My recent blog post on modern-day slavery and human trafficking brushed upon the subject of the abuse of migrant workers in the region. However, this topic alone is worthy of a blog post.
On March 14 2012, Dechasa Desisa a young Ethiopian woman committed suicide after being publically abused and humiliated by her employer. News about her unfortunate death filled international and local media outlets, as human rights organisation rushed to condemn the Lebanese government and call for reform of national laws. However, this young woman is one of many migrant workers who are physically and verbally exploited in Lebanon, and this has been going on for too long. There are almost 200,000 migrant workers –from mainly Asian and African countries -and they are not subject to Lebanese labour laws but instead to special immigration laws. Modern day slavery has taken a new and different form and so there should be legislation in order to stop it!

The Lebanese government should strive to protect domestic workers and criminalise the abusers by:
•    Abolishing the sponsorship law or the KAFALA system
•    Conforming Lebanese labour law to internationally recognised labour law
•    Ratifying the International Labour Organization’s (ILO) Convention No. 189 on Decent Work for Domestic Workers
•    Amending current Lebanese law -which only penalises the abuser with 1 month of imprisonment
•    Launching a series of mandatory awareness campaigns in schools in all regions explaining forms of abuse and means to stop or prevent them in their own homes
•    Informing domestic workers upon arrival in Lebanon of their rights
•    Penalising the “recruitment” companies  -which often act as the middle-man between the domestic worker and their employer- when they do not report abuse or carry it out themselves, deny the workers their pay and  confiscate personal belongings
•    Educate all official personnel who have to direct contact with abused workers in order to handle the cases properly

On Sunday 29th April a parade will take place in Beirut celebrating workers day and calling for the abolishment of the sponsorship law in the hope that the government will listen.

The statements and actions of Iranian clerics and political figures continue to escalate tensions with Gulf States.  This has been followed by President Ahmadinejad visiting one of the Emirate Islands which Iran has occupied, further straining these already fragile relationships.

But why is Iran behaving like this? Especially at a time when it is under international pressure and its enemies are numerous! Would it not at the very least not want to antagonise what could be neutral elements in its “cold war” with its traditional enemies?

The current Iranian regime, in attempt to unify its divided people and assert its grip on power, is creating the impression that the Shia population is a target, and is continuously marginalised in the Arab world. This would also explain Iran’s support of the Syrian regime during the uprising and the explicit antagonising of the Bahraini regime - Iran was the first to give the Bahraini uprising a religious cover and is continuing to capitalise on any delay of consensus.

If this is the Iranian regime’s response to tight times, what kind of behaviour should we expect when the regime is more relaxed, and if it reaches a consensus with western states guaranteeing its strength and increasing its power? 

To read this article in full, please click here.

In his speech on 10 January 2012, President Bashar Al Assad of Syria made it clear that local administration (municipal) elections were held - less than a month earlier - “under very hard circumstances. And because of the security situation, it was natural that this elections not to bring about the expected results”. But, between 12 December 2011; the date of the municipal elections, and 26 February 2012; the date of the referendum on the new constitution, security situation worsened.

Then, why did the Syrian regime insist on organising the referendum on the new constitution?

The most plausible reason could have been the regime’s urgent need to convince Syrian opposition, as well as the international community, that the regime is serious about political reform. Thus, consequently, to use ‘constitutional reform’ as a new starting point towards achieving a political settlement in Syria, especially after the failure of security solution that has been tried for over a year to suppress protests against the regime.

Unfortunately, and according to the articles of the new constitution, such reason/ explanation has no basis. The so-called a ‘New Constitution’ is a mere amendment to the 1973 Constitution.

It is true that the ‘New Constitution’ has recognised political pluralism instead of the leading role of the Baath Party; and prevented (theoretically) President Assad from staying in power after the year 2028! Nevertheless, the ‘New Constitution’ preserves the main characteristics of the political system under the former constitution; especially the absolute power that the President enjoys.

According to 2012 Constitution, and as exactly as it was stated in 1973 Constitution: “The President cannot be held responsible for actions pertaining directly to his duties, except in the case of high treason. A request for his indictment requires a proposal of at least one-third of the members of the People's Assembly and an Assembly decision adopted by a two-thirds majority in an open vote at a special secret session. His trial takes place only before the Supreme Constitutional Court.”

Such complete immunity is granted to the President who, inter alia, is “the chief commander of the military and the armed forces,” and the head of Executive and Judicial Authorities. Accordingly, he appoints “civil and military officials and terminates their services;” nominates “one vice President or more and may assign some of his duties to him/them;” appoints “the Prime Minister and his Deputies and the Ministers and their Deputies, accepts their resignations, and dismisses them from their posts;”approves “the public policy of the State and oversees its implementation;” and appoints members (Judges) of ‘The Supreme Constitutional Court’.

In addition, the President can bypass the People’s Assembly (Parliament) at any time and enact laws. Furthermore, the President with his cabinet “may announce and cancel states of emergency”. Also, "In case of grave danger which threatens national unity or the safety and independence of the homeland, or hinders the state's institutions from undertaking their constitutional duties, the President may take quick action required by the circumstances to face the danger.” And he enjoys these authorities without any kind of monitoring or supervision, not even from ‘The Supreme Constitutional Court’.  

Taking all this into consideration, how should the new-old constitution be seen? Rather than being perceived as a move towards reform, the 2012 Constitution is actually a ‘preemptive step’ to hinder any genuine reform and maintain the status quo. In brief, the alleged ‘constitutional reform’ is nothing but a ‘reform to end all reform!’ To make it clear, Assad and his regime are getting ready for the worst case scenario, which is a national dialogue with the opposition. Consequently, to prevent any real concessions in the future that might threaten their absolute power; the President and his regime have made these ‘minor’ changes in advance, and according to their own criteria and standards.

At this point, it seems obvious that the main aim of the Syrian regime is to contain the protests rather than to meet real nee of the people. But after more than a year of protests, and thousands of casualties, such fake steps to reform will only be a gamble with the future of Syria and its people, and nothing less!

This article was published in full (and in Norwegian) in Mandag Morgen Magazine. To read it in full please click here.

Although some of the statements made in the “welcome letter” issued by the Israeli authorities addressed to the activists -who were denied entry at Ben Gurion airport are valid- it is despicable that a government would use the misery of men, women, and children in neighbouring countries to justify the suffering the government is inflicting itself on the people of Palestine.

It is absolutely true that Israel isn’t surrounded by the best of regimes – there is an absence of democracies, dictatorial rule by monarchies, women’s rights are abused in Egypt, and Syria has been ruled by a single party for more than 30 years and without a single democratic election- but claiming that Israel is the sole democracy in the region? According to what academic definition does a democratic state occupy another? According to what scholarly interpretation of democracy does Israel fall under when families are not allowed to be reunited? When generations of children continue live in the fear of Israeli bulldozers destroying their homes?  Israel pointing fingers at the unfair conditions in other countries is getting old- and it is no longer fooling anyone. It cannot keep using the oppressive regimes of its neighbours - or around those further afield - as an excuse to continue the occupation.  

However, there is a wider lesson to be learnt here. Something foreign policy makers around the world should consider. The Arab Spring -if it has taught us anything -is that nations need to start practicing what they preach. It only makes their plight for human rights concerns more legitimate.

So let us too stop the blame game and start addressing domestic injustices carried out by our own governments.

The Muslim Brotherhood in Syria discussed their vision- a nation where its citizens are not discriminated against because of their race, religion or political leanings, where men and women are equal, all citizens have duties towards the state as well as rights from it, and where all citizens have the right to reach to the highest political positions based on a meritocratic political system. This speech was not only too good to be true, but never before has any other Islamic political group been so forward and so direct, crossing all boundaries and red lines.

Even though, doubting the credibility of such a speech is legitimate, it cannot be the sole focus of our attention. With the rise of Islamism in almost every other Arab nation, remembering that we cannot defend the current oppressive regimes out of spite or fear of Islamic groups is crucial.

The important question remains of how we can preserve the ideals of citizenship and democracy as suggested by the Muslim Brotherhood in this recent speech.

The answer is to allow the creation of intellectual and religious diversification; because the only thing that protects democracy is healthy competition. All that can be done is to encourage leftists, liberals and nationalists to come up with ideas and electoral programmes to challenge the ones proposed by the Muslim Brotherhood and compete to win the hearts and minds of the Arab nations.

As long as there this inability to create a healthy diverse political scene only a dictatorship is bound to rule, whether it is the Muslim Brotherhood or any other type...

To read my article in full please click here.

This is a round-up of the weeks major terrorism news stories by ICSR Research Intern, Henry Millard

Six held in Antrim after Real IRA vow to continue their campaign of terror

A Real IRA rally at the Creggan cemetery in Derry commemorating the 1916 Easter Rising has seen 6 men arrested by the Police Service of Northern Ireland and taken to the Serious Crimes Suite of Antrim police station after the event was monitored by a PSNI helicopter.

Before the rally a small group of paramilitaries and several hundred supporters marched through the cemetery. During the wreath-laying ceremony a man in a balaclava wearing battle fatigues read a statement, on behalf of the Real IRA , which vowed that the dissident republicans would persist in acts of terrorism; "The IRA will continue to attack Crown Force personnel, their installations, as well as British interests and infrastructure," he said.

The Easter Monday event was organised by the 32 County Sovereignty Movement and comes a day after calls from Sinn Fein for a process of reconciliation and the perseverance of peace. The Real IRA is responsible for the murder of soldiers Mark Quinsey and Patrick Azimkar outside the Massereene Barracks in 2009.

Chief Inspector Gary Eaton and other PSNI spokesmen stated senior officers had taken the decision to action "a low-key operational response to the event", further adding the events would be “rigorously and thoroughly investigated”

Held in a cell or in a straight jacket? Fresh analysis of Breivik’s psychiatric state could see a custodial sentence after all

A new psychiatric examination has found that self-declared mass killer Anders Breivik is not criminally insane and is of sound mind. It conflicts a previous examination which concluded Breivik was psychotic at the time of the attacks and diagnosed him as a paranoid schizophrenic. The previous analysis may have meant Breivik’s detention within a psychiatric institution rather than the penal system , the most recent assessment re-establishes a custodial sentence as a distinct possibility.

The revelation comes just 6 days before the Norwegian's 10-week trial for terror charges is due to commence. The series of attacks orchestrated by Breivik in July saw a total of 77 people lose their lives in the Oslo bombing and subsequent Utoeya massacre. 34 of his victims were aged between 14 – 17.

Breivik’s previous psychotic diagnosis and calls for his commitment to a psychiatric care over prison received widespread criticism. Breivik insists he is mentally stable and has confessed to the attacks, but has denied criminal guilt and charges of terrorism calling rampage a necessary atrocity as part of his "crusade" against multi-culturalism and Islam and

Prosecutors originally reserved the right deviate from a sentence of compulsory psychiatric care, if new a diagnosis emerged regarding Breivik’s mental condition. Both reports will now be taken into consideration by the court when it decides whether he should be confined to a ward or a cell. If Breivik is found sane, it could result in a 21 year sentence with the potential for indefinite extensions to his imprisonment on the grounds of public protection.

Eye Wide Shut – Justice and Security green paper proposals receive cross-party condemnation

Former security adviser to David Cameron, Patrick Mercer MP is the latest to voice ‘grave’ concerns over proposals, found within the Justice and Security green paper , which seek to extend ‘Closed Material Procedures’ to allow more proceedings to be heard in secretly. The paper has also been condemned by the human rights campaigners Reprieve , .

In his statement today the Conservative’s security spokesman until 2007 seeks acknowledgment that free and open trials are an immensely important facet of the British criminal justice system. The erosion of which may amount to a major propaganda victory for violent extremists and may even bolster the perceived credibility of extremist narratives.

Under plans considered in the green paper , in some cases defendants may not be allowed to be present, know of, or challenge cases brought against them. In such incidents they would also be required to be represented by an advocate with security-clearance, rather than their solicitor. Parliament’s Human Rights Committee has produced a report criticising the plans as “inherently unfair and dangerous”. Mr Mercer remarked; “the point about terrorism and subversion is that it endeavours to change the way we live our lives and the tenets upon which we base our justice… by imposing these changes upon ourselves, we are doing the subversives’ jobs for them.”
Further issues have been raised regarding accountability , as current proposals seek a ban on Norwich Pharmacal, the legal principle which addresses issues of disclosure, explanation, and complicity in wrongdoing. All of which are particularly pertinent when investigating allegations of abuse and/or misconduct of detainees at the hands of the security services. Parallels have been drawn with the Diplock courts of Northern Ireland, where the juryless courts, whilst ensuring short term convictions, led to accusations of injustice, encroachment of civil liberties and imperialist authoritarianism.

According to the Telegraph , the Government faces a revolt and “senior figures from all parties have condemned the move”. The Special Advocates’ response to the consultation offers a comprehensive summary of these concerns.