Men Make Good Sandwiches Too?

“You should know how to cook, go make me something to eat!”

 “If you can’t make a good cup of plain tea who will want to marry you?”

 “Start being a man and control your girlfriend!”

“You’re the man! You’re supposed to provide for me!”

We’ve all heard or been at the receiving end of these words at some point in our lives, maybe even on a daily basis. I myself have heard some of the above directed at me, to which I usually respond with a diatribe much to the chagrin of those around me.

Gender Stereotypes are one of the most insidious challenges to gender equality and the empowerment of women, and Sri Lanka is no stranger to them. They are generally defined as a group of generalizations made about a set of gender related qualities, attributes and characteristics.

It is important to look at how gender stereotypes are ingrained in us. One of the biggest factors of causation is social learning, which is defined in the field of psychology as the observation and imitation of role models. Through our parents, siblings, and friends we tend to internalize certain characteristics each gender conforms to from the time we’re kids. We see our mothers cook and clean, take care of the kids, and do the grocery shopping. We see our fathers go off to work, pay the bills and watch sports. These moments and experiences leave a deep impression on our mind, and later on in our lives we find ourselves expecting a certain set of behaviors and attitudes for men and for women. So if we see a man crying, or a woman responding with violence, or one who can’t cook or clean, it goes against many of the foundations of beliefs which we have built our life and personality around.

The media also plays a very influential role. Consider advertisements for cookware, often a women is used for this type of adverts, portraying her as the epitome of a nurturing housewife. On the other end of spectrum, let’s look at advertisements for vehicles. Usually we see a suave male model speeding along dusty roads with a scantily clad female model waiting for him at his destination. Advertisements often have implicit messages for its audience, and through these examples it isn’t difficult to discern what these messages are. If you’re a woman, you cook and clean, and if you’re a man you get to enjoy life as much as you can with no responsibilities whatsoever.

Sri Lanka is full of such advertisements. Recently on a popular radio station a advertisement for diamond jewelry was being played, in which a man complains about having proposed to his girlfriend multiple times with no success. His friend (also a man) suggests that it’s probably because he got the wrong engagement ring, at which point he suggests that his friend should visit the advertised store in order to get the “perfect” diamond ring, which would guarantee him success. The tagline for this advertisement is “get the diamond, get the girl”. In a follow up advertisement the man then states how his girlfriend said yes when he proposed with the ring from this particular store, and then encourages listeners to do the same. Personally I found this advertisement to be sickening. It is sad to see how baseless gender stereotypes are being perpetuated in order to increase profit. This ad is almost explicitly stating that women are shallow human beings, with no concerns other than vanity and possessions. Responsible marketing strategies need to be used to prevent such harmful material being broadcasted on media channels.

Stereotypes are harmful because the way people treat us is based on their perception of us. If a women’s believes that her duty is to be obedient, timid and submissive, she is more vulnerable to abuse and violence from men. If men believe that they need to be dominating and aggressive in order to establish their gender identity, this will make them more prone to domestic violence and misogynistic attitudes.

Gender stereotypes also greatly restricts us, and reduces our behaviors and attitudes to a set of characteristics that are deemed to be “appropriate” to a large swath of society. This has far reaching consequences. We see quite a number of naïve, young women whose only aspiration in life is to be a good wife and mother. Firstly allow me to point out that there’s nothing wrong with wanting to be a good wife or mother, the problem lies in the fact that a significant number of these young women feel that this is what they’re “supposed to do”, and think that it is the only thing they can do as women. This type of thinking only further perpetuates the patriarchal system of thinking that exists in Sri Lankan society. In rural areas we see that an increasing number of women have internalized domestic violence as just another part of life; just another part of day to day activities.

Women are not the only victims of gender stereotyping. Men too suffer at the hands of this type of categorization. A man is expected to be the sole breadwinner of the family. He is expected to provide over and above the needs of the family. If he can’t do this, he is not considered to be a “man”. Men are also expected to prove their masculinity through displays of physical strength and aggression. Violence has also become a tactic to assert a man’s masculinity. Not conforming to these assumptions leads to labels such as weak, or woman (which is used in many instances as an insult -.-).

People might ask, why bother about gender stereotypes? They might say that it’s only a very small issue in a gamut of challenges we face today in Sri Lanka and around the rest of the world. Yet what many don’t realize is that gender stereotypes leaves deep impressions on us subconsciously. Often we conform to them involuntarily, with no awareness that we are doing so. A change in our perspective of gender roles would go a long way in addressing many of the insidious challenges we face today. It would largely help in deconstructing the patriarchal mindset we share, which in turn would alleviate violence against women and address the deep rooted misogyny present in our country.

Stereotyping needs to stop, yet how can we do it? How can we change the values and ideals ingrained in the minds of people for centuries? Start with yourself, and be an example. Create awareness wherever you go, and speak out when it happens around you. Don’t allow the next generation of Sri Lankans to be born into a society where their gender is a cage.    

The opinions expressed in this article are solely that of the author’s and does not reflect those of any organization/programme the author represents. 

The Winter Olympics and Terrorism; A concept rapidly becoming a “killer” combination

Image: www.corbisimages.com

The Winter Olympics of 2014, which will be the first Olympic Games Russia will host since the fall of the USSR, is the subject of much controversy and debate. Set to begin on the 7^th of February, there is much speculation as to how the politics of the Russian government and more importantly, the imminent threat of terrorist attacks are going to affect the Olympic Games.

Despite it being a time for celebration and joy in Russia, the many political issues surrounding the Olympics is marring the spirit of the games. 

President Vladimir Putin’s anti-homosexual laws have already stirred up feelings of disgust and have antagonized many people both inside and outside the country including singers Sir Elton John and Cher, the latter who refused to sing at the opening ceremony to be held this month. Furthermore despite Putin’s assurances that homosexuals could in fact attend the games without any problem, a Russian protester was detained by Olympic Security personnel and taken in for questioning during the Olympic torch relay when he unfurled a rainbow flag; the symbol of homosexuality [1].  Thus there is much concern about the safety and security of any participant of the Games falling within the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexuals and Transsexuals) category and their families, a fact exacerbated by the statement released by Russia’s Ministry of the Interior which stated that anti-propaganda laws for LGBTs would be enforced in Sochi, the primary area where the Olympics will be held. This behavior of the Russian government has led to a high and growing number of top level officials boycotting the winter Olympics, a list containing US President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, and French President Francoise Hollande, to name a few [2].

Another issue raised as a result of the organization of the Olympics, is the unprecedented sum that has been spent, with some claiming it to be as a result of corruption existing within the Russian government. The average overrun costs for Olympic Games tend to be around 180%, but in the case of this year’s winter Olympics, overrun costs have more than doubled to a staggering 500% [3]. Allegations of government officials working closely with oligarchs have surfaced and this could possibly be the reason for the excessively high overrun costs. Furthermore working conditions for those involved in construction sites have been deemed poor and has resulted in 25 deaths and numerous injuries in 2012 alone. Rights of these workers have also not been addressed, with their wages not being paid in full or at all, and withholding the passports of certain workers so they cannot leave the work site.

Another problem would be that of the Circassians. The Circassian diaspora have called for the cancellation of the games or moving them to a different location, unless the Russian government apologizes for the death of 300,000 Circassians in Sochi in the 19^th century, which they consider to be an act of genocide. A number of Circassian organization have petitioned to bodies such as the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the Sochi 2014 Organizing Committee to reconsider the chosen site, however they have received no response from them or the Kremlin. These organizations are also submitting a resolution to Georgian lawmakers urging them to deem that attack on the Circassians as a genocide. Should they succeed in doing so the Russian government will be under further international scrutiny and pressure [4].

However these problems are just the tip of the iceberg. Undeniably the most serious issue the Russian government is facing with regard to the Winter Olympics is the significant threat of terrorist attacks, posing a threat not only to national security but to all the participants and attendees of the Games in Sochi as well.

Terrorism is not a new or foreign concept to Russia. Terrorism emerged in Russia during the time of the Russian empire, and has now culminated into a perennial problem.  In the contemporary context Russia faces terrorist threats from a significant number of groups, predominantly Islamic terrorist groups. Most of the terrorist activity is concentrated in areas like Chechnya and Dagestan; however there have been numerous reports of terrorism in Moscow, the most infamous attack being the Moscow Theatre Hostage Crisis of 2002.

