It seems that despite the criticism of Navi Pillay, Yemen has gone so far as to draft the amnesty law that will grant President Saleh and his family immunity from prosecution for any human rights abuses committed during his 33-year rule of the country.
Feeling somewhat cynical about the global attitude to human rights as a whole, I might almost be tempted to say that they have proceeded precisely BECAUSE the action was condemned by the UN. At least on the face of it, the UN's condemnation would stand as positive proof that there would be very serious repercussions if Saleh and/or his family were ever put on trial for their actions.
There is a notion, or so observation tells me, that human rights itself is a divided issue: there are those that argue for the rights of the 'collective' over the rights of the individual, and those that argue the opposite. For my part, I stand with St Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians: If one part suffers, every part suffers with it. My reason for agreeing with him - in or out of a Christian context - is precisely in line with what has been happening in the US and the UK lately.
The US has just adopted the NDAA (National Defense Authorisation Act), effectively allowing the indefinite detention, sans legal due process, of any person, of any nationality, anywhere by US military or intelligence operatives.
The UK is half way towards adopting the law following on from its justice and security Green Paper that would allow any evidence that is deemd 'sensitive' (in any trial) to be witheld from the public and the subsequent ruling on the trial to likewise be witheld.
The justifications given for both these legislative actions is, of course, "national security". In other words, these two governments are choosing the good of the 'collective' over the good of the individual. In the former case, detainees will have no recourse to local, national or international justice as they will simply 'disappear' into one the US's myriad army bases across the world.
In the latter case, those being tried will find themselves in the untenable situation of trying to defend themselves against evidence of which they themselves have no knowledge, and nor will they find any recourse in a media vehicle that has no knowledge of their trial or its outcome.
In the case of Yemen, one might say that the country is looking to invert its situation: where everyone has been suffering but one family, they want no-one to suffer except the one family. I, personally, would ask the question, what will happen to Saleh and his family once he steps down from office? Is he to be deported for his own safety, or will he remain in Yemen under the protection of the law? And on the other hand, would the protection of the law actually ensure his safety?
One could argue that the presence of AQAP (al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula), Saleh has only remained in power this long as a smoke screen for their presence. Would a popular, democratically elected government try to allow US access to Yemen in a hunt for, among others, Anwar Al-Awlaki - the preacher linked to various plane bomb attempts in 2009 and 2010.
And the US' desire to hunt for members of AQAP in Yemen opens another can of worms entirely. As Noam Chomsky has routinely been at pains to point out: when considering the "righteousness" of the US' so-called War on Terror, very few people consider the provocatory actions of the US against a multitude of countries that lead to deep-seated hatred - generally the economic sanctions that do little to accomplish anything than cause further pain to the common man as the despotic dictator of his nation leaves less and less for public spending in order to make up the sanction shortfalls.
It seems that, in many instances, the term "human rights abuse" is little more than synonimous with "incompatible with US foreign interests". Where once Communism was the defining label of a Soviet satellite state (whether part of the USSR or not), economically speaking the same thing is now true of democracy and US satellite states.
What Yemen must decide is how badly they want President Saleh out of power. If they simply want a new leader and the promise of democratic reform, they may have to abide his continued existence. If they threaten to refuse to accept the amnesty law, they may have to prepare themselves for violent repercussions as Saleh uses all means necessary to hold on to power.
And in the background, AQAD must be praying that America's 'streamlined' military capacity will forestall any thoughts of returning to Middle East so soon, however attractive the potential benefits, if indeed Saleh steps down and/or a properly elected representational government is formed.
For your consideration in terms of "what then must we do", I have found the charity 'Qatar Charity', which operates in Yemen and much of the Middle East region I wrote about previously - including Somalia.
http://www.qcharity.com/en/
No comments:
Post a Comment