Following (and in some cases simultaneous to) the tide of protests that have succeeded in ousting heads of state in Tunisia and Egypt, protesters in Bahrain, Yemen and Libya have been applying considerable pressure to effect similar regime change in their countries. Consequently, a number of police and military have been ordered to fire on crowds of protesters - even where the people assembled were marching as part of funeral processions. New reports indicate that Libyan war planes and militia have been deployed to bomb and fire on protesters.
Individuals employed by these states have undoubtedly been faced with moral and legal questions as to their role in their government amidst this turmoil. In the case of the diplomatic corps, do they defend the regime or speak out? For members of the police or military, do they follow orders that will either injure or kill protesters, or do they refuse to follow implement the directives?
Earlier today, members of the Libyan delegation at the U.N. have called on President Muammar Qaddafi to resign. Deputy Permanent Representative for the Libyan delegation, Ibrahim Dabbashi asserted, “we are sure that what is going on now in Libya is crimes against humanity and crimes of war.” He continued, “we find it is impossible to stay silent and we have to transfer the voice of the Libyan people to the world.” Dabbashi posited that “the Libyan mission is a mission for the Libyan people. It is not for the regime. The regime of Qaddafi has already started the genocide against the Libyan people.”
As soldiers and police are ordered to fire onto the protesters, it becomes increasingly incumbent upon those serving the regime to decide whether to follow their orders. The L.A. Times and Reuters reports that two Libyan colonels, pilots in the Libyan air force have defected rather than follow orders to bomb protesters and fellow citizens. The pilots purportedly told Maltese officials that they were ordered to attack protesters in Benghazi (although another report indicates that the pilots were to fire on protesters in Tripoli), however they decided not to when seeing fellow fighter pilots begin their attacks. They instead flew to Malta. One of the pilots has claimed asylum, according to the Reuters report.
Time will tell if these resistive actions by diplomatic and military officials will inspire further defiance amongst the official classes in Libya and other states where protests are occurring. In the meantime, it will be interesting to see how foreign states respond to asylum claims by such defectors and critics. Should states respond positively, and consequently legitimize such acts of resistance, they may encourage more defections. If states respond negatively, this may give officials and soldiers little reason to defect.
Many may otherwise successfully qualify for refugee status on the basis of a well-founded fear of persecution by virtue of expressing their political opinion - manifested through statements and resignations in the case of the Libyan diplomats or refusal to obey orders and desertion by military servicemen or officials. However, Article 1F of the 1951 Convention Relating to The Status of Refugees (as amended by the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees) excludes certain individual from being granted refugee status. This includes those about whom there are serious reasons to consider that they have committed crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, war crimes (art. 1F(a)) or serious non-political crimes (art. 1F(b)). Thus, while an individual's present actions in resistance to a regime and its unlawful orders may qualify them for refugee status, past conduct on behalf of the impugned regime may render them excluded from the protections offered under the 1951 Refugee Convention and/or 1967 Protocol.
A full discussion on the issue of asylum and excluded classes of people is beyond the scope of this posting and I shall address more about this in a subsequent posting and in writing elsewhere. Needless to say, whatever the degree of an individual's complicity in past conduct, one can only hope that they will take steps that will deprive criminal regimes of the instruments through which states effect their policies and oppression.
Sources:
Molly Hennessy-Fiske, "Libya: Colonels Defected to Malta Rather Than Bomb Protesters" L.A. Times (21 February 2011), online: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2011/02/libya-colonels-defected-to-malta-rather-than-bomb-protesters.html
Colin Moynihan, "Libya's U.N. Diplomats Break with Qaddafi" N.Y. Times (21 February, 2011), online: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/world/africa/22nations.html?hp.
"Report: Libya fighter jets attacks protesters in Tripoli" Reuters et al. (21 February 2011, 4:40 PM EST), online: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41700027/ns/world_news-mideast/n_africa/
Individuals employed by these states have undoubtedly been faced with moral and legal questions as to their role in their government amidst this turmoil. In the case of the diplomatic corps, do they defend the regime or speak out? For members of the police or military, do they follow orders that will either injure or kill protesters, or do they refuse to follow implement the directives?
Earlier today, members of the Libyan delegation at the U.N. have called on President Muammar Qaddafi to resign. Deputy Permanent Representative for the Libyan delegation, Ibrahim Dabbashi asserted, “we are sure that what is going on now in Libya is crimes against humanity and crimes of war.” He continued, “we find it is impossible to stay silent and we have to transfer the voice of the Libyan people to the world.” Dabbashi posited that “the Libyan mission is a mission for the Libyan people. It is not for the regime. The regime of Qaddafi has already started the genocide against the Libyan people.”
As soldiers and police are ordered to fire onto the protesters, it becomes increasingly incumbent upon those serving the regime to decide whether to follow their orders. The L.A. Times and Reuters reports that two Libyan colonels, pilots in the Libyan air force have defected rather than follow orders to bomb protesters and fellow citizens. The pilots purportedly told Maltese officials that they were ordered to attack protesters in Benghazi (although another report indicates that the pilots were to fire on protesters in Tripoli), however they decided not to when seeing fellow fighter pilots begin their attacks. They instead flew to Malta. One of the pilots has claimed asylum, according to the Reuters report.
Time will tell if these resistive actions by diplomatic and military officials will inspire further defiance amongst the official classes in Libya and other states where protests are occurring. In the meantime, it will be interesting to see how foreign states respond to asylum claims by such defectors and critics. Should states respond positively, and consequently legitimize such acts of resistance, they may encourage more defections. If states respond negatively, this may give officials and soldiers little reason to defect.
Many may otherwise successfully qualify for refugee status on the basis of a well-founded fear of persecution by virtue of expressing their political opinion - manifested through statements and resignations in the case of the Libyan diplomats or refusal to obey orders and desertion by military servicemen or officials. However, Article 1F of the 1951 Convention Relating to The Status of Refugees (as amended by the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees) excludes certain individual from being granted refugee status. This includes those about whom there are serious reasons to consider that they have committed crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, war crimes (art. 1F(a)) or serious non-political crimes (art. 1F(b)). Thus, while an individual's present actions in resistance to a regime and its unlawful orders may qualify them for refugee status, past conduct on behalf of the impugned regime may render them excluded from the protections offered under the 1951 Refugee Convention and/or 1967 Protocol.
A full discussion on the issue of asylum and excluded classes of people is beyond the scope of this posting and I shall address more about this in a subsequent posting and in writing elsewhere. Needless to say, whatever the degree of an individual's complicity in past conduct, one can only hope that they will take steps that will deprive criminal regimes of the instruments through which states effect their policies and oppression.
Sources:
Molly Hennessy-Fiske, "Libya: Colonels Defected to Malta Rather Than Bomb Protesters" L.A. Times (21 February 2011), online: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2011/02/libya-colonels-defected-to-malta-rather-than-bomb-protesters.html
Colin Moynihan, "Libya's U.N. Diplomats Break with Qaddafi" N.Y. Times (21 February, 2011), online: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/world/africa/22nations.html?hp.
"Report: Libya fighter jets attacks protesters in Tripoli" Reuters et al. (21 February 2011, 4:40 PM EST), online: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41700027/ns/world_news-mideast/n_africa/
"Two Libyan Fighter Pilots Defect, Fly to Malta" Reuters (21 February 2011), online: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/21/us-libya-protests-malta-idUSTRE71K52R20110221
No comments:
Post a Comment