1/10/2020 Escalation of Tensions between USA and Iran after the Airstrike conducted by USA killing General Qasem Soleimani and its possible effects on IndiaRead NowAmidst the long-standing conflict between United States and Iran, the recent airstrike conducted by United States which resulted in killing of General Qasem Soleimani, commander of Iran’s elite Quds Force, has escalated the tensions between the two nations dramatically.
Pentagon confirmed that the attack, which took down General Soleimani, who spearheaded Iranian military operations in the Middle East and was considered to be the second most powerful person in Iran after the Supreme leader, came at the direction of President Trump. The Trump administration considered General Soleimani and his troops a "foreign terrorist organization" and held Soleimani's troops responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers. The Pentagon said, targeting Soleimani was aimed at deterring “future Iranian attack plans”, while Trump said the Iranian general was targeted because he was planning “imminent and sinister” attacks on U.S. diplomats and military personnel. Trump and his top aides are defending the legality of action as being within the authority of the president. However, the top democrats are questioning whether the Trump administration required congressional approval for the same. Trump’s supporters are basing their support on Article 2 of the US Constitution, which allows the president to use military force in support of the national interest, when the force does not constitute war. It is debatable whether the actions constitute a declaration of war and whether congressional approval is required for acts of self-defence. The US Govt. is justifying the strike as an act of self-defence and deterrence. However, its legality under international law is also questionable. UN special rapporteur Agnès Callamard said that the drone strike resulting in the General’s killing is in violation of international human rights law. She criticized the Pentagon’s statement about the airstrike, and in reply to the justification given by the US Govt. that the action was in response to imminent threats to American lives she said, “under customary international law, states can take military action if the threatened attack is imminent, no other means would deflect it, and the action is proportionate.” She also mentioned that the killing appears far more retaliatory for past acts than anticipatory for imminent self-defence. Iran has vowed a severe revenge in retaliation to the airstrike and this can be seen as a potential turning point in the geopolitics of the Middle East. The question which stands unanswered is that whether the assassination of Iranian General Soleimani can be seen as a declaration of war. Soleimani may have been controversial, even a "shadow commander", but he served at the pleasure of Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Hosseini Khamenei, to protect and expand the regime's interests in the Middle East. Soleimani’s killing is an attack on the Iran’s state sovereignty. The attack also violates the sovereignty of Iraq as it was conducted on the territory of Iraq without the permission of Iraqi Government. This raises a serious doubt on the legality of the strike as violating international law by being an act of aggression and breaching the Iraqi sovereignty. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the use of force against other states barring an exception if the act is conducted in self-defence. Self-defence means fending off an armed attack. The question is whether the attack can be said to be in “anticipatory” self-defence, and it must meet the heightened Caroline Test, which requires that the necessity of self-defence “is instant, overwhelming, and leaves no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” Amidst the rising fear of a war between the two nations, the UN Secretary General has advocated for de-escalation and has made clear that the world cannot afford another Gulf War. The Trump administration had, earlier in its policy decisions, aimed to impose tough sanctions on Iran aimed at crippling its economy and containing its regional ambitions rather than acting in a way which could initiate war with the Islamic Republic. If this is so, then can it be considered that the action was to deflect attention from the impeachment during the election year? Or was it a response meant to safeguard American lives from future attacks, not start war with Iran. Either way, the assassination is a clear departure from the policy of sanctions, showing Trump administration’s readiness to use US military might as much as its economic power. What impact can the escalating situation have on India? At this point, India cannot handle tension in the Persian Gulf given the precarious position of its economy. There are two primary dangers which India can face if the situation escalates further. Firstly, heightened tensions could affect economies of the region in conflict and could endanger jobs of many Indians which in turn would place pressure on the Indians to return and could also endanger the remittances which India receives from West Asia. Secondly, the situation is causing a rise in the prices of oil. International prices have gone up by 4% since the strike. An increase in international oil prices could adversely affect the country and result in inflation thus, hampering India’s economy.
0 Comments
The internet is increasingly becoming a part of our everyday lives. However, currently only 24.4 per cent of the population on the African continent is estimated to have access to the internet. More people on the continent are gaining access through the proliferation of affordable internet-enabled smartphones. In Uganda, the number of internet users was estimated to be 18.5 million individuals as of June 2018.
