Connect with us

International Law

Refugee Capitalism: A Mess of Moral Convenience and Ruthless Politics

Brian Hughes

Published

on

The Syrian refugee crisis has clearly displayed the difficulties of Western societies to accept culturally and religiously different peoples in the wake of regional civil war.

This is in contrast to previous refugee crisis solutions that were fully embraced and enforced successfully (elaborated below). Namely, the decision on whether to accept Syrian refugees has hinged on the perceived immediate detrimental effects to the economy and a not-so-subtle concern about ‘hidden terrorism.’ This is not only a more brutal side to globalization, but is also using terrorism to power a new xenophobia, turning refugees into something akin to human capital estimates.

The Iranian Example

Historically, perhaps the most telling refugee immigration was the Iranian one, lasting decades in the long shadow of the Ayatollah revolution. At a time when the United States’ population was diametrically opposed to the Iranian government, America still kept its borders to Iranian migrants and refugees largely open. Importantly, due to the Shah’s close relationship with Washington, Iranian familiarity with English, and Western education, there was relatively little transitional difficulty for the Iranian population. Iranian immigration largely continued unabated, with nearly 15 percent of Iranians with a tertiary education leaving for the US by 1990. Additionally, the IMF reported that more than half of the over 420,000 Iranians living in the US with higher education degrees were physicians or engineers. Thus, even as the political and societal opposition to Iran was at a heightened state, the US clearly recognized the economic value of Iranian refugees and did not fear there were ‘secret Ayatollah plants’ trying to get in.

The Iranian migration is in stark contrast to American (and Western in general) reaction to Syrian refugees, many of which have little firm knowledge of English, are poorly educated, and are perceived to observe very different cultural customs and religions. While the US abruptly went from allies to enemies with the new Ayatollah regime, public opinion about Iranians had not changed to reflect the changing political situation. Numbers affirm this: as refugees and migrants from Iran continually increased throughout the 1980s, they were mostly accepted into the US, found success in the wake of fleeing their home state, and are the most highly educated among all refugee groups in the US.

The Yugoslav Example

As a result of the civil war in Bosnia between 1992 and 1995, a third of its entire population now lives outside of its borders. Germany alone contains approximately 240,000 Bosnian refugees. At the time of the mass migration of Bosnian refugees, the rhetoric was almost identical to what is expressed about Syrians today. In 1996, the Economist noted that “most countries are simply slamming their doors in the interest of looking after their own.” In addition, Germany took the brunt of Bosnian refugees and criticized the UN Convention on refugees and overall EU policy as incoherent. Despite this German chastising, most European countries simply ignored or refused Yugoslav refugees, as the crisis was far from their borders and they were not involved in the war. The Bosnian crisis is echoed nearly two decades later as Syria fits many of the same attributes, including the same ‘problematic’ religion as Bosnians.

Kosovo was similar to the Bosnian crisis, but had very different timelines and outcomes. As NATO controversially got involved in the Kosovo crisis in 1999, there came a deep moral obligation to assist in the refugee problem. This largely stemmed from the fact that NATO air strikes helped displace over 1.5 million people, with 800,000 of them being refugees. Thus, NATO created its own very painful dilemma, being seen as both liberators in war and yet also forcing the Kosovo population from their homes. Therefore, largely because the Western world was directly involved in the unrest, it felt obliged and responsible to help those forced to flee. It also seemed important to repair the diplomatic public relations image of NATO.

A very stark difference is evident in the NATO assistance to Kosovo vs. Bosnia: refugees were centered around nearby countries, not in far-off developed Western states, as the conflict ended relatively swiftly. This may be why there is such reluctance and slow reaction from NATO countries for Syria today: the conflict is most certainly not going to be short-lived and refugees cannot be housed safely in the most immediate nearby countries, thus demanding greater participation from far-off ones.

The Haiti Example

Similar to Syria, Haiti was experiencing an unstable government and tumultuous political climate from the 1980s through the 1990s. During the massive influx of 100,000 Mariel Cuban refugees in 1980 (who had special protections), some 1000 Haitians also arrived each month. In 1981, President Reagan changed the policy on “excludable aliens” and as a result Haitians were subject to incarceration and exclusion proceedings. Additionally, the Republic of Haiti and the United States formally agreed that the US would interdict on the Haiti “boat people” and Haiti would do no harm to them when they were returned. During the next ten years over 350 vessels and 21,000 Haitians were intercepted, with only six admitted to the US. Damnably, the same policy that allowed Cubans to stay and become citizens never applied to Haitians. Perhaps more tellingly, after the Cold War ended in 1994, the policy toward Cubans was also reversed and Cubans were then treated like the “Haitian boat people.” Thus, while the Cubans and Haitians were nearly identical in mode of transportation and time of arrival, their treatment did not become identical until the Cold War was decisively over, insinuating that the deeply divided politics between Cuba and the US decided refugee and migration treatment, not the actual crisis situation on the ground in-country. This could be most disturbing when looking at Syria: without an explicit and highly defined Cold War proxy development (though some might say that is happening now with Russian air strikes against DAESH in Syria), it seems that many Western countries will not find Syrian refugee populations important enough to make sacrifices.

As parts of the developed world have made additional pledges to take in more refugees, much of the world is refusing to do so. Predominantly, this has been dominated in the media by Hungary’s closure of its borders and Japan’s echoing of European history when it declared it would take care of its own people before caring for others. However, while xenophobia plays a large role, these decisions can only occur in a country that has no moral, economic or political benefit for accepting refugees. In the United States, accepting Iranians meant allowing the best of Iran into its borders (who were also diametrically opposed to the anti-American revolutionary regime). Cubans were welcomed in face of the anti-American Civil War as deserters of dictatorship and a prong against the Soviet Union. This element does not exist yet in Syria and thus, apparently, Syrian refugees are simply out of luck.

The goal of Western countries should be to eliminate these various cultural and political prerequisites for accepting refugees. While the Refugee Convention of 1951 is easily navigated around, public opinion and strong leadership can enforce humanitarian ideals in the face of xenophobic realizations, as has been shown by Germany in 1995 and again two decades later. Refugees being judged ‘worthy or unworthy’ according to their long-term human capital to the hosting nation is viciously cruel and ruthless, even if economically rational. The Syrian refugee crisis presents a soft power opportunity that is distressingly rare. Western countries must stop turning to isolationism and their policy concerns must not continually and conveniently turn inward. Hungarian barbed wire and American Islamophobia does not represent the Western ideals of democracy and human freedom. Rather, they are antithetical and regressive. There is nothing wrong with the free market per se, accept when it is forcibly used in the Syrian crisis to create a ‘refugee capitalism’ that should be the shame of Western leaders and will no doubt become a huge destabilizing regional problem, especially across the Greater Caspian region.

Brian Hughes is currently a student in the International Security and Intelligence Studies program at Bellevue University in Omaha, NE, USA.

Continue Reading
Comments

International Law

Will Israel Be Expelled from U.N.?

Eric Zuesse

Published

on

The conditions of membership in the U.N. are specified in the U.N. Charter. Specifically, “Articles 5 and 6 of the Charter of the United Nations deal respectively with suspension of rights and privileges of membership, and with expulsion from the United Nations.” But the operative part is Article 6, which reads:

“A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.”

Israel certainly qualifies, but the United States Government, which is controlled by the anti-Shia and anti-Iran alliance between Israel’s Government providing the anti-Iran lobbyists and propagandists, and the Saudi Government providing the anti-Iran bribe-money, won’t allow that. Consequently, no matter how violative of the U.N. Charter Israel is, it cannot be expelled.

The United States Government likewise is routinely violating the U.N. Charter and cannot be expelled, because this very Government is on the U.N.’s own Security Council as one of the five permanent members: it would veto its own expulsion.

Consequently, a fatal flaw in the current U.N. Charter is that no vote by the U.N. General Assembly can expel a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council. Nor can they expel any member of the General Assembly that’s backed by one or more members of the permanent Security Council. Until this situation is changed and a stated percentage of the votes from the General Assembly can expel a member from the U.N. General Assembly, there can be no international accountability applied against a member of the U.N. Security Council permanent five nations; and the U.S. Government, being a member of that, will continue to be allowed to do whatever its Saudi and Israeli masters want it to do — thereby protecting both Israel and Saudi Arabia themselves, and giving each of those two masters virtually as much freedom-of-action as the U.S. has; the U.S. Government’s masters buy impunity, indirectly, from their protector.

This is not a world of international law; it is a world of international force — basically a world of conquest and submission (and subversion can be part of that), which mocks democracy internationally (and maybe even domestically), and therefore effectively corrupts and prevents democracy within all nations that the controlling masters in Saudi Arabia and in Israel demand.

The most fatal failure of the U.N. Charter is thus its prohibiting any amendment that one of the five permanent Security Council members opposes.

The issue of what the conditions would be for amending the U.N. Charter was debated while the U.N. Charter was being drawn up in 1945, but nothing effective was agreed to, and so the U.N’s PR on the matter states only that “the question of future amendments to the Charter received much attention and finally resulted in an agreed solution.” They don’t say what that “solution” was, but there have been no controversial amendments made to the Charter, during its 73 years, so whatever it might have been was almost totally ineffective. A web-search for “U.N. Charter” plus “proposed amendment” produces no major “proposed amendment” but does, near the top, show what that (obviously failed) “agreed solution” (which the U.N. tries to hide) was; and it is:

“This concession took the form of Articles 108 and 109 concerning Charter review procedures. While Article 108 describes the required steps for making specific amendments, Article 109 introduces the option of a review conference outside of the usual General Assembly (GA) meetings with the purpose of a comprehensive “review” of the Charter. Both these avenues for making changes to the UN Charter include the criteria of two-thirds of the UN member states voting for and ratifying a proposed amendment. However, in addition, “all the permanent members of the Security Council” must also ratify before the amendment goes into force. This unanimous concurrence of the P5

[the five permanent members] is the biggest challenge to adopting any amendment to the UN Charter.”

In other words: The U.N. Charter’s colossal (and thus-far fatal) failure was in its including the 5-member permanent Security Council’s veto-provision to apply even to any proposed amendment to the Charter. Only an amendment which all five permanent members support can pass. Here is such an amendment. No matter how much of the rest of the world want a particular change to be made, it can’t be done unless all five of the permanent members of the Security Council will accept it. This is the harmful dictatorial power that the five permanents were granted, but it can be eliminated without eliminating the Security Council itself (as will be discussed later here).

Consequently: In order to boot Israel or any other international rogue-nation out of the U.N., an amendment would first be needed, which would apply a degree of accountability to each member of the U.N. permanent Security Council, by stripping the provision that inappropriately applies their veto-power even over the consideration of any proposed amendment. Obviously: amending the Charter should be a matter for consideration only by the General Assembly — without any veto-power being held by any one nation. Amendment isn’t regular U.N. action: it concerns the Charter itself.

The biggest difference between a religious Scripture and a democratic constitution (such as the U.N. Charter was intended to be for the entire world) is that whereas the former (Scripture) includes no provision for its being amended, the latter (a democratic constitution) does — or else it instead is actually a religious Scripture, something to be taken only on faith, no democracy at all, nothing suitable for the Age of Science, and thus for a future of democracy. This faith-basis being the actual epistemological status of the U.N. Charter — unless and until its amendment-section becomes itself amended to what it needs to be — that Charter is a religious Scripture, and the U.N. is more a religion than a democracy of any kind, so long as there exists any nation that can veto any proposed change to the founding document. Though intended to be the emerging democratic constitution for the future world, the existing U.N. Charter is instead just a type of religion, and this is its Scripture. (Though, as noted, uncontroversial amendments may be considered in it; so, the U.N. isn’t fully a religious institution.)

Consequently, to address these problems, I propose that the members of the U.N. Security Council that wish to establish through the U.N. a democracy and transform the U.N. so as to abandon its current status as being a religion, push, at the U.N., relentlessly, for a measure to unlock the U.N. Charter — to enable it finally to be significantly amended and allow a two-thirds vote of the General Assembly to pass into international law as an Amendment to the emerging global Constitution, the no longer religion, but instead henceforth the democracy, of an unlocked Charter of the United Nations — thereby causing the existing Scripture to be henceforth a Constitution.

Unless and until this (the introduction of the General Assembly’s exclusive ability to amend the Charter) is done, there can be no progress, only continued regress to international dictatorship and a World War III, and so in the direction of even more global dictatorship — this time likely ending in global extermination (precisely what the U.N. was intended to avoid).

Any member of the Security Council who would oppose removing that provision — the veto-power’s extending even to any proposed amendment to the Charter — would be clearly an international pariah-Government and enemy of democracy, which all the rest of the world could then boycott and penalize outside the U.N. until that pariah-nation becomes defeated economically and thus effectively becomes coerced by economic means to become a decent member-state in the international community.

This is an existential issue for the future of a livable planet. A basic condition for progress is the elimination, from the Charter, of the clause:

“including all the permanent members of the Security Council.”

That phrase must be removed both from Article 108 and from Article 109, Paragraph 2, both of which say:

“108. Amendments to the present Charter shall come into force for all Members of the United Nations when they have been adopted by a vote of two-thirds of the members of the General Assembly and ratified in accordance with their respective

[individual national] constitutional processes by two-thirds of the Members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the Security Council.”

“109:2. Any alteration of the present Charter recommended by a two-thirds vote of the conference shall take effect when ratified in accordance with their respective constitutional processes by two thirds of the Members of the United Nations including all the permanent members of the Security Council.”

The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council are: China, France, Russia, UK, and U.S. U.S. would try to block removal of that phrase “including all the permanent members of the Security Council.” On 14 May 2018, Russia’s Sputnik News bannered “UK Has no Plans to Move Embassy to Jerusalem, Disagrees With US on Issue – May”, and this indicates that the U.S. well might be the only member that would fight to block democratization of the U.N. — to unlock the Charter for all U.N. members.

The precipitating event for this call for correcting the Charter would be the virtually unanimous repugnance of the entire world other than the U.S., regarding Israel’s string of brazen in-your-face violations of the Charter and of much of international law. Taking advantage of this intense global outrage — plus of the many outrageous actions by the U.S. Government itself — provides a rare opportunity to make the long-delayed but essential reform of the U.N., as follows:

America is the only member, of the five permanent members of the Security Council, that is so under the boot of Israel and of the Sauds. America is controlled by its own aristocracy, which are heavily interlocked with those of Israel and especially of Saudi Arabia and its other vassals, such as UAE but more broadly including the Gulf Cooperation Council of Arabic fundamentalist-Sunni royal families — and that includes a large portion of the world’s wealth. The American portion of that Imperial alliance includes control over many of the world’s largest consumer-brands, and is thus (unlike either of its masters) especially highly vulnerable to international public-image problems, such as any consumer boycotts.

There might be a way to save the world. This might be the way to a progressive future, reversing the worst of what has happened after the death of FDR (who, more than any other person, laid the groundwork for the U.N.).

Though the U.S. Government might succeed in winning the UK’s support to block democratization of the U.N., such boycotts might produce a democratic victory, if not immediately, then still within a reasonably short time, such as happened when apartheid was removed from South Africa. But this victory would be not only for the Palestinians — it would be for all peoples everywhere — a world moving in the direction of international democracy, no longer like now, in the direction of increased international dictatorship.

Continue Reading

International Law

Liberum Veto and the Monkey and the Pea

Dr. Andrey KORTUNOV

Published

on

To paraphrase the beginning of Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina: all effective structures are alike; each ineffective structure is ineffective in its own way. The problems with the effectiveness of the UN Security Council are in many ways unique, as unique as the body itself. In recent years, only the laziest have failed to reproach the Security Council for dragging its feet, acting irresponsibly, getting bogged down in political infighting and pointless rhetoric, and being unwilling or unable to agree on the most pressing crisis situations, from Syria and Ukraine to Palestine and Myanmar.

For all its diversity, criticism of the Security Council has two main points. The first point is related to the composition of the Council itself, and the second is connected to the procedures of its operation. The current choices for the Security Council’s permanent members, or Big Five, are questionable to say the least. China is represented, but India is absent. France and the United Kingdom are present, but Germany or the European Union as a whole are not. Neither Africa nor the Middle East nor Latin America are represented. As for procedures, the primary bone of contention is the veto enjoyed by the five permanent members, which allows any of the Big Five to block any and all decisions that fail to please them.

It is clear that the first of the two problems looks more interesting, though the second one is of more importance. The prospect of expanding the Security Council promises a great deal of diplomatic scheming, behind-the-scenes negotiations and cunning subterfuge. However, as long as the right of veto remains, and as long as the obvious differences in the viewpoints of the permanent members regarding fundamental international problems persist, extending membership of the Security Council – regardless of which countries are let in – will make very little difference. On the contrary, “democratization” under the same old procedures will only serve to further complicate the possibility of ever reaching any agreement.

It is worth remembering that the constant abuse of a similar, albeit much more democratic principle of liberum veto (free veto) in the Sejm of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth eventually led to the irreversible decline and subsequent partition of one of the most powerful states in medieval Europe. Unfortunately, in recent years, the right of veto has been used more and more actively by some members of the Security Council. And it is Moscow that has set the tone. In the past two years alone, the Russian Federation has used its veto power nine times in connection with the Security Council’s examining the situation in the Middle East.

The struggle against the veto power of the permanent members of the Security Council has been going on for a very long time, without much chance of success. More than anything, it is a question of status, especially for those members whose position in world politics and whose economies are on the decline. To deprive them of their special status would be to inflict a crushing blow to national pride, to reduce them to the level of “ordinary” countries, and to forget their role in the creation of the United Nations. To be fair, let us recall that the permanent members of the Security Council are still the UN’s primary donors, accounting for more than 42 per cent of the organization’s total budget.

Besides status, however, the right of veto is also a question of practical national interests. For all their differences, each of the members of the Big Five values their sovereignty and would not like anyone, including the United Nations, to interfere in it. The Big Three of Russia, China and the United States are particularly critical of this issue. And the veto provides almost absolute guarantee of sovereignty to the select few.

So what should be done? Actually, the international community has little choice. You can do things the nice way, or you can do things the hard way. Doing things the hard way would mean commencing the procedure for a radical revision of the UN Charter so that a significant part of the Security Council’s authority would be transferred to the General Assembly. At the same time, you could get rid of the veto. In theory, such a procedure is provided for by the Charter itself: Article 109 allows for a United Nations General Conference to be held for this purpose with the support of two thirds of the members of the General Assembly and any nine members of the Security Council.

This is a rare case when the veto right of the permanent members of the Security Council is not valid. This procedure for the revision of the UN Charter has thus far never been implemented. And this is no coincidence, as it contains serious risks for the United Nations as a whole. Everyone understands that while it might be possible to take apart the complicated machine that is the UN, putting it back together again would be another thing entirely.

Doing things the nice way would mean convincing the permanent members of the Security Council of the need to take “voluntary” restrictions upon themselves in the use of the veto. There has been an active Code of Conduct campaign behind the scenes at the General Assembly for several years now that is designed to exert moral pressure on the permanent members of the UN Security Council to at least not to block those resolutions related to crimes against humanity and genocide. Strangely enough, the campaign was initiated by France, which is itself a permanent member of the Security Council. Presently, more than half of the UN’s members have joined the campaign. However, Russia, the United States and China, in a rare display of solidarity, refuse even to discuss such a possibility. The logic of the Big Three is understandable: start with voluntary restrictions and you can end up with an actual withdrawal of the veto power as a whole.

A multitude of other options exist to reduce the dependence of the practical work of the UN on the veto power of the permanent members of the Security Council. Some suggest extending the powers of the UN Secretary General. Others talk of resurrecting the now dormant Military Staff Committee. And still others believe that the solution to the problem lies in the transition to “subsidiary” peace-making by having the United Nations transfer a number of important functions in this area to “authorized” regional organizations. In any case, in order for these or other similar proposals to be implemented, a consensus is needed among the Big Five, something that is sorely lacking at present.

However, try as you might, the end will always come. The current situation in the UN Security Council should not be considered normal. It is difficult to believe that this abnormal situation can last indefinitely. In failing to resolve critical regional and global crises, the Security Council suffers serious damage to its reputation, damage that extends to the United Nations as a whole. This is not even the point; more importantly, the chronic paralysis of the Security Council reinforces and justifies the temptation to bypass the UN Security Council and sometimes circumvent the modern system of international law in general. For now, actions bypassing the Security Council are still perceived as the exception, but they could soon become the rule. For now, they are frowned upon, but soon they could become the norm.

Historical – and even everyday – experience suggests that those not willing to sacrifice a part risk losing the whole. Unfortunately, the United Nations is not at all immune to the fate of its predecessor, the League of Nations, which left the political scene quietly in the late 1930s, at the precise moment that international efforts to prevent a new world war were needed most.

To return once again to Leo Tolstoy, this time to one of his children’s fables: “A monkey was carrying two handfuls of peas. One little pea fell out. He tried to pick it up and spilled twenty. He tried to pick up the twenty and spilled them all. Then he lost his temper, scattered the peas in all directions and ran away.” The permanent members of the UN Security Council are still in the second stage – twenty peas have already been spilled. Will it reach the third stage?

First published in our partner RIAC

Continue Reading

International Law

Whatever Happened To Due Process In International Relations?

Rahul D. Manchanda, Esq.

Published

on

It seems that recent events across the globe have further revealed a glaring hole within the framework and structure of international relations, law, and diplomacy – the complete and total lack of Due Process.

In each and every country around the world, from the local level all the way to the federal, there exists in criminal and civil jurisprudence the concept of Due Process – a concept which has been defined as the legal requirement that the state must respect all legal rights that are owed to a person.

Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects the individual person from it.

When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due process violation, which offends the rule of law.

Due process has also been frequently interpreted as limiting laws and legal proceedings so that judges, instead of legislators, may define and guarantee fundamental fairness, justice, and liberty.

Analogous to the concepts of natural justice, and procedural justice used in various other jurisdictions, the interpretation of due process is sometimes expressed as a command that the government must not be unfair to the people or abuse them physically.

Due process developed from clause 39 of Magna Carta in England.

Reference to due process first appeared in a statutory rendition of clause 39 in 1354 AD: “No man of what state or condition he be, shall be put out of his lands or tenements nor taken, nor disinherited, nor put to death, without he be brought to answer by due process of law.”

When English and American law gradually diverged, due process was not upheld in England but became incorporated in the U.S. Constitution.

While there is no definitive list of the “required procedures” that due process requires, Judge Henry Friendly (July 3, 1903 – March 11, 1986), a prominent judge in the United States, who sat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from 1959 through 1974, generated a list that remains highly influential, as to both content and relative priority:

(1) An unbiased tribunal;

(2) Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it;

(3) Opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken;

(4) The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses;

(5) The right to know opposing evidence;

(6) The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses;

(7) A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented;

(8) Opportunity to be represented by counsel;

(9) Requirement that the tribunal prepare a record of the evidence presented; and

(10) Requirement that the tribunal prepare written findings of fact and reasons for its decision.

The international news media, on behalf of various governmental agencies, intelligence organizations, private deep state oligarch run businesses, has been blasting from time to time, allegations and accusations leveled by one country or empire versus another, most notably by the Western NATO powers against the Eurasian ones, that of Russia, Syria, Iran, and North Korea, China and others, while the converse has not occurred at all.

This should tell us something.

Lately, the Skripal poisoning attempts, the multiple alleged Bashar Assad Syrian government chemical weapons attacks, and countless others have dominated the headlines.

Russia has been screaming from the rooftops that their greatest concern is that the USA or West will manufacture some type of false flag attack to blame it on them.

The only solution then is that both the United Nations and the International Criminal Court must be given the power, funding, and support by countries that are being victimized by false flag allegations to be empowered to put a stop to these irresponsible lobbings and accusations of criminal conduct by one set of nations versus the others.

When Due Process is absent from our nations’ courts, police departments, law enforcement agencies, then innocent people get thrown into jail in criminal cases or bankrupted in civil matters.

But when nations are not afforded Due Process in the course of international relations, terrorism breaks out, and so does the possibility of nuclear annihilation of all the worlds’ people.

Continue Reading

Latest

Newsletter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy