The Commonwealth is made for the UK’s own Interests: One proof, Johnson’s well-wished for Trade Declaration!

“The basic confrontation which seemed to be colonialism versus anti-colonialism, indeed capitalism versus socialism, is already losing its importance. What matters today, the issue which blocks the horizon, is the need for a redistribution of wealth. Humanity will have to address this question, no matter how devastating the consequences may be.” – Frantz Fanon

The true value and who runs it is proven when the former head of the Commonwealth for decades has been Queen Elisabeth II, which of yesterday put the mantle of leadership to her son Prince Charles of Wales. The Statement from ‘ Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting 2018 – Leaders’ Statement’ said: “We recognise the role of The Queen in championing the Commonwealth and its peoples. The next Head of the Commonwealth shall​ be His Royal Highness Prince Charles, The Prince of Wales” (Commonwealth, 20.04.2018).

We can also know the perspective the Great Britain has for the organization, as Boris Johnson wrote so clearly in March 2018: “The good news is that when we leave the EU, we will regain the power to sign free trade agreements with our Commonwealth friends, allowing the UK to make the most of thriving markets. Brexit will give us the ability to open a new era of friendship with countries across the world. A key theme of the London summit will be how to boost trade within the Commonwealth. We’ll also discuss how to improve security co-operation and take joint action to protect the world’s oceans, bearing in mind that the Commonwealth includes island states in the Pacific, the Indian Ocean and the Caribbean” (Boris Johnson – ‘Commonwealth has key role to play in the bright future for Britain: article by Boris Johnson’ 12.03.2018, Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO)).

It shows that the United Kingdom own problems and issues is key for the Summit. The others are more a circus that the old empire can play into it. That happen and the Commonwealth Declaration on the 20^th April 2018 named ‘Declaration on the Commonwealth Connectivity Agenda for Trade and Investment’ part of it says: “We, the Heads of Government representing member countries of the Commonwealth and one third of the world’s population recognise international trade and investment

as an engine for generating inclusive and participative economic growth and a means to deliver the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” (…) “In particular, we recognise the importance of the multilateral trading system in ensuring the integration of small, vulnerable and least developed countries and countries in sub-Saharan Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific into the world economy, and welcome initiatives which will support greater and more effective participation of these countries in international trade” (…) “To promote the realisation of these goals, we hereby launch the Commonwealth Connectivity Agenda for Trade and Investment. This Agenda will be guided by the principles that: co-operation should be pragmatic and practical, leading to credible results; take into account regional integration initiatives; take into account the needs of small and vulnerable economies and least developed countries; avoid duplication with initiatives where other organisations are already working; add value in areas of engagement; and adopt a progressive approach towards a long term vision for closer trade and investment ties. It should also recognise the vital role of the private sector in delivering the 2030 Agenda and facilitating the promotion of the blue and green economy” (Commonwealth – ‘Declaration on the Commonwealth Connectivity Agenda for Trade and Investment’ 20.04.2018).

We can see that Boris Johnson’s goals for the Commonwealth Head of Government Meeting (CHOGM) appeared on the last day, yesterday, as this declaration is to anticipate the Commonwealth secretariat and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) will work on this now. To make sure the former Colonies are more connected. Not only to themselves through trade, but also to the United Kingdom. This is to give the United Kingdom bigger trade and partners through the use of the former colonies. To look at it differently, is to be naive. The other agreements is to make the public perception positive, but this here was to grease the wheels of United Kingdom, who are soon losing the trade-agreements through the membership of European Union, because of their silly decision to leave the Union.

We can see that the Commonwealth all benefits the United Kingdom and the others just has a place multi-nationally to be represented, though a loose organization, that isn’t to formal. But is a place to make them look better and get exposure through the perspective of their former colonial master. That is why they still has the inter-connected ministry FCO. It is a reason why even Zimbabwean Non-Governmental Organization was petitions the Department for International Development (DFID), so the former colony could have funds to hold Presidential Candidate National Television Debate before the General Election later in the year.

Well, that was a sidetrack, but very fitting. Because, the Commonwealth, still seems like a UK based organization, where it is all because of the mercy of the UK. The Commonwealth communiques, declarations and the meetings is because of UK leaders. Not because of the Kenyan President wanted it or the Indian one wanted some. We know there are someone even questioning it, the Bangladesh PM has been stating this today:

“LONDON, April 21, 2018 (BSS)- Seeking inclusion of representative from Asia in the High Level Group to review the Commonwealth Secretariat’s Governance, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina yesterday suggested making the Group more representative with inclusion of member states of different regions. “We value the knowledge and expertise of the Secretariat for furthering work of the Commonwealth. However, we believe that views of the member states through appropriate representation, is equally important,” she said” (Bangladesh Sangbad Sangstha – ‘PM suggests making CW high-level group more representative’ 21.04.2018).

This is what I started it, and it is made like this because the Commonwealth are made for the needs of United Kingdom, then the second interests. That is why the head of the Commonwealth has to be the Royalty of the UK. Now it is the Prince of Wales, which was nudged in by the Queen. The same happen to Prince Harry, who was appointed by the Queen to become the Commonwealth Youth Ambassador. We can see that the Commonwealth is a UK enterprise. The view can be seen that way, the way the Royal family has key roles and that the FCO is involved. Therefore, the meetings and statements coming from Boris Johnson with everyone he could. Making photo-ups with anyone he could during the CHOGM.

We will clearly see the Commonwealth Secretariat work on the Declaration, especially now that the UK is gearing up for the Brexit and leaving the Union. They need new secure trading partners and what better, than using the informal body of Commonwealth to get trade with. That is what even Johnson has been writing and proves his ideas. That is why he has been so diplomatic and kind with words. Because some of the nations and state leaders he has meet these days, he has written in the past ill-words of their republics and their kind. Therefore, we know he has sudden swift change of interests. That interests being the benefit of London and not of the former colonies.

The Commonwealth seems more like a savior and needed trade-partners right now, because of the problems coming with the loss of the EU membership. FCO and Commonwealth member-states with this declaration are opening for negotiations. Something that Johnson has been hoping for all along. Since he wanted that and hoped that CHOGM would deliver. However, it did that in some respect with the Declaration.

Seemingly again the Commonwealth is made for the benefit of the UK and their needed gains. If it was otherwise, than the Bangladesh PM wouldn’t asked for what she did after the CHOGM. That proves the problems within the Commonwealth Secretariat and with the Declaration itself. Since in that one in question isn’t mentioned even directly in the declaration.

Hope I am wrong, but as long the British Royalty is running it and is the heads of it. Their interests will be in line of London, not being for all the members of the Commonwealth. To think otherwise to be naive. Peace.

Muse Report shows how the French Government supported Habyiramana during the 1994 Genocide!

Just two days ago an American Law Firm studied the Rwandan Genocide as they say it themselves: “In light of that inquiry, the Government of Rwanda has retained the Washington, D.C. law firm of Cunningham Levy Muse LLP to review and report on the material available in the public record on the role and knowledge of French officials regarding the Genocide against the Tutsi” (Cunningham Levy Muse, P: 3, 2017). This here is will be quotes from that report that is on the role of the French Government in the Rwandan Genocide. Clearly, there has been allegations and has been some talk about that, concerning the arms and the knowledge of it. This report are putting light on some of that. I will take the quotes that is substantial for the French intervention in the civil war and genocide in Rwanda.

“The expansion of France’s military support and strategic advice began within days of the war’s commencement. On October 11, 1990, Defense Attaché Colonel René Galinié recommended sending French advisers into the field, northeast of the combat zone, to “educate, organize and motivate troops that had been ossified for thirty years and who had forgotten the basic rules of battle.” (…) “In addition to advice, French officials supplied the FAR with modern mortars, armored vehicles, and other vehicles, along with ammunition and rockets. French officials also provided and helped maintain helicopter-gunships, which fired upon RPF fighters. According to jokes at the time, the only thing Rwandan soldiers did was pull the trigger” (Cunningham Levy Muse, P: 12-13, 2017).

“Massacres of Tutsi continued throughout 1991, 1992, and up until the Genocide. French officials were aware of massacres at this time, as well as the role of the Habyarimana government and its military in them. Despite this knowledge, French officials maintained their support of the Rwandan military and funneled weapons into Rwanda” (Cunningham Levy Muse, P: 20, 2017).

“Thus, in February 1993, after the Noroît detachment had just been reinforced . . . , the Army Chief of Staff reminded the defense attaché that he was responsible for “ensuring that the Rwandan army does not find itself in a stock shortage of sensitive ammunition . . . and that deliveries to the FAR of military equipment be made in the utmost discretion.” In fact, in the timeline laid down in his end of mission report, Colonel Philippe Tracqui, commander of the Noroît detachment for the period from February 8, 1993 to March 21, 1993, noted “Friday, February 12, 1993: landing of a DC8 50 with a 12.7mm machine gun plus 100,000 cartridges for the FAR. Wednesday, February 17, 1993: landing of a Boeing 747 with discrete unloading by the FAR of 10 mm shells and 68 mm rockets (Alat).” (Cunningham Levy Muse, P: 23, 2017).

“The French Parliamentary Commission accordingly found: Faced with procrastination by Rwandan authorities and concerned about the stability of states and regional security, France never made the decision to suspend all cooperation, or even to decrease the level of its civil and military aid. Thus, President Juvénal Habyarimana was able to convince himself that “France . . . would be behind him regardless of the situation, and he could do anything militarily and politically.” (Cunningham Levy Muse, P: 27, 2017).

“Arms flows to the FAR were not suspended immediately by France after the imposition of the arms embargo on May 17, 1994. Rather, they were diverted to Goma airport in Zaire as an alternative to Rwanda’s capital, Kigali, where fighting between the FAR and the rebel RPF as well as an international presence made continued shipments extremely difficult. Some of the first arms shipments to arrive

in Goma after May 17 were supplied to the FAR by the French government. Human Rights Watch learned from airport personnel and local businessmen that five shipments arrived in May and June containing artillery, machine guns, assault rifles and ammunition provided by the French government. These weapons were taken across the border into Rwanda by members of the Zairian military and delivered to the FAR in Gisenyi. The French consul in Goma at the time, Jean-Claude Urbano, has justified the five shipments as a fulfillment of contracts negotiated with the government of Rwanda prior to the arms embargo” (Cunningham Levy Muse, P: 39, 2017).

“Information in the public record also shows that in the months that followed the Genocide against the Tutsi French officials continued to support génocidaires. On August 3, 1994, the UN Secretary General suggested that the international community should coordinate with UNAMIR to identify within the camps perpetrators of the Genocide against the Tutsi, with an eye to bringing them to justice. But instead, French soldiers escorted and released suspected génocidaires in Zaire. Between July and September 1994, French military helicopters evacuated Bagosora, along with Interahamwe leader Jean-Baptiste Gatete, and other ex-FAR troops and militia members, out of Goma” (…) “Finally, we urge the Government of Rwanda to seek France’s cooperation in this endeavor. To this end, France should make available its archives, documents, physical evidence and officials (current and former). Any investigation by the Government of Rwanda should evaluate what occurred in the 1990s, as well as what has happened since then, including France’s cooperation with this investigation into French complicity in the Genocide” (Cunningham Levy Muse, P: 48, 52, 2017).

This one collected lots of public information and put into account. This is damning evidence and not just random quotes from a mad-man, but from lawyers collected information as ordered by the Rwandan Government. The could have been done by the French, they might have given other insights and even transcripts we haven’t seen. Even as the Rwandan has and can get documentation on the actions during the genocide and before. Since the Rwandan Government wants closure and might want the French to answer for their crimes.

French President Francois Mitterrand at the time was loyal to President Juvenal Habyarimana, therefore wanted to stop the Rwandan Patriotic Front from overthrowing their man at any cost apperently. The French really showed it with the ammunition, training and also helping them flee with weapons to Zaire/Democratic Republic of Congo. Clearly, the French knew what they did and did it with a reason, as of they wanted someone loyal to them and also a weapons brother at any cost.

So the continued trouble of the Great Lakes Region has been created by the French as well. Since they let the Interahamwe and Ex-FAR leave with weapons in the refugee camps in the DRC. That has been an initial reason for violence since the 1990s. The French should step up and take responsibility for what they did and who they gave power to. Which also created this genocide. The PRF and President Paul Kagame did his part, the RPF is not a holy and non-violent movement who just brought peace. They also killed and took control. However, the French did aid and abide help to the other partner in the crime. Therefore, they are responsible for their part in this genocide. That shouldn’t be left alone and the stones should be turned, the ones sanction this and ordering this on behalf of Habyarimana and his government.

This report was compelling and it shows how disgraceful the French was and how they really wanted the dictator Habyirmana to continue to rule in Rwanda. Peace.

Reference:

Cunningham Levy Muse LLP – ‘REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE GOVERNMENT OF RWANDA ON THE ROLE OF FRENCH OFFICIALS IN THE GENOCIDE AGAINST THE TUTSI’ (11.12.2017)

U.S. Congress does not want investigation to “go dark” when coming to encrypted data, co-op between private and federal agencies is needed; the Year-End Report claims!

As the House in Congress together with Encryption Working Group, which are different senators from all spectre of the House; they are coming from two parts of the House that are working in the Committee on Energy and Commerce & Committee on the Judiciary. They are here working on the public and private sphere, on the matter on encrypted data can be open and closed. These are because the companies can close the data for the investigation of the security organization. Something that can be hard and needed data to figure out the needed intelligence that the authority’s needs, but still the privacy of the citizens and also company secrets can go away if these encrypted data is uncovered. Therefore the working group to try to find a position on this hard conundrum!

“On February 16, 2016, a federal magistrate judge in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued an order requiring Apple, Inc. to assist the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in obtaining encrypted data off of an iPhone related to a 2015 shooting in San Bernardino, California. Apple resisted the order. This particular case was resolved when the FBI pursued a different method to access the data stored on the device. But the case, and the heated rhetoric exchanged by parties on all sides, reignited a decades-old debate about government access to encrypted data” (…) “The law enforcement community often refers to their challenge in this context as “going dark.” In essence, “going dark” refers to advancements in technology that leave law enforcement and the national security community unable to obtain certain forms of evidence” (EWG, P: 2, 2016).

“Congress should not weaken this vital technology because doing so works against the national interest. However, it should not ignore and must address the legitimate concerns of the law enforcement and intelligence communities” (EWG, P: 4, 2016).

Data cross boarders:

“Data flows with little regard for national borders. Many of the private companies that met with the working group have a multinational presence and are subject to the laws of many different jurisdictions. Several of these companies noted a trend towards data localization requirements in foreign countries, driven at least in part by the difficulty in obtaining data for use in routine criminal investigations. Conversely, current legal authorities may be inadequate for federal agencies attempting to access data overseas” (EWG, P: 5, 2016).

“The challenge of improving law enforcement access to encryption depends on a multitude of factors. Federal law enforcement agencies like the FBI and the United States Secret Service face obvious challenges from the growing use of strong encryption. Although federal law enforcement agencies told the EWG that they encourage the use of encryption for the protection of sensitive information—including data retained by the federal government—they cite the increased use of encryption by suspected criminals and victims of crime as a severe challenge to their public safety mission” (EWG, P: 6, 2016).

“Public perception and recent tensions notwithstanding, there is already substantial cooperation between the private sector and law enforcement. Private company stakeholders demonstrated an ability to assist federal, state, and local agencies with access to information to the extent possible and with service of a lawful order, and expressed a willingness to explore ways to improve and enhance that collaboration” (EWG, P: 7, 2016).

“Exploring tools that might help companies clarify what information is already available to law enforcement officers, and under what circumstances” (…) “§ Examining federal warrant procedures to determine whether they can be made more efficient, consistent with current constitutional standards” (…) “§ Examining federal warrant procedures to ensure that they are clear and consistent with respect to law enforcement access to digital information” (…) “§ Examining how law enforcement can better utilize existing investigative tools” (EWG, P: 9, 2016).

“Although much of the debate has focused on requiring third party companies to decrypt information for the government, an alternative approach might involve compelling decryption by the individual consumers of these products. On a case-by-case basis, with proper court process, requiring an individual to provide a passcode or thumbprint to unlock a device could assist law enforcement in obtaining critical evidence without undermining the security or privacy of the broader population” (EWG, P: 12, 2016).

“Encryption is inexorably tied to our national interests. It is a safeguard for our personal secrets and economic prosperity. It helps to prevent crime and protect national security. The widespread use of encryption technologies also complicates the missions of the law enforcement and intelligence communities. As described in this report, those complications cannot be ignored. This is the reality of modern society. We must strive to find common ground in our collective responsibility: to prevent crime, protect national security, and provide the best possible conditions for peace and prosperity” (EWG, P: 13, 2016).

When it comes to data encryption there will be hardships as the multi-national companies are not following borders, neither is this just about privacy, certain parts of the lawful “hacking” is breaching the codes and copyrights of technology for multi-national companies. These are with the example of Apple, who wouldn’t accept that FBI decoded their Iphone in February 2016. Certainly this question and the encryption of data will be a continued problem for authorities, security organizations and also civilians who want’s their privacy kept secret and not all in the open.

The fear that Big Brother can see everything and can connect into everything we have is worry, as much as it is that the companies we consumers has bought products can get all of information and data should also concern us; as much as it if the Security organizations could monitor every action and get hold of all our data. This will be a continued problem as the privacy, the need to unlock privacy terms and the use of National Security to keep an eye on the public sphere.

As long as the security organization can unlock when they need, but not to violate or even use the enforcement in ways where they can trespass into the data for the sense of security. U.S. enforcement shall be in regard for public safety, but shall also secure the privacy of innocent civilians, as much as copyright and encrypted data of giant corporations. Therefore the clear case-to-case work has to be done in corporation between security organization and also private companies, as they together can secure National Security and also the lives of innocent civilians. These are codes of conduct that needs to be clear, the indication of proper work and also co-op that the investigation needs to partake. Peace.

Reference:

Encryption Working Group – ‘Encryption Working Group Year-End Report’ (December 20, 2016)

Discussion: Should the French get jurisdiction for trials of Rwandan Genocide? Since they now are breaching international boundaries and judging acts not happening on French soil, but in Rwanda.

It is not that I am for the Rwandan genocide or partial in any sense of the actions done in Paris today. I will just spill the beans and ask for questionable trial and courtship in Paris as that is France, not Kigali that is Rwanda. If it still we’re tribunal in Arusha, Tanzania then this would be understandable for court outside as it was an agreement between United Nation and the Rwandan Government for this Tribunal as Peaceful change after the civil war and the genocide in 1993-1994 in the country. There I will question the action of the French Authorities today.

In Paris today:

“On Tuesday, Octavien Ngenzi, 58, and Tito Barahira, 64, will go on trial for allegedly playing a direct role in the massacre of hundreds of Tutsi refugees in a church in the eastern town of Kabarondo on April 13, 1994” (News Wires, 2016).

Because it is an important question and with the implication of history between Rwanda and the France; France have been the colonial master on the African Continent and still have control over the Central African Franc (CAF) and with that has an economic stake in many African nations. Still, this should not be implicated into why they can take Citizens of another Nation and also order their trial, even if it is breaching with Human Rights and Roman Statute. Most Countries have ratified the Roman Statute and also parts of UN Charter for Human Rights and even the Geneva Convention on justice in War. Still, this does opens the door from who has the right to sanction and the right to create justice.

Some people might say the Rwandan Government is a totalitarian and a Police State under strict control from a central government under the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) under President Paul Kagame who does not have the will to take certain Génocidaires to court as they might implicate certain close allies of the government. Still, that does not open the question that I will talk about. Because even if the courts and judges are premature and built for the Government in Rwanda, does not take away their jurisdiction and their own rights of rule of law in their own country. Even when it is the violations are a crime against humanity as Genocide.

Not that I want the men and woman behind an action of this size to get away is not my intention to discuss it. It is more the example of colonial law and the post-colonial acts that are not just or justified. We as people have to set standards and use our minds. I will not let the French or British control the Central Arguments, as much as I don’t want the Americans or Chinese doing it. What is important is this. We have Nations, which is a set territory, a territory where they keep citizens safe and have the monopoly for violence is for the state; in that sense that the nation have an Army to keep foreign forces away and the town a secure to raise families and work. Second part of that security is the internal security to make peace inside the country with a Police that takes criminals and courts of laws that with justification condemns and detain fellow citizens that have breached the national laws. All of this should be universal and understood, as ordinary understanding of what a state should do. And it with this matter I will take a step further.

Because this is important even when the States and Governments who controls their nations and does the wrong acts against fellow peers. Their citizens should then as long as the nation and state have ratified international laws and statutes get their crimes against humanity in the International Criminal Court of Hauge. Even if the ICC and it’s attack on African Leaders, it still have the authority as given by the United Nation and the other bodies together with the ratified laws that the States and Government have signed at one point in time.

The problem I have and the reason for it is simple and it’s basic for any Republic/Kingdom/State/Nation their sovereign rights and their sovereign rule as a Sovereign Power in their own Territory as it is with the Army and the Police inside that nation. That is the main issue I have. Even when it comes to Crime Against Humanity.

Let’s say that the unlawful and unjust war from the United States of America under President George W. Bush who even address the world on 20^th March 2003, which started a war on false premise and lies to American public and the United Nations, without the international states accept for United Kingdom accepting the attack on the Sovereign Nation of Iraq under President Saddam Hussain. I am not saying President Hussain we’re a saint, as his acts with certain gas and weapons against Iran was not justified, still the matter at hand can question the jurisdiction of the ones implicated and breaches of justice from the American Government at the time and the United Kingdom Government who went in Iraq. They all certainly we’re behind acts against Humanity on some levels as they went to war and even did torture in certain chambers in Iraq. Can the Rwandan Government and their courts if they collect evidence and collect for instance affidavit of victims and of low-level civil servants of the time, could they take President Bush for trial at the High Court of Kigali?

I am just asking the question, because the case today is an act upon the same sovereign question as the former Mayors of two towns or villages are taken to court in Paris. They are in foreign land as they are not in the Jurisdiction and the Territory of where the crimes happen and in the State where the claimed Génocidaires are citizens.

If citizenship and if sovereign nations still means something, then we have to ask the question and ask the matter. Even when it grimes crimes and crimes against humanity as the laws should be the same for Western Nations as for the African Nations. This should open up the questions for French interaction with the Génocidaires of the official government at the time under President Habyarimana with the military training and equipment before Operation Turquoise turned into the UNAMIR mandate under Dallaire. In that sense, the black-box sage that never really been answered as the training and interference of the French, should give the Government under Rwandan Patriotic Front to be allowed to Court the French Men who served the Génocidaires, right? Since the French now is doing the same in Paris, just because they are French and European should not make them able to clean their hands of the blood, just as much as the RPA, now RPF should not be white-washed over time. The law should apply alike to either side. Something that should not be needed to explain or take on; as any crime on humanity and support of the attacks with weapons and structures should be taken to court as violation of these men and woman.

The case is not that the Génocidaires should be dealt with from authorities and the men behind killings should not be punished by the Government or any other piece international legal-body that has the jurisdiction on it. If so then the men and woman should go to international court or a national one that could offer a fair judgement on the causes behind the violations and assess the criminal activity.

But what bugs me is the easy way the French and Government of France overturn the Rwandan Government as a sovereign nation to turn their citizens and their eye-witnesses to Paris for the trial to concede the judgement of these two mayors. Not that I am defending the Mayors for their activity, it’s the actions of French I am still questioning.

That is why, why couldn’t the Rwandese if they could collect information on the French involvement and support of the late-President Habyarimana in the turns up-to the genocide. Since the French can now take Rwandese to court in Paris and collect the witnesses from Rwanda to serve these men and woman in the capital of France. There questions about it and if it is justified as the precedence this kind of cases set. As if the French Authorities still can grant them authority to get these people to be eye-witnesses in a court case of actions against humanity in Rwanda and not on the French shores or near Caen. Therefore since this court is not directly based on the Roman Statute or the other ratified laws where the crimes against humanity are involved and control the verdicts of the judgements. So the matter is that if it was so, since this a case that is about crimes done abroad in alien jurisdiction, it might should have been posted in the ICC and not the High Court or whatever name the Court have in Paris.

It is not that I want the two Mayors to free-men without a court judgement or get the Génocidaires of the Rwandan tragedy to not be tested in Court and get fair trials, so that the men and woman who has actually done their crimes get their punishment. But the way it is done and how it is conducted as long as it talks about Sovereign States and Territory; when coming to court and to be able to conduct justice to its citizens and the condemn the crimes, condone it and make sure that criminals get fair trials before serving time as felons. That shouldn’t be too much to ask. The question is if we twisted the Courts to Kigali instead of Paris, if the French we’re sent to be on trial in Kigali instead of Paris. That should be allowed to ask, as the Rwandan Government and the French Government are both Sovereign States. As Sovereign they have rights, over territory and their citizens and nations are bound to respect these in any sense and be responsible for justice, also over boundaries and borders. And also respecting the international conventions, laws and other ratified accords that set the standards for justice in the State as the Citizens need safety and security; something the state should provide and make sure they have, by the peaceful means and rule of law. Peace.

Reference:

New Wires – ‘Rwandan ex-mayors face trial in France over 1994 genocide’ (10.05.2016) link: http://www.france24.com/en/20160509-rwandan-ex-mayors-face-trial-france-1994-genocide-Ngenzi-Barahira

Joint Statement: “The Commonwealth should play a leading role in the fight against corruption” (27.11.2015)

Unchecked, corruption can choke off development, rob people of faith in their governments and sow the seeds of instability and conflict. But against this challenge, the Commonwealth has a tremendous opportunity to lead.

Corruption afflicts the Commonwealth in many ways. The Commonwealth includes both countries where vast amounts of wealth are stolen from the people and major financial centres that can be used to launder corrupt wealth. It is a community of nations with a set of shared values, shared sense of rule of law and a shared history of institutions. Because of all we share, the Commonwealth is a vital international forum to tackle this agenda.

Today, at the start of CHOGM 2015, we set out an aspiration for the Commonwealth to lead the world in tackling corruption and the laundering of the corrupt wealth around the Commonwealth.

Ahead of the proposed Anti-Corruption Summit in 2016, hosted in the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth can build a consensus on tangible steps to address corruption and on a leadership role that the Commonwealth can take.

These steps need thorough debate, but they should include:

1. Considering a formal Commonwealth scheme for cooperation and mutual legal assistance to fight corruption

2. Expanding the Commonwealth Secretariat’s existing technical support to anti-corruption agencies and bringing professionals and practitioners together to help countries exchange ideas and find solutions tailored to their needs

3. Learning from the insights of the Commonwealth Associations of Anti-Corruption Agencies and the Commonwealth Africa Anti-Corruption Centre

4. Strengthening Commonwealth financial centres to lead the world in standards of transparency, integrity and effective anti-money laundering systems

5. Ensuring that all Commonwealth States meet the standards of beneficial ownership transparency that the G20 has agreed

6. Building better frameworks for sharing information on corruption and money laundering risks, so that strengthening one financial centre does not displace the problem to another jurisdiction

7. Raising standards of access to information rights for the public and whistleblower protections, across the Commonwealth

8. Reviewing the legitimacy of immunity for officials that guarantee against criminal proceedings across the Commonwealth and whether it can be reformed to end unnecessary high levels of protection that block justice for the corrupt

This week at the People’s Forum, the Business Forum, the Youth Forum and the Women’s Forum, as well as the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, we have called for the entire Commonwealth community to support this aspiration. If the Commonwealth can build a joint compact across all of its communities, we can break the strangle hold that corruption has on so many parts of the world.

A Statement written and Co-Oped by:

Transparency International and Hon Joseph Muscat, Prime Minister of Malta