Archive for the ‘internal supporters of human rights’ Category

« Older Entries

Obama’s “red line” baby talk, and the Red Herring of whether it has been crossed

Thursday, April 25th, 2013

In the 21st century, statesmen don’t shout at the leaders of other nations and threaten, “if you cross this red line, my red line because I am powerful and can hurt you, if you cross this red line which I have drawn in the sand, I will huff and puff and I’ll blow your house down.”

The apogee of all of this red line talk was when Benjamin Netanyahu, at the United Nations, drew a crude picture of a bomb with an arbitrary red line to show the point beyond which Iran can’t continue down the path to making a nuclear bomb without Israel attacking it militarily.

All this talk of red lines is silly because it is unilateral, arbitrary, and lacks any claim of legitimacy.

It’s the way some leaders might have spoken to leaders in other countries in the 19th century or earlier.

Now, things have changed. We have a United Nations Charter and well-developed rules of international law governing the use of force.

Statesmen today talk to each other in the language of international law, not the playground threats of children who don’t know yet much about rules and law and the limits society places on their behavior.

Statesmen don’t talk that way, but regrettably some national leaders still do.

All the talk about Obama’s “red lines” in Syria and whether they have been crossed constitutes one big RED HERRING.

The questions we ought to be discussing, instead of chasing the Red Herring, include the following:

1. Does the present situation in Syria, including al-Assad’s barbarism (e.g., war crimes and crimes against humanity on a massive scale), negatively affect the vital national interests of the United States, or those of its allies?

2. If so, what must be done, both alone and in conjunction with others, to defend those vital national interests?

3. How are those interests likely to be affected if no effective action is taken to halt al-Assad’s barbarism?

4. Does the United States have a vital national interest in preventing and halting the commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and widespread violations of fundamental human rights on a massive scale?

5. If the United States is going to act, “If not now, when?”

These are the questions people should be talking about, and not Obama’s baby talk about red lines and arguments about whether they have been crossed.

The Trenchant Observer

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Barack Obama, Crimes Against Humanity, Dimming Vision of World Affairs, History, human rights, internal supporters of human rights, International Law, self-defense, State Department, State Department Legal Adviser, syria, U.N. Charter, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, United States, use of force, war crimes | No Comments »

Reflections on the struggle for justice and the rule of law: Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., President Barack Obama, and President Jimmy Carter

Friday, January 18th, 2013

There was an article in the Washington Post recently that suggested that Barack Obama plans to draw the maximum mileage out of the coincidence that his second inauguration will take place on the Martin Luther King, Jr. national holiday.

See Wil Heygood, “Inauguration will cement ties between Obama, Martin Luther King Jr.” Washington Post, January 15, 2012.

The Observer thinks of Martin Luther King’s courageous struggle as one to liberate not only black people but also white people from the scourge of racism that has plagued our country. The leitmotifs of that struggle were non-violence and a deep moral demand for legislation that gave effect to the fundamental civil and human rights of all Americans, and in particular the black citizens of America who had for so long been deprived of the benefit of the fundamental rights promised to them in the Constitution.

King fought for justice and the rule of law in the United States, and also had a deep appreciation of the struggles of other peoples to achieve respect for their fundamental rights.

On January 21, 2013, the day celebrating his life and moral perserverance, and also the day the first African-American president will be inaugurated for a second term, what are we to make of the connection between Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream, the racial progress that has undeniably been made in America since 1968 and yet the vast progress that remains to be achieved, and the fact that we have  a an African-American, a black man, as President of the United States?

King’s speech at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. on August 28, 1963, is worth recalling. He said, in part:

…
So even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal.”

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its Governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places plains, and the crooked places will be made straight, and before the Lord will be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.

This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the mount with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the genuine discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, pray together; to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom forever, knowing that we will be free one day.

And I say to you today my friends, let freedom ring. From the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire, let freedom ring. From the mighty mountains of New York, let freedom ring. From the mighty Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!

Let freedom ring from the snow capped Rockies of Colorado!

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California!

But not only there; let freedom ring from the Stone Mountain of Georgia!

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain in Tennessee!

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill in Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, “Free at last! Free at last! Thank God almighty, we’re free at last!”

That so much of King’s dream has been accomplished, in 50 years, is cause for celebration, and also cause for a rededication of efforts to achieve that part of his dream which has not been realized with, in a phrase used elsewhere in the speech,  ”the fierce urgency of now”.

Yet we must also recall that Martin Luther King, Jr. did not represent African-Americans alone. He also represented white people, and others. He drew on the non-violent tradition and spiritual force of Gandhi, who helped inspire South Africans early in the 20th century, and later to liberate the subcontinent of India from British rule.  King’s own message and moral example also inspired others, most notably Nelson Mandela of South Africa, who shared a similar dream and acted effectively to bring it about.

On January 21, 2013, we must also acknowledge that Martin Luther King, Jr. was the moral hero of millions of white men and women in the United States, as well as in Europe, and of many millions of men and women of other ethnicities throughout the world. He does not belong to African-Americans alone. Indeed, he belongs not only to all Americans, but to all of humanity, to “all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics.”

By 1967, when he spoke out against the war in Vietnam, if not long before, King made it clear that “all of God’s children” were not limited to those who lived in the United States.

If he were alive today, there can be little doubt that Martin Luther King, Jr. would be an ardent supporter of the struggle for human rights and democracy throughout the world.

In this connection, it is worthwhile to consider again the points made by former President Jimmy Carter in his op-ed in the New York Times on June 24, 2012, in which he seeks to hold America to account for its human rights violations.

See

Jimmy Carter, “A Cruel and Unusual Record,” New York Times (op-ed), June 24, 2012.

The Trenchant Observer, “REPRISE: ‘A time to break silence’: Dr. King on the Vietnam war, and President Carter on America’s human rights violations,” January 6, 2013 (originally published June 27, 2012).

Jimmy Carter was also an heir of Martin Luther King, Jr., and one who  has done more than any other recent American president to advance the cause of respect for international human rights throughout the world.

So, as we celebrate the legacy of Dr. King on January 21 with the second inauguration of Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the United States of America, let us also celebrate those other individuals of all races and from all countries who, like former President Jimmy Carter and former President Nelson Mandela, have fought valiantly for the respect and observance of the fundamental human rights of all individuals, from whatever country or ethnic group they may come.

That struggle, too, is a critical part of Dr. King’s legacy, and one which the first African-American president should take up in his second term, with “the fierce urgency of now.”

President Obama could start by pushing for Senate ratification of the American Convention on Human Rights, signed by President Jimmy Carter and submitted to the Senate for ratification in 1979. Almost all the countries of the Americas have ratified the treaty, though the new authoritarian states of Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua are now attacking its institutions and threatening to withdraw their ratifications. Without Senate action, the president could immediately renew cooperation with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights with respect to cases brought against the United States.

