Tag: United Nations

Q&A: UN Ambassador Abdul Ghafoor Mohamed

Abdul Ghafoor Mohamed is the Maldives Ambassador to the UN and was defacto non-resident Ambassador to the US, prior to the recent appointment of Ahmed Sareer to the position. He speaks to Minivan News about the Maldives-US relationship, climate politics and the challenges facing the country with the introduction of new interpretations of religion.

JJ Robinson: Why do you think countries such as the US and UK are interested in the Maldives considering it is such a small and remote nation?

Abdul Ghafoor Mohamed: Right now small states make up a substantial part of the international community and they have a loud voice. They not willing to sit back and take what comes, they are making their presence known and making waves, trying to assert their rights as they become more confident.

As they become more experienced in international affairs, they are becoming a much bigger presence than before. Sometimes small states are also able to act in ways larger, more powerful states are unable – other countries are much more wary of positions taken by larger states.

Small states have the opportunity to speak more openly and frankly on issues in an objective manner. I think when our views are consistent, eventually the international community does recognise that here is a country that does its homework and tries to be responsible within the resource constraints it has.

In particular the Maldives has undergone tremendous changes in the last few years; changes that present a symbol of hope for many other countries. The Maldives is a small island Muslim country, with relations with the Commonwealth and a wide range of membership which helps it have access to a large pool of friends, and the views of countries. It is also a founding member of SAARC, and although the Maldives and Bhutan are the smallest SAARC states, both played an important role in shaping its direction, especially this year as we take up the chairmanship.

Here’s a country that has had no political parties in its entire history. It went from an autocratic monarchy to an autocratic presidency. Although we moved from a sultanate, it was in some ways a change in name rather than a change in psyche, for the people and those in government.

Consequently it was a very difficult change to multiparty democracy, with new novel concepts such as independent institutions, and a President more constrained than the heads of governments we are used to having.

Yet despite the turmoil, I think the Maldives has showed that through dialogue and robust engagement, you can change a government through the ballot box. It is a credit to both the former President and the serving President that they were able to manage the transition so smoothly, given the potential for disruption.

JJ: Do you hold to the view that the Maldives is in some ways two years ahead of the current turmoil in the Middle East, and could perhaps set an example for some of these countries?

AGM: Yes and no. Yes in the sense that there are certain similarities: it was the ordinary people, and not just the poor and uncared for. It was the educated middle class and youth who took the lead in bringing the changes to the Maldives. And they demanded their rights on the streets.

But the Middle East is large and the countries complex, and a lot more people have vested interests in what happens there. We should note the success of the Maldives, in part because of the support and encouragement the international community gave to it. I’m not saying they interfered, but they certainly encouraged a democratic transition. They were engaged with both the government and the opposition, and keen to ensure the unrest did not become too costly, as a country that is dependent so much on tourism – peace and stability are important to the Maldives.

There are certainly things that can be learned from the Maldives’ experience. One of the things is the fast pace at which we moved, which made it very difficult to complete the institutions in time. Most people need time to adjust to the new thinking and new concepts.

In the Maldives we are lucky to have a homogenous religion and race, whereas in many Middle Eastern countries you have tribes and different religious and racial backgrounds. For them to come together to make sure a new political framework protects all the interests of this people may by more challenging than in the Maldives.

JJ: Since the Maldives joined the UN Human Rights Council, have you observed a difference in the way in which the Maldives is regarded and its diplomatic position?

AGM: The Maldives has always been fairly well received. We have good standing as a country run quite stably and with good development. Whatever problems we have had we have kept to ourselves.

The fact that we moved in 30-40 years from one of the least developed 16 countries to being a graduated non-LDC (least developed country) by end of first decade of the 21st century, means not only we but the last government achieved some things quite well.

The new government has taken a much more active position and is willing to be engaged with the international community even on issues of controversy, speaking its mind quite frankly.

