Tag: UN

Maldives hails “new dawn” in Libya, increases international pressure on Syria

Maldives Foreign Minister Ahmed Naseem has welcomed “a new dawn in Libya” following reports yesterday that the rebel Transitional National Council (TNC) had all but taken control of Libya’s capital, Tripoli.

President Muammar Gaddafi remains nowhere to be found, but early reports yesterday – confirmed by the International Criminal Court (ICC) – suggested that the rebels had detained his son, Saif al-Islam.

Saif however appeared in front of journalists later in the day declaring that the rebels had “fallen into a trap”, and “screw the criminal court.”

The Maldives was among the first countries to formally recognise the TNC rebels as the sovereign representatives of the Libyan people, and helped organise several UN Human Rights Council resolutions increasing pressure on Gaddafi and legitimising Western military intervention.

“The Maldives took these steps because of our conviction that men such as Muammar Ghadaffi should not be allowed to check, through violence, the recent march of democracy and human rights across the Muslim world – the Muslim Awakening,” Naseem said.

“For decades, the government of Muammar Ghadaffi has ruled through a system of patronage, repression and fear. The Muslim Awakening brought hope that this system could be dismantled peacefully, through dialogue, reform and free and fair elections. However, instead Muammar Ghadaffi chose to use his security forces to attack and kill civilians.

“With the imminent fall of Ghadaffi, the Muslim Awakening lives on, and the Maldives looks forward to welcoming a new, democratic Libyan State into the international family of nations,” Naseem said.

Syria

The Maldives is taking a similar line on Syria it took with Libya earlier this year, insisting on democratic reforms and yesterday spearheading an emergency session of the UN Human Rights Council.

“The Maldives considers itself a friend of Syria and its people, and has watched with increasing alarm as the government there has responded to peaceful protests calling for democratic reform with violence and intimidation. Thousands have been arbitrarily detained and hundred of our Muslim brothers and sisters, including children, have been killed. Worse, these gross human rights violations have intensified during the Holy Month of Ramadan,” Naseem said, in another statement.

Syria, which has failed to respond to the Council or cooperate with the UN, is backed by Iran and has taken a hard line against civilian demonstrators calling for President Bashar al-Assad to step down.

Protests began in January 26 as the ‘Arab Spring’ demonstrations began to sweep through the Middle East, escalating into an uprising in which over 2200 people have reportedly been killed.

Involvement of the Maldives

At a press conference held yesterday in Male’, the Maldives Ambassador to the UN Abdul Ghafoor Mohamed said that the small size and relative isolation of the Maldives was “no impediment” the country’s pursuit of an international human rights agenda.

“I think we have shown that size is not everything in international relations,” Ghafoor said. “Even if you are a small country your commitments, your principles, and how you work with others can help you achieve many of your goals.

“Our relations with other countries and our record of promoting human rights both at home and in concert with other countries, and our cooperation with the Human Rights High Commissioner has given us respect and legitimacy in the international community, and we have been at the forefront of a number of resolutions that has been initiated on matters of grave concern,” he said.

Asked about the Maldives’ commitment to human rights locally, and whether he concurred with the Maldives’ recent delegation to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination that the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives was the “most active national institution in Asia”, Ghafoor observed that “I don’t think there’s any country that has a perfect human rights record.”

“Without exception I think all countries have human rights issues and problems, but what is more important is how do we deal with it and how do we address these issues,” he said.

“I think Maldives has shown that it is willing to address the shortcomings it has in its human rights promotion and making every effort possible within the resources we have to improve our human rights record.

We are willing to work with other countries, with the international human rights organisations, even with NGOs to make the human rights issue a non-issue hopefully some time in the future. But that maybe a bit too much to hope for. So long as there are human beings interacting with each other there’s likely to be human rights issues.”

Speaking as to the Maldives’ position on the UN report detailing war crimes in the closing days of Sri Lanka’s civil war, Ghafoor said he did not think the matter would create friction with the Maldives’ neighbour.

“I do not see the government having any issues at this stage with the Sri Lankan government,” he said.

“[Naseem] has stated that we would like to see the UN take a more comprehensive review of what has happened in Sri Lanka, rather than concentrate on the last few days. This could skew the whole issue. So we do not see our memberships of the Human Rights Council making it difficult for us to have good relations with Sri Lanka or speak on issues of sensitivity. I think as good friends Maldives can speak very frankly with Sri Lanka and I’m sure they would happy to listen to our views.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

UNDP awards US$79,862 to local CSOs in small grants program

The United Nations Development Program has awarded US$79, 862.95 to the 13 winners of the “Support to Civil Society Development” program in the Maldives.

The winning projects, supported by the Small Grants Facility and jointly funded by the UNDP and Australia Agency for International Development (AusAID), were designed by local CSOs and selected out of 54 proposed projects.

United Nations Resident Representative, Andrew Cox, spoke at the UN building today. Cox called civil society a “pillar of democracy”, and a significant factor in democratizing the Maldives. He commented on the large scale changes the country has faced in recent years, and called the Maldives “a country which shows much scope for growth and maturity.

This is the second round of projects in the program. Monitors of the first round had determined that the program was constructive, Cox said.

“Initiatives such as the Monitoring of Political Violence in the First Local Council Elections project, The Empowerment of Women project and The Right to Empower project – among the 09 projects funded in the first round, have indicated steps taken in the right direction by the civil society,” he said.

The second round of projects were selected from 11 atolls, including Raa, Baa, Noonu, Addu City, Malé City, and others. Almost every atoll in the country is represented in the selection.

Among the areas the program intends to address are human rights, governance, gender equality, and youth development. Cox added that the tenets of democracy, such as transparency, accountability, and the voice of the people will be empowered.