In Africa the internet is considerably more politicised than in other parts of the world. Tools such as social media undoubtedly are altering the way in which activism is carried out. These tools facilitate networking, making the mobilisation of people for social or political causes much easier. A study by a United States (US) company, Portland Communications, on the use of the social media platform Twitter in Africa found that in 2018 almost half of the most popular African hash-tags related to political issues. Ugandans, like their African counterparts, use the internet and other electronic technologies to engage in various forms of activism. Activism through electronic technologies takes the form of text messaging on mobile phones, blogging, on-line petitions, social media posts, and the sharing of video recordings. In Uganda, digital activism was used to encourage support for Miss Uganda, Quiin Abenakyo, when she was among the finalists in the 2018 Miss World competition. Digital activism also has been used to do crowd funding for different causes, such as combating disease or paying the medical bills of patients. Digital activism simply is the continuation of traditional grassroots mobilisation using modern digital tools as aids. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Universal Declaration) states that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, and this includes the right to 'impart information and ideas through any media'. Since its adoption in 1948, parts of the Universal Declaration, including article 19, have gained wide acceptance and are now regarded as having acquired legal force as customary international law. In furtherance, while examining present legal systems in hand right now, we must take into account the provisions of the African Charter of Human Rights. Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (African Charter) provides that every individual has the right to receive information and to express and disseminate opinions within the law. In interpreting article 9, the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (African Commission) asserted the 'fundamental importance of freedom of expression and information as an individual human right, as a cornerstone of democracy and as a means of ensuring respect for all human rights and freedoms'. By virtue of the above examination, it can be concluded that digital activism has the nature of social and political activism, making these more widespread and easier. International instruments and constitutions protect freedom of expression and by extension, digital activism. This protection notwithstanding, various laws are being applied to curtail digital activism. A balanced approach that acknowledges the value of digital activism while curtailing harmful aspects of information and communications technology, such as cybercrime, is needed so that freedom of expression, so critical in this digital age, can thrive. The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 amends the Citizenship Amendment Act, 1955 to grant citizenship status to illegal immigrants belonging to Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan that follow Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism, Sikhism or the Parsi faith and fleeing from their countries under the fear of religious persecution but excludes the Muslims from the same. There can be a few interesting observations that can be made regarding India’s obligations under human rights treaties, concerning the said Bill.
Three days after the bill had been passed by the Lok Sabha, i.e. on December 14, the United Nations Human Rights Office condemned it by stating it to be “fundamentally discriminatory”. Basing our view on their observations, it can be reasoned that the Bill primarily breaches three important Human Rights Treaties, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights(ICCPR), the 1992 Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities and the Convention for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Further, though not strictly a human rights instrument, the said Act can also be argued to violate the Global Compact for Safe, Regular and Orderly Migration, which has India as one of its endorsees. Article 26 of the ICCPR reflects the Right to Equality as reflected in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It ensures equality before the law and equal protection of law to all “persons” irrespective of their race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinions, national or social origin, property, birth or other status and any law doing the same is to be considered in violation of the ICCPR. It could further be contended by the opposition that it violates Article 4 and Article 5 of the 1992 Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities. The former Article extends the protection of basic human rights and fundamental equality before the law to the minorities of a State, whereas the latter article specifies that “National policies and programs shall be planned and implemented with due regard for the legitimate interests of persons belonging to minorities”. The classification of the statute against the minority religious community of the State violates these two provisions. Further, under the Convention for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, under Article 1, “racial discrimination” includes discrimination based on national origin and right to nationality is declared an obligation on the state under Article 5. Both of these provisions are violated as the bill grants specific rights to specific nations and specific classes of people, but not to all refugees or migrants in need. India is however among the few countries in the world that neither has a national refugee protection framework nor an immigration policy, apart from certain statutes like Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939, Foreigners Act, 1946, and the Passport Act, 1967. India is also not a signatory to any UN conventions, so it is under no obligation to provide rights set out by them. While the goal of protecting persecuted groups is welcome, this should be done through a robust national asylum system that is premised on the principle of equality and non-discrimination, and which applies to all people in need of protection from persecution and other human rights violations, with no distinction as to race, religion, national origin or other prohibited grounds. If its actions conflict with such Human Rights Instruments, it can lead to adverse consequences, from condemnation by the international community to UN sanctions and embargos. |