This is the first time ever the Maldives is holding a position of this nature in the international arena. We have never been a member of a UN institution. We came in with a lot of good will because of our established record of engagement and a record of openness and transparency. We are one of the few countries which has a standing invitation to special rapporteurs.

We are also one of the few small countries – and a Muslim country – with a permanent presence in Geneva. As there are often misunderstandings about human rights instruments and values by the West and Muslim countries, many saw us, and we certainly promote ourselves, as a country that can provide a bridge for these views, as well as provide a voice for smaller states on the Council.

JJ: A US State Department cable leaked by Wikileaks documents your meeting with the State Department in February 2010. During the meeting, Assistant Secretary of State Robert Blake asks if the Maldives required “quiet US assistance” to take up the Human Rights Council position. Was that offer taken up, and what was the extent of US support for the Maldives in entering the Human Rights Council?

AGM: As a small country we didn’t have resources to run an election campaign in the way larger countries can run. Our record is of making ourselves heard and meeting as many ambassadors as possible, letter writing campaigns, and using our embassies in other parts of the world. Ministers also made contact at any international meetings.

Our campaign went on at a persistent and consistent level that didn’t cost us, because we didn’t have any money. We were obviously happy with the support that anyone extended to us, be it the US, UK or Canada. Most Western countries saw us as a moderate country that could play a constructive role.

While we appreciated the offer of help we were very keen to ensure than nobody viewed the Maldives as being sponsored. It was a conscious decision by the government because we felt we had a constructive role to play. We got 185 votes – the maximum number we could get.

JJ: The Maldives was running against Iran?

AGM: We were not running against Iran at the later stage, as they graciously withdrew and made way for the Maldives to run the race uncontested. We appreciated that, because while we were trying to win we didn’t want anyone to feel we were running against a particular country. We felt we had a strong case in running for the election in 2010, because this was the first time the Maldives had run for a position on a UN body.

There are very few small nations in Geneva who can be in the council. We had a history of positive engagement, and we wanted to use our membership in the council to improve the human rights situation at home as well.

Locally, not everyone agrees with some of the concepts. Either they are misunderstood, or seen as threatening. Our membership on the Human Rights Council also makes it easier for us to lobby the domestic community.

JJ: Later in the leaked document, Special Envoy to facilitate the closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp offered the Maldives US$85,000 for the resettlement of a Guantanamo detainee.

AGM: This was at an informal level to see the possibility. With regard to the money offered to the government of the Maldives, this was to help the person settle in the Maldives, and for his upkeep. This was not prize money. Obviously housing a person in the Maldives, giving him a place to stay, trying to find him an employment opportunity – that is a cost, and obviously one the Maldives should not have to pay as we are doing a favour for the US.

JJ: What ultimately happened? Did the Maldives take the US up on that offer?

AGM: The matter became quite a stir in the country, and it later died down. To my knowledge there was been no transfer of prisoners from Guantanamo to the Maldives.

JJ: You also discussed the possibility of the US putting down US$50 million in climate change assistance, which the UK’s Guardian newspaper interpreted as in return for taking a particular position at the Copenhagen climate summit.

AGM: The Maldives was one of the few small countries that supported the Copenhagen Accord, because we felt that accepting Copenhagen was more helpful than not accepting it.

We also felt that if more states came on board, the likelihood that the commitments that were given would become reality much quicker. The government did try to encourage other small states to come on board. It was a catch 22 situation – some small countries wanted to wait and see commitments become reality.

The US felt that unless there were enough people committed to the Copenhagen Accord, it would be difficult to make money available. They have to sell the commitments to their people and Congress as well.

I remember the conversation. I said that if the US were to be more forthcoming with their commitments and put the money in, it may actually encourage small states to come on more quickly, because they would see there was value in taking on the Copenhagen Accord. It wasn’t just the Maldives – I was keen to see commitments available for small states, which would mean other small states would also benefit.

Even before my meeting with the State Department the President had written to many heads of state to try and encourage them to come on board. The Maldives sent its letter of acceptance of the accord immediately after the meeting.

Unfortunately there were allegations, but I can certainly say no money was exchanged for votes.

JJ: Did the US$50 million in climate assistance ever materialise?

AGM: I believe are a number of climate-related projects with which the US is now helping.

JJ: Do you think the Maldives’ international human rights agenda at times conflicts not only with the understanding of human rights here, but also the constitution?

AGM: I wouldn’t say conflicts. But I think there are various interpretations between those who are liberal and conservative in their interpretations. But it would be wrong to say a conflict as such. I think through dialogue and discussion we can find a common ground where human rights are universal.

JJ: This topic came up during your discussion with the US State Department – you mentioned the need for greater access in the Maldives to “Western liberal education” to counter some of the extremist views coming back from places such as Pakistan.

AGM: Again, different people interpreted the comment differently. Some people interpret it as though I was trying to stop Maldivian students from traveling to places like Egypt to study. I was not – the point I was making was that many of the educational opportunities we get are in the Middle East, and sometimes for free – especially in Pakistan, where the madrassas offer free education.

Given the limited resources many parents have, it is very appealing to send children, especially sons, to these places that offer free education – in religion. The Maldives has traditionally been a very religious country. There is a love of religion and a very strong identity held about being Muslim.

When they have an opportunity for free education in Islam, many parents send their children. We have also relied on scholarships from other countries to educate children in higher studies. The more we receive these from Western countries, the more children will come back and have an influence on society. Many leading public figures have been educated abroad.

The US was one of the prime sponsors of Maldivians some time back in the 80s – we had 50 plus students in the American University of Beirut in Lebanon. Some of the best and brightest of that generation were educated in Beirut.

So we are trying to encourage especially the US to grant more scholarships for Maldivian students. It is an expensive place to study, especially for undergraduates. We felt quite keenly the loss of opportunities in Beirut. We looked to revive such opportunities.

JJ: People talk here about views from overseas being brought back to the Maldives. To what extent do you think that the Arab or Saudi interpretations of religion have been brought to the Maldives in this way, and to what extent have they supplanted traditional Maldivian interpretations of Islam?

AGM: This is my own very personal opinion: our earliest scholars studied at Azhar University in Egypt, and they were highly regarded [back in the Maldives]. There is a strong connection between religion taught in Azhar university, and religion practiced in the Maldives.

The one book that taught religion to a generation of Maldivians was a religious book by Mohamed Jameel, the father of the former Foreign Minister Fathulla Jameel. He was known as the teacher of a generation in terms of educating the public in religion.

That was the basis. These days, with the advent of modern communications and transport, we have many people coming from many schools. Even in the Middle East you have many ways of teaching and practicing religion, from the Gulf states to the more conservative Saudi Arabia. When they come back, they bring their own views of Islam, and how they have been taught.

In some ways this is unfortunate in a society that has had a very strong accord with religion. People are coming back with different religious experiences, and when they try to practice it here it sows discord. We have always seen religion as a force that bound the people of Maldives together as one, we are now seeing it as a source of discord. And that is a pity.

We hope that rather than stick to dogmatic views, we will be able to stick to a point of view that brings us together as one. The more you study the more you become aware of the complexities – whereas when you have only the basics, you can accept unquestioningly. Now there are questions being asked – people are more willing to question religious and political leaders.

There is also the internet. But it takes a strong intellect and a very good sense of right and wrong to determine sense from nonsense on the internet.

JJ: With more people talking about this, questions being asked and different interpretations coming forward, does this not conflict with what you said earlier about the Maldives being a homogenous society with one interpretation of religion binding it together?

AGM: I think this is part of progress and development. People are becoming more open to new ways of thinking and alternative view points. I think it is becoming more mature. Even if we were to hold different views on religion, we are learning to disagree without being disagreeable.

JJ: What has been the impact of the Maldives’ graduation from the UN’s definition of a least developed country to a middle income country? Has this affected countries’ willingness to engage with the Maldives as a development partner? Does this risk the Maldives being cut off from support?

