From the above caption, it can be seen that this New Year’s article stands on a tripod.
British soldiers who fought in Iraq are under investigation for murders and war crimes. North Korea detonates a hydrogen bomb. There are international legal issues in both subjects.
All through world history, the SOLDIER has been a sacrificial lamb for the wrong decisions of mad politicians. Are soldiers born to die as a result of the self-serving, hare-brained decisions of man – gods? This must stop!
I must continue to expose the vulgar superstition and power-drunkenness, politicians whose high-sounding pretensions, at times rise to eloquent grandeur.
It is now clear how pathetic decisions by the BUSH/BLAIR anti-Iraq coalition were and the damage their puny brains musing have wrecked on Iraq and other tragedies, the Middle East has been going through, since 2001.
The Iraq Abuse Investigation wants to put the blame on British soldiers who were acting as agents of the British government headed by Tony Blair.
The International Humanitarian Law regime and the various Geneva Conventions prescriptions must be applied strictly so that soldiers do not get punished for the acts of omissions and commissions of their egoistic and arrogant leaders. For example, in Nigeria, top military officers, were recently arrested for embezzling funds meant for military operations.
Tony Blair and Bush Jnr, the principals and the soldiers they commanded to invade Iraq were their agents. My English Law Professor, Dr. Marcus Jones, at the University of Sierra Leone delivered an eloquent lecture on October 15, 1962 on the legal relationship between a Principal and his agent/agents.
He deposed with learnedness and energy, that if an agent acts on behalf of his principal with merit, the agent takes the cheers. If, he acts wrongly, it is his principal who is vicariously liable. With his command and authorization as the Prime Minister of Britain at the time, no wrong doings could have been committed by the soldiers.
There is something at once illogical and indefensible for a principal to be exonerated from a circumstance or circumstances that led to internationally wrongful delicts, war crimes and murders of people.
The internationally wrongful act/acts would not have occurred without a superior order by a Head of Government. This position exists to dissuade power-drunk political idiots from sending the sons and daughters of God to die in wars. This must stop!
Are soldiers born to die in wars while bigoted politicians wear fine suits and talk tough, promising to fight to the last man. Of course, they are the last men standing! This age-old madness must stop and the citizens of the world should not encourage the agents of satan in state houses to use soldiers as oblata. Too many soldiers have died as a result of the devil’s wish.
All Presidents, Heads of State must, as from today, lead battles on white horsebacks in army uniforms not in dark suits!
BOSAS INTENATIONAL LAW BUREAU, ABUJA, in collaboration with the Universal Justice Coalition will subscribe legal arguments to ensure that principals and their agents be tried equally in cases of war crime.
After watching the mayhem in the Middle East, the murder of Saddam Hussein, Muamar Gaddafi, the beheadings of human beings by agents of satan, the recent Paris massacres, the resent Californian killings, Mali mayhem, shooting of black people in America, Tunisian killings, Yemen, Syrian killings and other tragedies on Earth, I am indeed persuaded that there are in this universe of man, Sons and Daughters of God and Sons and Daughters of satan in State Houses and Presidential Villas. The later work havoc on the former through satanic bewitchment, diseases, sickness, afflictions and rabid temptations in the service of the luciferian hierarchy. That was why Apostle Paul said, “we wrestle not only with flesh and blood but with principalities and powers, dominions and spiritual wickedness in high places.”
God Almighty has sent his Archangels, Angels and Holy Watchers to help us combat the forces of evil in the world.
THE ERA OF THE ANTI-CHRIST
A few years ago, representatives of and agents of the anti-Christ predicted that there would be turmoil before the reign of the anti-Christ. The various agitators, militants, and political mal-contents were deployed to tear the world apart.
SUSPECT EVERYONE, TRUST NO-ONE
Ten years ago, I read with relish, the adventure series title, “Michael Strogoff” by Jules Verne. There was a statement by the commanding officer to his spy, who he was sending on a mission, “Suspect everyone, trust no-one”. In Russian language, there is a long standing adage, “we trust but we shall cross-check” (Mui doveriem nor praveriem). As can be seen, both statements evince caution. This has become a major practice in contemporary American life. State security and that of the citizens have become paramount.
This security consciousness has spread world-wide. Thirty years ago, the issue of state security was very crucial in the Soviet Union and American sovietologist made a sing-song of the Soviet Union’s tight security precaution which in some cases, bordered on the paranoia. Yes, the communists ruled Russia and its associated republics with a heavy hand giving the capitalist West reason to campaign against the socialist system and eventually, temporarily, bringing it down in Russia and in some associated countries.
A decade later, Russia discovered that capitalism cannot be wished into being and that socialist morality is more humane that the system that sought to promote the capitalist system which encourages individualism while throwing the rest into a vortex from which they cannot free themselves without a struggle. The new American attitude to freedom is very realistic. You do not in the name of freedom allow a mindless terrorist group to destroy a people’s way of life established by dint of hard work, imagination, competition and dedication.