Cox backed the program by invoking the Maldives government’s Strategic Action Plan, “which guarantees that space will be allowed for individual freedoms and the civil society to thrive.”

In closing, Cox reminded his audience that significant challenges to establishing a full  democracy remain in the Maldives, but that they can only be overcome by the united efforts of the people. Cox reinforced the UN’s committment to supporting the Maldivian people in their pursuit of a consolidated democratic identity.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Letter on racial discrimination

Dear Editor,

With reference to your well-written and interesting recent article “UN Committee Grills Maldives Delegation on human rights commitments”, the Foreign Ministry welcomes such efforts to disseminate information about the Maldives’ important interactions with the UN human rights machinery. The UN Treaty Bodies are the guardians of the international human rights conventions and the Maldives has taken a number of steps over recent years to work more closely with those Bodies in order to strengthen our human rights protection system.

However, I would like to make one important clarification regarding the article. You write, in the third paragraph, that “the committee noted that the government’s historical position had “been to deny the existence of racial discrimination in the country as the Maldives has a small homogeneous population, of the same origin, pursuing the same religion, and speaking the same language.” It is important to clarify that this “historical position” refers to the reports submitted under the CERD Convention by the former Government. The current Government, in its report to CERD and in its interactions with the Committee, started from a position that racial and related discrimination is a problem in the Maldives, as it is in all countries, and that we must all accept that the problem exists in order to take meaningful steps to address it. In this regard, the current Government is committed to closely reviewing the findings and recommendations of the CERD Committee, and to working with all national stakeholders to confront discrimination in line with our international obligations.

Regards
Iru

Irushaadha Abdul Sattar is the Director of Communications for the Maldives Foreign Ministry.

All letters are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of Minivan News. If you would like to write a letter, please submit it to [email protected]

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Building a modern justice system that is right for the Maldives

As we see in the stories carried daily in this newspaper, Maldives is deep into the difficult business of building a strong and democratic society. There is often an understandable impatience about the time it takes to see the fruits of democracy, but when you compare to other countries that have had to do the same thing, you realise that the Maldives is trying to achieve in a few years what others have taken decades or centuries to do.

This is possible, but the key to success continues to be mobilising everybody around issues that are in the national interest. This is particularly true in the area of justice, which is the foundation of all democratic societies and the development of any nation. Developing a strong and independent justice system needs a concerted effort from all three branches of government, and civil society.

Change in the Maldives has brought its own anxieties, and society is particularly concerned about increasing levels of crime. This lends new impetus to the reform of the Criminal Justice System.

A reliable and operational criminal justice delivery system is needed to sustain democracy and the rule of law, strengthen new democratic institutions, and protect security, economic development and foreign investment, based on the firmest of foundations of justice and human rights. Establishing a robust criminal justice system is a very complex, long and difficult exercise, requiring work across many areas.

A vital step, however, is ensuring that the legislative foundation is put in place as soon as possible. Of priority, therefore, is enactment of criminal reform legislation, particularly the Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), Evidence Bill, and the Juvenile Justice Bill.

A solid and modern Penal Code gives consistency to legal systems and makes criminal law more understandable and transparent to people. The Penal Code defines the general principles of criminal responsibility, classifying crimes and their penalties. If there is a proper Penal Code, it is much less necessary to draft legislation defining every crime or procedure. The Criminal Procedure Code will define procedures in criminal matters, which then provide transparency and accountability.

Another important piece of legislation is the Juvenile Justice Bill. Statistics on crime demonstrate that children under 18 and youth are involved in a lot of the cases of violent crimes. However, currently there are no strategic crime prevention programmes or rehabilitation programmes specifically targeting juvenile offenders.

In addition, there is no detention facility that caters for juvenile offenders, and there are no separate spaces for juvenile offenders to be incarcerated. In light of the emerging challenges and the increase in juvenile crime, the current law does not adequately cover rights of children or address the need for proper treatment of children in conflict with the law to rehabilitate them back in to society.

Until August 2008, Maldives’ criminal justice depended heavily on confessions. However with Constitutional reform, we are moving from a confession based to an evidence-based system, which is in line with international standards. It is therefore vital that we have an Evidence legislation that is in line with the new Constitutional reform and best practice.

Strong and functioning criminal justice systems certainly depend on a solid foundation of law, and effective courts, police, prosecutors, prisons and other institutions and actors. But it is equally important that public confidence in the system is high – to know that criminal conduct will be investigated and prosecuted in accordance with the rule of law, that the streets will be safe, that rehabilitation of offenders is possible, that human rights will be protected. Public confidence is served by knowledge and certainty. This demands the process of investigation and prosecution to be independent of political pressure, that it is transparent and follows a process that is fair and just.

We have already seen this year that pressure to ‘do something’ about crime, combined with a lack of the legal and institutional foundations discussed in this Opinion Editorial, can lead to a tendency to find reactive short-term solutions to complex problems, and even violate human rights.

The Maldives, instead, needs a proper criminal legislative framework as a matter of urgency. A real opportunity is now before the Majlis, supported by the justice system and the Government, to deliver a unanimous and thorough response to crime. It is possible to pass these key pieces of legislation in this session of the Majlis.

Technical support is available, if it is needed, from the UN and others, but above all, it is now a matter of political will to take this important step, in the national interest, to finalise and pass these key legislations. I urge MPs of all parties to pass these Bills as a matter of priority, resolve areas of disagreement constructively, and present the Bills to the Majlis for passage.

Andrew Cox is the Resident Coordinator of the United Nations System in the Maldives.

