Australian Elections 2007: The Iraq Issue

Getup has launched an online petition campaign demanding the government to come up with an independent Iraq policy which should include a “clearly defined exit strategy for Australia in Iraq”.

Hans Blix, who was the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from 1981-97, and who reiterated that Iraq does not possess any Weapons of Mass Destruction before the invasion, also blogged on the NGO’s website. He commented that there is a need for a withdrawal timetable and that potential presidents like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama who adopted a vague position “is not productive”.

On the campaign site, the touching story of Samantha McMillan who lost her soldier husband in Iraq revealed the huge costs of the war - not just the lives lost but “society’s lack of awareness of the living casualties of war” such as post traumatic stress disorder suffered by the living soldiers and the emotional pain and stress that friends and close relatives of dead and living soldiers have to live with.

The various political parties in Australia have adopted different positions with regards to the issue of Iraq:

Labor

Labor will initiate a phased withdrawal of Australian troops, in consultation with the US and British allies that is consistent with the bipartisan recommendations of the US Baker Hamilton report. This means the party will “withdraw the 550 combat troops in southern Iraq - the Overwatch Battle Group.”

Greens

The Greens advocate immediate withdrawal of Australian troops from Iraq and Afghanistan while providing significant aid for Iraqi national reconstruction.

Democrats

The Australian Democrats will keep up the pressure for a withdrawal timetable of Australian troops from Iraq while providing economic and ongoing infrastructure assistance. The party believes “Iraq must be brought back fully within the framework of international law and the broader international community through the United Nations.”

Liberals

The Australian Liberals feel that Australian troops are doing an important and effective job in Iraq despite Hans Blix’s comment that the role played by Australian soldiers in Iraq is merely “symbolic” and “political”. In short, no concrete plans or timetable for withdrawal.

Where are the lawyers of Singapore?

An AFP article reported that as many as 250 lawyers in the US protested outside the Supreme Court on Wednesday demanding the release of those detained during the declared state of emergency, among them including numerous judges and lawyers. The newswire quoted William Neukom, president of the American Bar Association (ABA), a national organization for attorneys in the United States saying, “We are here because we cannot forget the images of hundreds of our brave colleagues assaulted in the streets, carried off in police trucks, and fenced in by barbed wire and concrete barricades.”

It is commendable that lawyers in American and in Pakistan have chosen to speak out when they see an injustice. This is not the first time that lawyers in Pakistan are at the forefront of the protest against President Pervez Musharraf. In March this year, they were also leading mass protests against the government when it suspended Chief Justice, Iftikhar Chaudhry.

In Malaysia, lawyers along with activists protested in Kuala Lumpur, demanding a top-level inquiry into allegations of corruption and cronyism in the judiciary in September this year. Organised by the 12,000-member Bar Council of Malaysia, about 800 lawyers are reported to have participated in the demonstration who marched from the Palace of Justice to the prime minister’s office, handing over a petition.

In Singapore, the lawyers were strangely quiet when the International Bar Association annual conference was held in October.

This has led me to a conclusion that the majority of the lawyers, except a few, are not willing to comment on the politico-legal situation in Singapore. Why have the Law Society refrained from commenting on controversial court cases in which the Opposition and overseas publications have been sued for defamation? Why have they not commented on the previous and recent ISA detentions? Why have they not discussed the enforceability of 377A? Amongst many other concerns.

Which leads me to wonder, “Where are the lawyers of Singapore?”

Repealing Death Penalty is Not Imposing Post- Colonial Will

The Reuters article, “EU under fire at U.N. death penalty debate” by Claudia Parsons dated 14 November reported a heated debate between Singapore’s representative, Kevin Cheok and the European Union and the UN General Assembly’s Human Rights Committee, in which the former was quoted,

“There was a time when our views were dismissed. Most of us here struggled for years against this. So how ironic it is that we’re now being told once again that only one view is right and that all other views are wrong.”

When human rights group criticized Singapore for the mandatory death penalty for most drug offences, Kevin Cheok was quick to rebut that such an act would “poison the atmosphere between us”. In his reply to the General Assembly’s human rights committee, he said, “We are about to embark on a divisive, unpleasant and unnecessary fight” .

In another AFP article dated 16 November, “UN panel adopts resolution calling for moratorium on death penalty”, after the non-binding resolution calling for a moratorium on executions was passed, Singapore’s UN envoy Vanu Menon, before the voting, accused the co-sponsors of imposing “a particular set of beliefs on everyone else,” and described them as “sanctimonious, hypocritical and intolerant” for having rejected a “genuine dialogue” with opponents.

The arguments made by Kevin Cheok and Vanu Menon are misleading considering that repealing the death penalty is not a solely European initiative as many countries around the world are already joining the abolitionist trend.

Amnesty International recently released a statement in support of the 75 countries who have co-sponsored the draft resolution at the General Assembly urging “all states worldwide to stop executions and called on all states to resist any amendments that could weaken the purpose of the resolution.”

According to the statement,

“No less than 130 out of 192 UN member states have already abolished the death penalty in law or practice and only 25 countries carried out executions in 2006.”

“Over 50 countries have abolished the death penalty for all crimes since 1990.”

“In Asia, 25 countries have abolished the death penalty in law or practice. In Africa, only six out of 53 states carried out executions in 2006.”

As such, their argument that it is European post-colonialism at work falls flat.

If Cheok and and Vanu Menon wants to further extend their argument that every country should retain the right to decide for themselves if they should be allowed to retain the capital punishment due to their own cultural or unique circumstances, South Africa’s Nobel Peace Prize winner, Desmond Tutu can has more to say, a man who has survived Apartheid and witnessed the atrocities of government sanctioned violence.

In an article for The Guardian, he wrote, “

Retribution, resentment and revenge have left us with a world soaked in the blood of far too many of our sisters and brothers. The death penalty is part of that process. It says that to kill in certain circumstances is acceptable, and encourages the doctrine of revenge. If we are to break these cycles, we must remove government-sanctioned violence… Everywhere experience shows us that executions brutalise both those involved in the process and the society that carries them out. Nowhere has it been shown that the death penalty reduces crime or political violence. In country after country, it is used disproportionately against the poor or against racial or ethnic minorities. It is often used as a tool of political repression. It is imposed and inflicted arbitrarily. It is an irrevocable punishment, resulting inevitably in the execution of people innocent of any crime. It is a violation of fundamental human rights.“

The debate on the death penalty, contrary to what Cheok and and Vanu Menon has tried to portray, is not an argument about European or Western values imposing on others; or even a matter for sovereign states to decide on. It is a fundamental human rights issue. One that violates the most basic human right - the right to life.

===

References

1. EU under fire at U.N. death penalty debate, Reuters, Claudia Parsons, November 14 2007

2. UN panel adopts resolution calling for moratorium on death penalty, AFP, November 16 2007

3. UN General Assembly set to endorse call for halt to executions, Amnesty International, IOR 40/024/2007 (Public), 6 November 2007

4. The doctrine of revenge, The Guardian, Desmond Tutu, November 13, 2007