What happened in America on 11/9/2001 could not have happened in the Soviet Union. There, an organized group of well-trained intelligence officers were in control. To have successfully policed territory like the then Soviet Union and still gathered information worldwide was no men achievement. On 11/9/2001, the Al-Qaeda group as bent on hitting at America’s political and economic institutions. There is no doubt that there succeeded in part, because since the 11th September, 2001, the airline and hospitality business have been in trouble.
Fear of the unknown has become prevalent. But for a well-organized government and agencies, the blow would have been most devastating. The attack on America has changed a lot of things in ways that are yet to become manifest. America’s new security is tighter and more asphyxiating, even to its citizens who are used to unlimited freedom.
The new system will unmistakably affirm the principle of protection. This is legitimate. America did hurt itself by allowing every “son of a bitch” to come in and with time, its hospitality, homeliness, quiet and rational ways became bastardised by conmen, crooks and never-do-wells, all in the name of freedom. It is in my view that every society has the fundamental right to decide how it should be governed and how many people may enter its jurisdiction but the state should exercise caution.
There is an American policy that often creates problems for America. This prevails because American governments out of concern or self-interest perform “in situ and ex situ” duties for America. These consume resources which America badly needs for its own rainbow state. Colossal sums paid to foreign states only benefit leaders. The Soviet Union also embarked on world revolution that also lefts its own citizens high and dry. Such super-power domineering spirit, with the benefit of hindsight, caused the Roman Empire to collapse.
Super-power interventions of humanitarian nature are noble and endearing posting able-bodied men to police the world and perform the duties unsolicited ombudsmen in a complex and interlinked ways, are ambitious. When they have nothing to report they foment local troubles to justify the pay. A more inward-looking policy would bail out the super-powers from their self-imposed imperial undertakings.
We would touch briefly on human sensitivities that often lead men and women to revolt against the super-powers. Every human being has a degree of self-pride, self-worth and self-knowledge which he or she holds dear and sacred and in defense of which, he or she is ready to die. The same goes to national pride for which nations are ready to go to war. It is therefore malevolent to stoke the embers of self-pride and national pride and not expect and backlash. The dominant theme in International relations should be respect for the rights of nations to self-determination without undue interference from the meddlesome super-powers.
A qualitative leap in bilateral and multilateral relations will be the outcome if respect is given to all states and all peoples. In a racist and xenophobic world, peace will remain elusive. In a nuclear world, we must devise new strategies to safeguard the planet. We must be fair to future generations by ensuring common patrimony and intergenerational equity. Asking nations to go beyond the nation-state into a globalised system is a hollow call because the parameters have not yet been mapped out for the eventual surrender to globalization.
The Earth Summit in Rio provided doubts about environmental security and global chance. Recent pronouncements on the environmental order by some state have weakened the effectiveness of environmental law and governance. This has made compliance control very difficult.
Without assurances on sustainable development in the light of the Rio Conference, globalization will take the back seat. The clear message the world got by the events of September 11, 2001, is that the international society is not yet a legal community since peace has been severally affected. Chernobyl, the Sandox Conflagration, the Rhine Pollution, the greenhouse effect, tornadoes, earth-quakes, monsoons, Sahel drought, the environmental catastrophe of the Coast of Alaska, the approaching meteorites, all show that we live in a dangerous Planet and to create additional problem through terrorist acts will add to our problems.
OPENING THE GATES OF HELL
The Third World Way has been itching to happen since 1999. Some people have constantly reminded us about the prediction of Michel De Nostre-Dame (1503-1566), a Jewish astrologer and physician, who was born at Remy. His predictions have had an extensive vogue. He had a stern sense of tragedy and a great intellectual influence on Catherine de Medici and Charles IX. He predicted that the world would come to an end in 1999 or thereabout. With nuclear, thermonuclear, neutron, atomic and hydrogen bombs in the hands of desperate people all over the world, anything can happen.
European states respect self-determination in keeping with medieval rationalism. However, this way of looking at nations struggling for real national patriotic governance is apparently absent from modern diplomatic practice. The dominant political philosophy after the Second World War has been shaped by the world-views of hawkish European/American intellectuals and bureaucrats. After Second World War, European American scholars and their Soviet counterparts engaged in Cold War politics.
Of course there was much confusion and crudity of thought in their postulations. Yet, politicians and civil society were taken in by their bombast. Communist theory and capitalist thinking both revealed eminently, the limits of human thought, which is often adorned by human errors. They, however, also make us realize that there is no use running on the wrong road. The problem is that at times, some leaders do not know even they are on the wrong road.
Capitalist and social thought have polarized the ideological foundation of world politics. Their operational thesis was and remains, “He who is not with us is against us”. As a result of the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist influence on Afro-Asian-Arab intellectuals and politicians since 1945, may states adopted the socialist mode of development. This put them in the orbit of “enemies of capitalist states”. The Americans do not approve of socialist states like Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, all the former Soviet States, USSR, Yugoslavia, China, Yemen, Iraq, Congo, Angola, Syria, Guinea, Ghana under Kwame Nkrumah, Egypt under Nasser, Libya, etc. These governments according to Washington DC, should undergo regime change, if necessary, by the use or threat of the use of force. In each of the “Pariah” countries, a sustaining resistance to this attitude has gained pre-eminence.
Iraq stands out as a defiant, socialist-oriented state under the rule of the Ba’ath Socialist Movement – a political organization of ideologically, oriented people led by Saddam Hussein. Although many socialist-oriented states have been disorganized, Cuba, Iraq, North Korea, Vietnam and China have remained steadfast to the displeasure of Western imperial, political protagonists. Iraq’s miscalculated move to “liberate” Kuwait from feudal rule led to a mass onslaught on Iraq by the forces of the United Nations and other interest groups. The 1991 UN attack was only partially successful. Iraq rebuilt quickly.
Iraq, which was accused rightly or wrongly of possessing of weapons of mass destruction has remained “enemy No. 1” of Western Nations. Shortly after the swearing in of President George W. Bush, in 2001, his administration attacked Iraq, which indicated the struggles to come. Since 2002, the airlines have not been doing well, corporate fraud has weakened investor confidence, a lot of jobs have been lost and more are on the line, the Euro-Dollar exchange rate has been widening gradually every month. In short, there is quite some unrest fuelled by the disastrous consequences of the September 11, 2001 inferno, which destroyed the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. The lateral aspect of America’s crisis is the disruption caused by the fight against terrorism and its attendant costs.
George Bush heated up the international political atmosphere when he stridently described North Korea, Iraq and Iran as the “axis of evil”. Those states, which did not agree with Bush, have engaged in diplomatic relations with those states so pejoratively described. The Saudis refused to grant the Americans a base to attack Iraq. As a result, the US became convinced that the Royal House of Saudi was allying with Saddam Hussein. The Saudis who are parallel cousins of the Iraqis reacted by withdrawing their investments from America. The Saudis are known to have kept large sums of money in America through savings and investments.
As a result of alleged complicity in the September 11, 2001 incident in America, some victims and their relations have sued Saudi Arabia in law court in America, going into millions of Dollars but the Saudis refused to accept liability. This will remain a sore point in Saudi-American relations in the near future. The United States of America has recently criticized Russia for doing business with Iraq, Iran and North Korea. It will be naïve to expect Russia to dance to the tune of the United States.
To see Russian diplomacy as being too friendly to Iran and North Korea may push Russia out of America’s orbit of friendship. It will be unwise to seek to offend Russia as that could resurrect the pursuit of antiquated revelries and narrow interests. This could affect international relations. North Korea, Iran and Iraq are known to be states headed by leaders who do not kow-tow to Western interests. They are dubbed the “axis of evil”, whereas independence and political integrity are the corner stones of their national politics.
America may continue to lose her allies if she insists on regarding the sovereign independence of other unfriendly states as inimical to her own national interests. Nations choose to have their own friends and do not feel particularly interested in inheriting the foe of their friends. Recently, the US deplored Russian bombing of Chechnya and accused Indonesia of supporting terrorism. As the circle of accusation widens, the bitter feeling so generated will take time to heal. Sovereignty and the theory of State as eloquently defined by Austin, Salmond and Vyshinsky confer right of choice and reservations on modern states. No state should dictate to others.
The ability of America to tackle the Middle East crisis has been impaired because Islamic states seem to have lost confidence in America’s impartiality. Recently, the United States warned its citizens about visiting Nigeria and tactly advised those in the country to consider leaving. The new “theory of regime change” introduces a dangerous policy in international relations and national security. Article 2, section 4 of the UN Charter prohibits the violation of the territorial integrity and political independence of any member of the United Nation, except where there is real evidence of possession of weapons of mass destruction. The UN can then take action.
If world leaders can remove leaders who they do not like, the, a new dimension would have been introduced into modern international relations. This was what Nelson Mandela drew attention to, during the Earth Summit in Johannesburg, on September 3, 2002. The lukewarm attitude of the United Nations Security Council was intriguing. Kofi Annan said that it would be unwise to attack Iraq on 6th September, 2002. America thought otherwise.
Under the shibboleth of resentment against the regime of Saddam Hussein, lies a morbid fear of the resurgence of Pan-Islamism. This was “a concept of a union of Moslem Powers opposed to Christian powers of Europe”. The expression we learn dates from 2980’s, when the Turkish Sultan Abdul Hamid II used the idea to gain recognition as caliph and spiritual head of all Moslems. The fear had gripped the West that Saddam Hussein could intimidate his neighbors by drawing inspiration from the potent symbolism of Islam. Brilliantly conceived accusations against Saddam Hussein needed incontrovertible evidence to justify putting scales on him.
