SYRIE, LE CREPUSCULE DES ASSAD

Un film à voir absolument sur Arte (jusqu’au 18 octobre) à l’adresse suivante: http://videos.arte.tv/fr/videos/syrie_le_crepuscule_des_assad-4184396.html

Un film de Vincent de Cointet et Christophe Ayad

EXTRA- JUDICIAL AND TARGET KILLINGS IN PAKISTAN

Article de Ali Imran à paraître dans Grotius International

          Pakistan is a country where every year hundreds of lives are taken by the security agencies and law enforcement agencies through self justice, accusing the killed persons to be involved or suspicious to be involved in criminal activities. Two such incidents of such “self justice” killings have been observed in two major cities of Pakistan, Quetta and Karachi during 2011. In the first incident at Quetta, security agencies killed five Russian tourists, including 3 women, on the suspicion of being suicide bombers and attempting to attack the security forces. The other incident took place at Karachi where a young guy aged about 18 years, being suspicion of robbery, was killed by Rangers, (para-military forces deployed for security). Both incidents were luckily captured by the local electronic media and were aired. Both incidents clearly showed neither the presence of any arms nor any resistance to be got arrested, rather both incident showed the life pledge from victims but security forces manifested their “power” by over- powering the suspected.

The superior judiciary took serious notice of the incidents and ordered for inquiries in both incidents. The inquiry commissions, comprised of senior officials are investigating into the matter. In Karachi incident, court has already convicted the accused persons by death sentence and life imprisonments. The incidents are very identical in nature and are in clear violation of Right to Life as provided by the Constitution of Pakistan. Under the constitution, it is the responsibility of the state to protect the life of her citizens but to the contrary, state institutions of Pakistan are taking the lives of the citizens.

Another major trend in 90’s was observed against the alleged robbers and allegedly hundreds of robbers were killed by the law enforcement agencies. Then provincial chief minister of Punjab was alleged to make such orders and several petitions have been filed against him by the victim’s families.

After 9/11, Pakistan has become a security concerned zone. This has led to a new wave of extra-judicial killings in Pakistan. War against terrorism, has lead to initiate operations in many areas. Though these operations have got some successes, in curbing the terrorism activities, but at the same time, it is alleged that such operations have planted upon the political workers and civilians as well.  

As per Human Rights Commission of Pakistan reports for 2010, as many as 12,580 people were murdered and over 17000 cases of abduction have been reported. Amongst these murders as many as 338 people were killed in Police encounters and at least 174 persons were recovered from illegal detention centers of the police. Target killings took the lives of thousands of people across the country. Only in one city of Karachi, as many as 237 political workers and 301 civilians were killed in target killings. In Balochistan, 118 people were killed in target killings while the bodies of 59 missing persons found dead. It is also critical that around 20 journalist were also amongst those unfortunate who lost their lives in such targeted killings.  It is also important to mention that during the year 2010, the Governor of Punjab Salman Taseer was assassinated & killed by one of his Police body guard, due to his stance on Blasphemy laws. While the minister for religious minorities Shahbaz Bhatti was also attacked and killed by some “unidentified” assailants. It was alleged that the assailants had some support from deceased minister’s police guards as they were suspiciously absent at the time of incident.

Forced disappearances of hundreds of political workers especially from nationalist parties have also been a matter of concerned of Pakistani civil society. Though, Supreme Court of Pakistan has taken serious notice and in result many of disappeared persons have been released but still a lot to be recovered.  

Unfortunately, the justice system in Pakistan is also not working well. Pakistan carries some of the legislations which deal with the terrorism. But due to poor prosecution and incapacity of the investigative agencies for strong evidence, the conviction rate remained around zero percent. Though Pakistani security forces have captured hundreds of wanted terrorist in last seven years but not a single major conviction of any such terrorist have come to surface.

Moreover, amongst the cases of extra-judicial killings by the law enforcement agencies, it is important to know that under Pakistani law, the legal heirs of the deceased have the power to forgive the accused persons. This have been observed, that in such extra-judicial killings, the families are under the immense pressure to compromise with the “institution” and are forced by coercions and threats to withdraw cases against the officials from law enforcement agencies.

The state of human rights can be stated worst in context of Pakistan as every citizen is exposed to threat of violation of his/her fundamental rights.  Speaking out in Pakistan has now become a potential threat to one’s life. Murder of a famous journalist Saleem Shahzad, has put the journalist and human rights defenders community at a greater risk of life. It is alleged by the Pakistan Union of Journalist, Human Rights Watch and other journalist bodies in Pakistan, that the murder has been taken place at the behest of Pakistan Intelligence Agencies, as the deceased was facing threats from agencies for writing down articles on some of the defense issues. Supreme Court has established a Judicial Commission to probe into the murder of Mr Saleem Shahzad.

In recent past, I have personally felt a wave of fear and agony amongst many sections of civil society as they have now become the potential target both by state institutions and terrorist. Solidarity has to be established with all the victims (and their families) of state-originated violence and terrorism in Pakistan, even if hope for justice remains weak

Ali Imran is a Pakistani Lawyer and Human Rights Activist.

National Humanitarian Conference: a mutual maturity to be confirmed

On November 16th, the Quai d’Orsay in Paris will stand host to the National Humanitarian Conference (NHC), which will at the same time gather actors from the humanitarian and political scene but also, donors, researchers and journalists. Inspired by the Boinet-Miribel report and supported by the Emergency and Post-Crisis Think Tank (GRUPC) – an informal think tank constituted by humanitarian and institutional actors, the NHC is officially organised by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The aim of a ministerial meeting (French minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Alian Juppé and the European Commissioner of Humanitarian Action, Ms. Kristalina Georgevia, will as such be present) focalising on humanitarian action of French NGOs, is a strategic opportunity not to be neglected in a time where a mere meeting with a state secretary can seem impossible to obtain, even for major NGOs…

Above and beyond the retained themes, which are presented from article A. Boinet to B. Miribel (October edition of Grotius International), the crucial question has been to redefine the forms of dialogue and possible partnerships with the State and donors in terms of mutual roles and responsibilities.

Lately, the instrumental implementation, both semantic and operational, within humanitarian aid with regards to the political agenda has become a high-stake game of permanent controversy between humanitarian NGOs and the French State, whether it operating alone or in cooperation with organisations such as the EU and NATO. If one considered it perfectly normal that the State acts in accordance to its political motivations in certain times of crisis, then the State ought also to take responsibility of such and not hide behind a “humanitarian alibi”, where none in France today, even beyond the NGOs are to be fooled. It so happens, from time to time, that the political aims of a government coincide with those of a humanitarian NGO and that one can find themselves in front of a “convergence of interests” that would be regretful to neglect. However when such is not the case, the NGOs must be able to mark their difference in appreciation and be able to communicate with the French authorities in order to stand their ground without risk of interruption of dialogue with the latter.

Another high-profiled issue would be regarding the financial contribution of the French State in Emergency and Post-Crisis Situations. The complete financial independence being a reality only for a scarce number of NGOs, a fundamental discussion on the amounts and modes of possible financial attribution on these complex humanitarian situations is necessary. Such discussion would plausibly also enable the French State to develop a “political humanitarian strategy”, which, in order to gain in clarity, ought to have a multi-annual occurrence.

The National Humanitarian Conference foremost presents the possibility for the concerned NGOs to show that the way to install relationships and how to follow up with the public authorities cannot be issued form a blank sheet: we need to turn the page before writing a new. For the humanitarians, as for the public authorities and donors, it is above all a test of maturity: Maturity from the NGOs allowing a solid dialogue, the acceptance of objections and striving towards the prevention of breakdowns; maturity from the public authorities, and also the State, truthfully respecting the political and operational independence of the NGOs; and maturity from the donors, crucial partners, but who often derive from the device “who pays, decides”. It could be argued that it is a question of redefining the frame of possible interactions between multiple entities to multiple aims and statues, aware of their differences, but refusing both indifference as well as instrumentalisation. Although its importance, the “partnership” does not constitute the only imaginable funding method between the actors.

Supposing that a “healthy distance” between humanitarian actors and public authorities/donors could be achieved, one can wonder, would it be enough to handle the severe structural problems currently existing within the humanitarian field?

Probably not, because the appropriate context is henceforth European and the financial crisis (and political) that is agitating the 27 countries of the EU and the EC does not encourage any optimism. The recent polemic surrounding the important reduction of the European Food Aid Programme encouraged by Germany and other countries, speaks thoroughly about European solidarity and its capacities. Besides the fact that this reduction of food aid risk of pulling down hundreds of millions of people living in Europe into a socio-sanitarian situation far more alarming than that of today, it also seems to be the premise for the upcoming reorganisation to other important European organs, actors and donors within international solidarity.

The French humanitarian NGOs, have to this end, the duty of, partly deriving from their mandate and partly from belonging to civil society, to stand guard to a certain exigency and vigilance of how the French State, but also the European institutions, position themselves on the question of solidarity – and not only on the handling of crisis. To this end, Grotius International wish to uphold the role as “mediator” in order to enable all opinions to be shared but also in order to produce, in the North as in the South, a concrete rendering on the ground. Our active participation in the preparing of the National Humanitarian Conference is a mirroring of such determination.

Traduction : Anna Senno

Conférence Nationale Humanitaire : une maturité réciproque à confirmer

Le 16 novembre prochain, se déroulera dans les locaux du Quai d’Orsay, à Paris, la Conférence Nationale Humanitaire (CNH), qui réunira à la fois les acteurs humanitaires et politiques, mais aussi des bailleurs, des chercheurs et des journalistes. Impulsée par le rapport Boinet – Miribel et soutenue par le GRUPC (Groupe de Réflexion sur les Urgences et le Post-Crise) – un groupe informel de réflexion constitué d’acteurs humanitaires et institutionnels – , la CNH est officiellement organisée par le Ministère des Affaires Etrangères.

 

La perspective d’une rencontre de niveau ministériel (le Ministre français des Affaires Etrangères, Alain Juppé, et la Commissaire Européenne à l’Action Humanitaire, Kristalina Georgevia, y seront présents) centrée sur l’action humanitaire des ONG françaises, est une opportunité stratégique à ne pas négliger, dans une période où avoir un simple rendez-vous avec un Secrétaire d’Etat peut s’avérer impossible, même pour les plus grosses ONG…

Au delà des thématiques retenues, et qui sont exposées dans l’article d’A. Boinet et de B. Miribel (édition d’octobre de Grotius International), la question cruciale est de redéfinir des modalités de dialogue, et d’éventuel partenariat, avec l’Etat et les bailleurs, dans un respect mutuel des rôles et des responsabilités.

  Ces derniers temps, l’instrumentalisation – sémantique comme opérationnelle – de l’humanitaire à des fins politiques, est devenue un enjeu de controverses permanentes entre les ONG humanitaires et l’Etat français, qu’il soit seul ou intégré à des organisations comme l’UE ou l’OTAN. S’il paraît naturel que l’Etat agisse selon des motivations politiques dans certaines crises, alors il doit l’assumer comme tel, et non plus se retrancher derrière un « alibi humanitaire » dont plus personne – et bien au delà du cercle des ONG – n’est dupe, en France. Il arrive toutefois que les objectifs politiques d’un gouvernement coïncident avec les objectifs humanitaires des ONG, et l’on se retrouve devant une « convergence d’intérêts » qu’il serait parfois dommage de négliger. Lorsque ce n’est pas le cas, les ONG doivent pouvoir marquer leur différence d’appréciation et le dire aux autorités françaises pour qu’une inflexion s’opère, sans que le dialogue ne soit rompu pour autant.

L’autre enjeu majeur est celui de la contribution financière de l’Etat français aux situations d’urgences et de post-crise. L’indépendance financière complète n’étant une réalité que pour un nombre très restreint d’ONG, une discussion de fond sur les montants et les modalités d’attribution des financements disponibles pour ces terrains humanitaires complexes, s’avère nécessaire. Cela devrait également permettre à l’Etat français d’avancer une « stratégie de politique humanitaire » qui, pour gagner en lisibilité, mériterait d’avoir une déclinaison pluriannuelle.

Cette Conférence Nationale Humanitaire est surtout l’occasion, pour les ONG concernées, de montrer que la nature des relations à instaurer et à poursuivre avec les pouvoirs publics ne peut s’inscrire sur une feuille vierge : il nous faudra tourner une page avant d’en écrire une autre. Pour les humanitaires, comme les pouvoirs publics et les bailleurs, il s’agit avant tout d’un test de maturité. Maturité des ONG permettant la tenue d’un dialogue qui accepte la contradiction et cherche à éviter la rupture. Maturité des pouvoirs publics, et notamment de l’Etat, qui respectent réellement l’indépendance politique et opérationnelles des ONG. Maturité des bailleurs, partenaires essentiels, mais qui s’émancipent de la formule consacrée « qui paye, décide ». En quelque sorte, il s’agit de redéfinir le cadre des interactions possibles entre des entités plurielles aux objectifs et aux statuts multiples, conscientes de leurs différences, mais refusant aussi bien l’indifférence que l’instrumentalisation. Bien qu’intéressant, le « partenariat » ne constitue pas la seule modalité envisageable entre tous ces acteurs.

Dans l’hypothèse où cette « saine distance » entre les acteurs humanitaires et les pouvoirs publics / bailleurs serait trouvée, cela suffira-t’il à régler les enjeux structurels forts qui traversent aujourd’hui le champ humanitaire ? Probablement pas, car l’échelle appropriée est désormais au moins européenne et la crise financière (et politique) qui agite les 27 pays de l’UE et la Commission Européenne, n’incite pas à l’optimisme. La récente polémique sur la réduction significative du Fonds d’Aide Alimentaire Européen, poussée par l’Allemagne et d’autres pays, en dit long sur la question de la solidarité européenne et sur ses moyens. Outre le fait que cette réduction de l’aide alimentaire risque d’entraîner des centaines de milliers de personnes, vivant en Europe, dans une situation socio-sanitaire encore plus préoccupante qu’elle ne l’est aujourd’hui, elle est vraisemblablement le prémisse de réorganisations à venir pour d’autres organismes européens, acteurs et bailleurs importants de la solidarité internationale.

Les ONG humanitaires françaises ont donc le devoir, de part leur mandat et leur appartenance à la société civile, de maintenir une exigence et une vigilance sur la façon dont l’Etat français, mais aussi les institutions européennes, se positionnent sur les questions de solidarité – et non plus seulement de gestion des crises. Dans cette perspective, Grotius International se veut « médiacteur », pour que les opinions de tous puissent être partagées mais aussi pour que sur le terrain, au Nord comme au Sud, cela puisse avoir une traduction concrète. Notre participation active à la préparation de cette Conférence Nationale Humanitaire est le reflet de cette détermination.