Africa, Britain, Government, Human Rights, Legal, Society, United Nations

Tackling rape in war through international law…

INTERNATIONAL PROTOCOL

For as long as wars have been fought, rape and sexual violence have conventionally featured in them. Men running amok with guns will always be hard to control; that the level of rape and sexual assaults in conflict zones haven’t fallen since 1945, when the Nuremberg trials decried it as a crime against humanity, points to the stubborn depravity of man. The difficulties of bringing perpetrators to justice have proven to be complex with the process often described as being an “uphill task”.

This week, a global summit has begun in London with the arch objective of changing perceptions. Participants to the symposium whose aim it will be to change the narrative are faced with a steep and problematic issue. Within the last two decades alone hundreds of thousands of women have been victims of serious sexual assault. The British Foreign Secretary, William Hague, a leading figure at the summit, acknowledges the difficulties the summit is addressing and has said that, if anything, sexual violence is getting much worse.

Mr Hague is not mistaken, though, when he says there are measures which can be taken to limit the scourge of sexual crimes. Whilst, of course, it will never be eradicated, recent studies portray a more nuanced picture of rape’s prevalence in times of war. Although the levels of rape are notoriously high in the war-torn Democratic Republic of Congo, a survey of all African conflicts between 1989 and 2009 concluded that only 26 per cent of armed groups were reported to have been engaged in sexual violence.

In addressing the hugely difficult issue of what can be done to make soldiers on the front lines think twice, an International Protocol is to be launched to standardise the kind of evidence needed for a case to be brought to court. This will lead to more convictions. And it will also hold commanders legally responsible for the behaviour of their troops. A change in the law to this effect will make it much harder to get away with rape.

Standard
Egypt, Foreign Affairs, Government, Middle East, Politics, Society, United States

Abdulfattah el-Sisi: Egypt’s new political leader…

EGYPT

Once again, Egypt has a senior military officer in charge of the country’s affairs. Field Marshal Abdulfattah el-Sisi, recently promoted from the rank of General, has been elected with the support of 97 per cent of the voters (of a low turnout) and has been inaugurated into office. He officially stood down from his military appointment in contesting the presidency. For the past 60-years, ever since the Free Officers Movement overthrew King Farouk in 1952, the Egyptian government has had a senior military strongman at the helm. Successive leaders – Naguib, Nasser, Sadat and Mubarak – all came from the military, so on that basis el-Sisi’s political victory in now leading his country should come as no great surprise.

For many, though, given the political earthquake and subsequent tremors that have occurred over the past three years, and the way in which power has been handed over, will leave many feeling uncomfortable if not untoward. The high hopes of the Arab Spring and the resulting revolution that toppled Hosni Mubarak were undone by the election of the Muslim Brotherhood. Mohammed Morsi’s mandate suggested that the Arab world’s most populous country would become increasingly Islamised, and became a significant factor in his eventual deposition that came in the form of a military coup. But now the Brotherhood is proscribed once more and most of its leaders are in prison.

Whether President el-Sisi is to be remembered as another Arab tyrant will depend on how he utilises his unparalleled position of public dominance. Time will tell – and history will record – whether he is able to reform his country’s anachronistic and decrepit institutions and his ability to convert an inward-looking society into one that is more representative of the modern age. In the short-term, his priorities must be to overhaul the police and judiciary and to end the daily charades of how justice is dispensed in the courts.

Standard
Britain, Defence, Europe, Foreign Affairs, Government, Military, National Security, NATO, Politics, Society, United States

Being prepared for war is essential, but war is not cheap…

ROYAL UNITED SERVICES INSTITUTE STUDY

A study released by the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) shows that Britain’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan has cost the UK Treasury more than £29 billion. In the report, the think tank argues that the wars were “strategic blunders, spreading terrorism, drumming up resistance and increasing the opium trade”.

The conclusions, though, are controversial. For instance, the authors of the study assert that various terrorist groups would not be infiltrating Syria or threatening Britain had Saddam Hussein stayed in power. Yet, Hussein was a bloodthirsty tyrant and despot, who clearly acted as a state sponsor of terror. Tens of thousands of lives were lost, thousands more were gassed in ethnic style cleansing in northern Iraq, and Saddam Hussein would certainly have had vast stockpiles of nerve and chemical agents at his disposal left over from his 8-years war with Iran. Many of these stockpiles still remain unaccounted for. Had Hussein not been toppled he doubtless would have continued to persecute his own population. The tyrant’s bloody wars against the Kurds in the north and Arab populations of the south should never be forgotten.

Putting aside the arguments about Britain’s role in the ‘War on Terror’, one uncontroversial fact emerges from the report which is indisputable: war is not cheap. The Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) has witnessed massive cuts to our Armed Forces budget. Army numbers have been drastically cut back, aircraft have been withdrawn, tank battalions diminished, and even our last aircraft carrier decommissioned. Further cuts are imminent. Many of these cuts are being justified by the theory that we would never have to engage in the variety of long-term overseas military adventures that typified our activities and engagements during the Cold War era.

Since 2001, however, we have actually been involved in two such operations at a significant cost. And within the last few days, President Barack Obama announced that he would like America to act more as part of an international coalition rather than taking unilateral action. This implies, at least, a continued British role in Western security.

The UK has to be prepared for all eventualities, and adequate contingencies should be in place. As relations with Russia continue to worsen, for example, it might prove necessary for the UK to play a part in the wider campaign of checking Vladimir Putin’s belligerence. Only last month, Britain sent four Typhoon fighter jets to the Baltics as part of a NATO deployment, a sign that the West is unwilling to allow Europe to disintegrate at the hands of the Russian president. Nobody wants a conflict, but the potential for a tough offence remains the best defence.

Standard