Britain's rendition shame

Jack Straw, who served under the previous Labour governments as Home Secretary from '97 - 2001 and Foreign Secretary from '01 - '06, has previously stated unambiguously that the British Government has neither been involved in - nor turned a blind eye to - rendition or torture of any kind.  Straw has, apparently, been forced by MI6 into a very serious admission.

It is now on the record that he personally signed the order for the extraordinary rendition of at least one individual.

The individual in question is Abdel Hakim Belhadj who was detained while seeking asylum in the UK.  After being detained he was apparently - and true to the tune of the previous Labour administrations' craven attitude toward the Bush regime - handed over to the CIA who then rendered him, with the UK's full knowledge & cooperation, to Libya.  The same Libya whose Qaddafi regime we recently had a major hand in toppling.  This is highly embarrassing as whilst it was right to take the lead with France in toppling Qaddafi in the genuine aim of protecting the Libyan people, it is much easier now for those who wish to question the government's motivation in this endeavour. Whilst it was right in the prevailing circumstances of the time for Blair to take the lead in bringing Libya in from the diplomatic & economic cold in return for renouncing her programme of WMD - in the early 2000's - it is now so much easier for those who wish to paint that pragmatic move as an exercise in cynicism.  It was, however, unambiguously wrong for the UK & US to outsource the dirty business of torture to Libya or any other insalubrious state.  Complicity, in any way whatsoever, in a practice that is both morally repugnant and against international law, is a crime, committed by a state in the name of its people.

You and I are examples of those people; I know I didn't sign up for this and I doubt you did either.

Ordinary people are serially punished for crimes ranging from the petty to the serious but 'the rule of law', something the UK is supposed to be at the vanguard of, is there to ensure those who occupy the highest positions in the land are subject to the same laws as those they rule over.  Moreover, those who make, interpret and implement the law must be scrupulously, and be seen to be so, held to account for their actions.  This essence of the 'rule of law' is the water that separates an inherently civilised polity from one a bit more primitive and it is the enforcers who must strive to be spotless and must be held fully to account if they are found wanting.  

Why should any citizen respect the law if those who make, interpret & enforce it are not seen to be held accountable to the very highest standards?  It is encouraging, therefore, that Scotland Yard has apparently launched an investigation into Jack Straw.  Clearly that investigation should be extended to every member of the cabinet of the period in question.  The UK is ruled by the concept of 'collective ministerial responsibility' meaning that every policy is endorsed by the cabinet in its entirety.  This concept was diluted during the Blair years but still applies to any government of any particular flavour.  

At a dinner with friends in Belgrade some years ago when the issue of Kosovan independence was at fever pitch, the subject of our behaviour in Iraq was raised.  These particular Serbs were understanding, albeit reluctantly, of the reality and inevitability of the situation; that Serbia would lose Kosovo.  They didn't like it but at the same time rejoining the community of civilised nations was even more important than the totemic issue of Kosovo.  The fact that we bombed Serbia because of Bosnia - the right thing to do - and  did so again because of Kosovo - also the right thing to do - was something that they had, extraordinarily, come to terms with.  What these Serbian friends couldn't accept, however, was that the enforcers - us - the UK alongside the US - were conducting a war in Iraq where its implementation was in many cases seen to be as bad, or perhaps worse, than the excesses of the Milosevic regime we had twice bombed.  

As one friend put it - "you are not the good guys anymore".

He was right.  We covered ourselves in effluent during those years.  It was a different government with very different players but the world doesn't care who was in power, the world simply remembers the UK/US and words like rendition.  

Our current administration is taking great strides in attempting to repair this image problem but the only way to convincingly purge ourselves of the guilt we should rightly feel for that period is for our representatives of that time to face justice.  

Scotland Yard is investigating Jack Straw.  A good start and whilst this is likely to sound fantastical it needs to be the thin end of the wedge.  The US is not a signatory to the ICC but the UK is, and we must practice what we preach.  It is incumbent upon every one of us to demand that, at the very least, the ICC investigates Jack Straw, Tony Blair and the rest.  Politicians lives are serially destroyed for trivial 'moments of madness'.  In this case war crimes, no less, were allegedly committed by our state and whether that allegation ultimately proves to be true or false, justice must be done and be seen to be done.

Update to The Rule of Law #UK, #France, #Bahrain, #Ukraine

- The European Court of Human Rights as now ruled that Hamza, Qatada and others can be extradited.  Common sense has prevailed and by not losing patience with due process the government has maintained its credibility. 

-  The Bahraini Grand Prix will go ahead next weekend as concerns about human rights abuses are subordinated to other imperatives.

- Sheikh Nasser bin Hamad al-Khalifa - a Bahraini Prince, allegedly implicated in the crack down on pro-democracy protesters, will be granted VIP status at the London Olympics.  The Sheikh is reported to have said of those involved in the pro-democracy movement - "Anyone who called for the fall of the regime, may a wall fall on his head, whether he is an athlete, socialite or politician - whatever he is - he will be held accountable...Bahrain is an island and there is nowhere to escape".

- Former British Home Secretary - Jack Straw - apparently admits to having signed orders in at least one case for the extraordinary rendition of a terrorist suspect to Libya.  It seems that though there is a pretty good record internally, the UK hasn't been so diligent in observing the 'rule of law' in relation to foreign affairs.  Shame.

 

The Rule of Law #UK, #France, #Bahrain, #Ukraine

The planets are aligned for this post given that 1) There is a great deal of noise in the British press as to why our Prime Minister (or more accurately Home Secretary) cannot deport the likes of Abu Qatada & Abu Hamza (Mr hook-hand) in defiance of legal rulings as Sarkozy has done in France.  2) The Bahraini Grand Prix is likely to be pulled as a result of egregious human rights abuses in one of the more liberal Gulf states, 3) Ukraine, the great hope of the civilised world after the so called 'Orange Revolution' in '04/05, has slid fully back to unfettered 'rule by the rulers' without even the pretence of something more benign. 

The British Government is being vilified in the press for being too timid to defy court orders and deport persons who have, by an independent judiciary, been given leave to remain in the country.  Clearly the British Government wants the two Abus Qatada and Hamza out of the country.  Probably they are a threat to the country's security though hopefully the threat is diminished by the close attention of the security agencies.  One - Hamza - is demanded for extradition by our close ally for the most serious of crimes.  But, the British Government, like the US Government (though it certainly appeared otherwise during Bush Junior's tenure) is subordinate to the law; statute that it and its predecessors have proposed to and had scrutinised and amended by an active legislature; law that is interpreted by - and forgive the  repetition - an independent judiciary.

French citizens by contrast do not enjoy such significant safeguards.  What started out as the Napoleonic code - and is of course massively more liberal and sophisticated now - still enshrines the power of the state over and above the citizen.  The French state can ignore the law and be tolerated by its citizenry in a way that its Anglo Saxon counterparts cannot.  This is of course inconvenient, and frequently so.  Sarkozy gets rid of two extremists yet Theresa May has her hands tied by the courts re the two Abus.  We may not, in many cases, like the judges' opinions but thank god our masters can be held to account.  It's impossible for any society to perfectly calibrate the balance of power between the legitimate imperatives of state and those of the citizens it is supposed to serve but if either party is to be overly empowered please let it be the citizen.

The French state can slap compulsory purchase orders on anything that stands between it and its policy.  This contrasts favourably with the British system if efficiency is the main imperative.  It took, amazingly, more than a decade of public enquiry before Heathrow Terminal 5 could be built but which system would you prefer?  People marvel at China's infrastructural great leaps forward but the implementation is done without reference to law, the populace or environment.  'Getting things done' is generally celebrated but those 'things' must be checked, scrutinised and sometimes stopped, even if we don't always like, agree with or even comprehend some of the resulting road blocks.  The flip side of living in a fully functioning democracy where the government is held to account by the law is that on occasion one Abu or another will be given leave to stay against the will of government and even against what seems to be blindingly obvious common sense.  Eventually the government will legislate effectively - in a fashion that cannot be overturned by our courts or Strasbourg - and in the interim it will cost a lot of taxpayers money; all of this seemingly flying in the face of common sense.  But, at least if the government or any one of its enforcement agencies wants to 'fit you up' it takes a massive amount of concerted effort.   Not impossible of course but the citizen has significant safeguards to rely upon.

A prosaic example: if a police car stops you for speeding in most northern EU countries he must produce video evidence of the alleged offence whereas in France the Gendarme doesn't have to provide a shred of proof, as a sworn agent of the state his word is the law.  Shades of Louis XIV's "l'etat c'est mois' - and the potential for state sponsored injustice goes all the way up the legal food chain. 

Bahrain:  This is one of the more liberal Gulf states (which doesn't say much for the state of Gulf liberalism) yet is likely to have the Grand Prix pulled as a result of egregious human rights abuses over the last two years as the ruling family clamped down on protesters while the rest of the world was celebrating the early stages of the so called 'Arab Spring'.  It surely seems wrong that certain members of the family dictatorship reside in London and enjoy all the trappings of liberal London and its rule of law whilst the Bahraini regime behaves in a less civilised fashion at home.  

Ukraine:  After the 2004 presidential election was blatantly stolen by Leonid Kuchma and his PM Viktor Yanukovich, the Orange Revolution ensued and was a rare display of genuine people power in a former Soviet republic.  The world hoped that a nation tainted by allegations that its president ordered the decapitation of investigative journalist Georgiy Gongadze might join the community of civilised nations; hope that was stoked by newly installed president Yushchenko and his PM Yulia Timoshenko.  Unfortunately Yushchenko proved far too weak for the machismo of Ukrainian politics though was probably the least venal president in the country's history.  Yulia, known as the Gas Princess for the massive wealth she accumulated from within that sector mainly during the period her friend Lazarenko was PM - since jailed in the US for money laundering up to $200m - was hoped to be a poacher turned gamekeeper.  Whatever her past, and whether or not in office she was more 'poacher' or 'gamekeeper', the fact is that despite having teamed up to overturn the stolen election, she and Yushchenko could not politically coexist due to their monumental loathing for one another.  Whatever their intentions this led to the government being fundamentally dysfunctional which in turn led to inept policy making and ongoing corruption amongst those affiliated to it.  The result was the disillusionment of the Ukrainian people who had been so brave in the face of a potential Bahraini style crackdown when protesting against the stolen '04 election.  The catastrophic political failure of Yushchenko and Timoshenko, however, led to the election next time around in 2010 of Viktor Yanukovych as president - precisely the man who under Kuchma's tutelage tried so hard to steal the Ukrainian people's votes in '04.  In a body-politic as cynical as this there are no red lines for the rulers or indeed the ruled.

There were, apparently, three lasting benefits of the Orange moment which many thought would continue to prevail. 

1)  EU passport holders had the need for a Ukrainian visa lifted in a drive for foreign investment.  This maybe the most minor achievement of the Orange period but as far as I can tell the only one that still prevails.

2)  A free media.  The word 'Temniki' is uniquely Ukrainian and refers to the instructions that were issued to the media - prior to the Orange Revolution - about which topics could and could not be covered.  The system of 'Temniki' was blown apart during and after the Orange Revolution and was considered to be a genie that could and would never be forced back into the bottle.  Sadly the perception of irreversibility has proved false and Yanukovych's regime fully controls the Ukrainian media once again.

3)  Legal persecution:  The world believed Ukraine would, albeit slowly and falteringly, move toward an independent judiciary.  Even after the thugs returned in 2010 friends in Kiev would state - seemingly authoritatively - that Ukraine is not Russia.  Well, whatever Yulia Tymoshenko has done wrong in the past, she is being pursued, jailed and some would argue tortured by her political opponents as the courts do the bidding of those in power.  The use of legal 'administrative resources' extends beyond Tymoshenko's persecution to many opponents of the Yanukovych regime.  There is no due process.

4)  Free elections:  The Orange Revolution achieved this at great personal risk to thousands who camped out in protest at the stolen '04 election.  The dark side won power back, fairly believe it or not, in 2010 but that will be the last free and fair election in Ukraine for some time.

Conclusions re rule of law:  UK and most of northern Europe are pretty good though please allow a qualification re the UK - this is in relation to a legal dynamic between the British government & its citizens and excludes the shameful abuses committed - allegedly - during the war with Iraq.  France is not good enough for a leading EU member.  Bahrain - its tough to justify that this is a regional ally.  Ukraine - a living example of sheer amorality dressed up as a state.

Postscript:  The European Court of Human Rights as now ruled that Hamza, Qatada and others can be extradited.  Common sense has prevailed and by not losing patience with due process the government has maintained its credibility.

For more on Ukraine here's a link to an article in the FT:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e564501e-7f44-11e1-a06e-00144feab49a.html#axzz1rjFkUVJR