AGM: I don’t think we will be cut off. This a point we have with the international community. Although we graduated in 2011, this was not a cause for celebration because it meant we had more challenges. Many of the challenges we faced before we will continue to face as a developing island nation: our small resource base, our transport costs, our dependence on one or two resources, and vulnerability to what happens outside in tourism and fishing – we have little control over the world market.

We have a fairly small economy and we do not have the economies of scale. One of the things the donor countries promised was a smooth transition. The Maldives’ efforts during the LDC conference meant we were able to adopt a resolution on transition, which would continue to provide certain benefits to a country for three years, as well as call on donor countries to continue assisting with the transition.

The worst message the international community could give to other potential countries graduating would be to see us revert to an LDC. There should not be a fear of slipping back. There is a very ambitious document that came out in the LDC conference in Turkey, which pledged to graduate 10-12 countries in the next 10 year period. It is important that these countries welcome rather than fear graduation.

There should be certain benefits we receive after graduating and showing that we are on the right path, and a country worth investing in. Certainly we have challenges, but we also have opportunities, and become exploit to our benefit, and show we are successful, be our partner in development.

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)

Q&A: United Nations Resident Coordinator for the Maldives, Andrew Cox

Andrew Cox is the newly-appointed UN Resident Coordinator and UNDP Resident Representative for the Maldives. Before arriving in the Maldives, Cox was based in New York as the Chief of Staff for the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in New York.

Prior to this he held several positions in Sudan where he worked on comprehensive peace agreements between warring factions, and in Afghanistan. Before his UN career Cox worked as Field Director for Concern Universal in Sierra Leone and had assignments with various companies and NGOs in the UK, Democratic Republic of Congo and Côte d’Ivoire.

JJ Robinson: How does your experience in development and within the UN system benefit your new role in the Maldives?

Andrew Cox: I’ve worked for the UN since 1999 and NGOs before that. I come from a development background, but I just seem to have ended up in a lot of conflict, post-conflict and post disaster-places.

During my three years in Sudan I spent a lot of time working on a comprehensive peace agreement, and I spent time in Afghanistan in 2002 just as the situation there was changing – I was very sorry to leave, actually. I have also spent some working in Sierra Leone, which oscillated between conflict and post-conflict.

I think the process of transition in [such places] is very interesting – it’s about how people behave when their basic assumptions are changing and the bedrock is shifting under them. People act in extreme ways and sometimes it’s very difficult to get institutions in these countries to change.

What is especially difficult [about countries in transition] is the need for urgency. You don’t have luxury of 10 years to see if something might work. You just have to try things at high speed and discard them if they don’t.

One of the interesting things about coming to Maldives is that I find this transition happening. There is a tremendous amount of dialogue, although sometimes a little above the level of dialogue in terms of intensity and rhetoric.

What the Maldives is going through is not unusual and is to be expected in such circumstances. What I hope I can bring from my past is help and advice, and assistance from the UN system in managing this transition.

JJ: The Maldives has made a major transition to democracy, and the next major transition is the transition from less developed country (LDC) status to middle income. What does this mean and what are the key challenges for the country?

AC: On the surface there are some things the Maldives will lose along with its LDC status, such as access to concessional credit, which is probably one of the more important things. It will also lose a certain amount of grant income from donors.

But the point is to look at it as an opportunity; OK it may hurt in certain areas at the beginning, but in the end the Maldives has got itself where it needs to be and now has more to offer the world than it might have had before – it’s not just about offering beaches to tourists coming in.

When I saw the President I asked him if he had thought about having the Maldivian National Defence Force (MNDF) serve in UN peacekeeping operations – it’s one way in which Maldivian experience can be sent out there to benefit the rest of the world, and of course it’s a learning experience for those who participate.

