Aotearoa should sign the Disappearance Convention

There's horrible news from the US today, with the Trump regime disappearing Mahmoud Khalil, a former Columbia University student, for protesting against genocide in Gaza. Its another significant decline in US human rights, and puts them in the same class as the authoritarian dictatorships they used to sponsor in South America.

How can Aotearoa signal its disapproval of this abuse? Back in 2006, the UN agreed the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ICPPED). The Convention requires its parties to take various steps to prevent forced disappearance, as well as criminalising it in international law. When it was established, Aotearoa refused to sign, officially because of a slight technical difference in wording with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, but really because our "ally" the US was disappearing and torturing people as part of its extraordinary rendition program. And we wouldn't want to disagree with that, would we?

But times - and the international situation - have changed, and its time to revisit that decision. When Aotearoa refused, the ICPPED had fewer than 20 parties. Now it has almost a hundred - including almost all of Europe and South America. Basically, everyone we consider to be "like-minded" in supporting that "rules-based international order" we talk about so much. These states are all also members of the International Criminal Court, so its pretty clear that the inconsistency we were supposedly so worried about can be managed to the satisfaction of the majority of the international community.

Signing and ratifying the Convention would establish safeguards against disappearance here and improve human rights in Aotearoa. It would also signal our disapproval of disappearance internationally, and allow us to punish those responsible if any of them ever set foot in Aotearoa. That seems like a Good Thing. The question is, will the government do it, or are they still chickenshits about human rights?

In force

The International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, an international treaty aimed at outlawing disappearance, entered into force today. Sadly, it has done so without the support of New Zealand. Just another example of how we've gone from being a leader on human rights, to a craven follower of the United States, afraid to stand up and speak out against abuses because it would cast our "very very very good friends" in a bad light.

Disappearance Convention update

The International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance is an international treaty aimed at outlawing disappearance and bringing its perpetrators to justice. It requires its parties to outlaw and punish disappearance (and assert extraterritorial jurisdiction if necessary), as well as take specific measures (such as tracking prisoners) to ensure it does not happen. Opened for signature in December 2006, it has languished for the last four years, waiting for enough countries to ratify it to bring it into force.

Until now. Last week, Iraq became the 20th country to ratify the Convention. Meaning that it will come into force on 23 December.

Sadly, New Zealand has not been part of this human rights achievement. Instead, we've refused to sign or ratify the Convention, using minor (and easily resolvable) inconsistencies with other international law as the excuse. The real reason, of course, is that the Convention outlaws the American practice of rendition; signing it would be seen as criticising America, and apparently no New Zealand government wants to do that.

One more to go

Paraguay has become the 19th country to ratify the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. The Convention comes into force after the 20th ratification, so it only needs one more. And with the International Day of the Disappeared less than two weeks away, hopefully that ratification will come soon.

Reported back

Last year, I organised (if that's the right word) a quick petition to Parliament asking it to urge the government to sign and ratify the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. The petition went to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, which has now reported back [PDF]. The report is brief, so I'll reproduce it in full:

The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee has considered Petition 2005/185 of Morgan Davie and 86 others, requesting that the House of Representatives urge the Government to sign and ratify the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance as quickly as possible. We urge the Government to take note of the petition and consider the merits of signing the convention.

(Emphasis added).

That doesn't look like much, but its a pretty positive result; normally petitions get the brush off of "we have examined [the petition] and have no matters to bring to the attention of the House". Given the predominance of government members on the committee, it suggests that they'e at least open to signing, which is good - but we'll have to wait and see whether anything comes of it.

Meanwhile, the ICPAPED is now halfway to entering into force, with Uruguay and Kazhakstan ratifying in the past week. At the current rate, it will enter into force in the next two years.

France ratifies the Disappearance Convention

France has ratified the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. So, 15 more countries to go, and it will enter into force.

Sadly, New Zealand still shows no sign of signing yet.

Tabled

Last week I presented the Disappearance Convention petition to Keith Locke. Today, it was finally tabled in Parliament (the delay is due to last week's urgency). It will now go before the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, for consideration sometime in the next term. While I am realistic about the outcome, it will at least make them think about it for five minutes, and possibly force MFAT to stand up and justify the current policy. It will let the government know that someone is watching them in this area. And that is a Good Thing.

(And for those wondering whether that's my name at the top of it, no. Morgue is acting as my beard on this)

Day of the Disappeared

Today, August 30, is the International Day of the Disappeared, created to draw attention to the victims of forced disappearance. Forced disappearance doesn't happen in New Zealand, but it happens around the world - in the Philippines, in Pakistan, in Belarus and in Iraq. In those countries, people are abducted at gunpoint by the government or terrorist groups, held incommunicado, tortured, and murdered, and their families are left with no clue as to their ultimate fate. As the International Coalition against Enforced Disappearances [PDF] points out,

Enforced disappearance challenges the very concept of human rights: it amounts to the denial of the right of all persons to exist. Enforced disappearance turns a human being into a non-being. It is the ultimate corruption, the abuse of power that allows the perpetrators, while committing abominable crimes, to reduce law and order to something insignificant.

This is a serious human rights abuse, and like torture, one that needs to be stamped out.

A key goal of the Day of the Disappeared this year is to help do that by highlighting the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance and encourage states to sign it. The Convention outlaws forced disappearance, and requires its parties to cooperate in extraditing or prosecuting its perpetrators. Like the Convention Against Torture, it is aimed at strengthening international law, ensuring that human rights abusers will face justice wherever they flee, and preventing backsliding by signatory nations. So far, 73 countries have signed, and 4 have ratified. New Zealand is not one of them. This is a shameful position, and one totally at odds with our normal support for human rights and international law.

This is not an issue we can do nothing on. Our government should sign and ratify the Convention as soon as possible. And on Tuesday, I'll be presenting a petition to Parliament urging the government to do exactly that. It's small, but it should show them that at least some people here give a damn. And hopefully it will get them to stop, think, and decide to support human rights after all.

Justice for disappearance

Between 1976 and 1983, Argentina's military junta waged a campaign of violence against dissidents, students, and unionists known as the "Dirty War". Thousands were disappeared, tortured and murdered by government death squads, their bodies flung from the backs of planes over the Atlantic Ocean to prevent any evidence from coming to light. Today, two of the worst perpetrators of those crimes were finally held accountable for their actions during that era. Antonio Bussi and Luciano Menendez, both senior generals in the military regime, were sentenced to life imprisonment for the kidnapping and disappearance of a leftist senator in 1976. Given that they are in their 80's, that jail sentence might be short, but they have been held to account. After 32 years, there has been some justice for the disappeared.

This is why the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance is so important: it means that people like these will not be able to find sanctuary anywhere in the world, but will instead face justice for their crimes. And that is why New Zealand should sign it.

Reminder

If you have downloaded and signed the Disappearance Convention petition, its time to post it back. I'm planning on presenting it next Monday, so if you want your signatures to count, its vital they arrive at the Wellington dead-drop by Saturday.

Speaking of which, if anyone is going to Drinking Liberally in Auckland on Wednesday night, I'm after a couple of people to take it along and pass it round. I'll make arrangements with the organisers, but I need backups just in case someone forgets or is hit by a bus...

Existence Denied

The International Coalition Against Enforced Disappearances, and NGO which supports the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, now has a blog: Existence Denied. And today, it has a nice reminded of Why the Convention is urgent:

The need for this Convention in essence is very simple. Enforced disappearances have been carried out by regimes all over the world from the World War II until today. People need to be better protected from this crime. The existing legal protection mechanisms were simply not enough; they contained a lot of gaps and ambiguities, resulting in inadequate prevention and protection.

The Convention establishes solid legal mechanisms ensuring protection and requiring states to cooperate internationally in bringing offenders to justice, in much the same way as the Convention Against Torture. However, the effectiveness of the Convention depends ultimately on the number of states which sign it. As a country which claims to support human rights and to work towards strengthening international human rights protections, I'd expect New Zealand to sign.

If you'd like to encourage them to do that, then download the petition, sign it, and post it back.

Doing something

For the past year, I've been keeping an eye on the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, a UN human rights treaty intended to outlaw forced disappearance and ensure that those responsible for it can be prosecuted. One of the odd things is that, despite claiming to be a strong supporter of human rights, the New Zealand government has not signed it, and has no plans to do so. So, I've decided to do something about it: I'm petitioning Parliament requesting that

the House of Representatives urge the government to sign and ratify the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance as quickly as possible.

You can download the petition here. There's a simple FAQ here.

This is a rush job; I'm planning to submit the petition just after the International Day of the Disappeared at the end of the month. That doesn't leave much time, but I think I can get a non-embarrassing number of signatures on it. Obviously, you can help with this by downloading the petition, collecting some signatures, and posting it back to my Wellington mail drop. Or you could sign it when it turns up at Drinking Liberally this month (this coming Thursday in Wellington, the 27th in Auckland), or any of the other places I'm going to send it.

The aim of the petition is to highlight the government's stance and generate support and pressure for signature and ratification. Obviously, the more signatures it has, the more successful it will be. So please sign it today.

Time to sign the disappearance convention

In December 2006, 57 countries came together as initial signatories of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, a human rights treaty similar to the Convention Against Torture which would outlaw the practice of forced disappearance and ensure that its perpetrators are brought to justice. Sadly, New Zealand was not among them. While claiming to support human rights, the New Zealand government claimed that aspects of the treaty were inconsistent with established international law, notably the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which uses a slightly different definition of "enforced disappearance". The New Zealand government seems to believe that these differences are irreconcilable, and so has "no immediate plans" to sign.

That excuse is no longer sustainable. The Netherlands - the home of international law and of the International Criminal Court - signed last week, making all of Western Europe (with the notable exception of the US's reliable client "ally", the UK) signatories. These countries are all strong supporters of the ICC. If they can reconcile the differences, why can't we?

Its time the New Zealand government put its money where its mouth is on human rights. The support of Western Europe for the Convention shows the lie behind our objection. We should join them, and sign it.

Disappearance convention update

The International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance now has an international coalition to support it and lobby for signatures and ratifications. So far 71 countries have signed, and 3 have ratified (though Argentina and Mexico still have to transmit their ratifications to the UN). Unfortunately, while the list of signatories now includes most of western Europe, New Zealand has not signed and still has no intention to. While MFAT claims to have problems with "some technical aspects of the convention" (notably its consistency with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court), it's telling that countries like France, Germany, Spain, Italy and Denmark - all of whom are strong supporters of the ICC and of international human rights instruments - do not believe there are problems. Instead, our refusal seems to be based on a fear of offending the United States, which has used enforced disappearances as a tool in its "war on terror".

New Zealand claims to be a strong supporter of human rights on the international stage. It would be nice if we actually lived by that statement, rather than shoving our principles under the carpet to avoid offending the powerful.

No plans to sign

New Zealand claims to be strong supporter of human rights on the international stage. However, last week the government refused to sign the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, a human rights treaty similar to the Convention Against Torture which would outlaw the practice of forced disappearance and ensure that its perpetrators are brought to justice. I was a little curious as to why, and so I asked MFAT. Their response was to reiterate New Zealand's strong support for human rights, and to note that

New Zealand joined consensus supporting the adoption of this Convention in the United Nations General Assembly Third Committee in November 2006. At this time New Zealand also gave an explanation of position which is available on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade website.

That statement of position can be read here. The primary concerns seem to be around inconsistencies with existing international law, notably the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. However, the inconsistencies are not great (the Rome statute defines "enforced disappearance" slightly differently, to include disappearances carried out by "political organisations" rather than just states, but also requires that they be "for a prolonged period of time"), and in both the examples given, they note that the Convention can be interpreted in a manner consistent with that statute and that New Zealand intends to do so. Furthermore, it is perfectly possible - and indeed, common practice - to sign a treaty with that sort of reservation on interpretation. However, the government does not intend to do so. According to an MFAT spokesperson, New Zealand "has no immediate plans" to sign or ratify the Convention.

Whether this is consistent with our claimed "strong support of human rights" is left as an exercise for the reader.

Looking the other way on disappearance

In December last year, the United Nations General Assembly approved the text for a new global human rights treaty, the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. The Convention is modelled closely on the Convention Against Torture, and bans "enforced disappearance", which it defines as

the arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person, which place such a person outside the protection of the law.

The systematic use of disappearance is recognised by the International Criminal Court and in the Convention as a crime against humanity.

Disappearance is a feature of authoritarian and abusve regimes, and was rife in South America under the various military dictatorships of the 70's and 80's. More recently, the United States has practiced the disappearance of terrorist suspects, initially to Guantanamo, and then to a secret network of prisons scattered across the globe. The Convention would outlaw that practice, and require its parties to prosecute those responsible for it, cooperate in extraditing those suspected of it, and ensure that its victims receive compensation (just as the CAT does for torture). So its perhaps not surprising that when it opened for signature in Paris on Tuesday, the US refused to sign, saying that the text "did not meet our expectations". More surprising was the refusal of a host of Western European nations which usually take a strong line in support of human rights to sign either - the UK, Germany, Spain, Italy and the Netherlands all refused. I'm sure its just a coincidence that each and every one of them is closely tied to the United States, and have allowed the US torture plane to use their airspace for rendition flights...

And New Zealand? A look at the list of initial signatories shows that we didn't sign either. It will be interesting to hear the government's excuse for this shameful inaction, but the real reason is no doubt the same as the UK's: a cowardly desire to avoid offending the United States, even when it commits human rights abuses of the kind more normally seen in shitty third-world despotisms.

It would be nice if once, just once, we stood up for our principles rather than appeasing human rights abusers. But that seems to be too much to ask of the present government. They've remained silent on Guantanamo, and it looks as if they are happy to look the other way on disappearance as well.

[Hat tip: European Tribune]