The Gambia: moral justice; responsibility to protect; trump legal rights By Mathew K Jallow The brazen extrajudicial execution of ten military officers, in 1994, was only a sign of things to come. But, not even the deadly, primitive 2009 witch-hunting exercise, or the 2012 execution of twenty-six Mile 2 Prison inmates could inspire international action to challenge the violence perpetrated by the Gambian military regime. Over the years, both regional and international indifference to Gambia’s dire human rights abuses have galvanized Gambians to coalesce around the theme of regime change in an effort to restore the rule of law by whatever means necessary. Without pressure from the international community, Gambians see the removal of the deadly regime as the only available means to end the cruel bloodletting that has ravaged the country for the past two decades. When change of government through the electoral ballot box process has become impossible, and expression of popular discontent through protests and street demonstrations disallowed, Gambians are left with no option with which to change their government. Great Britain, United States, European Union, African Union, Senegal, ECOWAS and the political opposition in Gambia, the governments and institutions with the economic, diplomatic and political muscle to bring to bear on the Gambian regime, have not responded more forcefully to the plight of the Gambian people. This is where the rubber meets the road. Without legal recourse and with regional and international recalcitrance, should be Gambians be forced to accept the deadly and disastrous human right abuses as divinely ordained, thus giving it a veneer of legality, or should Gambians rather recognize the moral imperative to end the suffering of Gambians by any means necessary. After years of sensitizing the international community to the human rights crisis and the urgency of political change in Gambia, across the world, leaders of Gambia’s dissident movement determined that neglect of the Gambia’s human rights crisis was cemented in the archaic doctrine of “non-interference” in the internal affairs of other nations. Gambians dissident movement realized they were alone to tackle the giant problem of regime change. The recent determination of Gambian dissidents across the world to effect a return to the rule of law and change a regime that itself came to power by the use of force, was not taken lightly. But equally important, December 30th 2014, would not have occurred if international recognition of the deadly human rights abuses in Gambia was at par with the gravity of the situation in Gambia. The desperation of Gambians to change the regime and end the two decades of executions, killings, forced disappearance and mass incarceration, is a no brainer, and for Gambians to defer to an international resolution that bans the change of government other than though the electoral process, is, in light of the barbarism in the Gambia, is morally unsupportable and tactically leaves Gambians dissident movement between a rock and a hard place. International indifference to the plight of Gambians has emboldened Yahya Jammeh to continually push the boundary of tyranny and gristly human rights abuses, and in the aftermath of December 30th., 2014, the crackle of machine gun fire will not be heard, the rivers of blood will not be seen, victim’s cries of agony may forever remain a mystery, and the corpses of the dead may be fed to zoo animals, but when it is over, Gambians will once again cry for their dead. As it is, the US and Senegalese intelligence investigation into the December 30, 2014 activities has left Gambians with a challenging question of choosing between “legal right versus moral responsibility.” The international community, led by the United States, appears to support the binding doctrine of “non-interference” in other nations’ internal affairs, thus creating a conflict with an international norm, which gives weight to moral responsibility and the doctrine of “responsibility to protect,” citizens of nations under abusive tyrannies, as grounded in international law. And in support of the recently failed effort to restore the rule of law in the Gambia and end the state sanctioned executions, murders, mass incarceration and flight from the country, Gambians resist laws that kneecap their exercise of moral responsibility in protecting their fellow citizens. The Gambia’s dissident movement is firmly anchored in the belief in the “responsibility to protect” Gambian citizens and will use every means necessary to achieve that goal. The responsibility of the international community at this point is to prevent the revenge bloodletting of accused victims by the trigger-happy regime, and assist Gambians to change their political circumstances. The December 30, 2014 effort to protect Gambians from their deadly regime has failed, but their determination to restore sanity in Gambia is a powerful commitment that has basis in religious and social morality. Against all odds, Gambia’s relentless online media has put a small African country devoid of natural resources on the map of political consciousness, the responsibility now is for the US, Great Britain, EU, AU, ECOWAS and the Senegalese government to determine whether Gambians deserve protection from the executions, the murders, the forced disappearances and mass incarcerations. The international community has an objective moral responsibility to uphold the “responsibility to protect” norm and the US Department of Justice must recognize the December 30th 2014 event as an effort to end twenty years of state violence in Gambia. Gambians across the globe call on Eric Holder and the US Justice Department to set free Gambian Americans in its custody. The protection of Gambian lives is always an act of moral righteousness that should never be subjected to legal scrutiny or the US Justice Department risks alienating Gambians and exposing its pharisaism and stubborn indifference to the plight of Gambians. Gambians stand firmly behind the dead and the living who attempted to give Gambians the freedom they have yearned for, for the last two decades. Gambians will never deviate from the determination to free their country from the clutches of a murderous monster, and in that alone, every Gambians can be counted as complicit in the December 30, 2014 effort to save Gambian lives and free its people. If that is grounds to be accused and tried for an illegal act; I will be the first to plead guilty. But, even more important, Gambian Americans should never be tried for being concerned about the genocide in Gambia. The “Responsibility to Protect” or “R2P”, doctrine elaborates that 1; “the State carries the primary responsibility for protecting populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing, and their incitement; 2; that the international community has a responsibility to encourage and assist States in fulfilling this responsibility; and 3; the international community has a responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other means to protect populations from these crimes.” It R2P adds, “if a State is manifestly failing to protect its populations, the international community must be prepared to take collective action to protect populations, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. Moral Justice would be judging things according to their subjective rightness or wrongness, as opposed to strictly following the law.”
Posted on: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 22:27:12 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015