The determination to bomb Iraq has been met with strong opposition from notable people around the world. These people were infuriated by America’s opposition to the Kyoto Protocol and other unilateral decisions. The majority of American political leaders have been hawkish on Iraq. However, Mr. Clark, former US Attorney General took a purely juristic view of the issue of attack on Iraq. He argued that to attack Iraq based on the speculation that Saddam may have weapons of mass destruction was illegal. He accused the US government of “unleashing a psychological war” on Iraq which violates the laws against peace as proclaimed during the Nuremberg trials of 1947.
On the 29th of August 2002, the US Vice President, Dick Cheney, spoke to US Veterans in San Antonio Texas, where he harped on pre-emptive strike against Iraq. The toughest statement on the matter came from the Egyptian President, Hosni Mubarak, who declared that Egypt would oppose a US attack on Iraq. Also the President of Pakistan, General Musharaf dissociated Pakistan from the Iraqi enterprise. The President of France, Jacques Chirac advised the US to drop the idea of pre-emptive strike and said that it would be unwise to attack Iraq.
Many Arab nations flocked to Baghdad to show solidarity with Saddam Hussein. Iraqi foreign Minister, Tariq Aziz and other high-ranking officials visited Russia, China and other states to draw up support against US war threats. Babylonian and Assyrian diplomacy which the Iraqi’s inherited enabled its top diplomats like Tariq Aziz and others to dissipate the ominous political wave against Iraq at the time. Meanwhile, the price of oil had gone up and was still expected to do so, especially when war got underway.
On 1st September, 2002, Mr. Tony Blair, who had earlier taken a hard-line on Iraq later cautioned President Bush to seen international solidarity through the United Nations Organisation. He later visited George Bush at Camp David. The British press had blamed Tony Blair for his “misplaced allegiance” to the US on the Iraqi issue. Bill Clinton also advised against unilateralism. The Arab states on the 4th of September, 2002, declared that the gates of hell would be opened if America attached Iraq. Asian governments like Japan, China and Pakistan expressed strong disagreement with Washington on its position over Iraq.
The anti-climax to the Iraq-US saga turned full circle when a former marine intelligence officer, Scot Ritter, went to Baghdad to speak to the Iraqi Parliament with a message that he did not think that Iraq could have developed such weapon within a few years after their last inspection in Iraq. He said that George Bush was seeking justification in order to unseat Saddam Hussein. This knocked the bottom out of the US position. This was a great act of courage on the part of Scott Ritter. His speech was detonating. It was replete with scientific annotations and intelligence data.
As a student of diplomacy and intelligence, I took an interest in understanding the properties of an atomic nuclei and the radiation they emit. The works of Becquerel, Marie and Pierre Curie were too complicated and tasking, so I abandoned my ambitions, yet, happily not without gaining useful insight into the devastating nature of some of the weapons of mass destruction Iraq is reputed to have amassed. If these weapons exist they should be eliminated. The Iraqi people did not need them. They needed welfare.
World citizens should insist on partial disarmament and approval of the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purpose only. The German Chancellor, Gerard Schroeder, in good German language said, “Wir konnen Amerca niche helfen, est ist nicht rechftig”. With that bold statement, the aspirant to the German Chancellorship set the European tone on disagreement with the US proposed attack against Iraq. Later, it was clear that he did so to win his re-election.
On the 9th of September 2002, George Bush telephoned the President of Russia, China and France but could not convince them to support his attack on Iraq. The Head of States referred him to the United Nations Organization. When Scott Ritter spoke to the Iraqi National Assembly, he said that it would amount to “historical mistake” if the US attached Iraq. Ritter advised Iraq to be more forthcoming with information on its weaponry in order to avoid war with America.
The Greek Government issued a statement on September 10, 2002, saying that it would not approve of any attack on Iraq. On September 12, 2002, Bush spoke to the United Nations. He had a sympathetic audience. The United Nations is not easily swayed by hard talk but by the provisions of the United Nations Charter.
Under classic international law, the individual “does not have the status of a subject of international law”. Certain crimes, however, are of such international significance that their perpetrators have become increasingly subject to action taken under rules of international law. They can be pursued, indicted, tried and punished in accordance with international criminal law. The offence covered by the law fall into two broad categories. The first includes piracy, hijacking of aircraft, trading in slaves, acts of terrorism and genocide.
International piracy is criminal activity of a most dangerous nature. This is why international law should meet this challenge squarely.
The problem international law encounters in dealing with individuals is complicated by the view that “the individual is merely an object and not a subject of the law of nations”. It can be argued that the individual has received significant protection of his human rights within the system of international law. Since 1948, the individual owes concrete duties to the international society under international law. One of these is to refrain from committing crimes with “an international element”.
It is hereby proposed that any act of terrorism that affects (a) National of another state, or (b) Terrorists who cross the territorial percent of a state into another, holding persons as hostages even if these were their compatriot must be deemed to have committed a fundamental violation of Article 15, 1 (a) (b) of the Geneva Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982, which outlaws piracy jure gentium. Criminal activity under international law must be punished by states. Mr. A.D. Sofaer has charged that international law leaves political violence unregulated and that “the law has a poor record in dealing with international terrorism”. Sofaer goes beyond this to say that “the law applicable to terrorism is not only flawed, it is perverse”.
One wonders why Mr. Sofaer seems to despair about the ineffectiveness of the law in this respect. Being a formal Legal Adviser to the U.S. Department of State, Sofaer is probably aware that military interventions by super-powers in the internal affairs of weaker states do not give the law any better image or authority. This being so, helpless groups suffering from oppression, racism and exploitation rightly or wrongly think that only terror will forcefully make their case known at least, to some extent.
The US invasion of Iraq was an intervention in the internal affairs of Iraq. The United Nations Charter expressed this concern in Article 2(4). It is no excuse to asset that the US wanted to rescue the Iraqi people from the regime of Saddam Hussein, who in the year 2002, voted overwhelmingly for him in an election.
SOME CONCRETE CASES IN HISTORY
When terrorists hijacked the Achille Lauro cruise ship in October 1985, an American citizen, Leon Klinghofer was killed. Earlier in the same year terrorist who hijacked a Trans World Airline flight killed four Americans. There are jurists who argued that the attack on citizens of a particular superpower and their use of oblate, is a response to the policies of that superpower which are often difficult to defend. The same goes for citizens of states that occupy foreign territories, colonialist states and oppressive regimes. This means in effect, that many nations while not supporting terrorism seem to tacitly tolerate its undercurrents.
On May 9, 1972, Japanese terrorists in the service of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) shot civilian passengers at Lod Airport in Israel. Twenty-eight persons died and 78 were wounded. The Black September Movement murdered eleven members of the Israeli Olympic Organization on September 5, 1972, in Munich. In 1972, five people hijacked a plain in the United States of America, demanded and received one million dollars and flew to Algeria. When they subsequently flew to France, the state rejected an extradition request from the US government on the basis that they were fleeing from racial segregation in America and were associated with a political movement.
On December 27, 1985, terrorists from the Abu Nidal Group attached passengers in both Vienna and Rome, killing nineteen passengers including five Americans. Later, a bomb, which exploded in a West Berlin discotheque killed Sergeant Kenneth T. Ford and a Turkish woman and injured 200 persons. These events allegedly caused the United States of America to bomb Tripoli and Benghazi on April, 1986.
THE KUWAIT BOEING 747 INCIDENT
The hijacking of a Kuwait Boeing 747 by Arab terrorists on April 5, 1988 added a yet ugly chapter to the disturbing trend of forceful seizure of airlines and the taking of hostages. The most abhorrent thing in the practice is the conversion of human beings into objects of political negotiations and exchange. On April 5, 1988, terrorist hijacked the Kuwaiti passenger airline on its way to from Bangkok. The plane was forced to land first in Masched in North Iran, then in Larnaka, Cyprus and finally in Algiers. In the process, some passengers were subject to inhuman and degrading treatment. Two Kuwaiti military officers were killed and dropped off the place at Larnaka airport.
In Lebanon, a group of Islamic fundamentalist held some Europeans hostage, threatening to kill them if the plane at Larnaka Airport was not allowed to leave Cyprus. The terrorists had demanded the release of 117 Islamic fundamentalists in a Kuwaiti jail. After the plane landed in Algiers, the Interior Minister of Algeria, Kadiri, entered into negotiations with the terrorists and eventually secured the release of the hostages after prolonged and frustrating negotiations.
It would appear that hostage taking and hijacking of aircrafts have become instruments of political, ideological and religious power struggle in the last two decades. There are irremediable injustices that lead social humans to absurdities. These range from effects of colonial injustices, racism, oppression, repression and other indubitable wrongs prevalent in contemporary international system. The lack of an effective remedial system and the nonchalant attitude of certain powers, which are actually responsible for some of the injustices mentioned above create an atmosphere of helplessness, thus pushing socially conscious persons to undertake desperate though despicable acts in order to dramatize their discontent. The popular view is that international law had not done much to regulate political violence.
The fault is not in international law but in the deficient method of international adjudication, which is consistently thwarted by the veto power enjoyed by five members of the Security Council. The Council members permit ideological differences to dominate fair consideration of those matters that should be dispassionately examined and deliberated upon the resonance of this imbalance in judgment is felt also in the General Assembly of the United Nations, where the representatives of various governments look at issues from the point of view of “national interests” rather than base their decisions on good judgment.
It must be accepted that some terrorists acts are reactions to injustices and this realization “tend to excuse, if not justify these acts”. The existence of social, political, economic and historical injustices must be acknowledged as reason for some despicable acts carried out by terrorists and a solid attempt should be made to remedy these injustices.
The violation of human rights by the racist government in South Africa forced many citizens in South Africa to engage in terrorist acts, some, in self-defense. Oppression and suppression of the people’s right to independence and self-determination often resulted in terrorist acts in colonial states or racist enclaves. The lack of social, economic, political and civil rights had in th past led to revolutions in Russia, France, the United States, etc. Lack of civil liberties had resulted in coup d’état in Africa, Asia and Latin America. The deduction one can make upon this historical survey is that terrorist acts, in some cases, are a reaction to violations of human rights of minorities.
