Author Archives: markdowe1

Government, Legal, Society, United Nations

Support for the International Criminal Court is dwindling

THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

icc

Established in 2002 the International Criminal Court has existed for pursuing individuals suspected of having committed serious war crimes. But, now, support for its authority is dwindling.

Intro: Born of a noble ideal, the ICC would appear to be facing serious difficulties

The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established in 2002. This became the first permanent institution to bring to book the genocidal warlords who would have previously evaded justice. Its creation was heralded as a bastion for those seeking redress for the most heinous of crimes against humanity.

From the outset, however, the ICC was beset with difficulties. Principle among them has been the refusal of many countries, including the United States and China, to recognise its legitimacy and jurisdiction. Notwithstanding, more than 120 states did sign up; and to date the ICC has issued 39 indictments and concluded proceedings against 17 individuals, of whom three have been convicted. Preliminary investigations are taking place over 10 other conflict situations.

Within the last few days Russia has withdrawn its support for the Rome Treaty that underpins the court’s writ. It has done so in protest at an investigation into alleged atrocities it is said to have committed in Georgia. Moscow’s move follows recent decisions by South Africa, Gambia and Burundi to pull out accusing the court of bias and prejudice in Africa. Russia’s decision could prove to be the high watermark for the ICC as its authority erodes and declines further. Born of a noble ideal, the ICC would appear to be facing serious difficulties. But equally, with Russia cranking up for further military action in Syria, its action cannot be an excuse to carry out war crimes there.

With support for the ICC crumbling, the rationale for pursuing British soldiers for spurious allegations of abuse committed in Iraq is also diminishing. The Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT) was set up ostensibly to avoid an investigation by the ICC, which would step in only if there were clear evidence of systemic abuse. This has not materialised. Hunting war criminals for the barbarity they have left in their wake is one thing; pursuing soldiers for carrying out their duty based on unfounded and malicious allegations is quite another.

 

Standard
Britain, European Union, Government, Politics, Society

Brexit and immigration…

BRITAIN

1-1

Immigration was a central argument during the Brexit vote. But now the Government in Britain must make clear to EU nationals resident in the UK what the position will be before Britain departs the European Union.

Intro: The status of around three million EU citizens in the UK when we leave is still uncertain

Since June 23, the day 17.4 million voters in Britain decided that the UK would leave the European Union, the persistent refusal of the UK economy to collapse in ruins following the vote must be rather frustrating to diehard Remainers. For those who advocated Brexit, statistics showing unemployment at an 11-year low must be quite cheering. That more people in Britain have jobs than ever before – almost 32 million – is another indicator of just how successful open markets and labour laws can be when overbearing bureaucracy such as the power of the trade unions are curbed.

No-doubt, some of the rise in employment will be accounted for by people from outside the UK. The number of Eastern European migrants employed in Britain rose by almost 50,000 between July and September. That can only be attributed to the strength of the UK economy, but must raise the question as to whether EU citizens are coming to the UK to qualify for residency before Brexit.

The status of around three million EU citizens in the UK when we leave is still uncertain. Some suggest that any EU national resident in the UK on the day we leave should be entitled to stay; others argue that right should only be conferred on those individuals’ resident in the UK prior to June’s referendum.

The prime minister still holds the line that we must first have assurances about the future status of Britons living elsewhere in the EU before the UK can commit on how Europeans here will be dealt with.

While the British Government is protective of its negotiating hand before Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty is enacted, there is a clear risk of unintended consequences: not just by encouraging migrants to enter the UK before the legal position is decided, but also in causing angst and uncertainty for those people who live and work here legally. Many have families with children at school and are holding down full-time jobs with securities such as mortgages tied to their homes. The distress for such people has become palpable.

Theresa May faces allegations from EU leaders that her Brexit policy lacks clarity, hypocritical insinuations when we consider the political crisis gripping the continent. A recent remark, too, by German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, was also telling. Even as Mrs Merkel hinted at changing EU welfare rules to deny benefits to migrants, she insists that the basic right of free movement cannot be compromised to suit Britain, “because everyone else will then want these exceptions”. But that is an admission that voters across Europe want to end the free movement laws their leaders insist on upholding.

Westminster has held firm to the view that “Brexit means Brexit”, and, despite legal anomalies to still be worked through, such as when and how Article 50 can be triggered, Britain alone has the chance to create an immigration system that allows it to admit and retain the best talent while meeting the public’s demand for better control. Mrs May should prevaricate no longer and should set out the principles that will underpin that system. This should include a clear and unambiguous statement about the status of EU nationals currently resident in the UK.

Standard
Donald Trump, Government, Politics, Society, United States

The election of Donald Trump is a blow for liberal democracy

trump2

President-elect Trump has openly challenged the liberal and democratic openness of government. It’s a stance that will have wide-reaching consequences in the West.

Intro: How democracy can now fix itself, if at all, is a dilemma that will not be easily solved. But, if it is to survive, it must find a way

THE ELECTION of Donald Trump as President of the United States, still so raw for so many people, has repercussions that may well extend beyond the two main candidates and their two parties. The outcome of this bitterly fought contest may even have plunged western systems of government into an existential crisis from which they may not recover.

Mr Trump’s electoral triumph was rooted in his attacks on the ideals, laws and institutions on which his country is based. His contempt for democracy, for that is what it seems to be, is one shared by more than 60 million people who gave him their support.

Since the declaration of Mr Trump’s victory, the sporadic outbreak of demonstrations that have followed across the US would probably have happened no matter the events of recent days. The participants have no-doubt been emboldened by one of Mr Trump’s more recent tweets which has blamed the skirmishes on “professional protestors” who have been “incited by the media”. Such comments contradict the apparent unifying tone Mr Trump gave in his victory speech.

Questioning a free speech and the right to assembly goes against the spirit of the first amendment of the constitution, one which President-elect Trump supposedly prizes so highly. But against the irascible and bad-tempered nature of his campaign it should not come as a surprise.

Despite the protestors having spread from state to state for four nights in a row, with a few isolated incidents of violence, describing them as “revolutionary” would be an overreaction, even though this has been one of the most heated weeks in US political history.

The anger expressed in these demonstrations, however, is indicative of a serious concern facing not just Mr Trump and his administration, but also countries around the world who follow a similar system of government.

Winston Churchill, Britain’s wartime prime minister, famously said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others, but even he could not have foreseen the deep fault lines that are now being exposed within western democratic models of government. In the context of the US election, if it can longer prevent a situation as unconscionable as a serial liar, misogynist and racist wrestling control of the most powerful elected office in the world, is democratic governance not failing us?

The obvious consequence is that division will grow more pronounced as the political establishment drifts further apart from an angry and disenfranchised electorate.

The West has long cherished its free and democratic ideals. Yet, the Trump campaign vociferously rejected vast swathes of the supposed liberal order. Mr Trump rallied against globalisation, international security conventions and worldwide trade deals, while he has also openly challenged and questioned the impartiality of judges and the electoral process.

The millions of people who agreed with Donald Trump’s stance have ensured that the core institutions that allow democracy to function are now very much under threat.

How democracy can now fix itself, if at all, is a dilemma that will not be easily solved. But, if it is to survive, it must find a way.

 

Standard