The Trenchant Observer

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in "that spark of the divine", Barack Obama, History, human rights, internal supporters of human rights, International Law, Latin America, South Africa, South America, State Department Human Rights Country Reports, State Department Legal Adviser, United States | No Comments »

60,000 killed in Syria—REPRISE II: The Olympic Games, and the Battle for Aleppo, Begin—Obama’s Debacle in Syria — Update #91 (January 2, 2013)

Wednesday, January 2nd, 2013

Barbarism in a Leaderless World

The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights now estimates there have been “59,648 individuals reported killed in Syria between 15 March 2011 and 30 November 2012.” This number may in fact be well short of the actual number as tens of thousands of people are reported to have disappeared with no word as to their fates.

See United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, “Data analysis suggests over 60,000 people killed in Syria conflict: Pillay,” United Nations Human Rights, January 2, 2012. See Megan Price, Jeff Klingner, and Patrick Ball, “Preliminary Statistical Analysis of Documentation of Killings in the Syrian Arab Republic,” The Benetech Human Rights Program, 2 January 2013, here.

At such a juncture it is appropriate to reprise the article whose text appears below, yet again. See also Jacques Prévert’s poem “Barabara”, in The Trenchant Observer, “REPRISE: Hommage à Homs: Jacques Prévert, “Barbara” (with English translation); Paul Verlaine, “Ariette III” —Obama’s Debacle in Syria— Update #53 (June 19)

Originally published July 28, 2012

The Opening of the XXX Olympic Games

It was a poignant moment, as world leaders gathered in London last night (July 27) for the opening of the XXX Olympic Games, with the performance of an extraordinary spectacle, in which at one point five Olympic rings appeared suspended in the heavens over the Olympic Stadium. Over a billion people were said to have watched the opening ceremonies on television.

Here, in the very heart of the democratic civilizations of Europe, the Olympic ideal shone brightly.

In ancient Greece, the Olympic Games were preceded by a “Sacred Truce” among the warring city-states, in which athletes were guaranteed safe passage to and from the games, and all fighting was to be halted for a period of one month. This period was eventually extended to allow the athletes and visitors to return home.

The games were held every four years from 776 BC to 393 AD, when they were abolished by the Christian Byzantine Emperor Theodosius I. The ancient Olympic Games lasted for 1170 years. The Modern Olympic Games were initiated in 1896, and have been held every four years or more often since then except for 1916, 1940 and 1944.

–”Brief History of the Olympic Games,” NOSTOS (Hellenic Information Society, UK).

Importantly, the Olympic Games today stand as a symbol for humanity’s goal of one day achieving universal peace. The alternative, it seems, is either the goal of endless war, or the resignation that goes with the sense of helplessness we feel when we reject the goal of peace.

The Battle for Aleppo, and the Response of the World

Meanwhile, in Aleppo in Syria, a country where the international community and the Security Council have been unable to reach agreement to act effectively to halt the atrocities of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, the portents of death and destruction were all too palpable yesterday and today, as the regime’s troops, tanks, artillery, helicopters and war planes began a concerted assault on the lightly armed rebels of the Syrian Liberation Army, in what a pro-Assad Damascus newspaper termed “the Mother of all Battles”.

Today, on Saturday, July 28, the battle was joined in earnest.

For news of recent developments on the ground in Syria, see

Luke Harding (in Anadan, on the Aleppo front line), “Syrian rebels near Aleppo: ‘We are besieging Assad’s army’; Regime forces have been pulverising rebel-held districts using artillery and helicopter gunships. But the rebels are upbeat,” The Guardian, July 28, 2012 (11:35 EDT).

Damien McElroy (in Aleppo), “Badly armed rebels face tanks as Syria’s mother of all battles begins,” The Telegraph, July 28, 2012 (6:57PM BST).

Álvaro de Cózar (Special Correspondent in Marea), “El Ejército sirio avanza para tomar Alepo; Las tropas de El Asad atacan con bombas y tanques los barrios en manos rebeldes; Las líneas de teléfono y el suministro de energía han sido cortados, El País, 28 Julio 2012 (23:45 CET).

Kareem Fahim and Ellen Barry, “Syrian Military Intensifies Assault on Rebels in Aleppo,” New York Times, July 28, 2012

***
Unfortunately, Americans accessing the Internet do not find it easy to gain a sense of what is actually taking place on the ground, due to “The Filter Bubble” which prevents most U.S. observers on the Internet from seeing the search results for newspapers outside of their own country (including, e.g., British and other newspapers which have correspondents on the ground in Syria).  To get around The Filter Bubble, see the directions in the bottom right-hand column on the right on our Home Page, or go here.

Thus, as the world turns its attention to the joyful spectacle of athletes from countries throughout the world competing on the basis of individual merit, as humanity comes together for its quadrennial celebration of the richness and diversity of the human family, the people in Aleppo and in Syria are left to face the absolute terror and barbarism of the Bashar al-Assad regime, alone.

Russia and China, along with the Syrian regime, are clearly to blame for this state of affairs, and populations who follow international affairs throughout the world are aware of the role they have have played in thwarting effective U.N. Security Council action. Memories of how they have backed the murderous regime of al-Assad are likely to be long indeed in the Middle East, and also in the democracies of the world.

The United States and other Western countries warn of an impending massacre in Aleppo, as if anyone but they themselves could save the day.

It is a new role for Americans: Eyewitness News reporters without an inkling of any sense of moral responsibility that might lead them to act. In this role, they are following the lead of their president.

The Americans, the Europeans, top U.N. officials and others loudly deplore the lamentable state of affairs in Syria in general, and the unfolding of the “mother of all battles” in Aleppo, in particular.

Leaderless, they stand helpless and paralyzed before the terror and barbarism of al-Assad.

They provide countless declarations of moral outrage, and call for the nations of the world to increase their “pressure” on the al-Assad regime.

The “pressure” of which they speak is a “pressure” of words, of plaintive moral appeals directed to war criminals whose moral depravity is beyond dispute. Or perhaps the “pressure” may even consist of voluntary economic sanctions, imposed by different countries outside the framework of the U.N. Security Council, whose impact is uncertain and in any event will take much time.

Neither words nor economic sanctions, however, will stop al-Assad’s armies.

These leaders are at once appalled by the terror, the barbarism, the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity before their very eyes, and caught in their own moral cowardice, impotent, helpless, with verbal reproaches the only weapons they have the courage to wield. Paralyzed by their own cowardice, they will not act—not effectively, not in time to save the thousands of additional deaths that the grinding gears of war portend to claim, and of which they so earnestly warn.

Enough with Words!

These leaders can all do the world one big favor:  Stop denouncing al-Assad’s atrocities, at least until they are willing to do something really effective to bring them to a halt.

With their moral energies thus freed, they can pay close attention to the facts on the ground, to what is actually happening to thousands of human beings in the maw of war, and then they can seek quiet solace in their churches, their synagogues, their mosques, and the other spiritual refuges in which they must, as individual human beings, come to terms with what they have seen, and what they have not done.

Enough with words!

Enough with the self-absolving declarations these leaders offer to the world, and to themselves, so they can sleep at night, knowing they were present at Srebrenice, present at Auschwitz, present in Rwanda, over a very long period of time, and did nothing.

President Theodore Roosevelt, Recipient of the 1907 Nobel Peace Prize, on Words and Deeds

As for President Obama, who reportedly likes to think of himself as emulating the great American presidents, the words of President Theodore Roosevelt, recipient of the 1907 Nobel Peace Prize, come to mind. Roosevelt declared:

“International Peace”
…
We must ever bear in mind that the great end in view is righteousness, justice as between man and man, nation and nation, the chance to lead our lives on a somewhat higher level, with a broader spirit of brotherly goodwill one for another. Peace is generally good in itself, but it is never the highest good unless it comes as the handmaid of righteousness; and it becomes a very evil thing if it serves merely as a mask for cowardice and sloth, or as an instrument to further the ends of despotism or anarchy. We despise and abhor the bully, the brawler, the oppressor, whether in private or public life, but we despise no less the coward and the voluptuary. No man is worth calling a man who will not fight rather than submit to infamy or see those that are dear to him suffer wrong. No nation deserves to exist if it permits itself to lose the stern and virile virtues; and this without regard to whether the loss is due to the growth of a heartless and all-absorbing commercialism, to prolonged indulgence in luxury and soft, effortless ease, or to the deification of a warped and twisted sentimentality.

Moreover, and above all, let us remember that words count only when they give expression to deeds, or are to be translated into them (emphasis added). The leaders of the Red Terror2 prattled of peace while they steeped their hands in the blood of the innocent; and many a tyrant has called it peace when he has scourged honest protest into silence. Our words must be judged by our deeds; and in striving for a lofty ideal we must use practical methods; and if we cannot attain all at one leap, we must advance towards it step by step, reasonably content so long as we do actually make some progress in the right direction.

[Footnote] 2. The “Terror” is a term characterizing the conduct of power in revolutionary France by the second committee of Public Safety (September, 1793-July, 1794), sometimes identified as the “Red Terror” to distinguish it from the short-lived “White Terror”, which was an effort by the Royalists in 1795 to destroy the Revolution.

–Theodore Roosevelt, 1907 Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech, delivered May 5, 1910.

President Obama and the other leaders of the world would do well to take these words to heart, today, and every day hereafter until they find the courage to take effective action to halt the barbarism and the terror in Syria.

The Trenchant Observer

observer@trenchantobserver.com
www.twitter.com/trenchantobserv

For links to other articles by The Trenchant Observer, click on the title at the top of this page to go to the home page, and then use the “Search” Box or consult the information in the bottom right hand corner of the home page. The Articles on Syria page can also be found here. The Articles on Targeted Killings page can also be found here.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Azerbaijan, Barack Obama, China, CIA, Crimes Against Humanity, Deutschland, Egypt, France, Germany, History, human rights, India, Intelligence, internal supporters of human rights, International Law, Lebanon, Libya, Middle East, Poetry, Portugal, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, State Department, State Department Human Rights Country Reports, State Department Legal Adviser, syria, Torture, Turkey, U.N. Charter, U.N. Convention Against Torture, U.N. Security Council, U.N. Torture Convention, U.S. Military, United Kingdom, United States, use of force, war crimes | No Comments »

A prayer for the children of Syria

Monday, December 24th, 2012

Prayer for an Alawite Child

I understand,

Just like me, you want to be happy,
Just like me, you want to be free of pain,
Just like me, you want to be loved,
Just like me, you want to be free from anxiety,
Just like me, you want to be free from fear,
Just like me, you want to know peace.

May you be happy,
May you be healthy,
May you be safe,
May you know peace.

Prayer for a Sunni Child

I understand,

Just like me, you want to be happy,
Just like me, you want to be free of pain,
Just like me, you want to be loved,
Just like me, you want to be free from anxiety,
Just like me, you want to be free from fear,
Just like me, you want to know peace.

May you be happy,
May you be healthy,
May you be safe,
May you know peace.

Prayer for a Christian Child

I understand,

Just like me, you want to be happy,
Just like me, you want to be free of pain,
Just like me, you want to be loved,
Just like me, you want to be free from anxiety,
Just like me, you want to be free from fear,
Just like me, you want to know peace.

May you be happy,
May you be healthy,
May you be safe,
May you know peace.

And let us say the same prayer for all of the children, of all of the other minorities, of Syria.

The Trenchant Observer

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in "that spark of the divine", Barack Obama, human rights, internal supporters of human rights, Lebanon, Middle East, Poetry, vision of peace | No Comments »

White House thinking and Obama’s Reaction to Events in Egypt

Saturday, December 15th, 2012

The New York Times reports today on the thinking of officials behind the very bland reaction of Barack Obama and the United States to recent developments in Egypt, including Morsi’s seizure of dictatorial powers and the draft constitution which he pushed through the National Assembly–using dictatorial powers and by-passing the Constitutional Court– and submitted to the national referendum now being held on December 15 and December 22.

See David D. Kirkpatrick, “Obama Walks a Fine Line With Egyptian President,” New York Times, December 13, 2012 (December 15, 2012 print edition).

According to Kirkpatrick, following the clashes on December 6 between pro- and anti-Morsi demonstrators in front of the presidential palace, which left seven individuals dead, Obama in his call to Morsi did not reprimand him for what had happened.

Instead, a senior Obama administration official said, the American president sought to build on a growing rapport with his Egyptian counterpart, arguing to Mr. Morsi that it was in his own interest to offer his opposition compromises, in order to build trust in his government.

“These last two weeks have been concerning, of course, but we are still waiting to see,”said another senior administration official… “One thing we can say for Morsi is he was elected, so he has some legitimacy”(emphasis added).
…
As Egyptians vote Saturday on the draft constitution, the results may also render a verdict on …the Obama administration’s bet that it can build a workable partnership with a government guided by the Brotherhood — a group the United States shunned for decades as a threat to Western values and interests.
…
As for Mr. Morsi, administration officials and other outside analysts argue that so far his missteps appear to be matters of tactics, not ideology, with only an indirect connection to his Islamist politics….
…
What is more, the leading opposition alternatives appeared no less authoritarian…
…
But White House officials say that although the (constitutional) charter may be vague, it does not impose a theocracy. “The question will be, how does the next Parliament implement what is in the constitution, and what is their vision for Egypt?” said Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for the National Security Council.
…
Under current Egyptian law, the president is allowed to fill about a third of the seats in the upper house of Parliament, known as the Shura Council, and one idea is that he could appoint political opponents, evening out the balance. The chamber is the sole legislature until parliamentary elections, handling delicate matters like the election laws.

It is absolutely amazing to hear the kinds of arguments the president and his aides employ in discussing what is going on in places like Syria, or Egypt.  After a coup d’etat, the use of Nazi “brown-shirt” tactics to shut down the Constitutional Court, and the deaths of seven demonstrators, the thinking in the White House is that these events are “concerning”?

The aides who are quoted in Kirkpatrick’s article obviously have no personal understanding of the Middle East or what is going on in Egypt. It is fightening to consider that these individuals are influencing and reflecting White House thinking on such key policy decisions.

It was not too long ago, it will be recalled, when Obama’s policy toward Syria consisted of plans to ask the Russians for help.

See Matt Williams, “US condemns Syria massacre and looks for Russian help to oust Assad; Hillary Clinton harshly condemns Syrian president as Obama reportedly plans to urge Putin to back a transition of power,” The Guardian, May 27, 2012.