All comment pieces are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of Minivan News. If you would like to write an opinion piece, please send proposals to [email protected]

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Q&A: Dr Ahmed Shaheed

Dr Ahmed Shaheed has served as a Foreign Minister across two successive (and opposing) governments, and remains one of the country’s most astute politicians. Recently appointed UN Special Rapporteur on Iran, he tells Minivan News about being on both sides of the country’s first democratic election, reveals the extent of PR firm Hill & Knowlton’s involvement in drafting reforms and the former government’s use of private security firms to investigate the origins of the MDP, and the realities of prosecuting complex human rights abuses with a criticised judiciary.

JJ Robinson: How does the Iranian government’s refusal to allow you into the country affect your role as UN special rapporteur on Iran?

Dr Ahmed Shaheed: Whenever special rapporteur mandates are country-specific they always have the issue of not being able to access the country they are investigating. Often the country itself feels unfairly singled out for scrutiny, or that they don’t have a problem.

This is always a challenge, but by and large they come around in the end. The last time a Special Rapporteur was in Iran was in 1996. Countries eventually come round, but it takes time.

The work of the special rapporteur is structured in such a way that even if a field visit is not possible the work can continue. I will take up the assignment in August.

JJ: Will you continue in your capacity as a political advisor to the President during the mandate?

AS: No I will not. I will speak with the President and terminate my work with the government before I take on this role.

JJ: Following your resignation as Foreign Minister in the wake of Parliament’s decision in November 2010 to not approve the reappointment of seven members of cabinet, you were appointed to the Presidential Commission. What were you working on?

AS: Even as Foreign Minister I was involved in transitional justice and [pursuing] embezzled funds. It started during a conference we had in March 2009, when a number of donor countries and institutions met President Mohamed Nasheed and requested he look into the allegations of corruption.

Looking for the embezzled funds was important and the Foreign Ministry obviously had to pay attention to that. So I keep tabs on it as part of my work. In that time, one of the major issues we focused on concerned the leaked report [by forensic accountancy firm Grant Thorton, documenting the State Trading Organisation (STO)’s sale of discounted oil to the Burmese military junta on the blackmarket].

You will recall that in the furor last year over [the Maldives accepting an former inmate from] Guantanamo Bay, one of the memos showed a conversation between Vice President Dr Mohamed Waheed and US Government authorities regarding the potential for US help with asset recovery.

JJ: This was StAR, the Stolen Asset Recovery programme?

AS: StAR was the World Bank’s program. We were also in discussion with other authorities. It showed the importance we attached to the issue.

My assignment to the Presidential Commission was a means of continuing the work I had done while in cabinet.

JJ: The leaked Grant Thorton report revealed that the Maldives had been selling oil on the blackmarket to Burma for years, and named former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s half-brother Abdulla Yameen as a person of interest. What is the current status of the investigation?

AS: I haven’t resigned my post from the Commission so I am bound by their code of silence.  The report that was leaked was a very preliminary report. What was surprising was Yameen’s reaction. He has since realised his error and stopped commenting, not wanting to incriminate himself further.

JJ: Did the leak compromise the investigation?

AS: The leak has not compromised anything. Of course there were worries that it would, but the report was very preliminary. Much work has been done subsequently.

JJ: Has there been any effort to trace the source of the leak to avoid further compromise of the investigation?

AS: There was an attempt to identity the leak, but leaks are always hard to plug or identify. I’m aware measures were taken to ensure material handled remains confidential. I am satisfied that nothing else has been compromised.

JJ: The government to some extent seems to be relying on the court of public opinion. Even if it accumulates considerable evidence against Yameen or Gayoom, or any minister of the former government, given the intense politicisation is it even possible to conduct a trial locally?

AS: Let me correct the initial presumption. No, we are not relying on the court of public opinion. If we did, then everything we knew would be published. We are aware of the limitations the judiciary have here in terms of handling cases of commerical fraud and corruption cases. There’s a damper on what can be achieved here.

This is about asset recovery – we do not necessarily want to see anybody behind bars. We want to establish the fact that money was stolen and recover it. The real benefit lies in recovering the funds.

JJ: The Democratic Voice of Burma, reporting on this story, raised a number of points regarding drug links and noted that people who were listed as board members of MOCOM, the STO joint venture involved in this deal, were also connected to senior members of the Golden Triangle. Has there been anything in the government’s investigation so far to suggest there may have been a drug element in this?

AS: No, we are not pursuing it as broadly as this. We are focused on asset recovery. The investigation is making progress, and I think the government might be in a position to give out more details in a month’s time.

JJ: On the subject of the judiciary – there is periodic push by the senior figures in the government, such as the present Foreign Minister Ahmed Naseem, to investigate and prosecute human abuses committed under the former administration. Again, given the politicisation of the issue, is this viable and are fair trials of such cases even possible given the current state of the judiciary?

AS: Well, the short answer to your question would put me in contempt of court. I think the judiciary has a public trust deficit. It needs to really demonstrate that it is competent and able to handle complex cases, especially those trials that have a high political content. If you ask around, it is anybody‘s guess – most people will say a fair trial [on human rights abuses] would be very difficult to hold.

But that does not absolve us of the responsibility of trying to set the record straight on what was done. The aim is not prosecution but reconciliation and moving on. The idea is to understand what happened here so we do not repeat it in the future. But for the people who want direct remedy for what what was done to them – I think we have to look at the possibilities.

With parliament’s election of [Jumoree Party leader and local business and media tycoon] MP Gasim Ibrahim to the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), I think we have to fathom the public reaction.

JJ: Was Gasim’s appointment to a commission tasked with overseeing the country’s justice system a step backwards for judicial independence?

AS: My worry is that the judiciary is supposed to be independent. The Maldives already violates the [Commonwealth’s] Latimer House Principles [o  separation of powers] because of the way the constitution is set up. There is already too much interference by the parliament in the judiciary, and there is too much concern from the judiciary about parliament’s sanction over them.