Similarly, the Maldives was a victim of a major natural disaster in the tsunami, and in my view it would make a lot of sense for the country to join the UN Disaster Assessment and Coordination (UNDAC), which sends in disaster coordination experts to a country whenever there a natural disaster. The Maldives should be able to contribute to that.

I also think, and the President said this and I fully agree with him, that the Maldives should not be about dependency on aid. It should be about development, trade, and punching greater and greater weight in the region.

What everyone seems to be doing at the moment is focusing on the future. The loss of income from donors, if things go well, will be replaced by greater trade and economic growth. But there are some structural issues making that difficult, no doubt about it.

JJ: What kind of structural issues?

AC: The budget deficit is the major one. I’m not completely up-to-date with the figures, but last time I looked it the deficit was 33 percent of GDP, which everyone – the government as well as international institutions – has said the Maldives has got to address.

The deficit in Greece is 12 percent of GDP. Obviously Greece is a very different place [to the Maldives], but everybody needs to be serious about the problem. It’s a huge challenge and until it is solved it is going to be difficult to change other things.

The UN’s position is to help the government find ways dealing with this. There’s various things you can do but in the end the gap between income and expenditure has to change, because it is simply not sustainable at the moment.

JJ: How does the UN navigate the polarised politics here? How do you find the middle-path and involve the opposition?

AC: There have been many changes here over the last few years, and the UN has been here throughout that entire period. I think we played quite a positive role – although you can’t get everything right. But by sticking to its principles, the UN tries navigate its way through. For example, during the change to democracy the UN worked closely with then-president and his party, as well as the opposition.

What we tried to do was help them manage the process [of transition]. It’s very clear what the UN stands for – our principles are out there. There’s no hidden agenda and the approach is consistent across the UN. There are many different levels of support the UN can bring.

I’m not trying to be naive or idealistic – but it’s [an approach] that works just as well if you’re dealing with rebels in the middle of a conflict or if you’re dealing with development challenges – you help those who are there to make the right choices, and sometimes provide an enabling environment for that to happen.

The UN is also here to try and improve the lot of ordinary Maldivians. One of our principles is that we work with all parts of society and we do that in an open way, and that can sometimes be difficult to explain. But in the end it is our job to work with everybody who can be a positive force for change, and to try and advise those who are less convinced for the need to change to change their approach. That’s consistent across all the countries we work in.

JJ: What are some of your experiences from the programs you have worked on in the past that you think would also work in the Maldives?

AC: I worked on the last stages of the comprehensive peace agreement in Sudan, which is a mostly Muslim country. The key in Sudan was doing everything you could to get the parties to sit together. Obviously we don’t have the same kind of situation in the Maldives, but the principles are still the same.

A facilitating role sounds a little bit ‘wishy washy’, until you realise what happens when you don’t have that. It doesn’t have to be the UN – in Darfur the African Union had the lead on the political side, and the UN helped them to do their job.

As a newcomer to the Maldives, it is very obvious that there is a certain amount of heat in the political discourse, to say the least. A lot of this is a very natural outcome of the change everyone has gone through. I think the trick is to find areas where there can be cooperation, and not to allow bigger disagreements to pollute the water where consensus might be possible.

For example, I think the cross-party effort to deal with domestic violence is very interesting right now. Everyone agrees domestic violence is a problem, and although there may be disagreement over how that problem should be addressed, this is absolutely one of those areas for mature political dialogue. We will try and help that process along, but it needs to be the parties in parliament to figure out how they want to deal with domestic violence issues.

The UN's role is to facilitate dialogue, explains Cox
Civil society is weak in the Maldives, explains Cox

JJ: To what extent should be UN be a leader of civil society in a country, in terms of supporting NGOs and helping them work properly and efficiently?

AC: I don’t think leader is the right word. If we were, then if we withdrew our support the whole thing would collapse and that’s not the way it should be. The real strength of civil society in most countries, to use an overused phrase, is ‘grassroots.’

Civil society is only powerful if it comes into being organically. I think most people on either side of the political divide recognise that civil society is very weak in the Maldives, and that much more needs to be done to support its growth.

I think the UN can play a major enabling role. There are an awful lot of people around the world who have [grown civil society], and one thing we can do is to bring some of them in to explain how they did it. That process of sharing information and knowledge is very important.

JJ: What do you mean when you say civil society is weak in the Maldives? There are a great many NGOs and it does seem to be a sought-after profession.

AC: Yes exactly – I think across all parts of society, and obviously it varies area to area, from human rights to gender to drug prevention, there are a number of things you look for, such as sustainability of funding and resources. In the end civil society will only be strong if Maldivians embrace their own civil society and start paying for it.

Some of that is about government funding, but much more of it is local philanthropy and gift giving – and earning the organisation that you’re associated with.

The UN can give out a grant of US$20,000 [to an NGO], and what they’ll do is buy a computer, pay for some travel and training and so on, then it’s gone and that’s it. What happens then?

This is a very important question that a lot of civil society organisation managers are thinking about – or at least I hope they are. Because in the end, international funding can’t be assured for anybody over time.

I think the whole point is to use that external support as a way to building up a civil society organisation so it can have links with the community and an income stream, and a sufficiently strong volunteer network to get done what they think needs to get done.

How do we help them through that process? Definitely we have supported NGOs in the past, and there has been a proliferation in the last year or two, but now they need to move beyond that start up phase and become a bit more secure. You really need a strong civil society because it gives you a way to get important things done that is separated from politics.

JJ: The Maldives recently beat Iran to the UN Human Rights Council – what kind of an achievement does that represent?

AC: I think it’s a remarkable achievement. The Maldives ran a good election campaign on its own merit and got the support, which was a very big deal.

The Human Rights Council is in organisation in flux, and I think both [UN Secretary General] Ban Ki Moon and the High Commissioner of Human Rights [Navi Pillay] see it as a long term project – and many of its members see it in the same way.

For the Maldives it represents a tremendous opportunity to demonstrate it can be a world leader, as it already is in the area of climate change. For a country to progress so far on the human rights side allows it to go out there with a very honest position and say ‘we’re not perfect yet, but this is what we’ve done.’

Another part of the Human Rights Council is that you have support from your peers to deal with human rights issues, so when it works well is when there is an atmosphere of cooperation and people get down to business away from the heated rhetoric you also sometimes hear on human rights issues.

But I would also say that because the Maldives has a somewhat exalted position on this council, this is also a challenge. The Maldives can’t stop its progress on human rights, because the eyes of the world are on the Maldives as much as eyes of the Maldives are on the world in the human rights sense. I think it is very important that this election provokes a renewed investment in human rights in the Maldives, and if it doesn’t happen then the Maldives’ position on the Human Rights Council could invite unwelcome attention.

It just the way we seen these things work over the years. I sincerely hope – and everything I’ve heard suggests this will continue to happen – that the Maldives will continue to strengthen human rights in the country, especially now.

JJ: How would you describe the level of human rights in the Maldives, from the perspective of a newcomer?

AC: I would probably describe it again as a situation of change. There have been tremendous advances made, but obvious areas that need strengthening – areas like access to justice.

I think there are important bills pending on the judiciary, things like access to legal aid. The Maldives needs to invest in the judiciary and its ability to do its work, and there needs to be investment in corrections – I think the problems are self-evident. Then there’s right to information, and of course the police, who now have themselves been changing and adapting to new challenges. I think there’s a raft of institutional legal framework measures that are needed to strengthen human rights in the Maldives.

I think the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) needs to continue to be supported, for obvious reasons. It’s important to have a strong home-grown human rights commission to encourage the government to take the steps it needs to take, and I think it is absolutely important to have strong human rights organisations on the civil society side. This is a priority for UNDP, and we’ll be scaling up our support to human rights NGOs. If you get them right, there’s a knock on effect to other NGOs.

JJ: Human rights issues such as freedom of expression and gender equality appear to sometimes conflict with stricter interpretations of Islam. Is it possible for human rights to be fully realised in a 100% Islamic country?

AC: I think there is a very strong human rights tradition in Islam, and I think it’s absolutely possible. I know there are many different legal systems under the Islamic system, and what I think is quite important is to learn from other experiences around the world and shamelessly steal the best parts. I see absolutely no contradiction between Islam and human rights.

JJ: The Maldives has established itself as an international leader on climate change based on its vulnerability to rising sea levels, but at the same time it’s trying to attract long term business investment. Is there room for these to exist side by side?

AC: I think it’s an interesting dilemma, and if it’s going to get solved anywhere it be here. Obviously I’m not a climate change scientist, but speaking as the manager of UNDP I think there’s interesting opportunities in the Maldives over how to cope with climate change.

We still don’t know how bad it’s going be, so yes, risk inherent in every situation. But let’s not forget that the Maldives is not alone in this – the Maldives may have problem with rising sea levels, but there are many other countries with problems related to climate change – you just have to look at sub-Saharan Africa, and see how climate change is affecting water and food production there.

Certainly from the Maldives side, the country has to press on with mitigation and creating a low-carbon economy. There are thousands of different possibilities, and money to be made off successful models of technology that can be proven to reduce carbon. On the adaptation side there’s a lot we don’t know how about how reefs will react to changing water temperatures, and new technologies which can be looked at in terms of sea defenses. And things like if you’ve mangroves that you look after, you got a much greater change of withstanding rising sea levels and weather events than if you don’t have them. It’s a matter looking at these things and the impact of communities that live in these areas.

With all that in mind, the Maldives is a good place to invest in from the point of view of climate change-related industries. Businessmen and women are not stupid – they evaluate situations and make decisions accordingly. One of the things the government has committed to is loosening the trade environment and having clear regulatory frameworks, and I suspect if they successful pushing that through then that will also encourage investment.

So don’t think the two messages are contradictory. You have to do an awful lot because of climate change, but you can continue to build the economy as well.

I think adaptation is also very important – people need to be able to manage risk more than they can at the moment. Generally speaking we estimate that for every dollar spent on disaster risk mitigation you save $10 in losses when a natural disaster strikes – the economics are quite obvious.

We have quite some interest in the Maldives’ obvious vulnerabilities to climate change and major weather events, and it’s useful to use different communities around the Maldives to test ways of strengthening people’s ability to withstand natural disasters. If we get that right, then that is also something the Maldives can export – knowledge and know-how about how to deal with vulnerability in the face of climate change.

What we are going to be doing over the next year or two is looking along with the government at creating a global climate change centre in the Maldives. We are working on the details at the moment.

Another priority area is to look at governance programs and see how we can help. A major step forward of the last few months was the government getting together its strategic action plan – it’s a great document but it’s very thick, and it’s not much use unless it gets implemented. We all feel it is quite important to have a results framework, and if the government is able to do that, Maldives stock will go up in eyes of donors.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

How the seat was won: Maldives on the Human Rights Council

The Maldives has secured a seat in the UN Human Rights Council, the first time the country has won a seat at a major UN body.

Lobbying for candidature began in March this year, when Minister of Foreign Affairs Dr Ahmed Shaheed spoke in front of an audience of world leaders at the 13th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva.

At the time, Dr Shaheed told Minivan News the Maldives was running for candidature because of the country’s “own positive experience with the international human rights system,” and added, “we understand, through first-hand experience, [the council’s] value and its capacity to bring about change.”

Dr Shaheed then visited New York in April to seek further support from UN member states and had a special meeting with members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC).

There were four available seats for Asia in the Human Rights Council and five candidates. The other four candidates were Malaysia, Thailand, Qatar and Iran.

How the seat was won

Iran recently withdrew its candidature, leaving the four seats open for all four remaining candidates to win a seat on the council. Dr Shaheed said Iran withdrew its candidacy “because they knew they would not be able to contest against the other countries.”

