Connect with us

International Law

To what extent does international aid provide a sticking plaster, rather than a solution, to post-war recovery?

Published

on

The theory of Good Governance (GG) relies on the belief an effective government builds upon the criteria of transparency and accountability. Moreover, government brings together the formal institutions of the state and their monopoly of legitimate coercive power (Stoker, 1998). The post-colonialism era left many states in a situation of civil war, bankruptcy and corruption, where an alliance of elites controlled the country’s main resources and wealth, which led to persistent inequalities and divisions within a country (Henderson, Stalker, 2000).

Thus, the fragmented state’s incapability to provide security, justice and basic needs, legitimized, in the citizen view, the use of force as not recognizing government’s authority.  The on-going tensions in the Middle-East illustrates how the longer a civil war lasts the more likely an escalation of violence will occur and lead to a spillover effect from a state to region. This in turn might have a significant impact on international peace. Following, post-war recovery donors believed the maintenance of political stability and peace-building process required assistance of the international system in order to limit the threat of a return to violence. This last point is essential, as it highlights the subjective use of foreign aid and need for mutual responsibility of the donor and recipient to apply the basic principles of humanitarian aid: humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence.

This essay will argue contemporary humanitarian aid effectiveness is undermined by the politicization of the process, which is the pursuit of political objectives by humanitarian instruments. As a consequence, this results in the donor’s national interests and security being privileged over recipient’s need. Aid policy would then be determined by selectivity of which state receives aid and on the contrary, the circumvention of some governments.  This concept does not only impacts humanitarian principles, challenges the ethics of donor countries but also has long-term devastating consequences on development strategies. Boone (1996) argues, that instead of supporting development aid can provoke and enhance poverty as directly given to governments ‘that consume aid inflows instead of investing in their country’ (pp-289).  In order to analyze the impact politicized foreign aid had on developing countries Afghanistan and Somalia will be used as case studies. As, they both suffered from complex political fragmentation following a fall of a regime and required impartial assistance. This essay argues, efficient aid should be implemented by a return to classic humanitarianism through the establishment of democracy and good governance and so the likelihood of sustainable peace.

Outline and Literature

Afghanistan and Somalia has been chosen as case studies as they highlight the argument no matter the amount of humanitarian aid the recipient receives, if the institutions are weak and the aid subjective then it will not be incorporated homogeneously to the society.

To begin, intervention is not new and relies on peaceful stability. In order to understand the influence and consequences of politicization on foreign aid during post-war recovery three major concepts of humanitarian aid will be defined: ‘humanitarianism imperative’, impartiality as a component of legitimacy, and the use of conditionality as reward of Good Governance.  First of all, Joanna Macrae, described humanitarianism as ‘designed to mitigate the impact of war’, mainly led by the West (Macrae, pg 7).

Nonetheless, The Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross introduced the concept of ‘humanitarian imperative’, which defines the principle of humanity as the right to receive and to give humanitarian assistance (Schweizer, 2004). This point highlights, even though humanitarian aid is imperfect, it is a right and duty to bring assistance to people in need. Furthermore, in order to restore legitimacy of the state it is essential to establish or reform the national government, which often requires impartial cooperation on the ground with local actors. A solution for cooperation and legitimacy has been addressed through the application of conditionality which Nelson and Eglinton (1992) defined as a set of strategies that the donors apply in order to bring in political and economic reforms in the recipient country. It has further been used as a reward for Good Governance and a pressure mechanism for compliance to peace-process. For instance, bilateral donors and UN agencies applied them in post-war recovery of Somalia and Afghanistan.

However, it will be argued first of all, it is not the most appropriate approach to strengthen good governance. Secondly, it often excludes groups from the reconstruction process, which leads to social exclusion and has a negative impact on sustainable peace (Manning, 2010). While in both countries the humanitarian field staff has been criticized for both economic and political reasons. This paper will focus only on the political aspect of international aid as opposed to economical factors because the implementation of growth-promoting activities requires strong political infrastructure.

Additionally, It is worth highlighting, politicized humanitarianism theorists argued classic humanitarianism is faulty as ‘neutrality is only a myth’. Furthermore, O’Brien (2004) and Anderson (1999) point out, neutrality is impossible to obtain as when aid decides to intervene in a conflict it has a political view ’international assistance (…) becomes a part of that context and thus also of the conflict’’ (pp-1). She gave an example of the Sri Lankan government, which considered Tamil-speaking refugees are similar to the Tamil Tigers; in this situation then providing humanitarian aid would also be helping a rebel group. Nonetheless, it has been stated politicization is a violation of the Geneva Conventions on the Laws and Customs of War, and so should respect the principles of impartiality and transparency.

For the reasons discussed above, this paper will support the argument politicization hinders the success of foreign aid following post-war recovery by examining how the use of conditionality in Afghanistan and Somalia was ineffective in influencing the government and was applied even though harmful to the population. Secondly, following this analysis it will be discussed if the political aspect of foreign aid can be neglected by focusing on a bottom-up mobilization through NGO’s. However, this solution will be argued not efficient as to obtain sustainable peace and development the state’s political structure will need to be constructed around the concept of ‘impartiality’, ‘country ownership’ and ‘good governance’.

Links and Case Studies

Since the cold war Afghanistan has been an aid-dependent country as in order to fight the Red Army, and so the communist invasion, the United States had given over $600 million per annum to the country (Giradet, 1998, pg. 118). Moreover, while the communist part of the country equally needed assistance, the US-led aid only focused on one side, the Afghan mujahideen, by supporting them both financially and technically. Following this period of aid flow, another one happened during the civil war in Afghanistan, from 1992 through the end of the Taliban regime in 2001. It will further be argued; the emphasis of foreign aid was not on meeting the basic needs of Afghanistan’s population but on encouraging trade (Fayez, 2013). Similarly, to Afghanistan, Somalia post-cold war suffered from war and famine and the situation did not improve with foreign aid assistance. In fact, it is still considered as the most modern state collapse in the world. Moreover, the famine drew attention of the United Nations on to the Somali civil war in 1992, through the United Nations Operation in Somalia (UNOSOM) however they withdrew in 1994 due to conflict between Somalia and American forces.

Unfortunately, the lack of neutrality and impartiality in foreign assistance to Somalia was most markedly felt following 9/11 and so the beginning of the ‘war on terror’ led by the United States. In fact, the concerns focused on keeping international peace and securitization rather than humanitarian protection of Somali population.  As Bradbury stated (2010) ‘the emphasis on reviving a central government has simply served to perpetuate a violent conflict over control of the state.’ (pp-2)

The situation in Afghanistan and Somalia are similar and support Easterly (2002) statement of foreign aid, which argues ‘the tragedy of aid’, is mainly due to a lack of accountability and management. Furthermore, due to the difficulty to collaborate with weak state framework and infrastructures often lead NGOs to endorse the role of providing security from a bottom-up mobilization rather than acting through a government in order reaching the population directly (DeMars, 1996: 81).  Nonetheless, they can undermine the state’s responsibility to deal with the crisis as well as aggravate the issue by not providing equal assistance to different groups.

Arguments and counterarguments

When analyzing the effectiveness of international aid, one has to consider specific tools of the process such as conditionality. As stated above, conditionality is the use of ‘bargaining aid’ in orders to reform the recipient’s country policy, and is argued to be a major support for increased living standards and development (Montinola, 2007).  

However, the situation in Afghanistan challenges this perspective as conditionality has been used mainly for short-term recovery for security interests instead of sustainable peace. Furthermore, The Bonn Agreement, was a series of agreement attempting to re-establish the State of Afghanistan following the US invasion and has been argued to favor only one side of the conflict, which was the ally of US during ‘war on terror’ (Goodhand, 2009). For instance, the agreement established the foundation for future Afghan governance in order to help the U.S. eradicate al Qaeda and,’ in the long term, would be stable enough to deny terrorists a haven’ (Fields, 2011). The fact emergency security was the main interest of donors brought them to keep elites at their posts in exchange of promise of stability, which consequently excluded a minority.  The fragmentation of Afghan politics and institutions, limited the application of conditions.

Thus, the Bonn Agreement while attempting to reform the state, in the US interests, did not create de facto sovereignty and domestic legitimacy; which are essential to sustainable peace.

In comparison, Somalia post-war recovery attracted many interests especially in terms of trade and geopolitical location. For instance, the fact the main donors were the US and USSR reflected the on-going cold war rivalry and the desire for both countries to access the red sea. (Mehmet, 1971) However, the large amounts of aid flow did not accelerate growth and development, as there was no existence of efficient administration.  In contrary, when the trade interests are situated in another state the humanitarian aid will follow the trend. Moreover, Britain cut off aid to Somalia, which they argued was based on Human Rights violations. But, Britain selectivity towards aid was actually caused by difficulty to administrate aid and mainly political factors. Therefore, much of the attention at the time was on Nigeria, due to Britain strong trade interests with the country. As, the world economy today depends significantly on oil and Britain is no exception. Actually, the Nigerian oil production and the British foreign assistance to Nigeria begin since the colonial history, which explains their interest to keep the territory stabilized as weak Nigerian oil out-put could have negative impact on the donor as well as the recipient of aid (Vazul, 2010).

National interests from donors thus undermined promoting good governance and strong political infrastructures in post-recovery of developing countries such as Somalia and Afghanistan (Sorensen, 2013). To sum up, conditional aid seems incompatible with the self-interested nature of bilateral donors. As concerning the role of international organizations it also seems like the main interest of IMF, which is to promote global growth and economic stability and so is not in compliance with the actual needs of citizens in recipient country. This last point raises the question, if conditionality has been ineffective due to fostering violence, marginalizing a part of the population and delegitimizing the state then would the use of unconditional aid be more benefiting? Furthermore, we will see the use of unconditional aid through NGO’s can also be problematic and has its flaws with the example of cash-based transfers since 2000 in Somalia which illustrated the difficulty to monitor the process as most payments were involved in fraud and diversion problems. (Hedlund, 2012) Nonetheless, even though the complex discussion around the question of which policy is more suitable between ‘conditional’ or ‘unconditional’ aid is still ongoing, studies have shown the latter has more chances to progress towards the establishment of democracy and ‘country-ownership’ than states that received conditional aid (Kersting, 2014).

It has been argued one way of dealing with the dilemma of sending substantial aid flows to weak institutions is to by-pass the state-centric phenomena of humanitarianism. And so, to deliver aid through Non-government Actors as Acht (2015) would advocate. Their main point is that government-government assistance is more likely to be inefficient as the recipient state suffers from “bad” governance, which they define as ‘‘human rights violations, lacking representativeness of the government and high levels of military expenditures’’(Acht, 2015, pp-2). Thus, this would lead donors to find another way to deliver aid, by targeting directly the population. Furthermore, their empirical analysis is build on the theory bilateral channel are most of the times chosen by donors which goals are non-developmental and interested in securitization through stability process or build upon post-colonialism relationships, as mentioned above. Instead then using NGOs would be more useful to depoliticize aid, especially when emergency on the ground is required. They believe, local ownership of reforms to promote good governance has been lacking satisfactory evidence and so bypassing bilateral channels seems to provide a ‘rational’ choice to the issue (Acht, 2015).

In line with this thought, Djarklov (2012) holds that foreign aid could lead politicians and so elites of developing countries to ‘engage in rent-seeking activities in order to appropriate these resources and try to exclude other groups from the political process’ (pp-169). And so, bilateral foreign aid by creating dependency could undermine democracy. Nonetheless, the solution to solely use NGOs to bypass governments and to underestimate the efficiency of aid when used impartially could lead to undergoing human catastrophes with no long-term solutions. Furthermore, the role of NGO’s in Somalia and Afghanistan illustrates how the roots of the causation of inefficient foreign aid is not the bilateral channel but the non-development goals and the lack of interest from donors in establishing an accountable democracy.

First of all, NGO’s can be considered as enemies and so targeted by local actors due to delegitimization of aid from their perspective as they consider Western aid as political entities (Irby, 2012). Secondly, donors can see NGO’s as an extension of their military interests (Abiew, 2012). Finally, NGO’s do not provide long-term post-war recovery, as the question on the duration of this alternative is questionable.

Spang (2016) questions the view NGO’s provide a clear alternative to bilateral channel by argumenting ‘politicization of aid may cause (…) non-governmental organizations (NGOs) on the ground to become strategic targets in the conflict’ (pp-1). As foreigners and so NGO representatives could be seen as targets, intervening in an area where a specific entity has authority on the conflict zone. For instance, in Somalia Al-Shabaab attacked NGO internal personnel in order to manipulate and control the organizations as they considered them as ‘spies or agents of foreign intervention’ (Irby, 2012, pp-6) but was also manipulated for material gain. Especially Médecin Sans Frontières (MSF), when trying to negotiate access to territory has experienced this challenging obstacle to the process of providing assistance.

In comparison, NGO’s has been used as an extension of the donors military particularly in Afghanistan where humanitarian agencies had to work with states agencies, which undermined their neutrality.  The US Secretary of State, Colin Powell stated in a speech the close relationship the US has with NGO’s during the Enduring Freedom operation in Afghanistan (Abiew, 2012). This situation was later confirmed when the organizations applied the government program. The fact, western government lack of neutrality in bilateral foreign aid also undermines NGO’s at the same time, as local actors perceive them as an extension of modern imperialism.

To sum up, this essay does not argue NGO’s are not a useful tool to provide assistance during post-war recovery but that these alternatives are only short-term solutions, as they do not have the resources or the capacities to bring sustainable peace when corrupted and weak political infrastructures are still governing.

While there has been a consensus among academics that good governance is essential in order to promote development, it is a subjective theory and so means different things depending on individuals.  In this paper, good governance will be referred as the qualities of a state to govern around the principles of democracy, accountability, transparency and legitimacy. Moreover, The 1997 UNDP Report Governance for Sustainable Development sums up effectively the objectives a strong political infrastructure should have in order to be considered as legitimate: ‘it is, among other things, participatory, transparent and accountable, effective and equitable, and it promotes the rule of law.’ Moreover, by providing assistance without considering if the government prior intervention was well governed would improve the view of local actors on foreign aid and so would bring more likely collaboration.  Additionally, along this line aid is mainly undermined because donors do not take into account that even with substantial amount of aid if elites are still exercising power with no development goals then peace will not be sustainable.

 Thus, the aid policy should be applied and delivered with consideration of the reality of what is happening in the country and so the state’s policy. This last point raises the question, what kind of government should be established in order to develop a country post-war?

While some academics argues democracy is not they key to development, as the recipient country needs to find their own solutions.  However, democracy has actually been the most satisfactory solution in order to give the opportunity for equal participation to the political environment. We can consider, development and sustainable peace as the outcome while democracy and good governance are the process to obtain a convincing solution to post-war recovery.

It is essential to highlight the limits of good governance theory, as it is a difficult task to establish a causal relationship between the latter and development. For instance, while it is true democracy does not always lead to sustainable peace and development, the fact it incorporates human rights, transparency and accountability makes it an effective government where there is higher chances that aid will be distributed homogenously to the population (Opara, 2007).

As strong political infrastructures are needed in order to manage grievances and be able to handle conflicts before they will turn violent. For instance, analysis of the situation in Haiti have concluded the only alternative for post-war recovery is to bring the necessary assistance to establish a cohesion between the state and citizens and to work effectively towards a ‘participatory consensus’ (Kumar, 1998).

Conclusion

Considering the above, it can be concluded that in order to establish a long-term post-war recovery the process has to be political, in the sense of establishing good governance.

We have analyzed, foreign aid is mainly undermined by its politicization, due to the donor’s instrumentalization of aid for national and security interests. It is more likely, bilateral channels would be more effective if they provided assistance impartially based on humanitarian need rather than conditionality and so reward of good governance. The current foreign aid assistance in Somalia and Afghanistan civil wars requires the participation of NGO’s and unconditional aid but the roots of the conflict has to address before, as the prerequisite of sustainable peace is good governance and legitimacy of the state.

For further research, the causal relationship between democracy and development should be further analyzed with its applicability to different post-war situations. Furthermore, it would be interesting to consider the variability of democracies in order to establish not a one size-fit all model, but one which could correspond to the state’s cultural and traditional background. While, the Westernized perspective of political infrastructures cannot be applied to every post-war recoveries, engaging in a reform of the current government to promote transparency, accountability and participation could stabilize the conflicts.

Continue Reading
Comments

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

International Law

Science Policy Holds Promise in the South China Sea

James Borton

Published

on

Scientific cooperation may succeed in de-escalating the current tensions in the tumultuous area of the South China Sea. This in spite of White House efforts to deny well-established climate change reports, and the U.S. withdrawal from the 2015 Paris Climate Accord, which has some observers questioning the wisdom of laying down a science-led peace-building plan in the contested South China Sea disputes.

Chinese oceanographers and their marine scientists are now raising a science flag to neighboring claimant nations in the region. At an increasing number of multilateral science conferences, Chinese scientists quietly admit that there are shared regional environmental security issues including acidification, biodiversity loss, coral reef destruction and fishery collapse. While in Washington, the Department of Defense and the U.S. Navy expresses skepticism about China’s rapid expansion of their oceanographic research expansions, it raises more opportunities rather than hegemonic problems.

Science may prove to be the crucible for bringing about a new level of cooperation rather than competition, not only among the claimant nations in the region, but also between Washington and Beijing.

Last year President Trump’s offer to Vietnam’s President Tran Dai Quang to mediate the complex and challenging disputes over access to fish stocks, conservation of biodiversity and sovereignty claims caught many observers by surprise, it should not have.

The stakes are getting higher in the turbulent South China Sea, not only because of Beijing’s militarization of reclaimed islands but also the prospects of a fisheries collapse. This should weigh heavily on all claimant nations and especially the United States. Challenges around food security and renewable fish resources are fast becoming a hardscrabble reality for more than fishermen. In 2014, the Center for Biological Diversity warned that it could be a scary future, indeed, with as many as 30-50 percent of all species possibly headed toward extinction by mid-century.

What’s clear is that the ocean’s resources are continued to be exploited at a record pace and a few of China’s fleet of almost 50 research vessels have now set their sights on American waters by navigating through the Federated States of Micronesia, near the U.S. territory of Guam.

In a recently published National Interest article, “Chinese Scientists Want to Conduct Research in U.S. Waters- Should Washington Let Them,” authors Peter Dutton and Ryan Martinson, argue that China is a strategic competitor in its ocean agenda. They claim, that “Beijing primarily invests in out-of-area oceanographic research in order to position China to better compete with other countries for security, resources, markets and political influence.”

While it’s true that these research vessels are a part of China’s National Fleet, the scientific oversight is to insure State Oceanic Administration’s management of oceanographic activities. Of course, the U.S. Department of Defense and the Seventh Fleet recognize that any Chinese research vessels must be monitored but there’s no issue with the PRC conducting freedom of navigation around Guam as long as it’s outside the limits of Guam, recognized by the United Nations Conventions on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

It’s not too late for the U.S. to take the scientific high ground and renew the legacy of science diplomacy. After all, science initiatives are more widely accepted as efforts to solve global issues requiring contributions from all parties even if they have been dealt a bad hand elsewhere. On November 3, the White House signed off on a report attributing climate change and global warming to humanity. The report is in direct contradiction to the president’s action pulling the U.S. out of the Paris accord on climate change earlier this year.

Enter science diplomacy, defined as the role of science being used to inform foreign policy decisions, promoting international scientific collaborations, and establishing scientific cooperation to ease tensions between nations. It’s true that many policymakers and scientists do not speak the same language; however, there’s increasing evidence that points the compass towards the link between international science cooperation and international relations.

During the Cold War, scientific cooperation was used to build bridges of cooperation and trust, and it’s now time that the South China Sea becomes a sea that binds rather than divides. The defense skeptics in Washington certainly are correct in their observations that China’s distant fleets directly serves state interests. However, maritime research can be cooperatively shared and perhaps, the first step in China inviting fellow marine scientists and maybe even an embedded journalist or two aboard one of their marine research vessels.

There are strong ties among scientists across Southeast Asia and China, due in part to a series of international scientific projects, conferences and training workshops associated with the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization’s South China Sea Fisheries Development and Coordination program.

Marine scientists in the Philippines and Vietnam are reviving conversations about the Joint Oceanographic Marine Scientific Research Expeditions (JOMSRE) last conducted in 2005 and organized between the Philippine Maritime and Ocean Affairs Center and the Vietnamese Institute of Oceanography.

These measures are essential in the face of rampant overfishing and a looming coral reef apocalypse occurring across the South China Sea, in part because of the conflicting territorial claims have made ecological analyses and management actions difficult.

Michael Crosby, president and CEO of Mote Marine Laboratory in Sarasota, Florida, believes the U.S. could dramatically improve international relations through marine science partnerships, and he understands the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) contains specific articles that apply to marine science and technology.

“A renewal of JOMSRE would be quite positive, although the changing political dynamics related to the Spratlys and other islands and reefs in the region over the last several years will likely create a bit more challenging environment for an international research survey,” Mr. Crosby said in an email.

Modern history offers excellent examples of how science supported diplomacy. In 1961 President John F. Kennedy invited Japan’s Prime Minister Hayato Ikeda to support the US-Japan Committee on Science Cooperation. In Science Diplomacy New Day or False Dawn, the editors Lloyd S. Davis and Robert Patman, offer compelling arguments for the adoption of science in diplomacy. This includes their study of the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU) with a lens on the success achieved among 60 countries, who were engaged in Antarctic cooperative research on the area’s ice sheets, atmospheric conditions and oceanographic properties.

Dr. Paul Arthur Berkman, a professor of practice in Science Diplomacy at Tufts University, reaffirms the lessons the Antarctica and extols science as a tool of diplomacy that builds bridges among nations and fosters stability in regions. Antarctica is the one place that arguably is the archetype for what can be accomplished by science diplomacy.

Under the Antarctic Treaty, no country actually owns all or part of Antarctica, and no country can exploit the resources of the continent while the Treaty is in effect. It is a classic example of international cooperation.

Also, it’s worth noting the success of the Red Sea Marine Peace Cooperative Research, Monitoring and Resource Management Program (RSMPP) where Israel and Jordan signed off on an ecosystem monitoring agreement and shared science data collection in the Gulf of Aqaba in 2003. RSMPP offers another model for improving international relations and building capacity through marine science cooperation in the South China Sea. These two opposing countries chose to promote the long-term sustainable use and conservation of their shared marine resources.

Professor John McManus, a marine biologist at the University of Miami, has researched the contested Spratly Islands for more than a quarter of a century. He has called repeatedly for the development of an international peace park and remains hopeful that other regional marine scientists and ecologists will support a collaborative science-driven initiative.

He says, “Territorial disputes have led to the establishment of environmentally destructive, socially and economically costly military outposts on so many islands. Given the rapid proliferation of international peace parks, it is time to take the difficult steps towards the establishment of a Spratlys Peace Park.”

Although the U.S. is not a signatory to UNCLOS, Washington can recommend that sovereignty claims be set aside in treaties implementing freezes on claims and claim-supportive activities, as has been done in the Antarctic. These and other natural resource management tools could be used far more effectively to secure fisheries and biodiversity, and also promote sustainable tourism.

Now that the mid-term election results are in, the White House may find this collaborative brand of science diplomacy works well in Asia.

Continue Reading

International Law

Ebbing Liberal World Order

Muhammad Usman Ghani

Published

on

The twentieth century witnessed unusual happenings across the globe. Its first half had to encounter with the two most deadly conflicts (2 World-Wars) which claimed millions of lives. The technological sophistication of weapons and the beginning of the Nuclear Age were responsible elements that made the both World-Wars bloody conflicts.

Fearing such happenings, the Allied powers in the aftermath of the World-War-II bent on establishing such order that could avert misfortunes, which the world had plagued. Thus, the liberal world order came into existence that endorsed mutual collaboration among the countries, the formation of multilateral institutes, and the upkeep of democracy. The liberal world order cherished; globalization, human rights protection, freedom of speech, and trade expanse among the countries. The organizations were formed to strengthen the liberal world order in the form of cooperation among the countries. In earnest to foster peace, the formation of the United Nations (UN) took place. For the purpose of economic advancement, the World Bank came into existence. To get the countries out of economic turmoil, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) formed. For the international trade objectives, General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) formed, which years succeeding converted into the World Trade Organization. The democratic countries began to adopt the liberal world order aiming to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the countries. The liberal order further entrenched its roots after the fall of the Soviet Union, as it intended to deter the aggression and prevented the invasion of countries on the other. The ideology of globalization by the exchange of products, ideas and communication among the countries, is the testimony to the services of the liberal world order.

One must realize that the foundation of liberal world order rests upon two pillars: one is the freedom of individual and the second is the growth of social and economic norms. The liberals applied the blend of freedom and growth in the years following the World-War-II. Since then the allied powers endeavored to restore the war-ravaged world, and consequently, the liberal order garnered much progress.

However, in the existing era, its existence is jeopardized since most of the countries have set their journey on the ways, which are deviating from the liberal world order. The world in the past few years has experienced the rise in populism (an antidote to the liberal world order), which has begun to eclipse the liberal world order.

The recent victory of the far-right candidate Jair Bolsonaro in the Brazilian presidential elections, in October 2018, has heralded the perversion of liberal world order. His victory has followed the onslaughts on LGBT people, women and any individual who opposed right-wing candidates. Bolsonaro enjoys the backing of conservatives and most reactionary sect of Brazil like pro-weapon lobby, industrialists, army and police force. Recently, Cuba has withdrawn thousands of doctors from Brazil after his criticism on the communist-run island’s More program, which sends Cuban doctors in destitute areas of Brazil. He said his government would bring changes in this program. His belief in men’s superiority over women hate towards indigenous, black, and LGBT community is a definite threat to the liberal order.

The world since Trump’s assuming the power of the US has seen the surge in the populism. He pushed the US into the trade-war against the other countries. He also repudiated the ideology of globalization while taking the podium of the UNGA in September 2018. Donald Trump prefers; transaction over the alliance, unpredictability over consistency, and bilateralism over multilateralism, which endangers the liberal world order. Trump adopted the idea of protectionism by uttering that “it will lead to greater prosperity and strength”.

The liberal world order’s countenance is defaced in other countries as well. The rise of AfD (far-right group) in Germany is yet another threat to the liberal world order. The AfD criticizes the immigration of trapped refugees to Germany. The group aspires changes in the constitution of Germany to get rid of the right of an individual hearing in asylum cases and opposes ruling “grand coalition” of Angela Merkel with social democrats. In September elections, the AfD became the first far-right group to conquer seats in the Bundestag in a half-century.

In the Netherlands, France, and Hungary, the far-right parties have tried to capitalize on the influx of Muslim refugees to woo Jews. The populist movements have won the plebiscites in Britain, Hungry and Poland. Britain’s decision to abandon the European Union in the form of Brexit is yet another instance of crippling liberal world order. The recent electoral triumph of left-wing populist parties such as Podemos in Spain and Syriza in Greece has given an impetus to the debate on the rise of populism in Europe. At times the populist possesses notion that rampant commercialization and globalization have rendered masses unemployed.

Now, the question emerges that why the liberal order has to face such ruin, and what are the driving factors behind it?

Patrick J. Deenen in his book ”Why liberalism failed” pointed out that humans are independent entities and distinct from nature and this principle keeps our hearts at war with nature. Modern science, as posited by René Descartes and Francis Bacon, was the locomotive that would make us masters and possessors of nature. But, this attitude almost certainly made for unprecedented success and prosperity to a liberal society, it is also responsible for today’s global ecological crisis which has no parallel in human history.

Another driving factor that fades the liberal order is the nationalism, which is a kind of loyalty of one towards its country; irrespective of what is right or wrong. Thus, the leaders in a bid to bolster their domain of influence and authority harness the tool of nationalism amidst the worst economic conditions. The same is the case with Donald Trump when he found a little debacle in the U.S’ economy, he bent on scrutinizing liberalism and adopted protectionism.

The man has always craved for the power, as his innate nature urges him to do so. Machiavelli in his famous work ”The Prince” has portrayed man’s nature as rogue, pirate and greedy. The arms race, aspiration of countries for assuming the world’s hegemonic saddle, confiscating feeble country’s resources and dominating political influence are the foremost goals that major powers are aspiring for. The pursuance of these goals has led the human far away from the policies and rules of the liberal world order. The Yemen crisis, the Palestine issue, turmoil in Syria, Kashmir issue, and Rohingya crisis are the epitomes of the interests of the global powers, which are exploiting these lands and their people for just the sake of interest in these regions; thus undermining the course of the liberal order. The global institutions like the United Nations, the World Trade Organization and the World Bank seem tether to address the turmoil and issues among the countries.

In a nutshell, illiberal norms in the world are posing threats to its stability. These norms are going to cripple communication and trade among the countries. Along with it, these trends are likely to replete the world with skirmishes, and conflicts among the nations. Consequently, leaving the world into turmoil, adversity, poverty, and wars.

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy