Individuals play a tremendous role in helping to combat injustices (and unfortunately at times do little to stop them from occurring or directly cause many to take place). A recent article issued by the Associated Press (AP) highlights an instance of the first instance.
A few months ago, a Libyan-owned, North Korean-flagged cargo ship was hijacked by a group of Somali pirates. The cargo ship crew included one Romanian and a host of Syrian nationals. Over the course of the past two months, one of the Somali "pirates", Ahmed, who served as a cook clandestinely provided some food to the hostages to supplement their meager diet of salt water-cooked rice. The hostage crew were able to hide a cell phone from their captors and Ahmed managed to provide them with a Sim card which they used to try and communicate with anxious relatives. Lastly, due to faltering negotiations - the pirates were unable to acquire any ransom - discussions were in progress amongst the hijackers as to whether to harvest the hostages' organs and sell them on the black market. Upon hearing this, Ahmed brought the hostages some weapons and informed them of the potential organ harvesting plans. Now armed, the crew sprang into action killing many of their hostage-takers. The hostage crew and Ahmed were then rescued by a European Union ship, however no state within the EU or Syria wanted to take Ahmed in despite his crucial assistance.
Ahmed's whereabouts are presently unknown however there is reasonable speculation that if returned to Somalia, he would surely face execution by relatives and friends of the dead pirates who perished due to his assistance to the hostages.
Ahmed's actions constituted acts of resistance against the dominant authority and power exercised by the hijackers. It could easily be construed as resistance in multiple ways. By providing the hostages with food clandestinely, he clearly defied any norms express or implied that the hostages would have to exist in absolutely miserable conditions. By giving them a Sim card, Ahmed circumvented any prohibitions against the hostages communicating with the outside world, thus alleviating the hostages' families' distress. Finally, and probably the most obvious example of his defiance, Ahmed resisted the power of his fellow hijackers by giving the hostages the means by which to secure their escape and potentially save their own lives had the hijackers pursued their discussions further and harvested the hostages' organs.
Considering Ahmed's actions, why deny him asylum? Many states are parties to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and/or the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. In order to obtain asylum under the Convention or Protocol, an individual must be outside of their country of nationality or place of last habitual residence and demonstrate that they are unable or unwilling to return on account of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.
Even if Ahmed could fit within one of the designated grounds stated above (most likely under the last two if at all), Article 1F (1F) of the 1951 Convention excludes from its definition of a refugee individuals with respect to whom there are serious reasons to believe have a) committed a crime against peace, a war crime or a crime against humanity; b) committed a serious non-political crime; or c) been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Notwithstanding Ahmed's actions, he seemingly belonged to a group that engaged in actions that were at minimum acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN, and serious non-political crimes (i.e. unlawful imprisonment or hostage taking, piracy on the high seas). It was a group aimed arguably for a limited and brutal purpose, and such purpose might be imputed to Ahmed due to his membership.
Article 1F was designed to protect States Parties from being obliged to grant asylum to individuals who did not deserve protection for having committed serious crimes and who might endanger the populace of the hosting state.
Thus although Ahmed might technically be excluded through an application of 1F due to his membership within the hijacking enterprise, there is nevertheless something troubling about denying Ahmed some assistance for reasons related to his resistance. As argued by author John S. Burnett who has written about piracy and terrorism on the high seas, "no Somali pirate will ever risk showing any modicum of compassion again if he knows he's not going to get any help from the authorities."
Of course, it also begs the question of what it means to be a member in a such a criminal enterprise when one takes numerous acts which undermine the limited and brutal purpose of the group - particularly the providing of weapons to the hostages facilitating in their own rebellion against the hijacking crew. While little seems to be known about the circumstances of Ahmed joining the enterprise, one should take into consideration the dire economic and social circumstances prevailing in Somalia which may draw individuals into such enterprises. Was Ahmed a willing member or dragooned or coerced into service? If Ahmed's duties were strictly confined to preparing food, to what extent should such limited participation exclude him from asylum?
Even assuming that Ahmed joined willingly at first, it is important to consider the role that an individual like him could play (after reconsidering their role in the commission of crimes), particularly when considering Syria and Romania's reluctance to pay into the ransom demands or stage their own rescue.
Potential resisters are then faced with two stark options: (1) resist and then run the risk of persecution and death; or (2) don't resist and let harm come to the hostages (and then incur potential criminal liability).
It is worth noting the grateful words of the Romanian sailor, Cretu who was rescued and who rescued himself thanks to Ahmed's intervention- "In my mind, cook Ahmed was an angel sent by God. Without his intervention, without his courage, we would have been dead." A fate that may well have befallen Ahmed or may in the near future.