Presently numerous terrorist attacks are being carried out in areas alarmingly close to Sochi, such as areas like Volgograd (situated 400 Km away from Sochi) where bomb blasts in December 2013 in a railway station and a trolley bus killed 34 people and injured more than a 100 people. Violence has also been reported in the Northern Caucus region (which includes of the republic of Dagestan and the republic of Chechnya) approximately 620 Km east of Sochi [5]. Attacks in this region have been occurring frequently, with a rise of civilian casualties in the area increasing by 20% as of last year [6]. With regard to Chechnyan violence, originally it was largely due to nationalist movements with the aim of securing independence from Russia. This led to the first and second Chechnyan wars, lasting from a period between 1994 and 2000, resulting in more than ten thousand deaths of Russians and Chechnyans alike, and hundreds of thousands displaced [7]. Initially Chechnyan violence was free of Islamic influence, however once the war began to receive wide media coverage, the Chechnyan cause caught the attention of the Islamic Jihadists who started supporting and providing resources to Chechnya [8]. Since then there have been numerous reports linking Chechnyan violence to the Al Qaeda. Thus what initially started out as struggle for self-determination quickly evolved into something more dangerous, sowing the seeds of terrorism in the Northern Caucus region. Thus this area is now regarded as the hub for terrorism in Russia. Although terrorist attacks slightly waned after the war concluded, it rapidly picked up its pace in 2008, and to this day this region is characterized by instability and violence, a huge concern for all those attending the Olympic Games this year.

To make matters worse, a video posted in January 2014 by jihadists involved in the back-to-back bombing in Volgograd in December contains an ominous threat, stating that if the Olympics are held the government would receive a “present” for all the Muslim blood that has been spilled [9]. The background and context of the video suggest Al Qaeda involvement, a very real and serious threat that the government has to be ready to face.

US intelligence have also revealed that there is a serious threat of an attack involving chemical weapons during the games, by an Islamic terrorist group operating in the Northern Caucus region. This terrorist group known as the Caucus Emirate is believed to have a set of jihadists already in place in Sochi to carry out the attack. This corroborates the speculation put forward by security experts who believe that jihadists may have infiltrated Sochi, much before the tough security measures were put in place. This adds a whole new level of danger to the games, and thus the government must have effective proactive measures to avert such a catastrophic situation [10].

Another significant threat that has officials worried is the threat of a female suicide bomber also known as the ‘Black Widow’. Officials are combing every corner of Sochi to find her, as they believe that she infiltrated security measures some time before they were put in place. Posters with pictures and descriptions of the 22 year old terrorist from Dagestan were placed all over Sochi, in the hopes that she will be apprehended before the Olympics begin [11].

 Thus despite the extensive counter-terrorism actions taken by the government, and the high level of security promised at the games, these attacks and threats have the approximately 6000 participants and countless attendees of the games worrying about the safety and security of the event. Conflicting reports have surfaced, with the Russian government promising this year’s Olympics to be the safest one in history, and US reports stating this to be the most dangerous Olympics yet [12]. In fairness to the Russian government, extremely high security measures have been taken including the placing of approximately 100,000 police, security agents, and army officials in Sochi [13].   However despite this substantial increment in security, terrorist attacks don’t seem to be waning to the dismay of the government.

While the Russian government deems these threats and attacks to be legitimate acts of terrorism, it has also stated that there is almost no chance of any attack due to the ‘ring of steel’ - a series of tough of security measures put in place for the games. It feels that any weakness shown in the games will become the chink in Russia’s armor that will lead to terrorism on a massive scale within the country. Thus it is interesting to see how successful the Winter Olympics will turn out to be in the face of myriad political and socio-economic issues, not to mention the significant and ominous threat of terrorist attacks hanging over everyone’s heads, especially over the Russian government who has much to prove to the international community.

---

[1] http://abcnews.go.com/International/vladimir-putin-defends-anti-gay-law-vows-problems/story?id=21588617

[2] http://www.politicususa.com/2013/12/18/president-obama-gay-message-putin-sochi-olympics.html

[3] http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21581764-most-expensive-olympic-games-history-offer-rich-pickings-select-few-castles

[4] http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/21/russia-olympics-protest-idUSLDE62K02S20100321

[5] http://www.voanews.com/content/russia-strikes-at-militants-in-north-caucasus/1832954.html

[6] http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/Suicide-Bombings-Seen-Rising-in-Russian-Region-5179190.php

[7] http://www.cfr.org/separatist-terrorism/chechen-terrorism-russia-chechnya-separatist/p9181

[8] http://www.meforum.org/744/how-chechnya-became-a-breeding-ground-for-terror

[9] http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/19/world/europe/russia-putin-sochi/

[10] http://freebeacon.com/u-s-identifies-terror-group-threatening-attacks-on-the-olympics/

[11] http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/sochi-olympic-games-urgent-search-black-widow-suicide/story?id=21597931

[12] http://nypost.com/2014/01/26/sochi-is-most-dangerous-olympics-ever-congressman/

[13] http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2014/01/31/russia-plants-ring-steel-around-winter-games-host-sochi-but-still-fears-suicide/

NATO's contemporary peace keeping activities

Established for the purpose of collective defense and the protection of the liberal democracy of the West, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) an intergovernmental military alliance, was established in 1949 in the midst of the Cold War. Originating from the Treaty of Brussels in 1948, NATO started off with only a handful of states but has now grown to include 28 member countries, some of which are former Soviet states. In addition to this NATO’s various partnership programs such as ‘Partnership for Peace’ and its dialogue programs see the involvement of additional countries, exclusive of NATO membership. With the passage of time there has been a growth and expansion in the scope of NATO, as what started off as a mere political association has now transformed into a military organization which provides assistance to a variety of countries for a myriad of reasons. The most prominent example of this would be the NATO led ISAF task force in Afghanistan which sees to most of the defense needs of the country, and the training of the Afghan National Security Force.

