Connect with us

International Law

State anti-semitism: Doctors’ plot as an abandoned holocaust amid the Stalin’s Russia

Nargiz Hajiyeva

Published

on

In today’s world, why does the world community always focus on the merely one Holocaust committed by Hitler’s Germany, which was subjected to fervent interests and ideas on disposing “Enlightenment” policy of Nazi Germany amid the Hitler’ regime?!- But indeed, it is undeniable fact that a civil society in different periods observed far more anti-Semitist campaign against Jewish community with their own eyes along the history.

Hence, nefarious anti-Semitism not only did splash its venomous seeds onto merely Nazi Germany but also the Soviet Union during the Stalin’s regime. Basically, when it comes to interpret the anti-Semitist campaign against Jewish society, the most brutal and unbearable anti-Semitist policy after the Nazi Holocaust was the extreme state anti-Semitism which was imposed by Stalin in the shadow of the Soviet Union and caused the unending prosecution and then annihilation of hundreds of people, mainly some of Soviet Leaders and necessary Jewish physicians between 1948 and 1953.

The main conspiracy of state anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union was Doctors’ Plot (Doctors’ Affairs) had historically been scrutinized as the peak point of the nasty anti-Semitic campaign undertaken by Stalinist Russia that mainly premised on the anti-cosmopolitism and anti-Semitist thoughts and ideas. To a large extent, the severe culmination of the vicious anti-Semitic movement was undertaken by Stalin in the last years of his life. In the late periods of 1948, the animosity and anti-cosmopolitan thoughts and ideas against Jewish dwelled in the Soviet Union drastically increased.

The pivotal trigger for the inception of the diabolical plan so-called Doctors’ Plot was the death of Andrei Zhdanov in 1948. Prior to becoming Chief of Central Committee, he was the head of Leningrad party. In the late of 1952, Stalin accused a group of doctors with Jewish background along with Soviet leaders Viktor Abakumov, Ministry of Security and Nikolai Vlasik, head of Kremlin Guards of being in charge with the assassination of A. Zhdanov. The main evidence regarding that event was the letter written by Dr. Lidiia Timashuk who worked in Kremlin hospital cardio-graphic division ignited the mass hysteria and fear between Soviet Leaders and community. The letter written to Stalin alleged that the death of A. Zhdanov was an intentionally medical wrong treatment. Afterwards, a large number of doctors with a Jewish background, (among them Miron Vovsi, Chief internist) alleged in medical malpractice and wrongdoing treatment were committed to interrogation; some of them were arrested and exterminated. On the other hand, the cousin of Miron Vovsi, Solomon Mikhoels, who was the director of Moscow State Yiddish Theatre, was assassinated in 1948.

Apparently, they turned into the wrecked victims of Stalin’s evil Jewish conspiracy. Stalin had in mind to involve more and more people around the net of denunciations of multidimensional conspiracy. Thus, the severe condemnations came to include the prestigious Jewish physicians such as Yakov G. Etinger, Sophia Karpai were arrested. After that, Dr. Etinger died in the mysterious condition in prison amid the process of questioning and torture in 1951. In general, nearly 40 physicians with their wives were arrested between 1951 and 1953. As the “Plot” vastly extended, it did include other almost 20 Jews in 1953.

In fact, the Soviet Jewish conspiracy subjected to the implementation of anti-Semitic thoughts and anti-cosmopolitism against Jewish community revealed the internal and external fears and weaknesses of Soviet Union on its own and astounded its political and ideological walls.

The execution of Doctors’ Plot in Stalinist Russia stemmed from varied kinds of political and ideological factors. First and foremost, one of the crucial reasons why Soviet Jewish conspiracy was commenced is the inception of the Cold War with the West. Regarding the fact that although Stalin was characterized as a main rescuer of the Jewish community during the World War II   because he defeated the Nazi Germany in the war and released the Concentration Camps in the Eastern Part of Europe from Nazis. Amid those times, Stalin tried to use the “Jewish” affair as a means of propaganda against the West. It is undeniable fact that prior to the commencement of Soviet Jewish conspiracy, Stalin at initial times supported the foundation of Israel State of Jewish. On the other hand, the major power of the Bolshevik Party was the Jewish leaders.

Thus, by 1948 there were weird fears in Stalin’s mind that Israel Jewish, Jewish community in the Soviet Union, in particular, Russian Jews, assumed as conspirators and enemies were a potential menace to the Soviet State and they were dealing with secret relations with the American and British intelligence, and other security organs in order to break down the political and ideological basis of Soviet Union. According to Stalin’s mind, they were in secret ties with the West and supporting the interests of Jewish solidarity – “International Jewry” Eventually, the initial inception of the anti-Cosmopolitan campaign against Jewish mainly concerned on those ideological episodes.

Another critical reason was the Stalin’s severe health particularly physical condition. Upon the World War II, some kind of physical collapse emerged in his health and that caused him to make weird assumptions against Jewish. In fact, he was drowning in the bizarre thoughts and fears regarding the Jewish solidarity with the State of Israel and the West in order to destroy the Soviet Union. Finally, Stalin’s prevailing aim was to focus on the flawless administration by his own power. Therefore, the main raison d’être why Soviet Jewish were undergone anti-Semitic campaign is based on the strengthening and recombining of Stalin’s regime in an appropriate way.

Stalin not only did want to remove potential political leaders but also sprinkle the fatal seeds of Great Terror and replicate it again. Throughout those periods, he wanted to execute far more multi-dimensional anti-Semitic campaign against Soviet Jewish and turned them into the victims of his final “ethnic purge” campaign.

The death of Stalin on 5th March 1953 caused the dissolution of Doctors’ Plot trials and his multi-dimensional “Day X” plan. Prior to his death what was Stalin’s severe campaign regarding Day X plan?!- The plan was subjected to mass deportations and ethnic cleansing of Jewish people to newly constructed Concentration camps in Asia. After his death, it was revealed that Stalin in his secret speech had ordered the involving of Politburo members in the list of trial and then elimination of them one by one. In fact, Stalin did not have in mind to see far more powerful leaders above him and strive to maintain his long-lasting authority in Soviet administration. It was apparent that Stalin was preparing for the large-scale trials and massive deportations of Jewish people and striving to complete the final questions to the Jewish issue but, his death caused to bring the trials and persecutions to the end.

Upon Stalin’s death Khrushchev, Malenkov, Beria, and other Politburo members were afraid of Stalin’s severe anti-Western policy and they strived to close the relations with the West. Afterwards, Khrushchev came to the power and condemned the Jewish conspiracy so-called Doctor’s Plot as a Stalin’s bogus policy and began to the de-Stalinization campaign in the Soviet Union and unlike Stalin he undertook the new openness strategy with the West. As a consequence, Doctors’ Plot was rejected by other Soviet authorities and doctors arrested were released from prison and rehabilitated. Eventually, Soviet authorities began to implement the process of rehabilitation and exoneration of the Jewish victims.

Up to date, Stalin’s final plan still remains mysterious and the campaign of animosity against Jews in the Soviet Union as an “abandoned Holocaust” engenders some suspicious cases and questions in terms of the plan of mass deportation of Jews from major Russian cities to other parts of the Soviet State. Thereby, this article mainly identifies that the execution against Jewish people is inadmissible that took many lives during the term of mass hysteria, in order that the Doctors’ Plot as a concrete evidence of the violation of human rights, confessed the persecution of many innocent people alleged in medical malpractice and after the Nazi Holocaust it was the second crystal evidence of Soviet’s Holocaust against mankind along the history.

Ms. Nargiz Hajiyeva is an independent researcher from Azerbaijan. She is an honored graduate student of Vytautas Magnus University and Institute D'etudes de Politique de Grenoble, Sciences PO. She got a Bachelor degree with the distinction diploma at Baku State University from International Relations and Diplomacy programme. Her main research fields concern on international security and foreign policy issues, energy security, cultural and political history, global political economy and international public law. She worked as an independent researcher at Corvinus University of Budapest, Cold War History Research Center. She is a successful participator of International Student Essay Contest, Stimson Institute, titled “how to prevent the proliferation of the world's most dangerous weapons”, held by Harvard University, Harvard Kennedy School and an honored alumnus of European Academy of Diplomacy in Warsaw Poland. Between 2014 and 2015, she worked as a Chief Adviser and First Responsible Chairman in International and Legal Affairs at the Executive Power of Ganja. At that time, she was defined to the position of Chief Economist at the Heydar Aliyev Center. In 2017, Ms. Hajiyeva has worked as an independent diplomatic researcher at International Relations Institute of Prague under the Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the Czech Republic. Currently, she is pursuing her doctoral studies in Political Sciences and International Relations programme in Istanbul, Turkey.

Continue Reading
Comments

International Law

Environmental Governance and Human Rights: The Role of The Civil Society And Challenges in India

Published

on

The Indian judiciary is often credited for developing environmental jurisprudence in India. The Indian courts have devised and put to use a unique method of imparting environmental justice-doing away with the principle of locus standi and devising Public Interest Litigations (PILs) instead. Moreover, environmental governance largely rests in the hands of the government, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) being the nodal agency in the administrative structure of the Central Government for the planning, promotion, co-ordination and overseeing the implementation of India’s environmental and forestry policies and programmes. However, active participation of the local communities, farmers, students, environmental activists, academicians, lawyers, NGOs and members of Civil Society in galvanizing the government machinery for establishing and implementing norms related to the environment as well as in mobilizing the masses for environmental causes must not be overlooked.  While the top-down approach followed by the Judiciary in recognizing and enforcing environment principles is often appreciated, the bottom-up approach adopted by the civil society to strive for environmental justice also deserves mention.

Civil Society and Environmental Governance-An Interface

Although there is no clear-cut definition of civil society, it is mostly understood in contrast to the state. Cohen defines civil society as “we understand “civil society” as a domain of social exchange between economy and state, comprised above all of the close area (especially the family), the sphere of associations (especially voluntary groups), social movements, and forms of public communication. Modern civil society is created through forms of self-constitution and self-mobilization. It is institutionalized and generalized though laws, and especially subjective rights, that stabilize social differentiation. While the self-creative and institutionalized dimensions can exist separately, in the long term both independent action and institutionalization is necessary for the reproduction of civil society.”The American writer Jeremy Rifkin calls civil society “our last, best hope’’; New Labour politicians in the UK see it as central to a new “project” that will hold society together against the onrush of globalizing markets, the United Nations; the United Nations and the World Bank see it as one of the keys to “good governance” and poverty-reducing growth. The membership of the civil society is quite diverse, ranging from individuals to faith-based and educational institutions to pressure groups such as NGOs or not-for-profit organizations.

Governance is often described as a new form of regulation that differs from traditional hierarchical state activity (‘government’). Generally, ‘governance’ implies notions of self-regulation by societal actors, of private-public cooperation in the resolving of societal issues and new forms of multilayered policy. Environmental Governance is defined as the process that links and harmonizes policies, institutions, procedures, tools and information to allow participants (public and private sector, NGOs, local communities) to manage conflicts, seek points of consensus, make fundamental decisions, and be accountable for their actions. In the context of Global Environment Governance, Gemmmill and Bamidele-Izu have identified the following five major roles which civil society might play in global environmental governance: (1) collecting, disseminating, and analyzing information; (2) providing input to agenda-setting and policy development processes; (3) performing operational functions; (4) assessing environmental conditions and monitoring compliance with environmental agreements; and (5) advocating ecological justice. The increasing role of civil society in global environmental diplomacy is often explained with two arguments: 1) Civil society representatives provide valuable information and expertise to governments and thus help them reach “better,” that is, more effective, agreements. This information provision role becomes particularly important when governments face budgetary constraints. 2) They provide legitimacy to intergovernmental negotiations and thus mitigate the “democratic deficit” in global policy making, which takes place far away from domestic political arenas and the national demos.

Environmental Movements in India and Role of Civil Society

The environmental movement is a type of “social mobility that involves a group of individuals and alliances that perceive a common interest in environmental protection and act to bring about new changes in environmental policies and practices.”In India, these movements emerged as a response to the environmental challenges arising due to the developmental policies espoused by governments. The Chipko Movement or the Chipko Andolan was perhaps one of the first ecological movements which saw the participation of marginalized and tribal communities in forest conservation. Starting as Forest Satyagraha in the 1930s in Uttar Pradesh (now Uttarakhand), the movement has spread too many other States in India like Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Karnataka by 1980s.  The upsurge of similar environmental movements, demanding that forest ownership and management must revert from state to communal hands and that local communities should be actively involved in afforestation programs brought significant changes in government’s policy about forest management. A large number of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) ably assisted the environmental movements in their efforts: the directory of environmental NGOs in India published in 1989 lists 879 large and small NGOs spread throughout the country of which half were involved with forest-related issues.

The success of this collaborative struggle was reflected in India’s National Forest Policy of 1988 and the Circular on Joint Forest Management of 1990. In revising its national forest policy in 1988, the Indian government for the first time declared that forests were not only to be commercially exploited but must also contribute to soil conservation, environ mental protection, and the survival needs of the local population. Another significant environmental movement in the history of modern India is the movement against the Silent Valley Project. The Silent Valley is a stretch of Tropical Evergreen Forest in Pallakad district of Kerala.   The Movement was launched against the decision of the State government to build a hydroelectric dam across the Kunthipuzha River that runs through the Silent Valley. However, because of the strong opposition from NGOs, conservationists, academicians and eminent writers, corporate and political leaders along with the media, Silent valley was declared a protected area in 1981 and the Project was called off in 1983.

The Save the Narmada Movement (Narmada Bachao Andolan, NBA) is the people’s movement launched against the construction of huge dams on the river Narmada. NBA is a non-governmental organization (NGO) that mobilized tribal people, adivasis, farmers, environmentalists and human rights activists against the Sardar Sarovar Dam being build across the Narmada River, Gujarat. Their campaign led to the establishment of a Bank commission in 1991 to independently review the project, which ultimately recommended the World Bank’s withdrawal. One of the most important features of these environmental movements in India has been the active involvement and participation of local voluntary organizations or Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). For example, Dasholi Gram Swarajya Mandal (DGSM),a cooperative organization started by Chandi Prasad Bhatt actively participated in the Chipko Movement along with activist Sunder Lal Bahguna. Inspired by Gandhian principles of Non-violence and the idea of Sarvodaya (self-determination), the cooperation educated the village-community and mobilized them against the logging of trees.

Similarly, the Kerala Sastra Sahitya Parishad (KSSP) started the agitation against the Silent Valley Project. KSSP, a People’s Science Movement (PSM) founded in 1962 from Kerala published a socio-political report on the ecological, economic, and social impacts of the hydro-electric project proposed in the Silent Valley. The Movement also saw the participation of eminent poets and writers, who educated the masses about the significance of the valley through stories, poems, dramas, speeches, and articles. Poet-activist Sugathakumari’s poetry “Marathinu Stuthi” (Ode to a Tree) became the opening song/prayer of most of the “save the Silent Valley” campaign meetings. The KSSP also worked for the energy needs of the State and developed environmental- friendly alternatives such as smokeless chulhas and irrigation using ground water to the optimum extent. The alternatives suggested by the organization were widely adopted or practiced that the UNESCO conferred its Right to Livelihood Award on KSSP and the UNEP included it in its `Roll of Honour. The protest groups formed in all three affected states of Gujarat, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh and included or were supported by persons facing displacement, students, social activists, Indian environmental NGOs, international NGOs, and transnational networks. The support groups of Narmada Bachao Andolan mainly of activist groups and registered NGOs mainly classified into three main groups- those with interest in human rights, the environment, and alternative development.

Environmental Human Rights and Environmental Justice: The Legal Strategies and the Role of Civil Society

India owes its environmental activism mostly to Public Interest Litigations (PIL) developed by Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice Krishna Iyer, two Supreme Court judges in the 1980s. The Supreme Court of India declared that “where a wrong against community interest is done, the principle of locus standi will not always be a pre-requisite to draw the attention of judiciary against a public body for their failure in discharging constitutional duties.” By taking on board the citizens’ concern about an inactive or indifferent legislature and executive, the Supreme Court has created space for the civil society groups to engage as active participants in the scheme for protecting the environment and ensuring an individual right to a healthy environment. As a result, in some cases, civil society groups have put forward different views on development activities such as the socio-cultural and environmental impact of development policy in the environmental decision-making process. Moreover, by allowing the third party to file cases related to the environment, the court has given voice to the inanimate objects, like forests and rivers, which cannot represent themselves in courts.

However, the role played by concerned citizens and NGOs in filing these PILs is essential. A number of these cases, beginning with the Dehradun Lime Stone Quarrying case (1989 AIR 594) followed by the Tehri Dam case (AIR 2008 MP 142),Bichhri Village Industrial Pollution case, (Writ Petition No. 967/1989)Vellore Leather Industry Pollution case, (AIR1996SC2715) Sariska Wildlife Sanctuary case (1993 SCR (3) 21) and T.N. Godavarman case ((1996) 9 S.C.R. 982) came to court’s attention through Public Interest Litigations and were filed by either Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs)or concerned citizen/environmental activists on behalf of other persons or groups or public. Several environmental activists like MC Mehta have filed PILs in Supreme Court of India to protect the environment. The lawyer cum environmental-activist, single-handedly, has filed petitions in the courts to protect the environment. Landmark environmental cases filed by him include the Taj Mahal case, ((1997)2 SCC 353) Ganges Pollution case (1988 AIR 1115), Vehicular Pollution case (AIR 1999 SC 301),Oleum Gas Leak Case(1987 SCR (1) 819), Kamal Nath Case ((1997)1 SCC 388) and many other such cases.

The Supreme Court Case Reports show that that out of 104 environmental cases from 1980-2000 in the Supreme Court of India, 54 cases were filed by persons who were not directly the aggrieved parties and 28 cases were filed by the NGOs on behalf of the affected parties. What makes these cases interesting is that in most of them, the Supreme Court has read environmental rights into basic fundamental rights (especially Article 21) guaranteed under the Constitution, thus making them a bedrock of environmental jurisprudence in India. The Supreme Court has also taught various environmental principles like Sustainable Development, Polluter’s Pay Principle, Precautionary Principle, Public Trust Doctrine and Principle of Absolute Liability into these cases, and thus, within environmental jurisprudence.

Environmental Governance Challenges: The Road Ahead

Indian Courts, while deciding upon an environmental issue, are often confronted with the problem of striking a balance between development needs of India and protection of the environment. For example, in Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun v. The State of Uttar Pradesh(AIR 1985 SC 652), the Supreme Court, was informed about the developmental needs of the region that the closure of the mining operations would result in and the subsequent loss of jobs by the workers. The Court took the position that its action would undoubtedly cause hardships to them, but argues that it was the price that had to be paid for protecting and safeguarding the rights of the people to live in the healthy environment with minimal disturbance of the ecological balance and with avoidable hazard to them and their cattle, homes and agricultural land. The case is the classic example of the dilemma faced by the courts in resolving the debate between development and environment.

However, the problem faced in the enforcement of the decisions of the courts is more acute. In many respects, the Indian government machinery has failed to adequately enforce the existing environmental laws and the decisions of the court. Although there are many causes for this failure, the primary reason is corruption. While the judiciary has acted as the savior of environmental rights in India, the implementation of these rights has been highly problematic. Corruption exists at all levels of governments in India and its impact on the environment is profound, and amount to a clear violation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. One of the other reasons why executive has not been able to enforce environmental laws and decisions effectively is the inefficiency of the administrative bodies concerned with the implementation of these laws.  Since environmental concerns came into existence under the pressure of environmentalists and NGOs in India, therefore, one finds a piecemeal approach rather than an integrated approach at the planning level. Vyas and Reddy point out the problems in environmental governance in India, i.e. lack of coordination between various departments concerned with environmental issues. He notices that the functioning of various departments does not reflect the concern of the policy-makers towards environment since most of these departments are ineffective in implementing the environmental policies due to the limited powers are given to them.

Moreover, they do not have resources to assess the extent of environmental degradation scientifically. This lack of coordination seriously affects the implementation of laws and policies related to the environment. Another concern in this regard is the role played by the masses in implementation of the court’s orders. For example, in the Delhi Vehicular Pollution Case, the role of civil society, especially citizens, is criticized. In this case, despite Court’s pivotal role, lack of public participation was responsible to some extent for slow progress in cleaning up of Delhi air. To make the policies effective the available human resources capacity need to be augmented to address the environmental issues.

Long before the courts in India started delivering landmark judgments for protecting the environment, the civil society has generated enough environmental consciousness amongst the people to stand against any major destruction of the ecosystem they thrive on. Various social cum environmental movements spread along the country made it evident that people at the grass root, who are directly affected by the developmental policies persuaded religiously by the governments, will not surrender their cultural and social rights easily. These subaltern movements saw unprecedented participation and support of people from all walks of society; villagers, women, academicians, lawyers, students, activists, politicians, and NGOs. The environmental consciousness generated by and in the civil society as a result of these movements later found expression in the form of Public Interest Litigations. PILs became a tool in the hands of environmental crusaders and activists to persuade the government to uphold the rights of the citizens. However, the road for achieving environmental justice in India is fraught with challenges. The courts are often faced with the dilemma of choosing between development and environment, and the decisions are often not implemented in the way courts have meant them to be implemented. The reason is the lack of efficient machinery and widespread corruption.

Continue Reading

International Law

70 Years On: UN Declaration on Human Rights from the lens of Victimology

Published

on

Michelle Bachelet, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

Authors: Srimal Fernando and Vipin Vijay Nair*

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) adoption by the General Assembly of the United Nations (GAUN) 70 years ago, nonetheless, is more relevant to the future and today’s society.  Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedom set forth in this landmark declaration requires major attention. However, these defining characteristics of the UDHR constitute not only its strength, but also its weaknesses.  This important milestone in the UN history is a testament to the commitment of the UN to global rules and values. On this important occasion of the 70th anniversary of UDHR her press statement on 9th December, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet said, “the document has gone from being an “aspirational treatise” to a set of standards that has “permeated virtually every area of international law”.

The most meaningful words of   UN High Commissioner on the notion of human rights resonates in today’s discourse. In the recent past conflicts, migration related issues, racial  polarization  and  inequalities   have  played   a large  role   in breakdown of societies.  Given the uncertainties, the numbers of people victimized due to hate crimes are unquestionably high. The distrust of reason is perhaps one of the most important traits of such issues. In fact, one could argue that victimology, as a subject doesn’t immediately spring to the mind over these issues or as a problem-solving method. There is no doubt of Victimology as a branch of criminal justice studies has been responsible for the expanding knowledge focusing on the victims of crimes. Perhaps in order to understand the dynamics of victimization, Victimologists offers a more realistic picture about   Victimology as a domain of social science. Hence the introduction of victimology   was major step forward in strengthening the fundamental principals of the Universal Declaration.

Looking at some characteristics of victimology narratives within the judicial proceedings requires alternative   behavioral and forensic science methods to investigate the causes, is a part of a larger study of the victimology specialty. Therefore, the element Forensic victimology, a sub-division of victimology reinforces and is closely linked to criminal justice studies.  In this context Forensic victimology analyses victim’s lifestyle and circumstances, the events leading up to their injury, and looks into the precise nature of any harm or loss that he or she had suffered.

While some nations looked for new laws to prohibit hate crime against individuals or groups, others sought the answers in solving this pertaining issuing relating to victimology using home grown methods. Various intervention strategies have been implemented in the recent past. There are various laws, declaration, codified rules and regulation that prevent individual under the international law, but these are working towards penalizing the wrong-doer and not focusing on the overall aspect and perspective of the crime. In the global context, laws that prohibit any type of hate crime against an individual or groups were partially fruitful.  Very few countries in European Union, North and South America have focused on implementing laws against hate crime.   However, 45 states in America expanded   this law and was major step forward.  Unquestionably, the most renowned organizations in the world such as United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), International Criminal Court (ICC), The World Society of Victimology (WSV) holding consultative status with UN and Council of Europe, International Criminal Justice Institutes and other   related agencies have been playing a realistic role intervening in furthering of victimology subject. International consensus is growing on human rights and freedom’s discourses that is designed to look beyond the victim stereotype and improves the policies relating to the prevention of crimes as well as to look into the victim themselves.

*Vipin Vijay Nair is Doctoral Research Scholar at Jindal Institute of Behavioral Sciences (JIBS) and a Research Fellow at Jindal Global Law School (JGLS)

Continue Reading

International Law

US Migrant Crisis and the Global Human Rights Protection Standards

Dr. Nafees Ahmad

Published

on

Migrants and asylum seekers from Central America have been marching towards the US for protection and shelter. But US government has deployed around 6000 soldiers to prevent them from entering into the US. These migrant and asylum seekers convoys have been dubbed as “a foreign invasion” by the incumbent US President that needs to be confronted by the US army. President Trump hard-headedly argued that “immigration is a very, very big and very dangerous, a really dangerous topic” that prompted the US army officials of firing tear gas shells at migrants’ convoys. It is nothing but the portrayal of an invasion by the Central American migrants and asylum seekers into the US. Such a US posturing on international migration is a manifestation of the US tradition of hypocrisy and its deep-seated aversion towards the migrants that violates global human Rights protection standards (GHRPS). Thus, the across-the-board new migration strategy of the US is based on the idea of ultra-restrictionism that deprives the immigrants from public benefits, and recently President Trump has entirely abolished the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) programme along with the abrogation of the temporary status protection programmes. These measures have adversely impacted the GHRPS required for the 2 million regular migrants in the US which spawned the emergence of a well-founded fear of persecution, far-right nationalism, and socio-cultural schism.

New Migration Strategy

The US restrictive measures have attracted international media attention and the US is hell-bent to send a message to the international community that it would not be privy to the non-binding standard for a safe, orderly and regular migration known as the UN Global Compact on Migration (GCM) arrangement scheduled to be agreed in December 2018 and US is alone capable to take its decisions on immigration issues under America First Policy (AFP).Therefore, the GHRPS for migrants and asylum seekers are apparently immaterial in the US immigration policy objectives. Trump administration under AFP discourse envisions restrictionism, deterrence, and pre-emption against GHRPS while denying public benefits to immigrants at par US citizens. Unfortunately, strong and inclusive migration control strategy has been devised and is being implemented to restrict the rights of those migrants and immigrants who are already there in the US. For example; Trump administration has been attempting to temper the 2020 US census that is bound to influence the political scene for the advantage of Republicans in the years ahead.

However, ex-President Barack Obama also resorted to the deployment of US armed forces on the US-Mexico international border to curb migration that resulted in some cases of family-separations but at a low rate if it is measured against the present Trump administration. The point of distinction between the Obama and Trump administrations is that the former recognized the contribution of migrants to the US’s growth; however, this understanding has steadily acquired a negative narrative under the later administration. President Trump has been demanding $5 billion to construct a wall along the US-Mexico international border otherwise intimidating shutting down the US government. However, Trump administration apparently does not leave any stone unturned in case of violently pushing back migrants and asylum seekers. Trump administration has inaugurated its immigration policy with a Travel Ban from seven Muslim countries and now it has been stretched to Latin American countries against all norms of GHRPS and international law.

Global Human Rights Protection Standards

The incumbent US administration is more interested in denying migrants and asylum seekers the access to benefits under the US national laws and global human rights protection standards. The latest Trump’s proclamation is to contain the new arrivals from Mexico and its Southern nation-states which restrict the right to seek asylum in the US beyond the port of entry. Further, impugned presidential proclamation defers well-established US asylum legislation that contravenes due process of law, the rule of law and international treaty law recognized and sanctified under the Constitution of United States of America. However, this presidential proclamation or asylum ban has, for the time being, been stopped by the San Francisco Federal Court under a restraining order.

In spite of this, the Immigration and Nationality Act, 1965 states that any “alien or foreigner who is physically or personally present in the US or who comes in the US (whether or not at an officially designated port of entry, irrespective of such alien or foreigner’s status, may apply for asylum.” However, under Section 212 (f) the US President is empowered to enforce immigration restrictions by issuing a proclamation. Further, the US President may if feels that “the entry of any alien or foreigner or any class of foreigners or aliens into the US would be detrimental to the American interests suspend the entry of all foreigners or aliens or any class of aliens or foreigners as non immigrants or immigrants, or impose on the entry of foreigners or aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.” Precisely, President Trump invoked this provision of law to clamp these insensitive and punitive restrictions. This presidential decree has aggravated the Trump’s AFP to new levels of castigation. Groups and individuals seeking asylum and entering the US while avoiding official ports of entry were slapped with criminal cases that got them separated from their families. Such irregular entries were criminalized by the US border authorities in violation of “the right not to be penalized for irregularly entering into the territory of High Contracting State” under Article 31 of the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (UNCSR) with its 1967 Additional Protocol that has been acceded to by the US.

Having hit with such transgressions, the criminal charges leveled against asylum seekers did not affect their asylum claims, and they were duly entitled to have their asylum claims heard. However, this scenario is no more there as new reports indicate that a single-digit number of asylum applications are disposed of daily at the designated entry ports. Therefore, such a situation has led to inordinate delays in processing the applications of asylum seekers at the border that is a violation of Section 1 of Amendment XIV of the Constitution of United States of America that codifies the core values of the people of the USA. But many persons have been denied access and abducted, raped and thrashed to the hilt. However, Article 33 (1) of the UNCSR contains the principle of non-refoulement stemming from the customary international law that works as “a safety valve” which obligates the nation-states to protect a refugee, migrants, stateless and asylum seekers who is fleeing from persecution, risk or danger to life in his or her country of origin or homeland. Few scholars contest the applicability of the principle of non-refoulement extra-territorially; however, the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) has already recognized the extra-territorial application of the non-refoulement principle, and the denial of entry into the US is a violation of the UNCSR.

Moreover, there is another principle of international law where under collective or mass expulsion of the refugees, migrants or asylum seekers is prohibited and obligates the nation-states to examine objectively and cumulatively every expulsion action of each individual and group of persons. The “hot return” policy of the US clearly violates this obligation under GHRPS. Thus, this practice primarily rescinds the right of the huge majority of migrants and asylum seekers to seek for asylum. Therefore, it also circumvents the objects and purposes of the UNCSR.

The Hot Return Policy

The hot return policy stems from the US Department of Justice regulation of 1953 that entails the “100 Air Mile Zone” rule; however, that negates the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution under which the right and protection against arbitrary and random searches have been provided within this zone. But Border Patrol officials have been empowered to operate the immigration checkpoints in this vast zone with extra-constitutional powers. Under the “zero tolerance policy” Department of Homeland Security wields enormous powers and conducts speedy ejections of undocumented migrants within this area. The fundamental rights and freedoms such as the right to counsel or the right to a hearing before a judicial immigration authority and the right against expulsions are not available in the situation of “hot returns.” The new regulation has precisely been founded upon this mechanism and whosoever arrives at the designated checkpoints will be pushed back devoid of any due process of law. Anti-migration-driven steps like the family separation, ankle-monitors for asylum seekers and detention of asylum seekers during the process of determination of their asylum claims. Therefore, it has become a double-edged weapon as when asylum seekers try to apply at authoritative ports of entry they are prevented from doing so and when some migrants and asylum seekers do not follow the law and try to manage surreptitiously asylum benefits they are also prevented from claiming asylum within the US. In fact, the impugned policy violates the UNCSR, customary international law and the provisions of general international law. Therefore, civil society institutions like the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Southern Poverty Law Center and American Civil Liberties Union filed cases in the US courts against such illegal actions of the Trump administration.

The Rights of Migrants and Asylum Seekers

There is a plan to have secret measures to restrict the rights of migrants and asylum seekers in the US against all protection standards of the so-called civilized world. The rights of refugees, migrants, and asylum seekers are in active violation in the US who espouses the cause of human rights, the rule of law, democracy and diversity worldwide. For example; in the Matter of A-R-C-G- et al. decided on August 26, 2014 at the US Department of Justice by the Executive Office for Immigration Review where the Board of Immigration observed that “married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave or run away from their relationship” which can constitute a cognizable “membership of particular social group” that establishes the basis of the right to seek asylum or withholding of removal under Sections 208(a) and 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 1965 and which is also a prerequisite for meeting the criterion of refugee definition under Article 1 of the UNCSR. However, law officers under the Trump administration adamant to subvert the well-established legal standards that provide respite and reprieve in the cases of domestic violence.

There is a perennial cycle of legal measures that are bound to belittle existing human rights protection standards like latest Trump administration’s endeavour to reverse the Flores v. Reno popularly known as Flores Settlement Agreement (FSA) in September 2018. The reversal of FSA will be the most inhuman act of the present US administration as separating and snatching children from their parents cannot be justified under any circumstance whatsoever.  FSA determines the limits on the duration and conditions under which children could be incarcerated in immigration detention, and it also regulatesthe detention, treatment, and release of detained minors by the immigration authorities. However, Trump Administration seeks to terminate the FSA’s legal defences for children, including the provision that children must be shifted to a non-secure, licensed facility within three to five days of detention, which has been construed to allow for an extension of up to 20 days in times of “emergency” or “influx.” The proposed regulations include some policies which, if implemented, would allow the government to incarcerate more families for even longer periods. Primarily, FSA’s goal was to release families and minor children from immigration custody quickly. Therefore, if FSA is reversed now, it would violate GHRPS and due process of law.

Way Forward

The US is the first country in the world that has been recognized as a country of migrants, enriched by the migrants and celebrates multiculturalism as an inalienable part of its existence since time immemorial. However, US policies based on the doctrine of American interests worldwide has done a massive disservice to the lives of the people worldwide.  The US supports and protects many national governments who serve its interests, US exploits and expropriates the natural resources of many countries and its prescriptive approach in formulating economic policies, forced regime change, subjugation of international organizations and selective discharge of international obligations have also contributed in displacing people from their roots. Therefore, it has to share the responsibility of hosting migrants and asylum seekers, particularly from its vicinity. In fact, many anti-migrants measures violate US municipal law, the US’s international treaty obligations as well as general international law. The US has to abdicate its restrictionism based on hate, threats, and xenophobia in consonance with its historical traditions of liberal democracy, diversity, and multiculturalism.

In this context, all anti-migrants restrictions and sanctions must be withdrawn while respecting GHRPS and international law obligations.As pictures circulate worldwide of US firing of tear gas enveloping migrants, asylum seekers and their children on US-Mexican border and terrified faces of children who are being snatched from their parents by the US Border Patrol agents, a UN Global Compact on Orderly and Safe Migration is likely to win near-universal approval at the inter-governmental conference scheduled to be held in Marrakesh, Moroccoon December 10-11, 2018 expected to be the final step before the UN Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration is formally adopted by the UN General Assembly. It has been a long-drawn journey to achieve such an ambitious plan for regulating and governing international migration by the international community. However, it would not be a legally binding treaty even then, unfortunately, US has already shunned this global initiative against the mandate of its own constitution.

The Constitution of the United States of America is a sacred covenant achieved by an immeasurable amount of human investment that has established an equal society in America. But, unfortunately, these restrictions on the rights of migrants and asylum seekers have weakened the US constitutional guarantees and liberties under the current administration. The emergence of the far-right political discourse that is being well-sponsored and patronized under the Trump administration must be countered by strengthening the liberal democratic political discourse, and same must also be reflected in the institutional governance frameworks of the United States of America.

Continue Reading

Latest

Economy10 mins ago

Reforming the WTO is a Long and Complicated Process

Since early autumn 2018, the issue of reforming the World Trade Organization (WTO) has become an increasingly visible item on...

Newsdesk2 hours ago

Green Economy in Nigeria gets a boost from India-UN Fund

Jointly advancing environmental sustainability and poverty reduction is a challenge the government of Nigeria holds at heart. In pursuit of...

Reports3 hours ago

Malaysia’s Economy Remains Resilient but Faces Global Headwinds

Malaysia’s economy is expected to grow at a more moderate pace in the near term, growing at 4.7 percent in...

Middle East5 hours ago

Stepped up US military posture in the Gulf threatens Indian hopes for Iran’s Chabahar port

The arrival of the USS John C. Stennis aircraft carrier group in the Gulf to deter Iran from further testing...

New Social Compact7 hours ago

Wait for Gender Equality Gets Longer as Women’s Share of Workforce, Politics Drops

Stagnation in the proportion of women in the workplace and women’s declining representation in politics, coupled with greater inequality in...

Tourism9 hours ago

Why 2019 Is the Year of the All-Inclusive Resort

Nearly half of all millennials list all-inclusive resorts as a top choice for their vacation stays. For the other half...

Newsdesk17 hours ago

Clean energy transition in Ukraine

On 18 December 2018, the EU-Ukraine Renewable Energy Investment Forum takes place in Kyiv, co-organised by the European Commission’s Directorate-General...

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy