Opinion: Theresa May is wrong, no need to suspend Human Rights Laws, there are provisions for the State to keep their citizens safe!

“I’m clear: if human rights laws get in the way of tackling extremism and terrorism, we will change those laws to keep British people safe. After the London Bridge attack, I said “enough is enough”, and that things need to change to tackle the threat we face. And tonight I set out what that means: longer prison sentences for people convicted of terrorist offences; deporting foreign terror suspects back to their own countries; restricting the freedom and movements of terrorist suspects when we have evidence to know they present a threat, but not enough to prosecute them in court” – Theresa May (06.06.2017 – at a rally at Slough, United Kingdom).

That Prime Minister Theresa May are obliged to amend her laws and ask for provisions to change them through Parliament. She is fine to do so and follow the procedures of the state, to make the most draconian laws able. As the Tories already before the grand-elections started to unleash laws of old, that we’re in the fashion of King Henry IV. These laws was amend and gives more powers to the government over the Parliament. So the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom has already shown force and will of taking the powers in their hands.

Theresa May isn’t the first to use terrorism to control and to suspend laws to gain more power. That is usually a sign of oppressive behavior and of the Orwellian society. Clearly, a human being like May should consider her words. If not she really wants to show that she can act so much, that she wants to take away freedom and liberties from her own citizens. Instead of believing in the set freedoms and provisions done by the United Nations Charter and ratified legal framework that the United Kingdom must have.

Still, there are enough signs that she doesn’t need to do so, as the provisions that are in place has not and will not overpower a sovereign, neither will it create interference of state control in troubling time. That is if she really cares about the liberties and the just societies the United Nations legal framework put in place.

OHCHR own Fact Sheet on Human Rights and Terrorism:

“International and regional human rights law makes clear that States have both a right and a duty to protect individuals under their jurisdiction from terrorist attacks. This stems from the general duty of States to protect individuals under their jurisdiction against interference in the enjoyment of human rights. More specifically, this duty is recognized as part of States’ obligations to ensure respect for the right to life and the right to security” OHCHR, P: 8, 2008).

“These challenges are not insurmountable. States can effectively meet their obligations under international law by using the flexibilities built into the international human rights law framework. Human rights law allows for limitations on certain rights and, in a very limited set of exceptional circumstances, for derogations from certain human rights provisions. These two types of restrictions are specifically conceived to provide States with the necessary flexibility to deal with exceptional circumstances, while at the same time—provided a number of conditions are fulfilled—complying with their obligations under international human rights law” (OHCHR, P: 23, 2008).

Than it is the United Nation Security Council own definition:

“Security Council Resolution 1963 (2010) reiterates that effective counter-terrorism measures and respect for human rights are complementary and mutually reinforcing, and are an essential part of a successful counter-terrorism effort, and it notes the importance of respect for the rule of law so as to effectively combat terrorism. Resolution 1963 (2010) “thus encourages CTED to further develop its activities in this area, to ensure that all human rights issues relevant to the implementation of resolutions 1373 (2001) and 1624 (2005) are addressed consistently and even-handedly including, as appropriate, on country visits that are organized with the consent of the visited member State”.

(UNSC, 2015)

It is really serious when the United Nations and the OHCHR are saying there no issues between respecting the Human Rights Law legal framework and countering terrorism. Even if the resolutions and legal framework are critical and makes the state more bound to respect the terrorists. This still, doesn’t stop them from having provisions and having strict security in the Member States. The Member State themselves are putting forward rule of law and also has to incriminate inside their territory. However, the security is for the reason of the liberty and freedom of all citizens and all rights to all human beings. It is strange that Prime Minister Theresa May wants to suspend it, while the UNSC and OHCHR are saying it is possible.

That she has to go this far to gain support. Seems more like she could join Nigel Farage and Paul Nuttal, than following the Conservative leadership of the past. These words would not have come from David Cameron or anyone of his kind. This shows how fragile and how hell-bent is on winning this election by any means. That she has to promise on the final leap to suspend rule of law and take away basic human rigths. As the Police Service and Security Organization in our time cannot be able fight terrorism by the means and the values, that most of Europe see as natural. That the Police and Army get stronger laws and more draconian ones to make sure the United Kingdom can oppress and silence freedoms. Instead of fighting it through the means of strengthening the Police and the Intelligence, as the UK has one of the most sophisticated Security Organization in the world. It should have the capacity and if the Conservative had been serious about it, they would have fixed the issue during the last 8 years. Peace.

Reference:

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) – ‘Human Rights, Terrorism and Counter-terrorism – Fact Sheet No. 32’ (July 2008)

link: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/Factsheet32EN.pdf

United Nation Security Council – ‘PROTECTING HUMAN RIGHTS WHILE COUNTERING TERRORISM’ (10.09.2015) link: http://www.un.org/en/sc/ctc/rights.html

The Power of arguments during the UN Security Council on the Security and Stability in the Great Lakes Region

There been talk about the long terms in Great Lakes Regions, as the big-men lingers, it is a tale I written about for a long time. That Samantha Power addressed it yesterday during the United Nations Security Council in New York. This is where she was direct to the Presidents of the area on accountability and democratic values.

On President Kabila

“The DRC is not the only country in the region where civil society is threatened, or where democratic processes are being deliberately undermined. This, unfortunately, has been the accelerating trend in recent months – evident at the top, where leaders make increasingly blatant power grabs to remain in office”.

This here a remark on the long-term plan for President Kabila in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) who is thinking and making the possibility for a third term in the coming election. This is together with the detaining and jailing the opposition and human rights activists. That is what she is calling this grabbing the power and office, which is true. He plans to continue his power and leave the public wish behind even with the #Telema uprising. Still he want to linger and keep the power in his reach as the Executive. So the coming time will be interesting to see how far President Kabila will go to keep power and how much he oppress the other candidates, medias and civil society during the pre-election period in the country.

 

On President Kagame

“The United States remains deeply committed to our partnership with Rwanda, but the continued absence of political space – the inability of individuals and journalists to discuss political affairs or report on issues of public concern – poses a serious risk to Rwanda’s future stability. Rwanda can achieve lasting peace and prosperity through a government centered on the principle of democratic accountability, not centered on any one single individual”.  

Here the American is singling out the Rwandan President and his work to get a third term for President Kagame, who has first been the Vice-President, then the President. He has been a central figure in the political framework since the Genocide in the country. Kagame might have built a steady economy, but killed the democratic values as he strengthens the powers and government: President Kagame has steady getting rid of opposition and silencing them.

On President Museveni

“The government and its security forces detained opposition figures without legal justification, harassed their supporters, and intimidated the media. It passed legislation restricting the operations of NGOs, banning them from acting against the “interests of Uganda.” President Museveni’s actions contravene the rule of law and jeopardize Uganda’s democratic progress, threatening Uganda’s future stability and prosperity”.

A man I have discussed and written page up and page down. This is all not news, as the detaining opposition, rigging the election and shutting down the media. As media and radio stations lost transmitters because of their content during the pre-election period, even loses the passes to go the NRM rallies for being against the President. Having NGOs and seeming them as a problem. That the U.S. now claims that Museveni is the man who creates unstable society seems viable, as the creates lawlessness where a Presidential Candidate can be detained for no “charges”, detained witnesses and rewritten the Candidates Declarations Form from the Polling Stations to fit the announced Election Day results; so they fit the result wished from President Museveni, and not the people’s will. NRM more owns the country, then getting the blessing to control the country. It is in that disregard that President Museveni clearly didn’t recognize the power he controls and what he has lost. As he needs more the army and guns to keep it, while losing the goodwill of his own citizens; also the trust between the government and people is gone; that is what creates an unstable future.

On President Nkurunziza

“We need look no further than Burundi to see the dangers of pursuing personal power over the people’s interests. Burundi’s economy grew steadily for a decade, but contracted by an estimated 7 percent last year. President Nkurunziza’s decision to stay in office in defiance of the Arusha Accords and his crackdown on political opposition have swiftly undone the country’s progress of recent years. This is evident in the widespread reports of sexual violence, the more than 400 people who have been killed, the 250,000-plus who have fled the country, and the even-more challenging economic times that unfortunately lie ahead”.

President Nkurunziza made sure with a little fix in court right before the election to secure a third term, as even the opposition decided to skip the election, as the result was fitting the President to keep power. This in turn led to the failed Coup d’état and after been a civil unrest and crises. Which has led to people fleeing and recurring violence has ever since happen, opposition leaders killed, tried assassinations and governmental leaders killed. Even top officials and ministers have fled the country to safety as the power of unstable forces happens in the country, even circulated that the Rwandan Government have sponsored militias to coup the power and settle the regime in the country. The Army strength even with the international problems and suspending the aid; even having issues with inter-Burundian inclusive dialogue that even

Here is the remarks from the Burundian, Congolese and Rwandan officials as they re-addressed Samantha Power during the Security Council meeting with this.  

ALAIN AIMÉ NYAMITWE, Minister for External Relations and International Cooperation of Burundi, said” his country was recovering from a massive and severe campaign of violent regime change.  Contrary to the rhetoric used in the Council, the security situation was improving, he said, adding that, on the human rights front, the Government had issued a presidential decree granting pardons to 2,000 prisoners.  While emphasizing his understanding of the legitimate concerns raised by Member States, he invited them to understand Burundi’s peculiar situation.  It was difficult to understand some of the decisions made against Burundi, he said, pointing out that cutting aid to the Government did not fall into the category of decisions aimed at stabilizing the country” (…)”On Burundi’s cooperation with the United Nations, he noted that the Government had demonstrated its openness to working with the Secretary-General’s Special Adviser, stressing the need to discuss the deployment of his office to Burundi.  Turning to Rwanda’s actions against his country, he emphasized that such acts of aggression contravened the United Nations Charter and the Framework agreement”.

RAYMOND TSHIBANDA N’TUNGAMULONGO, Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, said “the recurring conflicts in the Great Lakes region were the result of the moral and political failings of the elite, which had resulted in a selective application of international law.  Nevertheless, the spirit of the United Nations Charter was alive and well in the region, he said, pointing out that, since the creation of the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region, the signing of the Peace, Security and Cooperation Framework, and the adoption of the relevant Council resolutions, his country had been one of their most responsible implementers.  The Democratic Republic of the Congo continued its collaboration with MONUSCO, and the country’s struggle would not end until the remaining retrograde forces and armed groups had been neutralized”, he emphasized (…)”The Democratic Republic of the Congo called upon other signatory States of international and regional instruments to be scrupulous in their implementation, with a particular eye to non-interference in the affairs of other States, and asked them not to provide assistance to retrograde armed groups.  He called for the adoption of policies that would encourage private investment and regional cooperation in order to achieve balanced development.  “The wounds of the past cannot lock us forever in a hopeless situation,” he emphasized, calling upon all States in the region to eschew the use of force for dialogue in settling disputes”.

EUGÈNE-RICHARD GASANA, Minister of State for Cooperation of Rwanda, said “that, while conflict prevention and resolution had become the centrepiece of the work of the United Nations since the 1994 genocide in his country, the concept had been used more in theory than in practice.  The Council was still much more focused on crisis management than on crisis prevention.  Instead, early warning mechanisms should guide its efforts to prevent conflict.  In the Great Lakes region, very few efforts deployed had been aimed at addressing the root causes of conflict, he noted, adding that the current situation in Burundi proved that the region was far from stable.  That country was in political turmoil, with State-sponsored militias killing civilians in broad daylight.  Unsubstantiated allegations against Rwanda by the Group of Experts on the Democratic Republic of the Congo were yet another attempt to shift responsibility away from the real causes of conflict, he said, stressing that his country should not be “negatively exploited” by those who were expected to find solutions to the crisis in Burundi” (…)”In conclusion, he responded to the statement by the representative of the United States by noting:  “Ms. Power does not have power over Rwanda”.  She should avoid lumping the countries of the Great Lakes region together because there was no “one-size-fits-all” solution to their problems.  Moreover, no other country could occupy Rwanda’s political space, he added”.

That was the defense for the remarks from the United States of America during the UN Security Council. They all defended the authority and sovereignty in different ways, thought the Burundian government claims the suspension of aid is not stabilizing the county. The DRC officials was more on the implemented laws and the ratifications as a recognition of what his government has done to be a better society and would not step the United States comments on the leaders. The Rwandan Official was more on the defensive telling the Security Council that they we’re not at fault for the violence in the DRC or Burundi as the violence is state-sponsored by the Congolese and Burundian, and they are not involved. They claim they are victims by the neighbor countries and do not accept the stance of the United States. Just as Rwandan Government says that Mrs. Power does not have over Rwanda and feels the urge to say so. All of this here is interesting and should be discussed as this is a high-end discussion in the United Nations. This is firmly not over as the situation in the Great Lakes area is tense and interesting as the Big-Men keeps power at any cost and at any price of lives and justice. The world will discuss it and the question remain will it be more than words or just silently. Peace.