in 2008, separatism was a major cause in  30%, 

Now, July '15, separatism has slipped back to 30% again.

These figures could be disputed by experts and scholars. All wars are complex, and motivations and causal factors of all kinds are mixed into every war and conflict. Nevertheless, we can discern major factors in each situation.

Of the 13 wars  happening in 2015 that have death rates above 1,000 last year, dictators (either currently in power or recently removed) is a major cause in 8, and religion is operative in 5.

So about 60% of current wars have dictators involved in their causation in one way or another.

Here they are:

1. Iraq (Saddam gave Bush/Blair their excuse to invade)
2. Syria (dictator in place, resisting overthrow)
3. Israel-Palestine (dictatorial attitudes by elected Governments)
4. Somalia (more than 20 years after dictator was overthrown)
5. Libya
6. Yemen (post dictatorship)
7. Sinai (post dictator)
8. Central African Republic 

The thing with dictators is that they can hold a territory in a kind of unity through repression, but inevitably, after a generation or two, revolution or civil war takes place. Resentment in people who are not part of the ruling class or ruling tribe or clan builds up and finally explodes into demonstrations and then conflict. After the overthrow of the dictator and his group, there tends to be conflict from settling of scores, and conflict between groups who had been kept at peace through repressive means. 

We learn two things from this situation: first, the UN needs to put in place measures to discourage the formation of dictatorships, and second, we need ways and means of persuading dictators to make the journey back to democracy.

The Green Party - and also the Global Greens -  have adopted an instrument that will help achieve the first goal. It is called the Global Index of Human Rights.  It is fiendishly simple. The human rights performance of every state in the world is measured and the results are published annually by the UN. This creates a continuous, gentle pressure on all states to improve their record, and the very worst performing states, and those who are moving down the league table can be offered advice and help to change direction, backed by targeted sanctions if they are uncooperative.

In the case of specific established dictators who are overtly harming their populations, a tariff of measures can be used to persuade them to change. Search "Appendix 1" on the Global Index page.

So there is a non-violent way to prevent and treat dictatorships.

Some politically interested individuals are so traumatised by past foreign policy failures, for instance in the Iraq war, they simply argue that every country should be left to itself to determine its own way. This new laissez-faire attitude is not Green. We cannot sit back and allow oppression, political imprisonment, torture, killings, migration and eventually civil war to take place as if it is nothing to do with us. The world is one world. The Green way has always been to "think globally". Laissez-faire is not an option for us.

Humanity and the need for global political harmony require that we become involved in positive, non-violent ways to contain dictators in order to prevent war.

Syria. If not bombs, what?

Parliament has just decided, rightly, that military action would not be helpful in Syria.

So now what do we do? 

It is crucial to involve Russia in negotiations and diplomacy. As they have their only Mediterranean naval port in Syria and are supplying Assad with weapons, their engagement is central. 
On TV in Belarus Putin is saying he'll help Syria in any armed conflict with the West but that story has not received the coverage it deserves. 

However, the international community cannot just stand by and wring its hands. There is humanitarian work to be done, and also legal work.

War crimes have been and are  being committed by someone. Gas has been used by one side or the other. The persons who used it must be identified, and tried in a court of law.  Important international laws are being broken. If justice is not applied, the law is weakened. The laws against chemical weapons have great significance because they were one of the first laws passed, nearly a century ago, against weapons of mass destruction. The law against WMD must be upheld, and also the United Nations have a responsibility to protect civilians. 

So what can the UN do, short of taking military action, as it is legally entitled to do under Responsibility to Protect?

The UN could do this:

1 Try Assad and his subordinates for war crimes and/or human rights abuses in absentia. 
If found guilty, they are sentenced to time  in prison.

2 Inform Assad that if he abdicates, and his subordinates that if they defect, the sentence will be commuted to a comfortable exile.

3 Jam his TV and radio broadcasts. He maintains his hold on his supporters with these broadcasts.

4 Apply Targeted Sanctions to Assad and his inner circle:

· Financial sanctions (freezing of funds and other financial assets, ban on transactions, investment restrictions)
· Trade restrictions on particular goods (e.g. arms, diamonds, oil, lumber) or services
· Travel restrictions on Assad and his regime (unless they are fleeing the country)
· Diplomatic constraints
· Cultural and sports restrictions
· Air traffic restrictions

Other possible measures include:
· Restrictions on visa issues to members of the Government, unless for purposes of diplomacy or defection.
· Assistance given to democratic opposition groups who support principles of good governance.
· Tightened border controls, in readiness for sanctions on arms related materials.
· Prohibition of specified financial transactions
· Freezing of accounts of government officials
· Ban on imports of all lethal goods
· ban on imports of dual purpose technology
· ban on imports of chemical weapon precursors
· ban on imports of biotechnology
· ban on imports of nuclear technology
· ban on imports of wines and spirits
· ban on imports of tobacco, cars, oil & oil products, and luxury items. (These are often used by oppressive regimes to buy loyalty)

The sanctions should be delivered in a progressive way, and promptly reduced in response to any improvement.

The above approach is in accordance with well-established principles of behavioural psychology, which shows that behaviour can successfully be modified in a consistent and impartial framework of punishments and rewards.

For those with worse records, or in the case of governments who fail to reform despite being under milder sanctions, opposition groups will be supported with progressively increasing financial and logistical help, provided that they support the principles of good governance.

Finally, if the regime still refuses to improve, or if it is engaging in ethnic cleansing or genocide, these opposition parties could be entrusted and empowered with responsibility for imports of, and fair distribution of, necessities like food and medicines. This would give them practice in the arts of co-operation (with each other) and administration, enabling them to prepare for government.
If necessary, the distribution efforts will be protected by UN forces.

5 Set in place measures to stop development of dictatorships. 

There we have it. Four measures that can be set in place to hamstring Assad. There are many other things that could be done as well. Put them forward in the comment slot below and if they're reasonable I'll add them here.

Of course, there will be counter arguments. There always will be.

Some will say it's too late for that kind of talky-talky stuff.
This is not the time for words, but action.
This is time for the smack of hand on button.
This is the time to show Assad we are really mad.

Others on the other hand will argue that we should do absolutely nothing, apart from offer humanitarian help, and wait until the civil war burns itself out. Intervention is Always Bad.

The crucifixion of political thought on the cross tree of these arguments, if  that is indeed what they are, is the reason why humanity is in this position, up a highly polluted creek without a paddle.

If we are to give peace a chance, we have got to have some improved thinking at the level of international politics and international law.

We have to start somewhere; so it might as well be here.

We have to start some time. Might as well be now.

This post has been updated 2/9/13

Putin slides towards dictatorship: what to do?

Everyone has heard of Putin, everyone knows that the state/church/judicial system that he controls imprisoned three young women for making a protest in Moscow.

Not so many people have heard of Kagame, President of Rwanda, who this week allowed the Rwanda Democratic Green Party to register as a political party, after years of preventing this happening, and after the murder of the vice president of the party.

Putin is moving towards a dictatorship, and Rwanda is moving away from becoming  a dictatorship.

This is important, because if the Arab Spring teaches us anything, it is that it is an intensely painful and bloody matter for a people to rid themselves of a dictator. For this reason, it is immensely important for the UN and the international community to be able to prevent the slide into dictatorship.

This can be done, by three measures, working in sequence:

1. Global Human Rights Index
2. Specific measures to deal with people who are sliding towards dictatorship.
3. Specific measures to implement when a dictator crosses the threshold of using lethal force against peaceful demonstrators.

These measures are expanded here.

The UN's response to Arab Spring and UN reform

Last Wednesday (May 2nd) I went to the House of Commons for a meeting called by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the United Nations on "The UN’s Response to the Arab Spring and the Evolving Role of the Security Council".
 

It was chaired by Lord Hannay of Chiswick - Former British Permanent Representative to the United Nations (1990 – 1995), who, uncannily, looks more like Sir Humphrey than Nigel Hawthorne himself.

The speakers were His Excellency Sir Mark Lyall Grant KCMG* - British Permanent Representative to the United Nations (2009 - present) and Sir Jeremy Greenstock GCMG** - Former British Permanent Representative to the United Nations (1998 – 2003) and Chairman of UNA-UK .

So this was all stuff from the horse's mouth. We were listening to polished voices that speak (or have spoken) in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

I am going to touch a few highlights of what they said.

Sir Mark reviewed the Arab Spring - or, as he would prefer, Arab Awakening. The UNDP was one of the few bodies that predicted  the Arab Spring, in a 2009 report. The UN had been involved in helping to bring about democracy, by suspending Libya from the Human Rights Council, referring Gaddafi to the International Criminal Court, and offering accreditation to the Libyan opposition, the TNC, in the General Assembly.  The Libyan action is still contentious in some quarters. 

Some also are still critical of the policy of Responsibility to Protect. Although R2P is mainly supported by Western conscience, non-Western nations like Qatar and Turkey also support it.

He sketched out Ban Ki Moon's agenda for his second term of office, especially his desire to push through reforms. The UN is pushing on to its 70th year,  its bureaucracy has become sclerotic and badly needs reform, but there is much resistance from some states to reform.  He drew an analogy between the democratic impulse of the Arab Spring and the need of the UN to listen to ideas coming up from the grass roots.

He looked at the future of UNSC action. There are about 100k UN peacekeepers deployed at present, and he sees this number dropping, being converted to more specialised and more police-like, intra-state activities, rather than the traditional blue-helmet peacekeeping ops between states.

Regional organisations - such as the Arab League - are going to become bigger players. He pointed out the disagreement between the Arab League and the African Union over Libya.

Jeremy Greenstock - current chair of the UNA-UK board - took over, with a view of the structure of UN action. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Charter remain the linchpin of UN activities, and those principles must always be upheld. 

The legitimacy of Governments is always determined by the people. The Arab Spring will not be limited to the Middle East, but will inspire similar movements worldwide. The Israel/Palestine issue must be resolved, and - remarkably - he said that the Quartet (run by one T Blair) initiative is running out of steam.

Questions followed. I asked whether UNA-UK should look at the idea of setting a framework for the UN to work to, rather than the present ad hoc arrangements, in order to speed up reaction to events like Syria, where a year and 10,000 deaths have passed before action begins to be brought to bear.

Mark Lyall Grant said we must take the world as it is. The UNSC veto would put paid to any attempts to speed things up. However, the idea of  discouraging the move towards dictatorship does find some resonance with the USA's "Horizon Scanning" process. I did a search, but was unable to find a link to this as a general process, though I did find this on Rwanda. 

Jeremy Greenstock said that responses to humanitarian crises such as Syria and Bahrain tend to be initiated by Western conscience and NGOs. He stressed that democratic governments are not good at committing money for long term plans.

All three on the platform assumed that I was trying to bring forward the point at which the UN authorises military action against a violent dictator - which is of course the very opposite of what I was proposing. This shows the difficulty of trying to compress a comprehensive idea into a question. 

However, I did get some support from other attendees at the meeting, and an opportunity to write to Jeremy Greenstock. 

So it was all worth a trip to London, which remains a funny kinda place.

---------------------------------------

* KCMG = Kindly Call Me God
** GCMG = God Calls Me God

What can the UN do about the likes of Assad?

Picture: Reuters, via Telegraph.co.uk

For a full year, Bashar al-Assad has waged war on his own people, killing around 10,000 democracy activists and civilians.  With agonising slowness, the international community has responded, but the effectiveness of the UN's current peace initiative is still in doubt. Eventually, the world will blunder through to some partial resolution that involves Assad stepping down, but it will be messy and slow, and even then we will be faced with the same situation in Bahrain and many other dictatorships throughout the world.

This is not good enough. 

But what can be done?

Military intervention would be even more problematical and complex than it was in Libya.  

We need a more efficient and effective pathway to dealing with this kind of dictator crisis.

The basic problem is that each crisis brought on by a dictatorship is treated as a novel, one-off event, and brings out a slow, ad hoc political response from the international community, treating each case as if it were the only time in history that it has happened. The response is affected by the regime's trade with other nations, especially with members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

The regime will try to manipulate its allies, and the response of the international community is modified by economic considerations, especially whether the country affected has oil resources.

This unstructured political situation encourages political maneuvering and time-wasting.

Instead of this situation we need a clear, consistent framework which applies to every nation equally,  where disincentives are applied to unwanted behaviour and incentives reward better behaviour.

This approach is based on sound psychology. It is a well established of behaviour management that everyone needs to know that they stand in a framework of fair, reasonable and consistently-applied rules, which cannot be manipulated and circumvented.

To improve the response, there are three reforms that the United Nations needs to bring in.



1 Set up a Global Index of Human Rights

The Global Index of Human Rights, initiated by the Green Party of England and Wales and adopted (among others) by the Global Greens, sets up a framework that provides an incentive for all governments to improve their performance in the field of human rights.

The UN simply publishes annually a league table of countries ranked according to a measure of their human rights performance.

The Index will produce a continuous upward pressure on human rights throughout the world.
It is a good start, but it needs specific measures directed towards problem regimes.



2  Discourage the move towards dictatorship


Using the Global Index of Human Rights and other feed-backs, the UN will be able to identify regimes that are headed down the slippery slope that leads towards dictatorship.

Paul Kagame of Rwanda is a current example of someone who is on this path, and Vladimir Putin is another.

There are a number of clear markers on the pathway to dictatorship:

• Banning opposition political parties, or putting blocks in the way of their registration
• Closing down opposition newspapers and broadcast stations 
• Intimidation at the polling booths
• Ignoring the results of a democratic election
• Imprisonment, torture and "disappearances" of political opposition 
• Lavish expenditure on palaces for the dictator
• Disproportionate spending on arms and the military
  

Each of these steps should be met with a specific response. For instance:

• Banning opposition parties could lead to financial support to opposition parties who support democracy and human rights.
• Intimidation at the polling booths could result in the regime being denied eligibility to serve on certain UN bodies, for example, the Human Rights Council.
• Ignoring the result of a democratic election  could result in a ban in foreign travel for members of the regime.
• Lavish expenditure on palaces for the dictator could result in a ban on imports of luxury goods.

These are given as suggested examples only.

The overall aim is to create a tariff  of measures that become active as the regime takes unwanted measures, and equally, are removed immediately when the regime steps away from its progress towards dictatorship. The measures will not be fully automatic; a designated UN appointed authority, answerable to the UNSC, will oversee the responses to ensure that they are appropriate to the situation.



3  Deal with illegitimate regimes


The world needs a specific, effective set of responses to dictatorships that are actively committing atrocities against their own people, as Assad is at present.

The true purpose of any government is to protect and serve the people.


If a government begins to attack its own people, using lethal force against non-violent demonstrators, it immediately, by definition, loses its legitimacy.

This point has been established in the UN's doctrine of Responsibility to Protect,  introduced in 2005. In fact, the three points set out in this post can be viewed as a logical expansion of the idea of Responsibility to Protect.

Sovereignty is a responsibility, not a God-given privilege.

The point at which a regime starts to use live rounds on unarmed demonstrators should be the trigger for organised and pre-planned UN action.

Instead of waiting for a year, wringing its hands on the sideline and slowly getting the UNSC to agree as the evidence of inhumanity builds up to a level where even permanent members can no longer deny what is happening, there will be a set protocol for dealing with dictatorships that are no longer legitimate.

As soon as reports of lethal force against non-violent protests come in, the UN will set up an board of inquiry. The inquiry will be given a tight time limit - say one or two weeks - to produce its first report, and will continue to function until the situation is resolved. It will be given information from UN rapporteurs, and will be open to representations from citizens and NGOs.

If the facts of the case warrant it, the inquiry will present a case to the International Criminal Court. The regime will be invited to attend the ICC, and if they refuse to attend, the case will be heard in absentia.


The ICC will be able to issue a legal sentence on the president and responsible members of the regime, if the evidence is sufficient. However, this legal sentence will also be balanced by the offer of an amnesty that will come into force if the named parties step down from office.

When the existing regime steps down, they will hand over power to  a caretaker government that will have the task of organising a fair, democratic election within a stated time - say, within six months.  This is to avoid the situation in Egypt, where Mubarak left, but power effectively fell into the hands of other members of his regime.

This dual-track approach, offering a choice between legal consequences if the regime tries to remain in office with a comfortable exile if they choose to leave office, is unusual in law but absolutely vital from the standpoint of psychology. It reflects what often does happen when dictators are persuaded to leave office. In the absence of the soft option of exile, the legal process may make the situation worse by making the regime more determined than ever to cling to power.

The approach reflects a trade off between justice and pragmatism. Although it is distasteful to allow criminals to escape, we are dealing with global politics. The pragmatic result - saving thousands of lives, saving the economy and the society, is the desired end result.

In addition to, and in parallel with the legal action, other specific measures will need to be put in place.

The opposition parties, provided that they support democratic governance, can be recognised and supported.

All arms sales to the regime should be terminated as soon as the regime begins to use lethal force.
(Here is an Avaaz petition to stop arms sales from the US and India via a Russian company - a petition, incidentally, that may have influenced the turning back of a consignment of helicopters bound for Syria.)

Targeted sanctions will be applied to the regime in a progressive way. The number of officials under sanction and investigation should be raised every week. First the ruler, then his inner circle, then a widening circle of the regime's supporters will be indicted. This means that a growing number of the regime's officials and supporters will begin to realise that the game is up. It will be made clear to them at every point that defection will automatically wipe the legal slate clean for the defector.

Freezing the financial assets of the regime should be used at an early stage.

State broadcasting is an important means of control for any regime. If there is any practical means of blocking, commandeering or terminating the signal used by the regime to broadcast radio and TV, this should be used. Physical destruction of broadcasting masts and stations may be used.

Finally and regrettably, it has to be recognised that military force may become necessary as a last resort. This will be   focused on creating safe havens and escape routes for refugees.






Discussion

This outline of the measures needed to prevent the Syrian situation from being a recurrent nightmare is simple and clear, but will take many years to be installed. We are habituated to reading about this kind of mess, and regard it as a normal part of political reality. But it does not have to be like this. The trauma, murder and bereavement that we see on YouTube and sometimes on our TV screens is simply unacceptable. It is a result of a form of disordered behaviour on the part of absolutist regimes, and all behaviour can be managed.

The principles of behaviour management are clear: what is needed is a framework of rules, consistently and evenly applied. This is precisely what is lacking in the chaotic political world that responds to each situation as if it is the first and only time it has occurred, and where responses are variable according to the economic relations that exist between the illegitimate regime and its significant allies.

The measures set out here are designed to create the necessary framework of rules. They are clear and simple measures, but implementing them will be anything but clear and simple. One of the key problems is to maintain coherence of the United Nations. The UN is under attack from many quarters: from psychopathic regimes themselves, from neo-conservative ideologues who see the UN as a communist plot, and from laissez-faire political activists in the West who see any interference in another nations affairs as neo-colonialism.

Despite this unholy alliance of opposition, this three point plan is the best possibility that we have for avoiding the kind of agony that we are witnessing in Syria, Bahrain and many other places.

It's not going to be easy to get it accepted.

On the other hand, it is not easy to sit and watch mass murder take place every day.  By studying, thinking, and discussing these proposals, by getting them adopted as policies in the many institutions and NGOs that have an interest in human rights, conflict and development, we can help to bring about the adoption of these measures in the UN.

Resolving a World of Trouble with Green Ideology

There is a world of trouble out there, global problems looking for global solutions.

We have:

• Dictatorships  in North Korea, China, Burma, Zimbabwe,  Syria, Egypt, Bahrein, Saudi Arabia &c
• Wars and conflicts
• Global economic problems with debt, austerity and recession.
• Rich Poor Gap within nations and between nations
• Anthropogenic Global Warming and other man caused environmental degredation
• Human Population Growth

and many other problems and difficulties.

All these problems are capable of being resolved by determined political and economic reforms based on logical  reasoning from sound starting points. 

Why are they not solved or even addressed with any realistic determination? 

Because there are two sides to human nature - the competitive side and the co-operative side.

The competitive side is based on individualistic ideology. It is self-centred, self-seeking and self-serving. 

The co-operative side is based on the knowledge that humans are a social species, and on the certainty that in many situations, collaboration to attain some common goal of benefit to all is better than a multiplicity of unrelated individual actions.

Both have evolutionary advantages, and both can be operated simultaneously in the same system.

The dominant ideology of our age is based on competition between individual persons (remember that corporations are legal persons). It is claimed that competition for profit gives people the motivation to work harder and produce more, and thereby create more wealth. That is the strength of the individualistic ideology, even though the final flourish, trickle down economics, is an illusion.

The weakness of socialist ideology is that in its fullest manifestation, after a socialist revolution or even a democratic socialist victory, there is a distinct tendency for a personality cult to form. We see this in North Korea and Robert Mugabe today, and in a long and ignoble list going back through Said Barre of Somalia, Kwame Nkruma of Ghana,  to Stalin himself. It should be noted that the Communist Party is supporting the government of Bashar Assad of Syria.

This is not to say that socialism has a monopoly of dictatorship, because it certainly does not. Any long-lived period of rule by one person or one party tends to become controlling and self serving. That is why democratic elections, even in weak and imperfect democracies like the UK, are effective in holding back dictatorship simply by preventing any one person or party from staying in power for too long. Even if the change is from one party to an almost identical party (as from Republicans to Democrats in the USA, or Tories to New Labour in the UK), it is beneficial and salutary to be able to kick someone out of office.

This is a pitifully dismal consolation in view of the magnitude of problems that the world faces. The reason is that both of the main ideologies on offer - individualism and socialism -  are both anthropocentric. Both aim to improve the lot of the class that identifies with the ideology. Individualism aligns with the plutocrats, and socialism aligns with the proletariat. Both have attained their goal when they have attained power. Power is the goal, and clinging to power by suppressing dissent and controlling thought becomes the main purpose of government.

That is why the Green approach is so transformative. It is not anthropocentric but eco-centric. It starts not by considering humans as some kind of self-existent being, whether as individuals or as societies, but by considering humans in their ecological context. We look at how the planetary environment sustains our existence, it looks at how our activities can undermine the security of our existence, and how we can change our ways so that we can achieve a sustainable global economy.

In short, instead of looking at one detail of the picture - the individual or the society - we look at the whole picture. This is a rational approach. In looking at the whole picture, we are able to resolve the differences and contradictions that arise from starting with a partial view. It is going to take both individual action and social action to achieve sustainability.

Given the strength of our intellectual position, the weakness of the Greens as a political force is somewhat surprising. True, green thinking is percolating slowly - too slowly - into mainstream thinking. True, we have been excluded from the public debate by an unholy alliance of the old philosophies. But some of it is due to our own cognitive errors.

The old Green slogan was "Think globally, act locally". This is a good slogan, but evidently not good enough. We also need to think globally and act globally.

As a global community the Green Parties of the world - and all other green and social movements - need to come together and agree the kind of reforms that need to be put in place.
We need to evolve ways and means of preventing dictatorships from forming, and of isolating and disempowering them wherever they are found.
We need to find ways of preventing Wars and conflicts, starting with the most common cause - separatism
We need to find ways of resolving global economic problem and reducing  the inequalities  within nations and between nations that cause so much misery.
We need to address Anthropogenic Global Warming and other man caused environmental degredation.
We need to address human population growth.

All of these problems are capable of resolution by rational thought, discussion, agreement and political will.

We seem a million miles from resolution because of selfishness, self interest and wilful blindness to the facts. It is the old clash between our cerebral cortex and more primitive parts of our brain. At present, the primitive part is in the ascendant. It seems that stupidity rules everywhere, and always will rule.

This is not necessarily so. Just as the political pendulum swings between Right and Left in a country's electoral history, so also the pendulum can swing between narrow self interest and enlightened rationality that looks at the whole picture.

It is easy to give way to despair and cynicism. But if we look to the greater picture, it is like looking at a map. We can see which way to start moving. And once we can see, we can start discussing and spreading the idea that mankind is not irredeemably stupid.

What can we do to stop Assad?

Eight months into the Syrian uprising, Bashar al-Assad has killed around 3-4000 of his opponents, using his army to fire live rounds.  With agonising slowness, the international community has responded, the latest being his expulsion from the Arab League.

Criticism is piling in on him, with even bloodstained dictatorships like China and Bahrein voicing concerns.

Calls for him to step down are increasing, the latest and most significant coming from Jordan.

The USA has imposed sanctions, freezing some assets, and imposing a ban on some Syrian petroleum products. The EU has imposed a ban on Syrian oil imports, a travel ban on a few Syrian officials, and an arms embargo.

Eight months, thousands dead, and slowly the response comes in, piecemeal.

We have learned from Libya that armed intervention is not an appealing prospect. But on the other hand, we cannot just stand back and watch the mass murder continue.

We have learned from others that dictators cling to power, and even when they hard dead or gone, their regime tends to survive.

What can be done?

First, we need a framework of international law that identifies regimes that are in the process of developing into dictatorship. Kagame of Rwanda is a case in point, and the Commonwealth, to its shame, is in denial over him.

The Green Party's Global Index of Human Rights is an effective instrument to nudge rulers away from the dictatorship pathway, working on a continuous basis. But when we get to a situation where live rounds are being used on unarmed civilians, the response needs to be shifted up a gear. We need a legal, defined response based in international law.

The live round point should become the threshold of legitimacy. Once a regime has crossed this boundary, a set of responses need to be rolled out.

A legal case should be opened, which will probably lead to a trial in absentia.

Then specific measures will need to be put in place. These are from the Index Report:

We need therefore to move to a framework of international rules of governance that will help all dictators,  indeed all rulers, to learn that certain courses of actions will certainly lead to unwanted effects on their  own freedom to act for their own personal advancement. Specified forms of misconduct will be matched  with a tariff of penalties which are applied in a measured, stepwise and consistent basis, in order to avoid  the protection that they often obtain from allies in the UNSC. There are a number of identifiable steps on the road to dictatorship. For example: 1. Banning critical newspapers and media 2. Banning opposition parties 3. Ignoring the result of a democratic election (e.g. Burma and Zimbabwe) 4. Intimidation at the polling booths 5. Lavish expenditure on palaces for the dictator 6. Disproportionate spending on arms Each of these steps, and others not mentioned here, can be legally defined, and each could have a sanction attached to it. Of instance, · Banning critical newspapers and media could be countered by sanctions on the import of the materials the Government itself needs to print its newspapers. · Banning opposition parties could lead to financial support to opposition parties whose aims are judged to be helpful to the welfare of the people of the country. · Ignoring the result of a democratic election could result in a ban in foreign travel for members of the regime. · Intimidation at the polling booths could result in the regime being denied eligibility to serve on appropriate UN councils, for example, the Human Rights Council . · Lavish expenditure on palaces for the dictator could result in freezing of appropriate assets of the regime. If the regime takes action to retrace its steps, the sanctions will be promptly withdrawn. This is based on sound psychology. It is well established that the best way to modify unwanted behaviour is to set a consistent and fair framework of punishments for unwanted behaviour and rewards for appropriate behaviour.

The central point is that these measures will be rolled out swiftly and uniformly, administered by the UN.
It is based on sound psychology, because behaviour can be modified in a clear, distinct and fair legal framework which is consistently applied. They need to understand that unwanted actions will meet with untoward consequences for them, and desired actions will be rewarded.

Finally, at all stages, the offer will be laid out for the regime to be able to go into exile and have charges against them dropped when they leave voluntarily. If they hang on to the bitter end, they will face justice. If they bail out, they will face comfortable exile.

These measures have a trade off between justice and pragmatism. It is distasteful to allow criminals to escape, but this is politics, and political criminals escape every day. The pragmatic result - saving thousands of lives, saving the economy and the society, is the desired end result.

Faced with a static situation of this arrangement, the leaders could sit tight for as long as they think they can get away with it. So to make it dynamic, the number of those under sanction and investigation should be raised every week. First the ruler, then his inner circle, then a widening circle of the regime's supporters will be implicated. This means that a growing number of the regime's officials and supporters will begin to murmur that they should recognise that the game is up.

There, in outline, is what we should do to about the likes of Assad. It's not going to be easy to get it accepted within the UN. But then, it's not easy to sit and watch mass murder take place every day.

Nilesat - at last Gaddafi's mouth is shut

I've just discovered that Nilesat has been ordered to take down Gaddafi's Libya State channels.
Good. This will greatly weaken the hold that Gaddafi has over Libya.

Libyans have been calling for this ever since the uprising began. HMG has been sympathetic to the call, but nothing has been done. In the end it was a private action in Egyptian courts that suceeded.

Which all goes to show that Governments are ready to go to war, but not willing to take effective non-violent action  to bring dictators down.

The whole point of the Global Index of Human Rights is to prevent violence by using non-violent pressure on dictators. I proposed this refinement of the GLOHRI to Green Party Conference about three months before the Arab Spring kicked off. A queue formed to oppose it, arguing that it was not necessary &c.

Funny kinda business, politics.

What is the Libyan Mission? When will it end?

These are the questions that seems to be causing agonising twisting of  knickers in the realm of TV anchors and pundits tonight.

 One question is easy, the other is not.

Q1: What is the Libyan Mission?

A: The mission of the Coalition now attacking Libya's air defences and advancing ground forces is to protect the people of Libya from abuse by their nominal ruler, Muammar Ghaddafi under UNSC Resolution 1973.

Q2: When will the mission end?

This question has two answers: one easy and one complicated.

The easy answer is: As soon as possible.

The more complex answer goes like this:

The mission will end when the people of Libya feel safe.  Now the clear impression that we have from the Libyan community on social networks and on the news, is that they will feel safe when Muammar Ghaddafi is gone, and not before. So far, so simple. Just like the Tunisians and Egyptians. It seems fair. They have suffered more.

As far as the Libyan people are concerned, they want Ghaddafi to go. 


Period.

And that is up to the Libyan people. That is their sovereign will. Denied a formal vote in anything that mattered, they have voted on the streets. Spontaneously. The people, all of them. They want Ghaddafi out.

If anyone doubts this, they should take an opinion poll.

Getting Ghaddafi out is nothing to do with Coalition policy. Their policy (remember?) is to protect the people.

The irresistible force of the people's will meets the unmovable object of Ghaddafi's ego.

The people have a fight on their hands.

Now, at this point I have to say as a Quaker and a Green, that I find it unutterably sad that anyone should have to fight. There are so many better ways of sorting things out. It does not have to be like this.
Every 2 weeks the world spends on arms an amount of money that could feed clothe, house and educate every poor child in the world. &c. The arms trade is stupid. Mad.  War happens. It does not have to but it does. War is an insane, tragic, disgusting dark game. I am against war. A common theme of this blog is about  preventing future wars by preventing and dealing with dictators or UN action to tackle separatism.  I hate war. It is inhumane and should go the way that human sacrifice went about 5,000 years ago. Is that clear?

But it is no good saying "We shouldn't be in this situation".


We are in this situation, this terrible situation where a government is attacking its people and its own towns.

So we return to Q1, Answer 1: it has to be over as speedily as possible.

How?

Two modalities: one physical, for action by Army.
One psychological, for action by politicians.

The aim of the Coalition of Nations who have come together to protect the Libyan people is to set a level playing field for the tragic game of war to occur.

Make this thought experiment: if you got all the opposition together to settle their differences by fisticuffs, who do you think would win, in terms of numerical superiority and whole-hearted commitment?

The people will win.

So it is the duty of the Coalition, so far as is reasonably possible without putting civilian lives at risk, to neutralise Ghaddafi's air, sea tank and artillery. We have little influence now on this process, though some will try.

At the same time as the forces neutralise Ghaddafi's physical superiority, it is the duty of the Coalition politicians to put an end to the lies by which Ghaddafi controls his supporters by asking Nilesat and other channels to withdraw his service. Or jam his broadcasting bands. By breaking his psychological hold, the opposition freedom fighters will win far more swiftly. We can certainly have an influence on this part of the process, because the Foreign and Commonwealth Office seems not to have a view on it yet. All we have to do is to ask our MPs why it is not happening.

So. There are two ways that we, as intelligent people can contribute to this process of doing getting the war to end as soon as possible.

1. We can sit down and theorise about what went wrong, what is going wrong, and what will go wrong in the future.
2. We can press our democratic representatives to call for action to close down Ghaddafi's broadcast facilities.

I'm going for option 2.

Libya: the arguments against intervention

Listening to the debate over Libya, there are a few common themes among critics of the UN intervention, Operation Dawn Oddessy (ODA).

1 We sold him arms!
Well yes, so we did. That was wrong and stupid. But if anything, it gives us more of a responsibility to stop Gaddafi from using them on Libyan freedom fighters.
The fact that we stupidly sell arms has no bearing on the central question, which is - do we stand back and let Gaddafi carry out a massacre in Benghazi and other towns, or do we act according to the UN's new Responsibility to Protect - and do that. Protect.

2 What about Yemen, Bahrein, Syria, Zimbabwe, China and all the other murderous torturing tyrants that disfigure the globe?
This argument is a variant of the "Never mind the dog poo, what about the litter?" that you get in local papers.
The converse is "Never mind the litter, what about the dog poo?"
It is the Red Herring fallacy. Rigorously applied, it means nobody does anything. Ever.

Sure, there is hypocrisy and double standards everywhere in politics. That goes with the job. But it is not an argument to leave Benghazi slaughter.

This argument is expanded here.

3 We did bad in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
Yes we did. They were illegal. This is legal, the first implementation of UN R2P, which itself may be a game changer, especially if it links with the Global Human Rights Index and a framework of set deterrents to dictators, matching their actions with set penalties.

How can the UN respond more effectively to people like Gaddafi?

Libya, and the watching world, is immiserated by the actions of one self-deluded dictator, Muammar Gaddafi. While we are focused on Libya, similar struggles are going on in Bahrein, Yemen, Iraq, Iran and other MENA states. Cote d'Ivoire is having an unnoticed civil war because the incumbent refuses to accept the result of a recent election.

Dictators present the world with a major problem. They abuse human rights, and they lead inevitably to rebellion when at last the people are driven by desperate courage to overthrow them.

This website lists 46 current dictatorships out of the 190-odd countries in the world. Depending on the definition, more could be identified.

Clearly, the UN needs to address this problem systematically, not by waiting for crises to blow up, and then responding to the crisis with ad hoc  meetings of the UNSC and UNHRC, cobbling together measures that will be vetoed or blocked because one or another powerful country has strong trading links with the culprit.

In 2005, the UN took a brave and far reaching step in adopting the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect, (R2P) which outlines the action that the UN may take in cases of genocide and major crimes against humanity. It is good, but needs further refinement.

The Global Green Congress - a meeting of all Green Parties of the world - adopted the principle of the Global Human Rights Index (GLoHRI) in 2008.

This, when adopted by the UN, will mean that all governments will be placed on a register in order of the quality or otherwise of their human rights records. People will be able to tell at a glance whether the country they are choosing to trade with, or holiday in, has a good, bad or indifferent record.

The GloHRI record will provide a universal, continuous, gentle upward pressure on human rights.

There is also a need to have a set, legal framework to deal with crises such as the one that is taking place in  Libya.

Here there needs to be a set framework, so that each unacceptable step taken by a regime is met with a certain disincentive. I still feel an intense sense of frustration that this was rejected last year by Green Party Conference in an unbalanced debate. If we had taken it on board, we could be at the forefront on commentary about the Arab Spring uprisings with genuine innovative proposals, rather than adding our voice to the choir of general unhappiness about the way it is being handled by the international community.

Use of lethal force against unarmed protesters should be the trigger for action. As soon as this happens, the UN should have a tariff of actions that come into play. They will have to be endorsed by the UNSC, but the default should be that they are enacted with minor adjustments matched to local circumstances. In particular, action should be taken by regional organisations, as laid down in the R2P papers. This means that in the case of Libya, it should be the Arab League and Organisation of African States that take the action, not the US  or NATO.

Global Greens statement on Libya:

The Global Greens Coordination is the secretariat of all Green Parties in the world, who number 75 and rising.

Here is a Global Greens statement on Libya:

23 February, 2011

Global Greens call for Gadhafi’s resignation and an immediate end to the bloody repression in Libya


The Global Greens call in the strongest possible terms for an immediate halt to the bloody crackdown launched by the regime of Colonel Gadhafi and his clan against Libyan protesters. The bombing of unarmed people whose only ’crime’ is going to the streets to protest, if confirmed, constitutes a crime against humanity. Similarly, the use of mercenary forces to attack unarmed civilians is a flagrant human rights violation. Colonel Gadhafi should resign.

Greens all over the world express their solidarity with the families of the hundreds of victims killed in the country and join them in their grief over the loss of their loved ones.

The Global Greens welcome the United Nations’ decision to establish a commission to conduct an independent investigation into the violence in Libya.

Colonel Gadhafi is risking if not promoting civil war. Urgent action is needed to end this bloody massacre and free the people of Libya. The funds of the main leaders of the Gadhafi clan should be frozen. Cynical agreements for economic help in return for refugee repatriation, made by Italy and under consideration by the European Union, should end.

We regret that the reaction so far of many world leaders, especially in western countries, has been overly cautious, more concerned with stability and trade than with the fate of Libyans protesting against one of the most brutal regimes in contemporary history.

The Global Greens call on international and regional organizations and governments, especially those that have previously tolerated and supported the Libyan dictatorship, to support instead the democratic forces in the country. 41 years of Gadhafi are enough! The era of geopolitics where countries are unashamedly complicit with criminals and inhuman dictatorships to protect their commercial interests has to end.

The Global Greens also call on the Libyan people who are demanding their political and human rights in the streets of Tripoli, Benghazi and other cities to follow democratic, secular and republican principles, respectful of the beliefs of everyone and capable of laying the foundations for a socially more just and politically more open country.

The Global Greens Coordination


James Tonson, secretary

I have emailed back to James, and also to Frank Habineza, African Greens coordinator


I have seen the GG release "LIBYA: Global Greens call for Gadhafi’s Resignation".  Well done for getting it out, and more of this please.

Just a small point: "We regret that the reaction so far of many world leaders, especially in western countries, has been overly cautious, more concerned with stability and trade than with the fate of Libyans protesting against one of the most brutal regimes in contemporary history."

I saw a Reuters report yesterday alleging that the West generally were in fact leading the move in the UN Human Rights Council to oust Gaddafi, and that Russia China and the majority of African and Asian nations were more cautious about requesting Gaddafi's removal. The link was here http://reut.rs/hOp8oc, but now leads nowhere.

We will see later today what the HRC comes out with.

It is pretty likely that this tragedy may be played out in many more countries. The seizing of foreign assets should occur as soon as a ruler uses lethal force on the population.

The problem is that the international community addresses each of these crises as a unique event, and this results in a lot of time-consuming, ad hoc politicking. As you know, the Golbal Greens in 2008 agreed, inter alia, on this measure:

"In order to lead the UN from a reactive to a pro-active stance on human rights, we will press for all countries’ human rights records to be expressed quantitatively, so that they can be published annually by the UN in ranked order, revealing the relative standing of each country, which will exert a continual persuasive force on all governments to improve their performance in the field of human rights".

This is a uniquely Green initiative. There is a full report on it here prepared for GPEW, and it contains a paragraph on preventing formation of dictatorships. (Dealing with Dictators).

I believe that the Arab Spring is intrinsically Green in the sense that it is a manifestation of people power. Please keep up the pressure from the GG, and let us continue to campaign for a global uplift in human rights.

Let us also not forget that revolution does not put food on the table. The problems in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya include unemployment and water and food shortages. The political revolution is the beginning, not the end. We need somehow, without seeming to lecture, to show that these economic problems represent a failure of free market economics, and that green economics, which puts food, water, housing, sustainable energy and intelligent waste management at the foundation of the economy, is the economic revolution that the world needs.

Best wishes


Richard Lawson

UK freezes Gaddafi's assets

Great news! Hot on the heels of the Swiss, the Government here has set up a Treasury unit to trawl over Gaddafi's accounts held in Britain, with a view to freezing them.

I have emailed my MP congratulating Hague for taking this action, and offering some suggestions on how it can be made most effective in achieving the departure of Gaddafi from Libya.

We are going to see more of this kind of action in the coming weeks, against other regimes. Rulers should be given to understand that if they permit or order their troops or police to use lethal force on unarmed demonstrators, their tenure becomes illegitimate at that point, and action on their financial assets will commence immediately.

The UN should put in place a protocol for dealing with dictators, and promote good governance globally.

Gaddafi is going to make a lot of people happy.
When he leaves Libya on a jet plane to Zimbabwe.
Let's hope it is soon.

Gaddafi - how to translate tough talk into timely action

< Pic source Getty



Obama spoke yesterday about Libya. He said that Gaddafi's violence was unacceptable, violating norms and decency, and called for actions from the US' allies, partners and international institutions.

Obama failed to say that Gaddafi's actions were criminal, and he failed to mention the UN by name. This is regrettable.

Ban Ki Moon in the same clip, threatened legal action later.

Tough words, but no action.

What is needed is pressure for Gaddafi to leave Libya immediately and go into retirement in Venezuela with his family.

To do this it is necessary to appeal to his own self-interest. Like all dictators, self interest has become his dominant motif. Words of condemnation run off his back. Likewise, threats of legal action in the future alone do not affect him. If anything, they make the situation worse, since they leave him with no escape. He becomes a cornered rat, desperate and ready to lash out.

The situation needs a careful combination of stick and carrot. The stick is the threat of international action if he stays, and the carrot is the attraction of comfortable retirement if he goes. He needs an escape route. Although it is emotionally pleasing to see his family denied escape in Lebanon and Malta, it would be better to allow them to leave, setting a precedent for Gaddafi to follow.

This combination of incentive and disincentive needs to be played out in real time, so that he sees one piece of his foreign based financial assets lost to his control each hour or day that he stays.