THE NEED TO RESPECT HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL LAWS IN THE GLOBAL FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISM
The main object of this chapter is to focus on the need for the International Community to respect laws and human rights in the global fight against terrorism. In the wake of the September 11 attacks, the British Administration and a broad coalition of the Nations, pledged to take action to bring those responsible for the attacks to justice. But in many respects, the campaign against terrorism had seen the erosion of international laws, rather than their enforcement. Human rights have now been undermined at the very time they should have been observed.
In its handling of alleged Taliban and Al-Qaeda prisoners, the United States kept some prisoners in Cuba. Under the Geneva Conventions they should have been tried. Instead of properly determining the legal status of detainees in accordance with the Geneva Conventions and prosecuting those responsible for acts of terrorism, the Bush Administration sought to create a Special Military Tribunal. Widespread criticism of this policy seemed to have pushed the administration in a new direction. Forsaking the Geneva Conventions requirements for immediate trials in favour of long term, indefinite detentions.
The Bush Administration also used Immigration Laws and its definition of the enemy combatants to by-pass the criminal justice system and deny due process safeguards to persons it interrogated and detained as part of its September 11 investigations and the executive increased its powers of surveillance, investigation and detention while seeking to block public scrutiny and meaningful judicial review. These actions by the United States set a precedent and gave other countries the green light also to erode judicial safeguards or enact counter-terrorist measures that violated International Human Rights Standards. Also around the world, many of the United States allies took advantage of the war to justify human rights abuses and took a cue from America.
Some governments have used the campaign against terrorisms as an excuse for justice crackdown and abuses against opponents. For example, in India, the government introduced the prevention of terrorism ordinance, a modified version of previous security laws, which facilitated torture, and arbitrary detention of minority groups and political opponents. In Pakistan, General Musharraf cracked-down on suspected militants, while also consolidating his military grip on power and unilaterally extending his term as a President for five years.
Other governments particularly in the West adopted punitive and restrictive measures against asylum-seekers and immigrants. In Australia, the government used the September 11 attack as a justification for the summary expulsion of asylum seekers who had reached Australian territory, in blatant violation of international refugee law. In the United Kingdom, a new law authorized the prolonged arbitrary detention of foreigners suspected of terrorist activity.
The officials in the administration of British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, should take care to address the factors that led individuals and groups to such brutal violence. The answer to this question is that rather than relying on international law as an essential tool in the fight against terrorism, the Blair administration treated it as an encumbrance. An increasing powerful clique within his administration pursued a radical vision. This was the reason they kept on undermining many of the United Nations efforts towards securing a better and peaceful world for all like the setting up of the International Criminal Court and supporting States in violating many of the United Nations resolutions towards settling the Middle East conflict, particularly those on the Palestinian issues. We hope that the Bush road map will come to the rescue.
Another disturbing aspect of the war was that many Americans especially some of their politicians think that they could protect themselves from terrorism. They did not realize that the events of September 11 had moved the US into a new era of World history. In this new era, sheer military might is no protection. No longer can strong nations attack weak ones with impunity. The September 11 attacks have also proven that fear of punishment would not stop terrorism, in the same way it lessens street crime. After all, what good does the threat of punishment do to men who expect to sacrifice their lives?
Looking ahead therefore, there is need to re-affirm that the World Community’s response to terrorism needs to be based on the fundamental principles of human rights and dignity, thereby promoting social and economic justice in a world in which one group feels that another is looking down upon it, a world that will remain insecure. All member states of the United Nationals must respect the fundamental tenets of the United Nations charter and they must also be treated equally when any matter comes before the Assembly or the Security Council.
During the debate on Iraq, the United Nations Security Council, a Syrian representative, confirmed that there were over 500 United Nations’ resolution on the settlement of Arabs/Israeli/Palestinian conflict which Israel, with the support of the United States had consistently disregarded and the United Nations did not make any effort to ensure the implementation of those resolutions.
It has therefore become necessary for member states of the United Nations to ensure not only the implementation of resolution 1441 on Iraq weapons inspection but all other resolutions which were passed by the United Nations. This will go a long way in settling most of the raging conflicts around the world and ensuring a better world for all.
A NEW UNITED NATIONS ORGANISATION: SUGGESTIONS
In September 2003, the old United Nations met after the Iraqi War. Just as curiosity killed the cat, so hatred for Saddam Hussein killed the United Nations. The United Nations Organization died in the spring of 2003, with little hope of resurrection, all pretences to fence mending, notwithstanding. It is ironical that just as hatred for the Jews drove Adolph Hitler to the extreme and the result was the 2nd World War, so hatred for Saddam Hussein and the Ba’th Socialists drove those who disagreed with their policies, to unleash the Iraqi 2nd war.
As Hitler’s misadventure resulted in the formation of the anti-Hitler coalition that led to the establishment of old United Nations Organization, so will the destruction of Iraq bring about the creation of a New United Nations or its total re-structuring. The destruction of Carthage after the 3rd Punic War by Rome sowed the needs that ended the Roman Empire.
If the predictions of Nostradamus materialize (God forbid), then these are the end of times. It is still a puzzle to me that in spite of the acceptance of the Brain-Kellogg Pact of 1928, which outlawed war as an instrument of national policy, the Iraqi war played out in full view of mankind’s conscience already partially deadened by T.V. war games. Episode of pain, on seeing the heavy bombardment of Iraq were reminiscent of Hitler’s bombardment of Leningrad.
Before and during the war, France, Germany, Belgium, Russia and China raised voices of dissent but the superior firepower of the “Gyrators” drowned their protests. Since a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still, these UN members have been nursing their wounds. When the General Assembly of the UN met in September 2003, angry voices were raised and there were calls for a new order among nations and a re-statement of those ideas that helped the UNO to be a tranquilizing force in a cantankerous world since 1945.
After the Iraqi war, which is yet to abate, cold handshakes and shifty glances were exchanged during the Leningrad and Evlan meetings. It was clear that a new United Nations must materialize; otherwise the bitterness engendered by the Iraqi imbroglio would persist to thwart future efforts at a rapprochement. It is obvious that the anti-Saddam coalition has collapsed with angry demands in Britain, Australia and Spain over the inability of the coalition forces to find the alleged weapons of mass destruction. The Spanish Prime Minister has indicated that he would not seek re-election. Blair was under tremendous pressure, so was Howard. The military-political alliance was standing on a broken tripod.
When the war in Korea and Indo-China ended in the 1950s, the aftermath has remained a bitter pill and the war in the middle-East seen by Arabs as a war against “Islam by the Crusaders”, would not just go away by promises to offer the Iraqis life more abundant. The world has become unsafe as a result of the Iraqi war. The world economy is in shambles. Jobs have been lost, interpersonal relationships have bee strained. Mistrust is now married to distrust and they would produce a mongrel.
There is, therefore, need for a new United Nations Organization based on mutual respect, mutual advantage and full and unequivocal respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of member states. Its first conference should address the issue of global, total disarmament. It does not make sense for some powerful nations to possess weapon of mass destruction while regarding small nations with lesser arsenal as a threat to world peace.
Chernobyl and other nuclear accidents in developed states point clearly to the unpredictability of nuclear technology. We must lessen international tension worldwide by eliminating hated, xenophobia, discrimination and untoward superiority complex, founded upon ignorance of the destiny of the cosmic programme, and the universal gait.
There is an upsurge in the mass education of all people, who enjoy the advantages of the benevolence of the cosmic enterprise spreading around the world so, only die-hard racists can think of themselves as occupying a high valley in this universe of man. As the history of the struggles of Africans, Asians, Latin Americans shows, the world has been changed within fifty years and can face better and further improvements under a new United Nations Organization.
No-one, but no-one can pretend to fashion out the structure, ideology and programmes of the new United Nations Organization. My humble efforts have yielded suggestions and subjective positions, which I will publish when the universal movement towards a new United Nations Organization begins to gain acceleration in the right direction.
North Korea Detonates a Hydrogen Bomb in the Peninsular of Unpredictability.
On January 6, 2016, the North Korea detonated a hydrogen bomb, according to its media. The world caught a cold. The UN and some states condemned the action. The North Koreans chose a psychological moment a day after Barack Obama spoke out against gun sales without enough background checks. Obama wept.
There was a failure of intelligence because the intelligence agencies could not predict the surprised detonation of the hydrogen bomb in spite of hint by Kim. “We don’t know” is no excused.
UN condemnations have been shrug off by North Korea, which has taken a triumphant tone about its achievement. Our World Intelligence Unit hinted the world about hydrogen bombs “breeders”. (See Buhari’s Victory: “The Role of Military Intelligence and Political Intelligence” (News Watch Times 30th December 2015.)
To doubt whether the bomb was hydrogen, atomic or neutron, does matter. In the era of the anti-Christ intelligence definitions and theories meet a more intensive elaboration. If the intelligence community will still continue to rely on misleading permutations, instead of accurate and precise data, we are not safe.
To engage in derogatory postulations that North Koreans are hungry and are seeking recognition and are isolated is an old wives’ tales. A country that is armed to the teeth, whose citizens have imbibed the “JUCHE ideology of nationalism and patriotism can be formidable when the chips are down.
UN Charter on the Rights and Duties of States.
The UN Charter needs to be revised in order to include new provisions on the DUTIES of states in the area of nuclear acquisition and testing of same.
The present international legal regime has proved inadequate to regulate nuclear, thermo-nuclear, neutron, atomic and hydrogen bombs in the overload arsenals of super-powers.
NIGERIA’S POLITICIANS OF YESTERDAY
Before, during and after the last elections, various well documented attempts were made to destroy Nigeria. A list of 1000 persons were penciled down for annihilation. A continuity programme was designed by half-baked men.
Then the Holy Watchers intervened. The people who were behind the various plots have now been identified by government. Recently, a plot was quietly foiled and the plotters are under surveillance.
Those who practiced “KPO OKU LO OWO “ politics that killed Dele Giwa, Bola Ige, Joe Garba, Tunde Idiagbon and earlier Tafawa balewa, Festus Okotie Eboh, Akintola, Murtala Mohammed, Aguiyi Ironsi, etc, are still around (1966-2014). The Holy Watchers have saved Nigeria from disintegration. All our politicians with guilty conscience are now living in fear.
In reaction to the infamy of Dasukigate, the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) put out a puerile ignorant assertion that the former National Security Adviser to Jonathan was being “persecuted” because of his “ambition to contest presidential elections in 2019”. What an illogicality and this statement was made by a party which governed Nigeria for 16 years and whose leaders are undergoing corruption charges. What a pity.
The PDP has learned nothing and forgotten everything. In 2011, just within a few months after PDP came to power, the party became obsessed with winning the 2015 election. They did not address the promises they made in their manifesto at all. They succeeded in bankrupting Nigeria but the people voted them out and the party is manifesting its dying throes.
Why did the PDP not nominate Dasuki for Presidential elections in 2015? Their nominee ran from pillar to post, consulted marabouts, Ogoni fraternity, bribed journalists, Obas, Pastors, and went to the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem, all to no avail.
The tide has turned against all “YESTERDAY MEN and WOMEN”. They have no place to hide as their collaborators are now exposing their dark and hidden acts. “Nothing is hidden under the sun”. for “God is not mocked whatever people and nations sow they shall reap”.
To talk about persecution of corrupt Nigeria is a cock and bull story. Those who kept company with political wolf have now learnt to howl. Most statements by our MEN and WOMEN OF YESTERDAY are crowned with pearls of unwisdom.
Those Nigerians, who were associated with wealth and fame have been exposed as crooks, thieves and looters of state funds. They are destroyers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Rev. Mbaka told the nation at the beginning of the year that our “YESTERDAY MEN and WOMEN” who are planning a revenge will fail because God is in control of our state.
ARMOUR OF CONCEIT
From 1999 to 2014, our renegade politicians, “statesmen” wore the amour of conceit, deception, pseudonationalism and vain patriotism and under the shibboleth of nation do-gooders, robbed the nation, feathered their nests and lived on mountain tops for all to see. Vanity took over their consciousness and their pretensions could be gleaned from their demagogy and stupid pride. How are the “mighty fallen”? Their lives are now in despair and endless decay.
I am developing my theories about man’s inhumanity to man. The empirical evidence the Nigeria and Iraqi experience offered me has been very helpful in my quest. My interest in Darwin’s evolutionary theory has spread to the field of mental inheritance. I cannot but ask after watching the destruction of Iraq whether Calvary was worth it, since MAN has not shown his gratitude for the BLOOD that was shed. My pessimism, however, cannot becloud the resurrection of JESUS CHRIST and the victory over evil, which is permanent. The decline of all empires begin with the callousness of a Herod and the careless mien of a Nero.
As our “YESTERDAY MEN and WOMEN” regret their yester acts and are wallowing in their fear of tomorrow; they are learning the right lessons of life’s tragedies.
The wicked acted singularly and collectively against the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Those who are known to belong to occult brotherhoods, swore allegiance to the party chieftains. Since to swear is to call God to witness and since God cannot be on the side of their evil machination, they failed.
They were incompetent and engaged in group dynamics and evil-doing. In practicing “Kpo Oku Lowo Politics” from 1999 – 2014, the tribal collective, these people engaged in sinister activities that hurt their victims now their victors. (See Commentaries on “Contemporary Nigeria Politics” Authorhouse Publishing Company, UK 2013 at page 3 “ The Wicked and the Awesomeness of God”.
Our “YESTERDAY MEN” and WOMEN’s art of politics is to practice looting national funds, play the “big men and women” with stolen national resources. They have now been listed among the “Destroyers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria”. They visited churches, paid their tithes, consulted occultists, in order to deceive the gullible citizens.
The complexity of Locke’s theory cannot explain the philosophical ambiguities that are embedded in the reason, act and value of Nigerian politics. So, we still do things in the same old ways.
Sociocratic philosophical radicalism can pave the way for the sociocratic revolution that could help Nigeria to gain acceleration in the right direction.
Relying on Nigerian leaders, who became rich as a result of their looting the treasury when they rigged or gunned their way to leadership cannot provide the culture evinced in a sociocratic dispensation in Nigeria.
A sociocratic state creates the institutions and environment for the Sociology that will challenge the impunity decadence and moral indifference that has plagued our nation since 1960, and especially under the Obasanjo/Jonathan regimes, when Nigeria went down but has not broken up.