A link to Kevin's latest post on 'The Pen or The Sword' blog

Waki Wiki Leaks Worries Washington Wets

UN must reject for Iran to reflect

So Iran wants to have a place on the United Nations agency promoting women’s rights.  Luckily at the last minute, two other Asian countries have been persuaded into bidding for seats to prevent Iran’s application from going through uncontested.  On 10^th November the 54 members of the UN Economic and Social Council will hopefully reject Iran’s application.  This board will promote the  advancement of sexual equality and the empowerment of women.  Unless their application is rejected, Iran will be able to call legitimate its blatant discrimination against women. 

Iran imprisons Women’s rights activists; women are discriminated against in the workplace, at home, in marriage and in the Sharia courts.

Ms Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani is due to be executed by hanging (having already received 99 lashes) -changed from the original sentence of stoning to death - for the act of adultery.  Let us not forget however, that the man she had an affair with and who was convicted over the murder of her husband has now been freed. 

Ms Ashtiani was not tried in a court of law, she was found guilty in a Sharia court – a decision which is not supported by a single Iranian newspaper. Though public displays of discontent are brutally suppressed, there is a strong and active opposition alive in Iran - last year's huge demonstrations against the present regime illustrated this.  The brutal leadership in Iran is not reflective of huge swaths of the Iranian population and if the UN allows the country a place on their agency promoting women’s rights, they are, in effect, backing President Ahmadinejad and his odious regime.

Kevin

A link to Kevin's latest post on 'The Pen or the Sword?' blog

Terrorists? They don't make them like they used to - A rant from me

A link to the latest post on Kevin's 'The Pen or the Sword?' blog

Strategic Defence Review - Two Parties, One and a Half Leaders, One Outcome   

Nukes, Terrorists and Rogue States - A Measured Response

When the Cold War ended we all breathed a sigh of relief.  For the first time in more than forty years mankind no longer faced global nuclear destruction.  Surely we could now look at moving forward, living together peacefully under the new world order?  Alas, life is never that simple.  As the threat of mutual self-destruction receded, the prospect of rogue states or -even worse – terrorist organisations acquiring nuclear weapons increased. 

It is fair to say that for any terrorist organisation, being in possession of a nuclear weapon would constitute their holy grail and its use would be assured.  During the Cold War, military leaders would consider the nuclear option - pre-emptive or retaliatory – as part of their tactical thinking but this is becoming less so as the fall of communism fades further into the past.  Terrorist organisations such as al Qaeda, however,  have in the past and will continue to use weapons capable of causing huge destruction and if this option becomes available to them, it will surely be used.

A recent article in the Journal of Military Ethics by John Mark Mattox - Nuclear Terrorism: The 'Other' Extreme of Nuclear Warfare- raised, among other things, questions about reacting to a terrorist nuclear attack.  Over the next two posts I wish to examine what Mattox writes about, consider his ideas and discuss similar scenarios. 

Assuming a terrorist organisation managed to acquire a nuclear warhead with a missile launched capability and that they successfully used it, would the host nation be complicit? - Palestinian terrorists striking Israel from Syrian territory for example.  Would then an Israeli response, matching like for like and thus ensuring the death of thousands of innocent Syrians, be considered acceptable?  The result could be to vilify the Israelis, even though the Palestinians were the aggressors.  Suddenly it is they and not the terrorists who have to answer questions about the violation of human rights.

Moving away from terrorist groups and on to state sponsored aggression, let me put another scenario forward; if – say - North Korea launched a nuclear strike against their South Korean neighbours, would a US retaliatory nuclear strike be acceptable?  This question is more applicable when a belligerent regime is deeply unpopular within its own boundaries.  Again, the question of human rights violations comes to the fore.  Should the population of a country ruled by a brutal dictatorship be answerable for an act of aggression carried out by the tiny ruling elite?  Are their human rights violated if a retaliatory nuclear strike takes place? 

To complicate matters however, if a lesser response happens – targeted conventional missile hits for example – could that not encourage terrorists or rogue states to launch further attacks knowing that a like for like retaliation is unlikely to happen?  And if so, does this underwhelming reprisal indirectly violate the human rights of the nuclear victims?

Over the next few weeks I intend to publish further posts to discuss the two scenarios I’ve raised in more detail and I aim to examine what human rights protection the innocent victims from both sides can expect.  The probable result is that more questions will arise rather than answers are found.

Kevin   

A Promising Story; China’s Increasing Responsible Behaviour

Chinese companies, often vast national and international projects, are frequently portrayed as focusing on profit with scant regard for the ‘little guy’ on the ground.  This impression is regularly highlighted by in the media. But is this a fair picture?

Jill Shankleman, president of the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars, indicates some contradictions to this assumption in her report ‘Going Global: Chinese Oil and Mining Companies and the Governance of Resource Wealth’.

She points out that there is increased focus on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) by Chinese companies, encouraged by the state.  This comes in response to environmental and social protests within China.  According to the report, corporations are now increasing their attention to risk management, environmental protection and CSR.  They are becoming aware of how international focus can damage reputation. By giving little thought to the local communities where they operate, the security risk within their operations increases. There are examples of Chinese workers being kidnapped and murdered in Sudan and Ethiopia and their global reach means that these companies are in many other challenging environments such as Peru, Gabon, Papua New Guinea and Myanmar.

So what improvements can we see?  Well, to start with, there are now loosely defined CSR requirements in company law and stock exchange rules.  Domestic environmental standards are becoming more stringent with incentives now in place to encourage good performance.  Major Chinese companies now publish corporate responsibility reports, have substantial philanthropic programs and many have joined the UN Global Compact.  And most Chinese extractive companies now have their own in-house environmental and safety departments.

However few if any have social or community relations specialists and most recognize that they are at an early stage of understanding their new responsibilities.

The very size of Chinese companies and their vast international reach makes the improvements interesting and I look forward to following these developments.

Kjerstin

Making a Difference? The Ban on Cluster Munitions

On 1st August 2010, a global treaty banning the use of cluster munitions came into force. States having signed and ratified the convention are also banned from stockpiling the weapons and are obliged to compensate victims.

Cluster munitions were developed for a huge Cold War confrontation that thankfully never happened and thus are outdated. The weapons are indiscriminate and pose a threat, not only to civilians, but also to our own troops. A single bomb is designed to cover large area and can be launched by artillery or aircraft. As it nears its target, the shell releases a number of smaller bomblets – each of which can be devastating. Those that fail to detonate often remain active for years and some estimates from charity organisations claim that 98% of victims are civilians, one third of which are children.

In principle, the Convention on Cluster Munitions looks promising; to date it has been adopted by 108 states and praise has come from such dignitaries as Pope Benedict XVI and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. However, questions must be asked about the effectiveness of the convention. Although 108 countries have singed, at the time of writing, only 38 of these states have ratified the convention. Some of the biggest stockpilers - including the USA, Russia and China - have not signed up to the convention and this means positive effects are going to be limited.

Pressure from the EU, the UN and signatories  must be exerted on these three huge military powers in an attempt to pull them into the fold.

Kevin