So when a powerful member of parliament is elected to the judicial watchdog, you really begin to wonder whether the Latimer House Principles apply in this country at all. From this perspective Gasim’s election is a concern – he is like Lord Chamberlain combined with Donald Trump.

People here are concerned about undue influence of the judiciary, they are concerned about money politics, they are concerned about justice – these concerns are amplified when you have a big industrialist overseeing the judiciary. It doesn’t matter whether it is Gasim or whoever. If you have a country coming out of autocracy and a person [from that system] sitting on the JSC, you have the stuff of nightmares.

JJ: On the subject of reconciliation over reparation, do you think there is room for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) here?

AS: No, I do not think so, because right now, every dream we had 3-4 years ago is in the background to the Z-faction (Gayoom’s faction of the opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party).

The values of the Z-faction are the same values people have been looking to move away from – nepotism and all these ultra-conservative attitudes. The belief that it is OK to pass the baton to family members, to cling to power for 40 years, to do all you can to cling to power. That attitude is what the Z-Faction is representing.

Look at the way it is organised. It is based on the most ultra right-wing Gayoom [support] you can find in this country. Gayoom still has so much traction in the opposition that they all react to him – either to placate him, or to mitigate his influence. Either way, they are all focused on Gayoom.

An opposition focused on Gayoom is not what we want. And therefore reconciliation – drawing the line and moving on – all that has to wait until we can move beyond Gayoom.

JJ: The ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)’s reaction to the current state of the opposition – and the recent poaching of their MPs – suggests a new pragmatism in their political thinking. However,  some of the core membership of idealistic activists have privately expressed concern that the new arrivals are bringing skeletons with them, as in the case of the former Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) MP Hassan Adhil who is currently being tried for child molestation. Is there a risk that this new wave of pragmatism will undermine the party’s idealistic roots?

AS: All politicians have to be practical and pragmatic. Ideals are fine and they should not be abandoned, you should remain focused on them and pursue them, but then you ultimately have to work with the canvas given to you.

The key here is finding the critical mass for reform. To get that critical mass you need to build coalitions. And you can’t build coalitions with castles in the air – it has to happen with people on the ground.

The thing to do is not to overlook or condone, but to put up mechanisms and institutional processes to take care of these cases;  so no person is above the law or accountability, and no person has impunity. To think that you have 77 seats in the Majlis is a mistake.

JJ: We’ve talked about human rights and investigating past abuses, and the government is fairly consistent in this both domestically and in its statements denouncing war crimes in countries like Libya. But when the UN publishes a report accusing the Maldives’ neighbour Sri Lanka of war crimes and requests an investigation, the Foreign Minister [Ahmed Naseem]’s comment is that such a report is “singularly un-counterproductive”. Is there a point where a human rights agenda runs up against diplomatic realities?

AS: At a generic level throughout history this is there. But I think Naseem’s comments and the government’s position on Sri Lanka have been misunderstood. The Libyan situation is different from the current situation in Sri Lanka. Libya is ongoing – things are happening today on the ground, and we need to try to prevent further abuses tomorrow.

In Sri Lanka’s case these are post-conflict issues. What we say is that the most important thing in a post-conflict situation is to find a way forward and not live in the past. This does not mean we are condoning abuses, or saying such things are fine. But Sri Lanka needs to find common ground with the UN Human Rights Council in which both parties can move forward. The government of Sri Lanka needs to be able to enter into dialogue with the international community to achieve speedier reconciliation.

You can’t have reconciliation and long-lasting peace unless you respect human rights and set up mechanisms to do so. But we should steer clear of politicisation, or the divisions that have kept the flame of terrorism alive in Sri Lanka for so long. We are saying let Sri Lanka find a way forward and achieve reconciliation – we are not saying we don’t care about the past.

JJ: It is looking increasingly like the decision of whether to launch an international investigation into alleged war crimes in the closing days of the Sri Lankan civil war will come down to a vote on the UN Human Rights Council, on which the Maldives sits. If it does come to that, is the Maldives likely to vote for such an investigation?

AS: I no longer speak for the Maldives, but in these situations the context does matter. My recommendation for the government would be to not get bogged down in the details, and to look at the broader perspective. The long-term interest for the Maldives is that Sri Lanka improves and Sri Lanka remain within the committee of nations, and has a positive engagement with the UN Human Rights Council.

I think Sri Lanka has many friends in the West and there are many who still want to work with Sri Lanka. My advice would be to remain politically engaged.

JJ: Is there a risk that domestically-unwanted international scrutiny into these war crimes and human rights abuses could alienate Sri Lanka from the international community and risk turning it into a pariah nation? It has already opened a Chinese submarine base.

AS: Talking to the Chinese should not make anyone a pariah state. I don’t think Sri Lanka is in any danger of this – pariah states are countries such as North Korea. Sri Lanka is still democratic and it is still working, it just needs to bring some closure to a 25 year conflict that has created some very nasty wounds. It needs to find a way of healing. The West is also trying to help find a healing process.

The bottom line is that war is hell. People should try to recognise the context of what happened [in Sri Lanka], and find a way of moving forward.

JJ: You have been foreign minister across two successive and very politically-polarised governments, and you have been very active in promoting the Maldives’ human rights agenda. As a minister under the former government, were you not in a position to do something about the human rights abuses to which you now campaign against? What was it about that situation that made you unable to pursue such an agenda at the time?

AS: Without being too modest about it, I was able to make a difference to the Gayoom regime in terms of how it dealt with these issues. When I came into the Gayoom regime (in July 2005) it was very unfriendly to human rights. My terms of engagement with Gayoom was that he would pursue and reform certain policies – which happened, ultimately.

You will notice that it was on my watch as a minister that we signed onto the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), the CAT optional protocol (to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment), and any number of things.

We welcomed the first visit of Amnesty International and began working with them, and became much more open and engaged. We opened the doors to all UN Special Rapporteurs.

We became much more engaged with human rights. I and New Maldives (a group within the regime that pushed for liberal democracy) colleagues of mine were able to impart to Gayoom and his older advisers that we should allow pluralism at home – that we should allow political parties, and give space to the opposition.

Many of those who are linked to the President himself, through his friends and family, will know that I was an interlocutor between them and Gayoom. Twice I put my job on the line to get President [Mohamed Nasheed] out of arrest, and said I was going home unless he was released. I also put my job on the line for reporters.

Gayoom needed me to talk to the media and foreign diplomats, and I had certain no-go areas in return for that. I represented him at the Westminster House talks, and I agreed to a package of measures without consulting him, which included releasing Jennifer Latheef and Nasheed from prison, and I made sure Gayoom authorised these releases on time.

Because the things I did for Gayoom gave him international space, he was willing to go along with things I said. I was moving him along to become more open.

The only way you can verify what I’m saying is to ask others. I met [former US Ambassador, now Assistant Secretary of State] Robert Blake as Gayoom’s Foreign Minister, I met him when I was running in opposition to Gayoom in the presidential elections, and I have met him as Nasheed’s minister. So he has seen me wearing three different hats, and I don’t think he has heard me say anything different along the way.

People from Reporters Without Borders (RWB) – such as [former Asia Pacific Director] Vincent Brossel – also saw me wearing those three hats. I had a consistent message which was that we needed these reforms.

I had differences with [current Science and Technology Envoy, and publisher of the Dhivehi Observer] Ahmed ‘Sappe’ Moosa, but we both recognised the need for change. My position was this – if the government had changed in 2005, the new government would not felt the pressure to bring in reforms. After 25 years people would have toppled a dictator, felt the euphoria, and that a change of heads would work. But you don’t bring in reforms that way – that was my fear.

I knew that Gayoom’s term was limited in any case under the Constitution, and if we could use that space to introduce reforms we could build a foundation for democracy.

A week after I resigned as a minister (in 2007) I chaired a meeting of the opposition groups here on democratisation and I spoke about Huntington’s four models of democracy. And I said the most stable democracy had come when the government and opposition worked together to phase out the old system. My belief was in a gradual, reconciliatory change.

I was speaking to [then opposition leader] Mohamed Nasheed, Ali Hashim, Ibrahim Hussain Zaki, Hassan Afeef, and they found me a like-minded person. The controversies around me arose because in Gayoom’s time whenever there was a public crisis, all his ministers would turn off their telephones except me. Only mine would ring.

So the only voice that was heard was mine, and people associated it with the actual action. For example when people were bashed on Fares-Mathoda in January 2006, only my phone rang. I tried to answer people’s concerns and I was the only person quoted, so if you search for the incident all the comments are mine.

When Hussein Solah was killed, was found dead in the lagoon in Male’ [in April 2007], all the Ministers turned off their phones. It was clearly the Home Minister’s charge, but he would not speak to the press. Families were looking for information and I gave all the information I had on the case. Whenever Nasheed was arrested, I was the only person who would speak to anybody, so my name gets thrown on everything.

JJ: The current government has dug up a number of receipts for the services of international public relations firm Hill & Knowlton, hired by the former government to assist with refreshing their image – a total of US$1.7 million. What was the true extent of H&K’s involvement in the Maldives and the reform movement?

AS: I do not know the motives of Gayoom in hiring Hill & Knowlton. But my links with them were on the basis that they would contribute to reform in the Maldives. So I agreed to be a liaison person with them, but only if they would work on a governance reform project.

Their first task was an audit of governance in the country: meeting various stake-holders, gauging public perception and making recommendations on what ought to be done. Their recommendation was that we needed to implement rapid political reforms, including political pluralism.

That was their report, and based on that Gayoom engaged them on a longer-term basis. this entailed assisting him with reforms internally, and projecting those reforms externally. It was not purely a PR function and it did entail real policy prescriptions for Gayoom.

JJ: So H&K was essentially writing policies for the previous government of the Maldives?

AS: Exactly. When you are in office for 30 years and your ministers and associates make recommendations to you, you don’t believe them. But if you have a posh firm from London making recommendations, you tend to believe them. And Gayoom did.

Things that Gayoom did on their recommendation included separating the army from the police, a whole raft of reforms on judicial function, prison reform, constitutional reform – all these things were done at their request.

The only H&K recommendations he left out – Hill & Knowlton wanted Yameen and the then Police Chief (Adam Zahir) sacked, and they also suggested that freedom of religion was something that was internationally demanded.

Of course, there’s no way any government here can introduce freedom of religion, and H&K’s usefulness ended when they recommended Yameen be removed – at that point Gayoom stopped listening to them.

H&K had a contract signed in April 2005, and their proposals were presented as a package. Their engagement was always positive and there was nothing covered up, and they came here only after speaking to the UK Foreign Office and US State Department. Of course, they are a commercial company and had their fees.

JJ: So you would say their role was positive in that they provided a voice of reform that Gayoom listened to?

AS: Yes.

JJ: What was behind Gayoom’s subsequent engagement of UK public relations firm the Campaign Company?

AS: The engagement of the Campaign Company was more for building his party and advice on how to manage and develop the DRP.

Of course, all these foreign advisors ended when they suggested to him that he or Yameen should go – the tracks end there.

JJ: A former H&K employee called Mark Limon continues to work for the government from the Geneva Mission. What does his work entail and is the expenditure justified?

AS: I think it is, because across three foreign ministers he has been retained. I hired him as a government agent in Geneva, and then after I left Abdulla Shahid retained him as a government agent, I retained him when I returned under Nasheed and now Naseem is retaining him.

I think his role has been very useful in projecting the Maldives as an active participant of the UN Human Rights Council, and linking up with other opportunities, such as the World Trade Organisation, the Climate Program, and a whole raft of others. The Geneva Mission is one of the best, if not the best mission that we have.

When this government came in there were calls to have the Geneva Mission closed down because not many were aware of what was going on. But I resisted, and many in the government are now convinced that Geneva is a very useful post.

JJ: What about some of these other receipts from UK security and private investigation firm Sion Resources in 2007, for a surveillance operation dubbed ‘Operation Druid’? The fact this took place in Salisbury suggests the former government had some concerns about the origins of the MDP. Were those justified?

AS: The government’s intelligence people got all sorts of reports from all sorts of sources, which any government is obligated to investigate. The range of reports included attempts to assassinate Gayoom, and they came from sometimes official and sometimes unofficial sources. The lesson after the November 3 incident [coup attempt in 1988] was that it was better to check on these to see whether they were reliable.

I’m not suggesting this applied to Salisbury, but in the summer of 2004, when there was emergency rule here, there were a number of concerns as to who was funding the MDP. The government wanted to know who was behind it, and whether it was a foreign government.

The government may have wanted to see what was going on. What these operations did was try to see who was who. And a lot of the operations the government felt were against it came from Salisbury, and I think the government of the day felt justified in engaging a firm to look into what was going on.

We’re talking about people who they had deported from the Maldives for proselytisation, people involved in all sort of activities. They felt they needed to check on that, and what came out was a clean bill of health. Nothing untoward was happening, and these people were by and large bone-fide.

There had also been an attempt to arrest Gayoom inside the UN building in Geneva. This happened in May 2005. If a head of state is stopped inside a UN building that is a breach of UN security. I was part of the delegation.

JJ: Was this an arrest by police or a group of activists?

AS: It was [Salisbury-based Friends of Maldives NGO founder] David Hardingham and Sarah Mahir.

They managed to walk inside the UN building and follow Gayoom. No head of state is going to accept that treatment by the UN – they are not supposed to be exposed to this type of harassment in the UN. There are areas for this kind of protest. I think Gayoom was quite shaken by that, and afterwards he was not as complacent over the security given to him by his hosts, be that by the UK or UN.

JJ: Salisbury came up again regarding accusations from the former government that Hardingham and Salisbury Cathedral were conspiring to blow up the Islamic Centre and build a church. The allegation still pops up occasionally. What was that about?

AS: It was just a mischievous suggestion, a very mischievous suggestion. [Former Attorney General] Hassan Saeed and I – the last election rally we had, October 7 2008 or thereabouts, the last rally in our campaign against Gayoom, at the time everyone was accusing each other of being non-Muslim, and this accusation that the MDP was non-Muslim was getting very loud.

So we came on stage and said we were former government ministers and that we were aware about this allegation against MDP and that Gayoom had hired a firm to look into this allegation, and that their report had confirmed there was no such connection to MDP. Both of us said this on record.

JJ: Gayoom hired a firm to look into those allegations concerning Salisbury Cathedral’s interest in transnational terrorism?

AS: No – all sorts of allegations about who was behind MDP. Was this a home-grown opposition, was a foreign government behind it? Who was the MDP?

Part of the concern at the time was that this might have been a religion-based opposition to Gayoom. There was paranoia about [protecting] Islam.

What we said was that various allegations about MDP were investigated, and it came out clean. It was a bone-fide political party. What I’m saying is: we said that, Gayoom knew that, and any suggestion that the MDP had links to a cathedral was just utter mischief.

That particular claim you refer to was on a flyer dumped on the street, claiming that David Hardingham wanted to blow up the Islamic Centre and build a cathedral. It was all rubbish – there was also a picture going around of Gayoom wearing a cross.

Those allegations were flying left and right, and then somebody got off at a station near Hardingham’s residence and saw a cathedral nearby.

JJ: Is there a sense that this religious paranoia – and the use of religion as a political weapon – has died down since then?

AS: I think we’ve been saturated by allegations. There is this very, very deep reaction to anything un-Islamic in this country, and you can use Islam as a political tool quite easily. Therefore these allegations become political charges.

But I think people are getting fed up with it – you can see the reactions in the press to my appointment as special rapporteur. DRP MP Mahlouf said it was a Zionist conspiracy and a trade-off for favours done to Israel on my part. These things ring hollow the more you say them. They become cliche.

JJ: Your comment last July about parliament engaging in “scorched earth” politics became the defining description for the cabinet resignation in July 2010. The government seems to have since toned down the rhetoric and deals with parliament much more diplomatically – but has anything changed significantly? Has parliament changed?

AS: I think parliament had a moment of hubris last year when the ministers resigned. I think they thought they had won the battle with the government, and therefore they went on and rejected the reappointment of seven ministers [including Shaheed]. But I think they learned that in politics you can use up your capital. Once you’ve used it, it’s finished. I think they are unlikely to act in such as arrogant manner subsequent to that.

They have come down a peg. But they still haven’t moved on. The single greatest factor restraining the parliament from moving forward is [DRP Leader] Ahmed Thasmeen Ali’s weakness as a leader.

Thasmeen isn’t Gayoom, he doesn’t carry Gayoom’s baggage, he is relatively young, and he needed to speak up against Gayoom – but he never did. And therefore he has failed to be the voice of the new generation, the voice of the future and the new age. Instead, he has been drowned out by the old guard, who are becoming louder and louder. Consequently, parliament has not really moved on from where it was a year back.

Your point about pragmatism – the MDP has become more pragmatic, and more willing to engage with parliament. I think the change of leadership in the Parliamentary Group will continue that trend. You will see a reinvigorated effort from MDP to engage the opposition and move ahead. But its success will be limited by what the opposition can match.

I don’t see Gasim or Yameen playing ball. I think Thasmeen is done for, but if anyone in the DRP can see beyond Gayoom I think you will see a better parliament.

JJ: You survived two governments and narrowly avoid a no-confidence motion regarding the government’s engagement with Israel (by one vote, after former DRP MP Alhan Fahmy voted against his own party).

AS: My feeling was that if [the Israel] accusation had been against me in person, I didn’t have the need to defend myself. If they had accused me of personal impropriety, I would not have gone to defend myself. The only reason I appeared in parliament was because the government’s policy was at stake.

I was defending the government and it was my duty to be there. I spoke to a number of MPs in the run up to it, and none of them knew the circumstances in which they could use that power to dismiss me. It’s a presidential system, so it’s an impeachment – it’s not a vote of no-confidence.

For impeachment you have to prove misconduct. But they weren’t – they were simply expressing anger over policy towards Israel. They did not charge me with misconduct, impropriety, or breach of trust. My feeling was: what a bunch of idiots.

JJ: You survived that – and later resigned after parliament refused to approve your reappointment following the cabinet resignation. Was it upsetting to ultimately lose the foreign minister’s position?

AS: No, it didn’t upset me. My view is that in a new government, a new order, you require a quick turnover of ministers. If a new democratic regime retains a minister for five years, then they are missing a beat. A rapid turnover of ministers will help the president move forward – although I’m not saying he should sacrifice experience.

Many politicians believed that if you laid low you’d survive the distance. But I wasn’t in a marathon – this was a sprint.

Two years in this government and I think I have done enough as required of me as a minister. I was not surprised by parliament’s decision, and I would have been happy to have lost that vote on Israel policy as well.

My conduct as minister has always been to be active. “It’s better to burn out than to rust” – who said that? I think it was the guy from the Sex Pistols.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MNDF plays down immediate piracy dangers despite UN fears for Indian Ocean

The Maldives National Defense Force (MNDF) said it has not detected increased threats to the country’s territorial waters from piracy despite UN concerns over the growing attacks within the Indian Ocean.

MNDF Major Abdul Raheem told Minivan News that despite small vessels originating from Somalia washing up in the Maldives’ territorial waters – often with engineering problems – no reported attacks or activities linked to piracy were believed to have occurred in the country. Raheem conceded that potential pirate threats remained a “major problem” in ensuring the security of the archipelago, which depends on tourism for as much as 90 percent of its economy.

The comments were made as the UN Security Council yesterday reportedly raised fears that growing numbers of pirate vessels originating from Somalia were attacking ships within the Indian Ocean.  The council members claimed that tougher international sanctions would be required to punish suspected pirates.

Raheem said that despite the serious concerns raised over potential piracy attacks in the Maldives, the MNDF would continue with existing initiatives to try and protect its waters in collaboration with naval forces from other nations like India, Turkey and the US, who have all taken part in patrols across the country.

“Piracy is seen as a major problem in the Maldives and we are very concerned about possible attacks occurring in our waters,” he said. “However, we have not recognised piracy threats flaring up [around the Maldives]. With help from other nations, particularly India, we are continuing patrols.”

Concluding the first ever official visit of its forces to the Maldives last month, the Turkish navy told Minivan News that it was visiting the country as part of wider regional anti-piracy initiatives supported by the  NATO military alliance.

A naval spokesperson at the time said that the visit of the TCG Giresun to the Maldives was not linked to any specific threat or incident of piracy, but more a reaction to Somali pirates extending their operations from the Horn of Africa further into territories around the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean.

“We are trying to promote understanding to fight piracy, so one way to do this is to visit ports like Male’,” said the spokesperson at a media briefing during the ship’s visit. “The attacks of the pirates have widened into the Indian Ocean with one of the last incidents occurring approximately 250 nautical miles away from the shores of Male’, so NATO has widened the number of ports we are to visit to include Indian Ocean destinations like Mumbai and Male’.”

The MNDF confirmed that it received reports of small boats – believed to be Somali in origin – arriving into the Maldives’ territorial waters.

However,  Major Raheem said that the people discovered on board the boats were not confirmed to be pirates and were as likely to be refugees that had become lost at sea and drifted into the country. “We have observed some small boats drifting into our territorial waters often due to engineering problems,” he added.

While local security forces suggest the Maldives is not directly coming under attack from pirates, according to a report by the Agence France-Presse (AFP) news agency, 171 pirate attacks have been recorded this year by the UN as occurring off the coast of Somalia.

During the UN Security Council debate held yesterday, new international legislation relating to establishing international piracy courts to try suspected pirates were being discussed to try and combat concerns about attacks.

Speaking during the debate, the AFP cited India’s UN envoy, Hardeep Singh Puri, as raising concerns about the dangers posed to South Asian nations from pirate attacks. The debate included establishing special jails in the Somali autonomous regions of Puntland and Somaliland to hold convicted pirates.

Experts suggest that a growing number of Somali pirates are moving deeper into the Indian Ocean towards the Maldives as they come under increased pressure from international task-forces sent to limit piracy around the horn of Africa.

As a result of this movement, maritime security has become a notable security concern for the Maldives, even around the country’s secluded resort properties.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“Stigmatisation of persons based on religion pressing human rights concern”: Ambassador Adam

Maldives Ambassador to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, Iruthisham Adam, has welcomed the council’s resolution to tackle Islamophobia under the framework provided by UN Resolution 16/18.

“Islamophobia and other forms of intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatisation of persons based on religion or belief is one of the most pressing human rights concerns of our time,” said Ambassador Adam.

“The problem is not new but has reached new heights in our globalised world where ideas and information, whether good or bad, moves from one country to the next, and one individual to the next, with startling ease. This, together with the fall-out from 9/11 and the War and Terror, have led to a situation where Muslims around the world face daily intolerance and discrimination,” Ambassador Adam said.

The resolution was jointly proposed by the Maldives during the 16th session of the UN Human Rights Council.

“It provides a comprehensive framework for action including awareness-raising and education, legislative steps and administrative measures,” Iruthisham said. “Most importantly, it was adopted by consensus. Only by working together, by taking action individually and collectively, can states hope to build a world where people of all faiths and religions live side-by-side in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance, understanding and good-will.”

“This last point – the importance of all States working individually as well as collectively – is, we think, key. In the context of tackling Islamophobia, this means that the Maldives does expect countries, especially in the West, which are faced with problems stemming from societal intolerance and vilification of Muslim minorities, to take real and robust action in line with Resolution 16/18. But it also means that we in the Maldives, and in the wider Islamic world, must be willing to also take steps to promote a better understanding of our religion and what it stands for, and to promote dialogue with people of other faiths.”

Ambassador Adam claimed all states had a responsibility to take action against those who promoted violence in the name of religion, and said that it was important to defeat such people “in the battle of ideas.”

“For example, in the Maldives, we are working, in our new democracy, to counter act the false perception that people must make the false choice between devotion to Islam on the one hand, and the full enjoyment of human rights on the other,” she said.

“None of this is easy, for the simple reason that the Maldives does not exist in a vacuum. Rather, we are buffeted by global winds. This is why, in response to the numerous [Universal Periodic Review] recommendations we received on matters of religious tolerance, the Maldives recently announced its intention to organise, during 2012, a major international conference on progressive Sharia jurisprudence and human rights. With this conference we hope to revive the concepts of peace and tolerance, co-existence and inter-faith harmony that exist in Islam.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Dr Shaheed appointed UN Special Rapporteur on Iran

Former Foreign Minister of the Maldives Dr Ahmed Shaheed has been appointed UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Iran, a high-profile post in the UN system.

The 47 Member States of the Human Rights Council unanimously endorsed the appointment of Dr Shaheed after he was selected from a list of candidates by the President of the Council.

Current Minister of Foreign Affairs Ahmed Naseem said that only five years ago “it would not have been inconceivable for the United Nations to establish a Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Maldives, such was the former government’s poor human rights record.

“Today, a Maldivian has been elected Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran, one of the most important human rights posts in the international system. This is, I think, indicative of the enormous strides we have taken over recent years and the high regard in which we are now held by the international community”.

Special Rapporteurs are endorsed by the Council to investigate countries and themes around the world, such as freedom of expression. Candidates are usually figures with a record of experience dealing with the international community and other nation states.

In a statement, the Foreign Ministry noted that Dr Shaheed’s appointment was the first-time a Maldivian had ever been appointed to hold a UN Special Rapporteur mandate.

The decision to establish a Special Rapporteur on Iran was made in 2011 after the deterioration of human rights in the country following the 2009 election, in which the Iranian government was found by the UN to have used excessive force, arbitrary arrests and detentions, unfair trials and “possible torture and ill-treatment of opposition activists in relation to post-election unrest in 2009.”

The UN called on Iran to cooperate with Dr Shaheed and permit his access to the country, as well as provide necessary information. He will present his findings to the UN General Assembly in September 2011, and produce a full report on the situation for the UN Human Rights Council in March 2012.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

President asks parliament to approve Maldivian contribution to UN peacekeeping operations

Cabinet’s decision to contribute Maldivian soldiers to UN peacekeeping operations has been sent to parliament for approval.

Parliament debated the issue and decided to send the matter to the National Security Committee for review.

After an hour long debate between MPs over the issue, Maldivian Democratic Party([MDP) Parliamentary Group Leader and MP ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik proposed to send the matter to the National Security Committee committee, with 61 MPs voting in favor.

According to 243[b] of the constitution, ‘’if the President, as Commander in Chief, authorises or orders the employment of the military service in defence of the republic or as part of an international undertaking, the President shall without delay submit the authorization to the People’s Majlis. The People’s Majlis may at any time approve the authorisation, or revoke the authorisation.’’

Oppostion Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP with former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s faction, Ahmed Mahlouf, said the issue was concerning.

‘’This is no joke, this is a very serious issue,’’ he said. ‘’I do not think any honorable member would want to send some Maldivians abroad to their deaths.’’

Mahlouf said death was a real possibility in the peacekeeping operations. He also noted that it was possible that terrorists would target the Maldives if Maldivian soldiers were sent to participate in the UN peacekeeping operations.

Religious NGO Jamiyyathul Salaf recently called on the government to withdraw a decision made by the cabinet to send Maldivian troops to take part in UN peacekeeping operations.

Cabinet decided to finalise the participation of Maldivian soldiers, noting that it was “important for the Maldives to contribute to the efforts of these international agencies and institutions to ensure that every country, every society and every individual has the opportunity to live in peace and security.”

“Taking part in the UN peacekeeping operations will force Maldivian forces to fight against Muslims which is unacceptable,” said Salaf in the statement, opposing the decision.

”Everyone understands that the most of the wars against Muslims have been started without reasonable grounds, just because they are Muslims.”

”Muslims will be obliged to treat [the peacekeeper] as a non-Muslim in all ways, such as if dead, burying without enshrouding the body, burying the body with non-believers, and when dealing with inheritance matters the terms and condition that apply to a non-believer who dies in a war against Muslims will be applied to him,” the NGO claimed.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)