Sources:
Katharine Houreld and Dan Mihaescu, "Somali Pirate Cook Saves Hostages, Then Disappears"
The Associated Press (18 June 2010); available online: The Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/19/somali-pirate-cook-saves-_n_618293.html
A few months ago, a Libyan-owned, North Korean-flagged cargo ship was hijacked by a group of Somali pirates. The cargo ship crew included one Romanian and a host of Syrian nationals. Over the course of the past two months, one of the Somali "pirates", Ahmed, who served as a cook clandestinely provided some food to the hostages to supplement their meager diet of salt water-cooked rice. The hostage crew were able to hide a cell phone from their captors and Ahmed managed to provide them with a Sim card which they used to try and communicate with anxious relatives. Lastly, due to faltering negotiations - the pirates were unable to acquire any ransom - discussions were in progress amongst the hijackers as to whether to harvest the hostages' organs and sell them on the black market. Upon hearing this, Ahmed brought the hostages some weapons and informed them of the potential organ harvesting plans. Now armed, the crew sprang into action killing many of their hostage-takers. The hostage crew and Ahmed were then rescued by a European Union ship, however no state within the EU or Syria wanted to take Ahmed in despite his crucial assistance.
Ahmed's whereabouts are presently unknown however there is reasonable speculation that if returned to Somalia, he would surely face execution by relatives and friends of the dead pirates who perished due to his assistance to the hostages.
Ahmed's actions constituted acts of resistance against the dominant authority and power exercised by the hijackers. It could easily be construed as resistance in multiple ways. By providing the hostages with food clandestinely, he clearly defied any norms express or implied that the hostages would have to exist in absolutely miserable conditions. By giving them a Sim card, Ahmed circumvented any prohibitions against the hostages communicating with the outside world, thus alleviating the hostages' families' distress. Finally, and probably the most obvious example of his defiance, Ahmed resisted the power of his fellow hijackers by giving the hostages the means by which to secure their escape and potentially save their own lives had the hijackers pursued their discussions further and harvested the hostages' organs.
Considering Ahmed's actions, why deny him asylum? Many states are parties to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and/or the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. In order to obtain asylum under the Convention or Protocol, an individual must be outside of their country of nationality or place of last habitual residence and demonstrate that they are unable or unwilling to return on account of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.
Even if Ahmed could fit within one of the designated grounds stated above (most likely under the last two if at all), Article 1F (1F) of the 1951 Convention excludes from its definition of a refugee individuals with respect to whom there are serious reasons to believe have a) committed a crime against peace, a war crime or a crime against humanity; b) committed a serious non-political crime; or c) been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Notwithstanding Ahmed's actions, he seemingly belonged to a group that engaged in actions that were at minimum acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN, and serious non-political crimes (i.e. unlawful imprisonment or hostage taking, piracy on the high seas). It was a group aimed arguably for a limited and brutal purpose, and such purpose might be imputed to Ahmed due to his membership.
Article 1F was designed to protect States Parties from being obliged to grant asylum to individuals who did not deserve protection for having committed serious crimes and who might endanger the populace of the hosting state.
Thus although Ahmed might technically be excluded through an application of 1F due to his membership within the hijacking enterprise, there is nevertheless something troubling about denying Ahmed some assistance for reasons related to his resistance. As argued by author John S. Burnett who has written about piracy and terrorism on the high seas, "no Somali pirate will ever risk showing any modicum of compassion again if he knows he's not going to get any help from the authorities."
Of course, it also begs the question of what it means to be a member in a such a criminal enterprise when one takes numerous acts which undermine the limited and brutal purpose of the group - particularly the providing of weapons to the hostages facilitating in their own rebellion against the hijacking crew. While little seems to be known about the circumstances of Ahmed joining the enterprise, one should take into consideration the dire economic and social circumstances prevailing in Somalia which may draw individuals into such enterprises. Was Ahmed a willing member or dragooned or coerced into service? If Ahmed's duties were strictly confined to preparing food, to what extent should such limited participation exclude him from asylum?
Even assuming that Ahmed joined willingly at first, it is important to consider the role that an individual like him could play (after reconsidering their role in the commission of crimes), particularly when considering Syria and Romania's reluctance to pay into the ransom demands or stage their own rescue.
Potential resisters are then faced with two stark options: (1) resist and then run the risk of persecution and death; or (2) don't resist and let harm come to the hostages (and then incur potential criminal liability).
It is worth noting the grateful words of the Romanian sailor, Cretu who was rescued and who rescued himself thanks to Ahmed's intervention- "In my mind, cook Ahmed was an angel sent by God. Without his intervention, without his courage, we would have been dead." A fate that may well have befallen Ahmed or may in the near future.
Sources:
Katharine Houreld and Dan Mihaescu, "Somali Pirate Cook Saves Hostages, Then Disappears"
The Associated Press (18 June 2010); available online: The Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/19/somali-pirate-cook-saves-_n_618293.html
No comments:
Post a Comment