Due to this complex evolution of the aims and purposes of this organization, recently NATO has been subjected to criticism and controversy due to its peacekeeping activities, with special emphasis on Libya and Afghanistan.  Therefore in this answer this writer will analyze NATO’s role in the final outcome of the situation in Libya and determine if the intervention in Libya was a success or a failure.

With regard to the situation in Libya, initially coalition forces headed by the UK, France and the United States of America initiated a military intervention in Libya on 19^th March 2011, following the passing of UNSC resolution 1973. This resolution called for the establishment of a no-fly-zone over Libya and authorized the international community to use all necessary measures short of foreign occupation, for the protection of Libyan civilians. However in an attempt to unify and concentrate the command of the coalition forces into a small group, the mission was transferred into the control of the NATO beginning with the enforcement of the arms embargo on the 22nd of March, following objections raised by the Turkish, German and French governments to this plan. The full transition of control occurred on the 31^st of March and thereafter a multitude of other states joined forces with NATO, some of them being Sweden, Qatar, Morocco, UAE, Jordan etc. During NATO’s operation in Libya over 26,000 sorties were carried out with an average of 120 sorties, predominantly strike sorties. NATO also conducted a de-conflicting of nearly 4000 zones on land, sea and air to assist the carrying out of humanitarian projects carried out by the UN and a multitude of NGOs.

When evaluated prima facie, it seems like NATO succeeded in its mission when they won a decisive victory and ended the operation on 31^st October 2011. However this is not at all the case and NATO’s intervention in Libya has been tinged with criticism, speculation and controversy. Many people claim that the basis of the military intervention was not humanitarian grounds or democratic concerns, but was based on interest in Libya’s national resources. Libya, a member state of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), is one of the world’s largest suppliers of oil with the fifth biggest oil reserve in the world.

Additionally the country’s financial capital, such as its gold reserve with over 100 tons of gold and its national assets with an estimated worth of over $56 billion, have been speculated to be the real motivators behind the entire mission. The entire operation has also been criticized as being an imperialist mission with a plethora of state strongly condemning it, such as Cuba, Iran, Zimbabwe, Namibia, North Korea, Russia etc. It was also speculated that the mission was carried out to counter Muammar Gaddafi’s plan of having nations outside Africa pay for oil in gold. NATO’s role in Libya was also strongly condemned not only by Russia’s UN envoy Vitaly Chulkin, who called for an inquiry into the civilian deaths that resulted out of NATO’s activities in Libya, but also by the BRICS countries who collectively stated that NATO acted beyond its mandate by openly taking sides in a civil war by assisting the rebels to overthrow the Gaddafi regime. In addition to this, in an independent report released by the ‘Arab Organization for Human rights’, a human rights group based in the Middle East, it was stated that there is evidence to show that all three parties to the Libyan civil war, i.e. NATO, the rebels and the pro Gaddafi forces, are responsible for perpetrating war crimes and human right violations. The Libyan government also claimed that Gaddafi’s youngest son and three grandchildren were killed in NATO strikes in the country’s capital, Tripoli in April 2011.  NATO was criticized for classifying certain civilian targets as military targets and for strikes in September 2011 in Sirte which caused the deaths of 47 civilians. Should this be proved, it would be especially embarrassing to NATO who expounded continuously on avoiding any civilian casualties.

Unfortunately many people believed that following the completion of NATO’s mission in Libya, the people of Libya would be liberated from a tyrannical and ruthless dictator, and that the future would be nothing but smooth sailing. However this couldn’t be any further from the truth, and it seems that the chaos is far from over in the country. Reports indicate that mass scale violence still continues, with torture, ethnic cleansing and revenge killing rampant across the nation. Libyan National Congress president Mohammed el-Megarif recently classified the southern portion of the country as a military zone due to high levels of drug, human and arms trafficking occurring there. The murder of US ambassador Christopher Stevens in September 11^th 2012 also opened the eyes of many people and gave an indicator of the current nature of the state.

Discrimination against the Christian minority who make up of 3% of the population is also present, and the recent bombing of a stone church in Dafniya is a testament to this. The weaknesses of the government were also manifested in the recent abduction of Benghazi Police Captain and Investigation Chief Abdel-Salam al-Mahdawi whose fate is still unknown. In addition to these two months earlier Police Chief Faraj al-Deirsy was shot and killed by unknown assailants. This goes to show that despite overthrowing an oppressive regime, life is far from perfect in the current context of the country.

However despite the less than favorable situation in Libya, it must be also noted that the NATO had some successes in this mission, most notably the fact that it saved many lives by bringing down Gaddafi’s air force and monitoring the Libyan coast. The fact that NATO also received authorization from the UN Security Council gives them a legal basis for the intervention. This mission was also based on the principle of ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P), wherein a country is given authorization to intervene in a country which is in large scale chaos and turmoil and where the rights of the citizens are grossly violated. While R2P is more of a norm than a law, it has strong links to international law and therefore it has some sort of a legal basis. This operation has been viewed by many to have set a strong and positive precedent under this principle. 

UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon also commended NATO for its successful operation in Libya and also came to its defense by stating that “This military operation done by the NATO forces was strictly within (resolution) 1973”, countering claims by the BRIC countries who stated otherwise. The mission was also hailed as being one of the “most successful” in NATO’s history, by General Secretary Anders Fogh Rasmussen. It must also not be forgotten that for NATO to be requested to carry out the operation, there must have been some faith and belief in its capabilities to resolve the tumultuous events in Libya. Kosovo, Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina have been cited as NATO’s past successes, and therefore it must be agreed that at the international level there was a perhaps a great deal of approval of NATO’s intervention in Libya.

In conclusion it is extremely difficult to gauge if NATO’s mission in Libya was a success or a failure. Despite “liberating” the people of Libya and successfully completing the task it set out to do, NATO’s accomplishments in this situation is negated and overshadowed by dubious claims on the ulterior motives of the organization and alleged civilian deaths. However it must be remembered that NATO is an international organization which has experience in dealing with such matters and have so far (with the exception of Afghanistan) has had a mostly positive track record. It would be a utopian ideal to not expect any setbacks or mistakes, and therefore certain concessions must be afforded.  NATO now needs to clear up its name with a proper and speedy solution for the chaotic situation in Afghanistan. 

Photo: http://www.corbisimages.com/images/Corbis-AX010412.jpg?size=67&uid=0f41e24d-d14e-4239-8470-39b8c0ca09d0

Positive and Negative Rights

This writer would like to begin this assessment firstly by defining the main key terms in this question, starting with positive rights and negative rights. Firstly a right is defined as a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way. Positive rights are rights that require and involve a positive duty and action, and are classified as second generation rights. Social, cultural and economic rights are considered to be positive rights and are also known as distributive rights, because someone (usually a government) has to facilitate these rights by doing such things as building hospitals, schools and churches, generate employment, and provide food and other such necessities of life. Examples of these rights include the right to housing, education, health, right to social security, right to participate in the cultural life of a community etc.

Negative rights on the other hand mostly require inaction, i.e. in order to be facilitated they require non-interference. The best example of this would be the right to privacy, which in order to be maintained and respected requires the non interference of others. Negative rights are mostly civil and political rights which include the right to vote, right to hold office, the right to free speech, right to assembly etc. However there seems to be a certain exception as not all civil rights are negative rights. In order to fulfill certain civil rights a positive action is required. An example of this would be the right to social security, which would require the government to provide law enforcement tasks such as a police force to uphold law and order in the country. This involves a positive duty and action by the government towards the people, and therefore certain civil rights such as these cannot be classified as ‘negative rights.’ However certain philosophers such as Henry Shue believe that such a classification of negative rights and positive rights are unnecessary, as both types confer a duty, one being a positive duty to act and the other conferring a negative duty not to act.

An inherent clash however exists between negative and positive rights. This is due to the fact that these rights are polar opposites and cannot coexist together, as certain negative rights are foregone in order to facilitate certain positive rights. This is done on the basis of importance and priority where the lesser right is trumped by a right of greater importance and significance. A fine example of this would be where the right to privacy is violated in order to uphold the right to safety and security of another in places such as airports etc. This clash came to the fore especially during the years of the Cold War, where the two ideological camps, namely the communists and capitalists, campaigned for the importance of one set of rights over the other, with the USSR and its emphasis on the importance of the collective over the individual for positive rights, and the west with its emphasis on a liberal democracy placed significance on the protection of negative rights. Therefore the main problem that exists in the matter of human rights today is whether certain rights can or should be violated in order to uphold the greater right.  

Currently this battle of supremacy between negative and positive rights has manifested itself in the United States of America with the introduction of President Barack Obama’s health reform package, ‘Obamacare’.  Accordingly the US government places a greater emphasis on the protection of positive rights, such as the provision of healthcare which would require higher taxation in order for this health service to be funded adequately and redistributed evenly. However every human being has the negative right of not having their money taken away from them, and should the government insist on upping the health sector, this negative right is taken away on the premise that the provision of such service is greater than the protection of this negative right. However Libertarians and individualists claim that this negative right is greater and that this positive claim on the resources of others should not be upheld at the expense of other. Therefore they opine that the government should not increase taxes in order to fund the health reform package.

It seems apparent that many governments place a greater emphasis on positive rights, as it is with these rights that human beings are enabled to lead a prosperous life. However the violation of negative rights can lead to serious ramifications as these are the rights associated with one’s liberties and freedoms. Unfortunately as pointed out earlier, both these rights cannot exist in their entirety concurrently as it is necessary that certain rights are forgone for the utilitarian principle of the “greater good”. In accepting this reality it is now understood that in this case, any government’s responsibility would be to maximize the availability and to facilitate the maximum amount of rights possible. 

Unfortunately this is more of a utopian concept than reality, and this deficiency has led to serious consequences, the finest example being the Arab spring where the violation of certain rights led to massive uprisings, which in most cases led to the overthrow of governments and regimes such as Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya etc. In this instance amongst a myriad of other factors which led to the revolution, deprivation of the population of a stable and corruption free government, the freedom of religion, freedom of expression, a stable economy, the lack of political freedom etc. created a conducive environment for unrest and dissatisfaction.   This problem has now become a long term one, with Syria still in much chaos and turmoil and with the international community conflicted and unsure of how to tackle it without a further violation of rights. This goes to show that one cannot simply violate a right with impunity, there are far reaching consequences for such actions and retribution is bound to be unforgiving. The fate of Muammar Gaddafi of Libya, who violated many rights such the freedom of speech, protests, right to life and fair trial etc. of his citizens, is a testament to this.

                      

To analyze this matter in the local context it must be noted that during the thirty year long civil war of Sri Lanka, several negative right violations occurred on the part of both parties to the war, i.e the LTTE and the government. Such rights included the right to life, freedom from arbitrary arrest, right to due process of law, freedom of association etc. etc. However since then the government has attempted to foster reconciliation and amend the bonds broken through the violation of these rights through the LLRC. 

Currently the government also seems to be making significant and genuine attempts in the facilitating of positive rights through the ‘Divineguma bill’, which aims to uplift the poor through the provision of micro financing schemes and other such financial assistance. This attempt on part of the government should be commended as the facilitating of such rights have a high probability of leading to elevated living standards of the country, and involve low income earners in the economy and development process as well.

In conclusion human rights whether negative or positive should be enhanced, facilitated and protected in any given situation. Classifications are irrelevant as no set of rights is above the other; both are equal in priority and therefore should be given the same prominence. A government is deemed responsible and legitimate based on its human rights track record and therefore it should not override rights with impunity, but must act in a way that affords citizens their maximum rights. While this is easier said than done in most instances, it is a necessary effort that should be taken by the government not only to protect its people, but now to protect themselves as well. 

Image: http://www.corbisimages.com/images/Corbis-MI-148-0103.jpg?size=67&uid=009da137-45bf-45f1-b03c-34d5ebc00ebe

Law and Morality

The close and inseparable ties between law and morality date back to the time of Greek philosophers.  The dilemma following its conflicting principles can be identified in the Greek tragedy 'Antigone', in which we realize that ones morals do not always collaborate with the law. However a clear distinction between the two came about in the Hart-Devlin debate following the publishing of the Wolfenden report of 1957, which sought to legalize prostitution and homosexuality on the basis that it wasn't the law's business on what an individual's personal morals were. Therefore they were to be decriminalized on the basis of:

1. Freedom of choice
2. Privacy of morality

However after the publication of this report, professor H.L.A Hart and Lord Devlin who both had very different and contradicting opinions on the relationship between law and morality, initiated a debate in pieces of writing which subsequently came to be called the Hart-Devlin debate.

Lord Devlin took a very conservative stance stating that law and morality were one and the same. He believed that establishing a distinction between the two was the "paved toad to tranny. " He reiterated that shared morality was absolutely essential for the preservation of society and that nothing was off limits to the law. He opined that if there was no common morality, moral bonds loosened and society would disintegrate, imploding rather than succumbing to external pressures. Therefore while he believed that privacy should be respected, he concluded that the law had the right to interfere in the personal lives of people to protect morality and society.

Professor Hart on the other hand believed that law and morality should exist independent of each other and opined that if one's actions did not harm society, they should be allowed to do as they pleased, reiterating John Stuart Mill's 'harm principle' which states that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will, is to prevent harm to others." He pointed out that no-one really knew what was "right" or "wrong" and therefore no-one should be allowed to enforce their morals on other people. He believed that this would adversely affect pluralism and diversity and would result in populism, as the the powerful would be the ones dictating the behaviour of society. Furthermore since morals constantly evolved, he pointed out that it would be un-practical to constantly amend laws to keep up with morality.

Hart takes a very individualistic stance which is less invasive into the private's live's of people, which is why this writer believes that Hart's idea of how law should work, despite clashing with religion and culture, allows people of society to develop and coexist in harmony. By imposing one's morals on another it restricts freedom and is a tyranny of those in power. However at the same time this writer concedes that Lord Devlin's approach protects religions, cultures and societies.

In conclusion it can be stated that the relationship between law and morality is a very close one, and at times is very difficult to distinguish between the two as each cannot exist without the other.

Image: http://kidswithoutgod.com/teens/learn/humanist-morality/

Bangladesh’s Multilateral Efforts in Combating Terrorism

According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation the definition of terrorism is “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

And in this manner the nation of Bangladesh in no stranger to terrorism both inside and outside her borders, In 2005 bombs were detonated simultaneously in 63 of Bangladesh’s 64 provinces and in 2004 an attack was made on the then former prime minister Sheikh Hasina while she conducted a rally in Dhaka. It resulted in the death of 21 of her party supporters, including party women’s secretary, Ivy Rahman. Many other attacks have also been made by radical Islam parties as well as leftist parties in Bangladesh (most notably the Left Wing Extremists) that have killed many people over the years.

Currently terrorism in is not as significant in Bangladesh as it is in her neighboring countries, however it does not mean that the country goes unscathed. Terrorism is a serious impediment to the national growth and development, which has become an almost vital process in Bangladesh due to the bleak economic situation the country faces. Terrorism also creates drifts and disunion between the members of society, most notably among the minority groups; furthermore it adversely affects the entire South Asian region in all aspects. Therefore the government of Bangladesh realizing that terrorism being a serious threat not only to the nation itself, but also to both regional peace and stability, have taken many steps to combat and prevent it. With regard to information sharing among member nations of SAARC, the United Nations Counter Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (UNCTED) in association with the government of Bangladesh and the Bangladesh Enterprise Institute organized a workshop that brought together working level law enforcement experts of the South Asian region as well as SAARC observer nations, where they discussed and exchanged  information on the latest available technologies and techniques of investigation etc. these discussions were facilitated by the INTERPOL, the Commonwealth Secretariat, the Jakarta Centre for Law Enforcement Cooperation (JCLEC), the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), and the government of Australia. In a meeting held In New Delhi, both the Indian and Bangladeshi governments, emphasized on the importance of sustained cooperation and suggested a real time exchange of information between its security agencies, in addition to the already existing system of information sharing between the BSF and BDR. Also meetings between the two governments were held in Dhaka on several occasions, where they vowed to tackle cross border terrorism, and to eliminate any terrorism within their respective countries against the other etc. They also sought to develop a highly efficient system for information sharing between the two nations so as to successfully combat terrorism in all its forms and manifestations.

Reiterating the thoughts of home minister, Sahara Khatun, who emphasized the importance of a mutual sincerity in commitment to engage in regional cooperation so as to successfully and completely combat terrorism; it is crucial that all member and observer nations of SAARC realize that the best and only way to eliminate any and all forms of terrorism in the south Asian region is through cooperation. In sharing information between member nations we not only open many doors to a future free of violence, but we enable ourselves to share better and improved relations with each other, thereby ensuring a future filled with peace and prosperity for  the entire region. 

photo source: http://www.corbisimages.com/

A Review of the US Invasion of Iraq (2003)

The war on terror has been underway for quite some time, in fact it’s been eleven long years since the Al Qaeda brought the Twin Towers and through that the entire US crashing down to its knees. Under this campaign initiated under the Bush administration many people have died, been captured and interrogated.  Even whilst Osama Bin Laden is now proclaimed dead by the US government, terrorism is still very much alive and the threat hangs ominously in the background of the international arena.

One of the most famous cases under the ‘war against terror’ is the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, which to this day remains to be a controversy in the eyes of many people. The foundation of the entire mission titled ‘Operation Iraqi freedom’ lay on two speculations, one being Iraq’s alleged possession of WMDs (weapons of mass destruction) and the other being Saddam Hussein’s alleged connection in funding and assisting the Al Qaeda. This mission saw the involvement of countries such as the US, the UK, Australia, Spain and Poland, who all supplied troops for the invasion which was carried out from 19^th march to the 9^th April 2003. While President George Bush received a significant amount of support for this operation within the country, he also faced much opposition to it. Most notably from the UNSC and countries such as New Zealand, France, Italy, Germany and Canada, all long time allies of the US, who  urged the US government to use a more diplomatic approach to the problem.

The issue behind this fiasco is the legality of the invasion. The question remains, was it legal for the US to invade Iraq or not? To comprehensively answer this question it is necessary for us to start at the very roots, which is why an examination of the US constitution now becomes necessary. Accordingly  article 6 of the constitution states that “all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land’ which basically means that any treaty signed and ratified by the US, shall become a supreme law of the land, not subject to violation. Due to this clause USA is legally bound to enshrine the provisions of all treaties it signs and ratifies, which in this sense makes the UN a body to which the US must conform to ( as the US has signed and ratified the UN charter). Therefore understandably, to go against the charter would be to go against America itself.

In fully analyzing every facet of this issue, a peek into the UN charter is also necessary. The UN charter clearly states that the only two instances when waging war is accepted is in the cases of:

1.  Self defense

2. When authorization to wage war is received from the UNSC

Accordingly the US invasion of Iraq would only have been legal if one or both of the above requirements were fulfilled.

In analyzing the first requirement, the question is if Iraq really and seriously posed a threat of imminent danger and harm to the US and its citizens. Pre-emptive defensive strikes is something somewhat different form this, as self defense is a counter measure, an act which is done only after something has been done against a party or in this case, the country in question. Now while it seems as if the US genuinely believed that Saddam Hussein aided the Al Qaeda and that Iraq intended on using these WMDs and provided countless accounts of evidence and intelligence supporting this claim, evidence points to the contrary. Former chief counter terrorism adviser to the National Security Council, Richard Clarke along with many other people believed that it had been George Bush’s intent to invade Iraq all along. The reasons as to why he would want to do this, is a mystery to none. To control the Iraqi oil fields, which happen to be the third largest in the world, would be a prize beyond any measure for any country. Furthermore by being in control of Iraq, USA would be able to set up a significant number of military bases in the country, allowing the US government to retain a dominant position in the country and also play an important role in shaping the domestic and foreign policies of neighboring countries as well. 
Therefore it can be clearly concluded that behind the talk of ending terrorism and bringing about international law and order in Iraq, there was most definitely an ulterior motive behind the invasion.

As mentioned before the mission was staged on two grounds, Iraq’s possession of WMDs and Saddam Hussein’s active role in supporting the Al Qaeda. To many in America it seemed that that the Bush administration was doing the right thing by invading Iraq, he was ridding the world of imminent danger and destruction. It would then come as a surprise to many when the invading forces and chief military personnel found neither trace of nuclear weaponry in Iraq nor any connection between Saddam Hussein and the Al Qaeda. These were admitted in a report released by the CIA in 2005. Therefore when analyzing this in the scope of self defense, which is an accepted ground for waging war in the UN charter, this rationalization is inapplicable, thereby making this invasion illegal on the grounds of self defense.

Moving onto the second requirement, which is the authorization from the UNSC to wage war, it is much more straightforward and simple to evaluate the invasion on these grounds. As George Bush failed to convince the UNSC of his beliefs, USA did not receive authorization from the Security Council to carry out the invasion, thereby making the invasion illegal on the second count as well. Therefore it can be concretely stated that the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 was in fact illegal, as it went against the UN charter and by violating this charter, officials of the highest level in America had unknowingly violated their own constitution too. Blinded by ambition and dishonest motives and convinced they were doing the right thing; the US government became law breakers of the highest order, as the constitution is in fact the supreme law of the land.

This war not only resulted in thousand of unnecessary deaths but also led to the further destabilization of the Middle East.  Many people also believed that the invasion would only result in the reinvigoration of terrorist efforts against the US and further weaken its relationships with other Arab countries. The invasion clearly was gross error on the part of the US government, nothing had been accomplished and it made the international community question the motives of the US government. While this served as a bitter lesson to the US, it also showed us that nothing is what it seems, there’s always a motive behind everything and most importantly that the truth is never the easiest thing to decipher.

photo source: http://www.corbisimages.com/