The thinking at the White House, on Egypt as on Syria, is at a very high level of abstraction, with ideas being thrown out without the staff work and winnowing process through which proposals which come up through the State Department normally have to pass. In effect, Obama by directly controlling the foreign policy of the U.S. on critical issues, such as Egypt and  the policy toward toward Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood, tends to cut out the inputs of the ambassadors, area experts, and higher officials in the State Department who should have a better idea of what is really going on. The Secretary of State, who should be centrally involved in these decisions, seems to have been relegated to a secondary role. 

Above all, thinking by Obama and his aides on foreign policy tends to consist of abstract ideas, which lack the granularity of ideas that are anchored in a deep appreciation of events on the ground, the context in which they occur, and their implications.

If the United States is to correct these defects and to shift its course from one of repeated foreign policy failures (Benghazi is but one example, emblematic of the rest), President Obama will need to select a new foreign policy team with clout.  He will need to find–and enlist–people of great stature, capability and relevant experience, who because of who they are and their own internal make-up have the ability to tell him directly when and why they disagree with him whenever they do.

The smartest man in the room needs other smart people in the room, who will speak forthrightly to him–and to whom he will listen.

The Trenchant Observer

Further reading:

The Trenchant Observer, “Morsi’s coup in Egypt: Obama’s silence, America’s shame,”
December 7, 2012

David Ignatius, “Our man in Cairo,” Washington Post, December 7, 2012 (5:01 p.m.)

The Trenchant Observer, “Is Obama losing Egypt?” December 6, 2012

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Barack Obama, Egypt, human rights, internal supporters of human rights, International Law, Middle East, religious belief, syria, U.S. Congress, United States | No Comments »

Morsi’s draft constitution will remove top female judge in Egypt from Constitutional Court; the dubious future of female judges under the government of Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood

Thursday, December 13th, 2012

It is important to understand Mohamed Morsi’s background in order to understand how the draft constitution now being submitted to a referendum beginning December 15 is likely to be applied if adopted.

See

Fiorello Provera, “Egypt’s Monster in the Making,” Project Syndicate: A World of Ideas, December 12, 2012. (Fiorello Provera is Vice-chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the European Parliament.)

Eric Trager, “Why Won’t Morsi Back Down? Read His Resume,” The New Republic, November 30, 2012.

Eric Trager, “Shame on Anyone Who Ever Thought Mohammad Morsi Was a Moderate,”The New Republic, November 26, 2012.

Sometimes it is useful to zero in on one aspect of a complicated subject to fully understand what is involved and what is at stake.

The role of women as judges in Egypt under the new constitution sharply illuminates what is going on under the surface of the draft constitution’s articles.

Traditionally, women were barred from becoming judges in Egypt. One of the reforms led by Hosni Mubarak, who for all his sins also defended the secular nature of the Egyptian state, was the appointment of the first woman judge to the Constitutional Court in 2003. Subsequently, he appointed 31 female judges to the family courts, which had just been established.

See

Peter Kenyon, “Female Judges In Egypt Battle Against Old Ideas,” April 3, 2010.

Human Rights Watch (Beirut), “Egypt: Open All Judicial Positions to Women; Top Judicial Body Should Ensure Women’s Full Participation in the Judiciary,” Human Rights Watch, February 23, 2010.

Kenyon points out that Hosni Mubarak appointed Egypt’s first female judge in 2003. In 2010, there were only 42 women judges out of some 9,000 judges, according to Kenyon. In February, 2010, “the State Council for Administrative Judges voted overwhelmingly against admitting female judges.” However, “Egypt’s prime minister ordered a review of the decision, and the state’s Constitutional Court said there is no constitutional or legal restriction to women serving as judges.”

In February, 2010, Human Rights Watch reported,

In 2003, the only female judge in any court in Egypt was Tahani al-Gibali. She was appointed to the High Constitutional Court by presidential decree. In its 2005 report, “Divorced from Justice,” Human Rights Watch found that some judges and officials of the Justice Ministry were outspoken in their opposition to the inclusion of women on the bench.

In 2007, the Supreme Judicial Council selected 31 women to serve as judges in family courts, though some Muslim conservatives in Egypt criticized the decision. Mohamed El-Omda, a member of parliament, was quoted in a 2007 article in Al-Ahram daily as saying, “Women cannot succeed as judges because the burdens of the task are enormous.”

The first woman judge in Egypt was Tahani al-Gibali (el-Guébali), who as noted above was appointed to the Constitutional Court in 2003 by presidential decree.

See Hadeel al-Shalchi (AP), “Appointment of Female Judges in Egypt Stirs Up Debate About A Woman’s Role; Views about the traditional role of women run deep in Egypt,” CNSnews.com, April 6, 2010.

“El-Gebali has long been a leader for women in the justice system. She was the first woman appointed to Egypt’s Lawyers Syndicate leadership in 1989. She and 24 other female lawyers applied for judges positions in 1998 — the first women to do so, and it took her five years to finally gain a post.”

Now, under Morsi’s draft constitution, the first female judge in Egypt and a leader of the movement to appoint women judges to the courts will be removed from the Constitutional Court as a result of Article 233, which provides:

Article 233
The first Supreme Constitutional Court, once this Constitution is applied, shall be formed of its current President and the 10 longest-serving judges among its members. The remaining members shall return to the posts they occupied before joining the court.

See The Trenchant Observer, “Morsi’s Putsch: Battle lines are drawn—Details in draft constitution reveal Muslim Brotherhood’s strategy to seize all power in Egypt, as democrats defend the rule of law,” December 2, 2012.

In an interview with Le Figaro (Paris), Justice Tahani El-Guébali (al Gibeli) described how her own job would end, and how Muslim Brotherhood thugs had made it impossible for the Constitutional Court to reach a decision on the constitutionality of the constitutent assembly elections. The intimidation included death threats she received on her mobile phone. She said,

Sunday, while the nineteen members of the High Court were to meet to discuss the legitimacy of the Constituent Assembly, which is accused of failing to represent the country, we were blocked by a barrage of bearded pro-Morsi supporters which prevented us from entering the building. Since then, hundreds of people are camping on site. Whenever I go there, I must turn back under a deluge of insults. I even received death threats on my mobile phone. Since its constitutional coup of November 22, which prohibits any legal proceedings against his decisions and against the Constituent Assembly, the new president has taken over full powers. He-reigns above the law. He imposes his dictatorship.
…
Q:  Morsi’s supporters affirm that the decree is “temporary” and that it aims to accelerate reforms …

A:  This is false. The Muslim Brotherhood is trying to kidnap the revolution. They seek to control all institutions, especially the Supreme Constitutional Court. The new Constitution, which they want to submit to a referendum on December 15, limits its powers and jurisdiction, and seeks to to remove eight of its members, including myself. Meanwhile, the Sunni institution al-Azhar is itself granted the authority of interpreting the sharia (Muslim law)…

–See Delphine Minou, “Égypte: « Morsi a accaparé les pleins pouvoirs » (Interview avec Tahani El-Guébali, Vice-presidente de la Haut Cour Constitutionelle d’Egypte), Le Figaro, 5 decembre 2012 (Mis à jour le 06/12/2012 à 11:19).

–See The Trenchant Observer, “Egypt’s coming showdown: Boycott of December 15 referendum, opposition demonstrations, and the reactions of the armed forces,” December 9, 2012.

Of particular significance is the opaque manner in which Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood are seeking to remove the top woman judge in the country from the Constitutional Court.  provisions such as Article 233, couched in seemingly neutral terms, amount to time bombs that could go off in the future under the government of Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Who knows how many similar, opaque provisions are embedded in Morsi’s draft constitution? There is hardly time before the referendum begins on December 15 to explore these issues, much less for the public to make an informed decision on the basis of any such analysis.

In any event, there are not likely to be many women judges in Egypt under Morsi’s draft constitution and the application of its provisions under a Muslim Brotherhood government.

Nonetheless, sexual discrimination against women judges in Egypt under the draft constitution may have significant consequences in Washington and the United States. President Obama may have to sign human rights waivers for Egypt under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 in order for the military to receive its $1.5 billion dollars a year in U.S. military aid. Such waivers could become hot political issues in the U.S. Congress. If, in effect, they give Morsi and the Brotherhood a green light for sexual discrimination against women in the judiciary, they are likely to exact a very high political price from Obama and the Democrats, particularly if the government of Mohamed Morsi icreasingly acquires the characteristics of an authoritarian or even totalitarian Islamic state.

It is appalling that the United States, and above all Hillary Clinton, should be tacitly supporting this move (and Morsi), failing to speak out forcefully–and with consequences–for a return to the rule of law in Egypt, including full and equal rights for all female citizens in that country.

The fact that Hillary Clinton, in particular, is supporting the current U.S. policy of silence on al-Gibali’s removal, and more generally on the rule of law in Egypt, is likely to come back to haunt her should she decide to run for the presidency in 2016. As for President Obama, as noted earlier, his silence is America’s shame.

See The Trenchant Observer, “Morsi’s coup in Egypt: Obama’s silence, America’s shame,” December 7, 2012

The Trenchant Observer

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Africa, Barack Obama, Egypt, elections, internal supporters of human rights, International Law, Middle East, State Department, State Department Human Rights Country Reports, State Department Legal Adviser, United States | No Comments »

REPRISE: The U.N. Charter, International Law, and Legal Justifications for Military Intervention in Syria—Obama’s Debacle in Syria — Update #90 (December 12, 2012)

Wednesday, December 12th, 2012

This article was first published on September 1, 2012

The situation in Syria (is) unfolding “in front of our eyes”, with the regime deploying fighter jets against the people, in addition to heavy artillery and tanks, (Ahmet DAVUTOĞLU, the Foreign Minister of Turkey, told the Security Council on August 30). “How long are we going to sit and watch while an entire generation is being wiped out by random bombardment and deliberate mass targeting?” he asked. “If we do not act against such a crime against humanity happening in front of our eyes, we become accomplice to the crime,” he warned.

As we wrote following the August 30 meeting of the Security Council,

Everyone wants a ceasefire and an end to the killing. Few seem to have come to grips with the fact that the use of force will be required, outside the framework of the Security Council. There can be little doubt that, within the Security Council itself, there is not going to be any agreement to use force (or even to adopt strong economic sanctions) to bring al-Assad’s barbarism to a halt.

This will have to be done outside the framework of the Security Council. What is needed is for one or more countries, preferably but not necessarily acting as a coalition, to just act to set up the safe zones, and one or more accompanying no-fly zones if that is required as a result of al-Assad’s response.

–U.N. Security Council Meets: More “blah, blah, blah”, and no action—Obama’s debacle in Syria — Update #82 (August 30), August 31, 2012.

Such action should be accompanied by a justification under international law.

That justification should stress that the purpose of the action is to protect the population of Syria against the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The stated purpose of the operation should not be to overthrow the government of Bashar al-Assad, which is impermissible under international law. On the other hand, it would be permissible if an operation which protected the population against the commission of such crimes also facilitated a process that would bring to account those in Syria who are responsible for the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

While such fine distinctions may seem of little significance to those not versed in international law, they are in fact quite important in terms of limiting the precedent that would be set and obtaining support from other countries for such action, if not immediately at least over time.

For further discussion of legal justifications for intervention in Syria, see the following articles by The Trenchant Observer and the sources cited therein:

Continuing massacres in Syria, at Daraya and elsewhere; legal justification for military intervention — Obama’s Debacle in Syria —Update #78 (August 26), August 26, 2012

REPRISE: Humanitarian Intervention in Syria Without Security Council Authorization—Obama’s Debacle in Syria— Update #68 (July 25), July 25, 2012

Military Intervention to establish “no-kill zones” and humanitarian corridors—Syria Update #9 (February 25), February 24, 2012

The critical issue with respect to legal justifications for establishing and defending “safe zones” or “no-kill zones” in Syria, and the establishment of no-fly zones if required, is whether such action would violate Article 2 paragraph 4 of the United Nations Charter. Article 2(4) provides:

Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
…
(4) All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

On the face of it, the use of force to enforce a no-fly zone, or to defend a “safe zone” from assaults by Syria’s army, would involve an action against the “territorial integrity” of Syria. This is the horn of the dilemma.

Read literally, any permanent member of the Security Council could, through the use of its veto, block any military action by any state within the territory of another state, except in the case of an “armed attack”, no matter what the circumstances. In principle, such a veto could block any action by the civilized nations of the world to bring to a halt a war crimes and crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing such as occurred in Kosovo, or even genocide such as that conducted by Adolph Hitler during World War II.

Various interpretations of the Charter have proposed ways out of this logical box. One is the so-called “teleological” interpretation, by which Article 2(4) must be interpreted not literally, but rather in the light of the general purposes of the U.N. Charter and its other principles. Using this approach, one might justify the establishment of “no-kill zones” and “no-fly zones” in Syria.

The problem is that such “teleological” interpretations might open Pandora’s box, allowing multiple interpretations and opportunities for abuse by states intervening for their own purposes, e.g., to overthrow the al-Assad regime, while putting a humanitarian argument forward to justify their actions. Or, to cite another example, Israel and the United States might attempt to justify an attack on Iran to take out or greatly degrade its nuclear enrichment capabilities and what they believe is a secret program aimed at developing nuclear weapons, on the rationale that it is necessary to maintain international peace and security.

Alternatively, Israel and the United States could in principle attempt to justify an attack on Iran as an exercise of the right of individual and collective self-defense, an exception to the prohibition in Article 2(4) contained in Article 51 of the Charter, which provides:

Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

The key words in Article 51 are “if an armed attack occurs”, which has been interpreted as embodying the requirements that the armed attack have occurred or be imminent, immediate and leave no time for other actions. Exercise of the right of self-defense has traditionally been subject to the requirements “immediacy, necessity and proportionality”.

See Flavio Paioletti, “The 21st Century Challenges to Article 51,” e-International Relations, June 30, 2011.

The United States and other nations have not always acted within this tight legal framework. In 1999, for example, the United States and NATO conducted a unilateral bombing campaign against Serbia in a successful effort to get the government to stop its policy of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Despite its humanitarian purpose, no legal justification was advanced by the U.S. Department of State for the action.

In Iraq, the United States sought to justify its 2003 invasion of that country both on the basis of previous Security Council resolutions and on the basis of the “right” advanced by the Bush administration to “pre-emptive self defense”.

The concern of states and legal scholars from around the world is that by allowing “teleological” interpretations of Article 2(4) or expansive interpretations of what constitutes “an armed attack” creating a right of individual and collective self-defense, such interpretations would open the door to increasingly expansive assertions of the right to use force across international frontiers. It is significant that in the case of Kosovo, no legal justification was offered.

So, we are left with the legal regime brilliantly defined by the founders of the United Nations to establish rules and mechanisms to effectively regulate the international use of force, on the one hand, and the fact that as the populations of more and more countries seek to demand respect for their fundamental human rights, and the right to participate in government, existing dictorships may resort to the appalling use of terror and crimes against humanity and war crimes in defending their hold on power, as has happened recently in Libya and Syria.

Unlike domestic laws and the constitution in the U.S., the United Nations Charter and other international agreements are subject to rules of strict interpretation, as established in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. This makes sense, as nations are generally extremely wary of ceding authority to international institutions, and rules of strict interpretation are necessary in order to secure participation in international treaties. While the United Nations Charter is something of a special case, since very few countries would consider withdrawal from the organization, acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice remains voluntary, a fact which underlines the continuing importance of rules of strict interpretation.

Caught in this logical box, are we to stand idly by as tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of human beings are slaughtered, whenever a permanent member of the Security Council exercises a veto?

The United Nations Charter is 67 years old. It has survived the Korean war, the war in Vietnam, the invasions of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Afghanistan (1980), the Balkan wars, genocide in Rwanda and the Sudan, and the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

The fundamental question is whether states should: (1) simply act outside the charter when they feel compelled to do so for humanitarian reasons (e.g., Kosovo); (2) justify their actions on legal grounds, preferably as taken with the support of regional organizations (e.g., NATO) or a broad coalition of nations; or (3) do nothing in the face of acts of barbarism such as those being committed in Syria.

In the case of Kosovo, Russia brought a resolution to a vote in the Security Council which condemned the bombing of Serbia, but the resolution was defeated 12-3.

Perhaps that is as close to 100% compliance with the Charter norms as we can get in the world today.

The ultimate choice is between undertaking effective action that will halt the atrocities in Syria, or sticking with our current policies.

In the case of the U.S., the current policy is carefully calibrated to comply with the requirements on the use of force laid down by the International Court of Justice in 1986 in the Nicaragua case. In that case, the Court held that direction and control of rebel groups was required in order for assistance to rebel groups to constitute an armed attack, thereby triggering a right of individual or collective self defense.

If the decision is made to establish safe zones and associated no-fly zones (if necessary), a final choice is whether to provide some legal justification for such action, or to follow the example of the United States in the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999, and offer none.

While the choice here is not entirely clear, a strong argument can be made for advancing a highly restrictive legal justification, narrowly tailored to the circumstances in the Syrian case, together with the support of a regional body such as NATO, and undertaken only as a provisional measure of protection until such time as the Security Council can act effectively to protect the population of Syria from the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Russia may bring a resolution condemning such action in the Security Council. Assuming the resolution is defeated by a healthy margin, as occurred in the case of Kosovo, this may be the closest to compliance with the Charter as is possible today.

The Trenchant Observer

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Barack Obama, China, CIA, Crimes Against Humanity, extrajudicial execution, France, Germany, Guatemala, History, human rights, human rights reports, Intelligence, internal supporters of human rights, International Law, kosovo, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, NATO, Pakistan, Portugal, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, self-defense, Serbia, South Africa, State Department, State Department Legal Adviser, syria, targeted assassinations, targeted killings, Togo, Torture, Turkey, U.N. Charter, U.N. Security Council, U.S. Congress, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, United Kingdom, United States, use of force, war crimes, Yemen | No Comments »

Morsi the Trickster’s Latest Trick–Repeal of the Constitutional Decree of November 22

Saturday, December 8th, 2012

Instead of acting like a statesman eager to regain the trust of the nation, the president gives more of the appearance of a small-minded merchant tenaciously trying to trick buyers at the bazaar.

Egypt’s President Mohamed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood made a tremendous miscalculation immediately after Morsi played a constructive role in the establishment of a cease-fire between Hamas and Israel in Gaza.

Perhaps the success went to Morsi’s head. Perhaps they read Hillary Clinton’s praise as unconditional support.

Whatever happened, Morsi was emboldened to launch a coup d’etat on November 22, 2012, when he issued his “constitutional decree” giving himself full powers, eliminating judicial review of his actions, and “solving” serious problems which he and the Brotherhood faced in the transition to democracy.

The first problem he sought to “solve” was the fact that the constitutional court was on the verge of issuing a decision on the constitutionality of the elections to the constituent assembly. The assembly had appointed a drafting committee heavily stacked with Islamist members, and was finishing a draft constitution which effectively enshrined a stricter version of sharia than that established by the language found in Article 2 of the 1971 constitution (which was also repeated in the new draft).

To avoid the court reaching a decision, the November 22 “constitutional decree” eliminated judicial review of the government’s actions, and placed dictatorial powers in Morsi’s hands.

A second measure to avoid the Court’s reaching a decision was the rushed approval by the constitutent assembly of the draft constitution, in a marathon, all-night session boycotted by the opposition. Opposition members of the drafting committee had withdrawn some time before when their concerns were not listened to or addressed in the draft text. The draft constitution was issued, and as provided in the law a referendum was called for December 15 to approve or disapprove it.

But this was not enough.

To make sure that the constitutional court would not reach a decision–even physically–despite the fact that Morsi’s decree had already deprived it of the power of judicial review, the Muslim Brotherhood sent demonstrators who surrounded the Court building, intimidated the justices, and made it impossible for the Court to meet and reach a decision on the constitutionality of the elections of the constituent assembly. In doing so, the Brotherhood resorted to the “Brown Shirt” tactics used by Adolf Hitler’s thugs in his rise to power in Germany. Judges reported that they had received death threats on their telephones.

The draft constitution which was rushed to completion itself contains numerous provisions which violate basic principles of human rights and the separation of powers. It also has special provisions, such as the one that removes eight of the 19 members of the Court, sending them back to the jobs they held before taking their positions on the court.

The opposition did not accept Morsi’s coup d’etat. Demonstrations ensued, with those on Thursday, December 6 resulting in the deaths of seven people.

Throughout this process, Morsi proved utterly unyielding in his determination to by-pass the constitutional court and its potential decision, and to impose the draft constitution approved by the constituent assembly in the absence of its opposition members.

Now, the armed forces have spoken and expressed their intent to uphold the democratic principles of the revolution.

Morsi, in response, has come up with yet another “trick” concession, that is, a concession which appears to be a concession but which really isn’t because it does not affect his achieving the results he was driving for from the beginning of his coup d’etat.

He says he will revoke the constitutional decree of November 22. But the concession is meaningless, because he has already prevented the constitutional court from reaching a decision.   if the constituent assembly was elected by unconstitutional means, the constitution which they drafted is similarly tainted. But Morsi has kept the court from reaching a decision.

In fact, the draft constitution contains a provision which purports to repeal the November 22 decree, but then goes on–with great legal sophistry–to say that none of the decree’s effects shall be changed or subject to judicial review.

Indeed, it is not clear whether Morsi’s latest “concession” goes beyond what is already contained in this article.

The trick is that President Morsi is trying to appear as if he is granting a concession, when in fact he is clinging to the fruits of his illegal coup d’etat. Instead of acting like a statesman eager to regain the trust of the nation, the president gives more of the appearance of a small-minded merchant tenaciously trying to trick buyers at the bazaar.

With  his control of the electoral machinery, moreover, it is far from clear that any referendum on December 15 could be fairly held, with the votes fairly counted. Morsi has lost the trust of a very large portion of the Egyptian people.

Furthermore, there is obviously too little time for the provisions of the draft constitution to be publicly analyzed and debated. Consequently, holding the referendum under such circumstances, in terms of constitutional logic, defeats the very purpose of the vote.

Any vote on a draft constitution written under these illegitimate circumstances would be illegitimate, and meaningless.

What is required now is for Morsi to back things up to the status quo ante, back to where they were before the decree of November 22. That means that the constitutional court must be allowed to reach and issue its decision.

It also means that the Attorney General, dismissed by that decree, must be reinstated.

It means further that the rushed process of shoving a draft constitution down the throats of all opposition and independent groups in the country needs to be undone. Instead, an inclusive process must be established to draft a serious and modern constitution, based on the maximum degree of consensus that can be developed.

Morsi’s latest concession is nothing but a trick, designed to give him the fruits of his illegitimate actions–including the use of thugs and death threats to prevent the constitutional court from reaching a decision on the legitimacy of the constituent assembly–while appearing to compromise.

A further question is the extent to which Morsi has been following the advice of his government ministers and advisors, or rather the guidance of the supreme guide or a faction of the Muslim Brotherhood. This issue must also be addressed and resolved, as such actions are clearly inconsistent with the basic constitutional principles of any democracy. Moreover, the question of whether Morsi can really lead Egypt, after launching a coup d’etat, is on everyone’s mind. Ultimately, if his intransigence continues, this could become a question that the military may have to resolve.

If the opposition and Morsi cannot reach agreement on cancellation of the referendum and a restart of the drafting proces for a new constitution, they should be joined by members of the armed forces to establish a process that ensures that the constitution that is drafted is fully developed, protects fundamental rights, contains modern provisions on the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary, and is adequate to the challege of guiding Egypt’s democracy in the 21st century.

The Trenchant Observer

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Africa, Barack Obama, Dictatorship, Egypt, elections, freedom of speech, human rights, internal supporters of human rights, State Department, State Department Legal Adviser, U.S. Congress, United States | No Comments »

Morsi’s coup in Egypt: Obama’s silence, America’s shame

Friday, December 7th, 2012

See David Ignatius, “Our man in Cairo,” Washington Post, December 7, 2012 (5:01 p.m.)

Mohamed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood have executed a coup d’etat in Egypt, abrogating the rule of law and seeking to impose an Islamist constitution drafted in illegitimacy. The draft’s constitutionality is highly suspect in view of Morsi’s November 22 “constitutional decree” assuming dictatorial powers, and the Nazi “brown shirt” tactics used by Muslim Brotherhood thugs last Sunday to intimidate and threaten the judges of the Constitutional Court, thereby preventing them from meeting to reach a decision on the constitutionality of the constituent assembly and the drafting process for the draft constitution.

Morsi has been utterly unyielding. Instead of olive branches, he has offered only twigs to mollify the opposition, twigs which do not in any sense put the consolidation of the Islamist dictatorship of the Brotherhood and its religious allies into doubt.

Morsi was known as “the enforcer” of internal discipline within the Brotherhood before running for president. Now he seeks to play the role of “the enforcer” for all of Egypt.

Against this background, the White House and the State Department have issued the most cautious of statements, never mentioning human rights or the rule of law.

David Ignatius notes that, “Through this upheaval, the Obama administration has been oddly restrained. After the power grab, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland said: ‘We call for calm and encourage all parties to work together and call for all Egyptians to resolve their differences over these important issues peacefully and through democratic dialogue.’ Not exactly a thundering denunciation.” (“Our Man in Cairo,” above.)

Yesterday Obama called Morsi, not to insist on a return to the rule of law or full guarantees in the constitution for internationally protected human rights, but to state to the Egyptian president that the violence of Thursday night which claimed at least seven lives was “unacceptable”. This was good as far as it went, since much of the violence appears to have been initiated by Brotherhood demonstrators. But it did not speak to the underlying issues.

At once Obama speaks like the king of the world in declaring street violence “unacceptable” to him, while at the same time failing to mention that the United States stands for the rule of law and wishes to see it restored in Egypt.

Obama’s silence on the issue that is tearing Egypt apart–whether the country will be governed by the rule of law and a constitution that provides safeguards for human rights, the separation of powers, and the principle of judicial review–is inexcusable.

If Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist allies succeed in establishing an Islamic dictatorship in Egypt–which the last two weeks have clearly revealed to be their goal, the responsibility of Obama and the leaders of other democratic countries throughout the world will be overwhelming.

The president could threaten to withhold military aid of $1.5 billion per year.  He could threaten to block a $4.8 billion standby loan agreement between Egypt and the IMF.

Instead, in defense of the principles of democracy and the protection of human rights for which the United States has stood throughout its history, Obama has said nothing. Absolutely nothing. Radio silence. His silence shatters the eardrums, throughout the world.

Today, on December 7, 2012,  71 years after the attack on Pearl Harbor, Obama by his silence shames America and its devotion to democracy, and dishonors the memory of those who fought and died to defeat fascism in World War II (1941-1945).  America is a country which should never pull its punches in standing up for its deepest values, democracy and human rights.

It is a day of shame for the United States, as brave men and women in Egypt fight to defend their revolution and establish the democracy which it promised, while Obama, setting an example for the world, looks on passively, in deafening silence.

Somewhere, somehow, there must be leaders and nations who are willing to speak up to support the defenders of democracy in Egypt. In the United States, Congressmen and Senators should speak out loudly so that the Egyptian armed forces can hear the message that the $1.5 billion of military assistance the U.S. gives to Egypt each year, will not be given to the military of an Islamist dictatorship. Hearings on this aid should be immediately scheduled and held. If this military aid and their relationship with the United States is important to the Egyptian military, they must act to defend democracy and the rule of law. Otherwise they will lose their aid and their support from the United States. That should be the message.

In Europe, leaders of the European Union and its member states should similarly speak out for democracy and international human rights, and let it be known that they will not provide economic assistance to a dictatorship which has abrogated the rule of law.

If President Obama does not want to go down in history as the Democratic president who lost Egypt, who stood by silently when his leadership might have made a difference, he needs to speak out now, loudly and clearly, in defense of human rights and the rule of law in Egypt. Further, his words must have consequences if they are ignored.

Otherwise, he will be known in history as the President who lost Egypt to the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamic dictatorship they and their Salafist allies seek to consolidate. He will be remembered as the President who did nothing when history swayed in the balance, for betraying those fighting for democracy and the rule of law in Egypt, and for losing the most decisive battle in the Middle East for at least the next generation.