While the talking and deliberating is going on, the UN should be putting in place the hardware to do the really difficult and risky stuff like enforcing a No Fly Zone over Libya. They should also be trawling over his accounts and assets. In the UK, his family has properties in London and holdings in the Portman Group. In the case of a common criminal, these assets could be seized. Why not for a state criminal.

Gaddafi and the Libya Investment Authority have huge assets abroad, some in Asian banks where transparency is more difficult even than in the UK. His personal and LIA assets are conflated. All the more reason therefore to start investigations now.

There is a sound basis for action. The UN's Responsibility to Protect sets an outline for the UN to override state sovereignty  with humanitarian intervention. War crimes are specifically mentioned, and there is a prima facie case that this is what Gaddafi is doing.

The problem is that each and every crisis of this kind is treated by the international community as a one-off, unexpected event, and the response is ad hoc, and leads to a flurry of realpolitik in the UNSC, with members feverishly calculating, "Does he have oil? Is he our trading partner? What advantage can we get out of this? Could this rebound on me?" This politicking takes time when time costs lives. The UN has passed the matter to the Human Rights Council to consider - a council of which, amazingly, Libya is still a member.

R2P was meant to improve and clarify the response to humanitarian crises caused by governments that attack their own people. It is a praiseworthy principle, but is short on specifics.

What is needed is a tariff of restrictions that come in on a quasi-automatic basis in response to specific actions. The default should be that if a ruler starts using lethal force against his people, the accounts of himself, his family and his ruling elite should start to be frozen, under the agreement that the process will stop if he leaves the country.

One reason that account blocking is not used is the reluctance of the banks to interfere with accounts held. This requires a trial of strength of humanitarian concern against the ongoing power of the banks to carry on in their own sweet way.

The process need not prejudice any legal process that the post-revolutionary government may take to recover embezzled assets, nor any legal process to try him for war crimes. It is an immediate set response to defined actions.

In the long term, it would be better that we should have an ongoing, continuous process in place in the UN to prevent the development of dictatorship in the first place. The Global Index of Human Rights is designed to do exactly this. Within the Report there is a section designed to address arising situations such as we have in Libya - Appendix 4 - Dealing with Dictators.

The logic is that humanitarian catastrophes of the type now occurring in Libya must be a priority for the UN. That is its core function, the reason that it was set up in and in response to WW2. The UN needs an effective set of disincentives to come into play immediately that things start to go wrong, a clear default path for action, in order to avoid the timewasting inherent in the current political and legal process.

UK holds the key to Gaddafi's dismissal.

UK banks have a large amount of business with Gaddafi, and could freeze them progressively until he leaves Libya.

I have been reading interesting news reports about Muammar Qaddafi  from 2009.

In the Indie, Ian Birrell describes corruption, stagnation, crumbling infrastructure (including oil installations) Unemployment, poverty, and power cuts.

At the same time, 
Gaddafi is like a pools winner, who has spent, spent, spent a fortune – some say $250bn, others $1trillion – of oil money, much of it blown on vainglorious ventures. It is easy to dismiss him as a clown, with the batty badges, the crazy costumes, the female bodyguards. But he is a brilliant political operator, as one would expect of a man who seized power in his twenties and has clung on to it for four decades. He devised a bewildering form of government that claims to be a unique form of direct democracy but, in reality, places him at the heart of everything, supported by his security machine – the one part of state apparatus that works. The military has been purged, Islamic fundamentalists crushed, opponents executed and rivals played off against each other.

The Times reports in Feb 2009 that Gaddafi was planning a $12millon hand bonanza (?shouldn't that be bonus?) to the people. I don't know what became of it.

The Guardian reveals the close financial ties that Gaddafi has with Britain.
Asked about Libya's relations with Britain, Gaddafi said: "Very good. We have economic relations, investment relations, British companies, banks and, indeed, investments over there in England.

This means that our beloved Government hold the key to the fate of the Libyan people. All Mr Cameron has to do is to pick up the phone, and say,


"Now look here, Muammar, this has gone far enough. It has got to stop. You have got to get on the next plane to Venezuela. No, no listen. Listen. Will you stop screaming please. Well put someone else on. Will you please stop banging the telephone on the desk. Hello? Are you there?  Is there anyone else on the line? [cue: 100 eavesdroppers freeze] 

Hello? Is that the receptionist? Could you tell the Leader, when he is calmed down, that if he leaves Libya within 4 hours we will not touch the many personal and family accounts. 

For every hour that passes after that, we will freeze a progressive percentage of his personal assets, and such assets of the Libyan nation as could be used for violent purposes. The rate is yet to be finalised, but he should consider 5% per hour as a starting point in his thinking. 

Have you got that? You'd better read it back to me...Yes, well done. Good luck. Goodbye."

I'm serious about this. The UK has leverage on him. Real leverage.

We just have to make him understand that the longer he stays, the poorer he grows.

We can press the Government through our MPs and direct tweets to @WilliamJHague for him to put in motion, tomorrow, progressive freezing of Gaddafi's assets held in British financial institutions.

Let's do it.

[More: Much Libyan cash is in US banks]

Gaddafi's actions in Libya: What are the UN responsibilities?

Colonel Muammar Gaddafi is a criminal, responsible for the deaths of 500 unarmed Libyan citizens, gunned down by mercenaries from Chad and Darfur.

In Egypt and Tusisia, the revolutionaries could take care of their own revolution, secure in their numbers and desperate courage. In Libya, this is not so certain. We are hearing anguished vices and tweets from those in Tripoli, asking for the world to help them.

In 2005, the UN adopted the policy of Responsibility to Protect at a World Summit, designed to deal with exactly this kind of problem. You'll find the relevant paragraphs at 138, 139. The key line:


...we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities are manifestly failing to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.

Chapter VII of the UN Charter lays out the UN capability of taking military action.


Article 41 specifies non-violent actions that the UN can take.
Article 42 specifies that if non-violent action is inadequate (clearly the case with Gaddafi)
[UN] may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations. 

So this, in theory, is where the UN should be considering.

David Owen has called for an interdiction of Libyan airspace. This would at least have the virtue of making it impossible for Gaddafi to fly more mercenaries in.  It would also set a clear precendent for other dictators who would understand that using live rounds on unarmed citizens is not an option for them, and could lead to their immediate downfall.

However, any military action has immense drawbacks. A no-fly zone would involve UN aircraft coming into conflict with Libya's fighters. Some UN fighters could be brought down by Libyan ground to air missiles.

There is also the thought that the regime will be able to paint the revolutionaries as agents of Western powers, as Libya being invaded. The action could prove counter-productive.

In any case, the UNSC, which is meeting today, as we speak, is highly unlikely to come to any conclusion, useful or otherwise, not least for the reason that any ruler on the UNSC voting to get rid of an unethical ruler would find himself in exactly the same position as a turkey asked to vote for midwinter festivities..

My feeling is that the Libyan people will sort this out themselves, albeit, sadly, with yet more suffering, long before the UN or anyone else comes up with anything useful.

So, assuming that the UNSC comes up with nothing useful, there is need for further work on how the UN, and the international community responds.

Instead of an ad hoc political process, we need automatic penalties that are triggered by specified actions.

For instance, any regime that uses lethal force against unarmed citizens should immediately, automatically, have its financial accounts frozen, and business dealings should be suspended.

There are other measures that should be brought in to prevent and discourage the slide towards dictatorship. Paul Kagame is one dictator on such a path, and sadly, it looks as if he is not alone.


And as ever, the Global Human Rights Index, a Green Party initiative, would be an instrument that would provide continuous downward pressure on human rights abuses worldwide.

Daniel Cohn-Bendit credit rating for democracy

I see that Daniel Cohn-Bendit, the Green/EFA MEP has advocated a democracy credit ratings agency, where countries would be rated AAA, AAB &c according to how they behaved. This is good, because it is in the same direction as the GPEW/Global Greens Global Human Rights Index.

The latter proposal is that the UN should publish annually a league table sorting nations out according to their human rights performance. This will have a continuous, universal effect in improving the human rights performance of nations everywhere.

It's good to see ideas making progress in the global sea of cogitation.

Objective assessment of Human Rights throughout the Middle East

I have surveyed some of the economic problems faced by Arab countries here.

What about their Human Rights status?

The Political Terror Scale allocates countries to 5 bands, with 1 being the best performers, and 5 being the worst. African countries are here, and other ME countries here.

From the PTS data, we can rank all Arab countries' Human Rights performance.

The data is derived from reports by Amnesty International and the US State Department. Where they agree, one band is given. Where there is disagreement, the AI figure is given first.

This is what each band represents:

Political Terror Scale Levels

1  : Countries under a secure rule of law, people are not imprisoned for their view, and torture is rare or exceptional. Political murders are extremely rare.

2  : There is a limited amount of imprisonment for nonviolent political activity. However, few persons are affected, torture and beatings are exceptional. Political murder is rare.

3  : There is extensive political imprisonment, or a recent history of such imprisonment. Execution or other political murders and brutality may be common. Unlimited detention, with or without a trial, for political views is accepted.


4  : Civil and political rights violations have expanded to large numbers of the population. Murders, disappearances,and torture are a common part of life. In spite of its generality, on this level terror affects those who interest themselves in politics or ideas.

5  : Terror has expanded to the whole population. The leaders of these societies place no limits on the means or thoroughness with which they pursue personal or ideological goals.



For Arab countries, these are the results for 2009:

Israel Occupied Territories      5
Iraq                                     5/4
Iran                                     4
Saudi Arabia                          4
Syria                                   4
Yemen                                4
Egypt                                  4/3
Tunisia                                3
Turkey                                3/4
Jordan                                3
Libya                                  3
Morocco                              3
Algeria                                3/2
Bahrain                               2/1
Qatar                                  2/1
UAE                                   2/1
Oman                                 1

So, well done to Oman, and the worst human rights offender in the region, according to professional assessments by Amnesty and also by their friends in the US State Department, is - Israel.

Incidentally, the UK finds itself in band 2, worse than Bahrain, Qatar, UAE and Oman, and the USA finds itself unranked by the State Department, and ranked 3 by AI.

The great advantage of these objective measurements is that the status of a country can be measured at a glance, instead of relying either on spin from politicians and the corporate media.

It is Green Party policy that the UN should adopt a scale of this kind, and publish each year an assessment of all the countries in the world. All this needs is development and extension of the UN's Universal Periodic Review.

The UN Global Human Rights Index, when it comes in, will not cure HR abuses at a stroke, but will provide a continuous, universal pressure on all governments to attend more closely to improving their Human Rights performance.

There is another approach to setting out the data, the CIRI Human Rights Data Project, but I find the PTS easier to use.

Aso Mohammed Ibrahim, the Human Rights Act - and Natural Justice

The case of Aso Mohammed Ibrahim, the Iraqi Kurd who has been given permission to stay in the UK despite having fatally hit 11 year old Amy Houston and failing to stop after the accident, is going to cause a lot of anger.

Serious anger. The EDL is going to try to make political capital out of this. It could cause an increase in inter-communal violence.

Also, some papers will use it to undermine the Human Rights Act.

As a campaigner for the Global Index of Human Rights I care very much about implementing human rights worldwide. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was drawn up immediately at the end of WWII, when the United Nations had finally won the terrible struggle against Fascism, and is a great standard to rally round, and the human rights that they set out should be used as a measuring rod for all governments.


In fact the legal judgment was arrived under the Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 which reads:

Article 8 Right to respect for private and family life

1 Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2 There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

This article is essentially about privacy and the individual's power within his personal and family life. It is ironic that the Metropolitan Police have seemingly allowed the News of the World to breach this article with impunity.

It seems perverse to use a text that is about the privacy of non-convicts to obstruct the legal process of the Borders Agency were following - assuming, of course, that they were doing that. I am no fan of the Borders Agency, who have many murky questions to answer, but in this case, on the facts available, it seems that they were going with the flow of natural justice, and were foiled by what is maybe a legal technicality working within a poor philosophical framework.

The key point is that if I commit a crime, I put my human rights at risk - namely, my right to freedom and family life. The right to freedom is suspended while I am arrested and imprisoned. However, other rights, notably the right not to be tortured or treated in a cruel, inhumane and unusual way, remain in place, rightly. Ironically,the USA breaching this article in the way it is treating Bradley Manning, the soldier who is allegedly the source  of the current Wikileaks.

The British assumptions about the case is that having served his time (an absurdly brief two months), Aso has repaid his debt to society, and the law has no further hold on him. Apart from his other offences.

The assumption arises from the idea of a time tariff for crimes. So much crime, so much time, off you go, account wiped clean.  This is a very narrow view. Crimes are committed against other people. The trauma of their loss for the Houston's did not end when Aso was released; indeed it was increased. Is against natural law for people who have been affected to the core of their lives to see the other party living without any consequences.

There is a case to me made that people who have behaved like Aso should be deported. It would be an appropriate penalty for his actions, even though it will present his family with a harsh decision regarding whether to stay in the UK, go to Iraq, or divide their time in some way. 

The idea that may cause dismay to some who believe that no-one should ever be deported. Please feel free to use the Comment slot to inform and educate me in matter of which I am ignorant.  I would love to be proven wrong, but my gut feeling is that this is not a left-right, black-white  issue, but one where natural justice is crying out to be done, and the Law has tripped over its ermine gown and is lying in the gutter with its buckled shoes kicking in the air.

In the end, Human Rights are founded on natural justice. If the Law creates a tension between Human Rights and natural justice, then the law has somewhere failed.

North Korea: what can UN do about dicatators?

I have been meaning to post about North Korea, but got diverted first by the student protests, then by a few hours' hedgelaying, then again by protests.

All I would like to say is that dictators like Kim Il Sung in North Korea are not just a burden on their people, but a threat to world peace.

Which is why I propose that the UN should put in place a system that discourages the development of dictators in a methodical, fair and consistent way.

More here.
Fuller discussion here.
If anyone disagrees with the proposal, by all means come up with a better idea.


That's all.