What do the Refugee caravan, Khashoggi murder, and California fires have in common?
- Khalil Zahr
- Nov 27, 2018
- 6 min read
UN Photo/Amanda Voisard
Three seemingly unrelated stories have recently made news headlines and generated streams of commentaries and analyses: the caravan of Central American refugees making their way toward the United Sates (US) border, the killing of Saudi dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi inside the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul, and the extremely costly fires which devastated large areas of California leaving an unprecedented trail of damage in life and property.
The Caravan of refugees is the latest batch of migrants who draw mostly from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. They are fleeing violence, poverty, blocked economic and social horizons, and human and political rights abuses. All of these have been brought about by political corruption, associated failed governance, and outside meddling in the internal affairs of these countries motivated by exploitive business and political interests.
Rodrigo Abd/Associated Press
The killing of Jamal Khashoggi by a team of assassins allegedly organized by the Saudi authorities was motivated by the desire to silence him. Khashoggi, a prominent and well-connected Saudi journalist, fled his country to the US in the wake of a wave of repression of domestic opposition. In the US, he resumed his criticisms of the regime by contributing periodically to the Washington Post newspaper. After several failed attempts to lure him back to the Kingdom, he was killed while visiting the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul on personal business. Under the cover of diplomatic immunity, the assassins were able to travel to Turkey and slip out unobstructed after executing their mission.
Mohammed Al-Shaikh/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
As deadly fires raged across California, the IPCC issued a special report on the impact of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels. The report was motivated by the need to “strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty”. The IPCC warns that “global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate. Climate related risks to health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human security, and economic growth are projected to increase with global warming of 1.5°C”. These effects are expected to increase exponentially if global warming is allowed to increase by another half a degree to 2°C.
Robyn Beck/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
In spite of the dire warnings of the IPCC report, among others, it did not even survive the shortest news cycle. Coinciding with the mid-term elections campaign in the US, the most consequential power in the world, the issue of global warming failed to appreciably impact the elections and ranked disappointingly low on the list of voter priorities, despite the deadly fires in California.
Stephen Lam/Reuters
While seemingly unrelated at first glance, the aforementioned events have three important commonalities:
Violation of Human Rights
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is effectively the equivalent of the mission statement of the United Nations, guarantees freedom of speech and belief, and freedom from fear and want. The preamble of the Declaration states: “Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people, Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law”.
More specifically, Article 3 of the Declaration states “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of persons”, while Article 5 specifically outlaws torture and degrading treatment “No one shall be subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. Furthermore, Article 19 states “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”.
Consequently, the governments of the home countries the refugees are fleeing can be considered in violation of the human rights of their citizens by failing to provide for their citizens’ security, freedom, and economic well-being. This is also the case for all similar exodus of refugees from around the world brought about by security breakdown and failed socio-economic development.
Likewise, the killing of Jamal Khashoggi is a crime directed against freedom of opinion and expression and thus a clear human rights violation. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the US, and the international community as a whole, share the responsibility of bringing the perpetrators to justice.
As to the extreme climate events- considering their destructive effects on human lives, property and welfare- may also be considered crimes against humanity. The problem however is in assigning responsibility and identifying the perpetrator of such crimes. If these events are natural; not caused by voluntary human activities, then mother nature will be the culprit and we are left with no recourse for justice. However, if these events, as scientifically proven, are the result of global warming caused by voluntary human activities, then failing to mount the appropriate defence and mitigate the consequences makes the international community responsible. Particularly, government leaders and policy makers, who deny global warming and ignore its threat to humanity, ought to be held accountable.
Abuse of Sovereign Powers
The above events starkly demonstrate the abuse of the powers of “sovereignty” by the nation-state. Countries, as signatories to the UN Charter, are under obligation to abide by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Since the Declaration’s subject is the rights of the individual and not the state, this underlines the supremacy of human rights and their universality over the acquired rights of the nation state.
The misuse of sovereign powers is all too clear in the Khashoggi case. The Turkish Authorities, in whose country the murder was committed, were not even able to conduct a formal investigation or access the scene of the crime without seeking permission from the alleged perpetrators of the crime due to the diplomatic immunity of the Saudi consulate. Most likely, the luggage of the murder team was not searched, nor were they questioned at the port of entry because of diplomatic immunity that some of its members may have held.
Similarly, autocratic governments of failed states can drive their people to flee and seek refuge in foreign lands without fearing any repercussions. Mismanagement of national resources, corruption, dereliction of duty, violation of human rights, are considered internal affairs, protected by the claim of independence and national sovereignty. Ironically still, the plight of their people is usually exploited in attracting foreign aid, which invariably is mismanaged and most often siphoned off to the bank accounts of corrupt officials.
Likewise, at a time when the effects of global warming-manifested by extreme weather and other climate events- are undeniable, countries can choose to ignore the all too obvious consequences. Under the claim of independence and national sovereignty, a country may decide not to join in or withdraw from global accords on mitigation and adaptation without any fear of sanctions. It may even choose to adopt policies that are inconsistent with the international consensus, without being held accountable. This is in spite of the reality of global warming and its proven disastrous effects on life on Earth.
Outdated International Order
The above three cases of human rights violation have a third factor in common which is the impracticality of being satisfactorily redressed by national state authorities. In other words, the three cases cannot be tried in a national court of law or prosecuted by a national prosecutor. Meanwhile, the international system is unfortunately incapable of satisfactorily dealing with such challenges.
These crimes can only be addressed by a competent international justice authority with a mandate that supersedes the authority of the national state. The International Criminal Court (ICC) comes to mind as such potential authority, if it was not for its circumscribed mandate and limited effectiveness.
The ICC is an international tribunal founded by the Rome Statute, which came into force in 2002. It is mandated to prosecute crimes against humanity, crimes of genocide, and war crimes. This mandate is constrained however, by the intent of the founders that the ICC complements national judicial systems, and only try cases if certain conditions are met. For example, the ICC may try cases when national courts are unwilling or are unable to take up the criminal cases, or when individual countries or the United Nations Security Council refer the cases to the ICC. Consequently, the ICC’s authority is subservient to the national state and constrained by the prevailing international order. International law needs to be supreme in order to be able to prosecute extraterritorial crimes such as human rights violations and crimes against humanity.
Global challenges such as: climate change, failed socio-economic development in many parts of the world, high rates of poverty, corruption, the world refugee crisis, international terrorism, among others, are the result of failed governance at both the national and international levels. Unfortunately, the existing international system is obviously incapable of successfully dealing with these challenges.
END
Comments