Obama is losing Egypt.

Will he speak out and take forceful action? His past suggests the likelihood of continued passivity in the face of looming disaster.

But we would always like to be surprised, and to see him for once not “driving from behind”, from the back seat, but acting like the leader of the free world.

The Trenchant Observer

See also the following articles by The Trenchant Observer:

Is Obama losing Egypt?
December 6, 2012

Morsi’s Putsch: Battle lines are drawn—Details in draft constitution reveal Muslim Brotherhood’s strategy to seize all power in Egypt, as democrats defend the rule of law December 2, 2012

Morsi’s Coup d’Etat and Rushed Draft Constiution for Egypt (with latest English translation)
December 1, 2012

The Muslim Brotherhood’s Coup d’Etat in Egypt; William Butler Yeats and “The Second Coming”
November 28, 2012

“L’État, c’est moi”—Mohamed Morsi and Muslim Brotherhood launch coup d’état in Egypt
November 27, 2012

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Barack Obama, Dictatorship, Egypt, elections, freedom of speech, History, internal supporters of human rights, International Law, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Libya, State Department, State Department Legal Adviser, syria, targeted assassinations, targeted killings, U.S. Congress, U.S. Intervention, United States | No Comments »

Morsi’s Putsch: Battle lines are drawn—Details in draft constitution reveal Muslim Brotherhood’s strategy to seize all power in Egypt, as democrats defend the rule of law

Sunday, December 2nd, 2012

Revised December 21, 2012

For the latest news from Egypt, see Ahram Online at
www.english.ahram.org.eg

On Sunday, the Muslim Brotherhood used Hitler’s “Brown Shirt” tactics in an attempt to intimidate the Constitutional Court, which was to render decisions on two important cases, one involving the legitimacy of the “constituent assembly” that has just approved a rushed draft constitution.

The judges of the Constitutional Court suspended their work, in view of what they described as blatant intimidation and threats to their safety from a contingent of Muslim Brotherhood supporters.

Later in the day, the Judges Club announced that the judges in the nation’s judiciary would not oversee the referendum Morsi has called for December 15. Without their participation, the results of the vote will lack any legitimacy.

Morsi and the Brotherhood have through their Putsch or coup d’etat destroyed any and all trust that they might have built up with the secular and democratic parties of the opposition. The two forces are now headed toward a showdown, with the outcome impossible to predict. Morsi shows signs of wanting to defuse the crisis, but the Muslim Brotherhood’s real strategy and willingness to use all illegitimate means to achieve power has been laid bare for all to see.

A word should be said about the Egyptian judiciary, which Morsi has summarily dismissed as judges appointed by Hosni Mubarak. In fact, the judiciary is notable for the very substantial degree of independence it has developed over the years, except in the most political of cases. All of the judges were appointed under Mubarak, to be sure, because there was no other way to become a judge in Egypt.

The Brotherhood should bear in mind the example of the President of the Supreme Court in Pakistan who, when dismissed by the government led a movement of judges who marched on Islamabad and ultimately forced a change in government and his reinstatement.

The full thrust of the draft constitution can be seen in Article 219, which adds to the general guidance by “the principles of sharia contained in Article 2 of the new draft (repeating the language of Article 2 of the 1971 constitution), the following:

Article 219
The principles of Islamic Sharia include general evidence, foundational rules, rules of jurisprudence, and credible sources accepted in Sunni doctrines and by the larger community.

Note also the following provisions:

Article 228
The High Elections Commission, existing at the time this Constitution comes into effect, shall undertake the full supervision of the first parliamentary elections. The funds of the Committee and of the High Presidential Elections Committee are transferred to the National Electoral Commission, as soon as the latter is formed.

Article 229
Procedures for the first parliamentary elections shall begin within 60 days of this Constitution coming into effect, the first legislative term held within 10 days from the date of announcing the final result of the elections.

In this House of Representatives, farmers and workers shall have a minimum of 50 percent representation.

A worker refers to anyone who is hired by another for a fee or salary. A farmer refers to anyone who has taken agriculture as a profession for a minimum of 10 years preceding parliamentary nomination.

The standards and regulations required for a candidate to be considered a farmer or a worker shall be determined by law.

Under Article 230, the upper house, or Shura Council, is given full legislative authority until a new lower house is elected and installed.

Article 230
The existing Shura Council shall assume full legislative authority until the new House of Representatives is formed. Full legislative authority will then be transferred to the House of Representatives, until the election of a new Shura Council, which shall occur within six months from the start of the House of Representatives’ session.

Of great significance is Article 233, which eliminates all but the ten longest-serving members of the Constitutional Court, sending the removed judges back to the positions they held before assuming their high posiitons. The provision states:

Article 233
The first Supreme Constitutional Court, once this Constitution is applied, shall be formed of its current President and the 10 longest-serving judges among its members. The remaining members shall return to the posts they occupied before joining the court.

Further, those tried in accordance with article 777, third paragraph, will have no right of appeal, according to Article 234, which provides:

Article 234
The provision concerning appeals on verdicts issued on crimes stated in the third part of Article 77 shall be valid starting a year after the Constitution has come into effect.

[Article 77 paragraph (3) provides:
"The law regulates the rules of appeal for felonies and offenses."]

Finally, Morsi’s claim that his “constitutional decree” will be abrogated when the new constitution enters into force is belied by the text and legal legerdemain of Article 236, which stipulates:

Article 236
Constitutional declarations issued by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces and by the President of the Republic from 11 February 2011 to the date of the adoption of this Constitution are hereby repealed, while their consequent effects shall remain valid and in force and may not in any way be appealed against.

All in all, there can be little doubt that the draft constitution, adopted in irregular fashion by the constituent assembly just before the Constitutional Court was to rule on whether it was legitimate and named in accordance with the law in force at the time it was appointed–which decisions were thwarted on Sunday by the use of Brown Shirt tactics–is aimed at consolidating the Putsch (coup d’etat) of Morsi and the Muslim brotherhood.

The draft establishes a much stricter form of sharia as the law of Egypt, provides means for manipulation of the first national assembly election results through limiting the membership to 50% workers and farmers, “as determined by law”, and removes the eight most junior members of the 19-member Constitional Court, replacing some of its key members through artful language that is highly deceptive in its simplicity.  Appeals against convictions of felonies and other crimes are suspended for one year, thereby violating fundamental international human rights obligations to which Egypt is a party.

Finally, in Article 236 the draft constitution maintains the effects of Morsi’s” constitutional decree” of November 22, notwithstanding the sophistry of saying the decree is abrogated while its effects continue in force.

This is the coup d’etat that the Muslim Brotherhood has launched against the advocates of a democratic revolution in Egypt.

The Muslim Brotherhood has now forfeited all claim to be trusted by the opposition, or to be viewed as a pro-democratic force.

The Trenchant Observer

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Africa, Barack Obama, Deutschland, Dictatorship, Egypt, elections, History, human rights, internal supporters of human rights, International Law, Middle East, State Department, State Department Legal Adviser, United States | No Comments »

« Older Entries