When hearing of the secured seat in the council, Dr Shaheed said, “as the smallest and poorest country in the race, there was a lot of speculation as to whether the Maldives would be able to stay in the race and compete against the more influential states, but in the end we were able to mount the most intensive campaign and perhaps the most credible candidature.”

Dr Shaheed said, “in March, I estimated we would lose. But we worked very hard and within two weeks it was made clear we would take one of the four [winning seats].”

Because of Iran’s withdrawal, all four remaining countries are guaranteed a seat in the council, although elections are still required to take place. A vote will be cast at the UN’s Headquarters in New York on 13 May, when the final results will be announced.

Dr Shaheed said he suspects not every country will get the necessary 51% of votes from UN member states that are required to attain candidacy, but since there is no more competition, the results will simply show the ranking. He believes the Maldives could even be number one.

The minister said he believed gaining a seat in the Human Rights Council would improve human rights within the country because it will give the Maldives greater access to resources and more UN systems which will help regulate and improve current laws and regulations in the country.

“There will be more opportunities to reinforce strength in the domestic agenda of human rights,” he said.

Dr Shaheed said the Human Rights Council is seen as “top players” in the international human rights arena, and a seat for the Maldives shows “we are seen as a country doing quite well regarding human rights.”

The Maldives will hold a seat in the council for three years, and the current mission in Geneva will be in charge of the work relating to the council.

Human Rights Commission of the Maldives

President of the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) Ahmed Saleem said he was “very delighted” the Maldives won the seat in the council, as it “reflects well on us, as well.”

He said although the HRCM “are not part of the government, the membership has been possible also partly because of the way the human rights commission has performed.”

Saleem said the membership “comes with a lot of responsibility” as they will now deal with “everything” concerning international human rights. He noted the Maldives will now be under “very close scrutiny, so we have to set an example for everybody else.”

He said the government works very closely with the commission, and “I have seen positive change. This is a very good opportunity for the government to realise [they have] to make necessary changes.”

Saleem noted the commission “does not criticise the government unnecessarily” but tries to help the government by pointing out the problems the country is facing concerning human rights. He said unless the government takes the HRCM’s recommendations seriously, “the international community is not going to look positively on the government.”

He is sure the Maldives’ membership in the council will improve human rights in the country, “because the government also will have to act very positively now, there has to be room for improvement in the way the government reacts to human rights issues.”

Saleem added he had “always been very positive about this commitment because it’s good for us. We can take advantage.”

Saleem said membership also meant the Maldives could run for presidency of the Human Rights Council as it’s the Asian group’s turn, “but I think it’s too early. We should be content in being a member of the Human Rights Council itself. It’s the first time we are there.”

He said if the Maldives performed well, they could think of running for presidency the next time they have the opportunity.

He claimed HRCM was “one of the best in South Asia”, as most other countries in the region except India “don’t have commissions that are credible.” But he noted the HRCM was not working at its full potential because it is not yet a full member of either the International Criminal Court (ICC) or the Asia Pacific Forum (APF).

“We want very badly to be full members of the ICC and APF,” Saleem said, “our work suffers because we’re not full members. Everybody knows we work much better than most other members that are full members…but there is nothing they can do.”

The reason the HRCM can’t become a full member of these organisations is directly related to freedom of religion, he claimed.

“The HRCM legislation states that all members be Muslim,” Saleem explained, and noted that international human rights bodies see this as a violation of human rights.

Saleem proposed it be changed to say “all members must be Maldivian” but not to specify they must be Muslim, as the country’s Constitution already states that all citizens must be Muslim. “That would fix everything,” he said.

He added the government and the Attorney General “are working on it. It’s no big deal.”

“HRCM should be able to work well, fully and effectively, but we are not able to work to our full capacity,” Saleem said. He noted membership in the Human Rights Council was “a very good opportunity” for the government to do something about the Maldives gaining full membership in the ICC and APF.

He said, overall, “I am very delighted. I hope things will change positively…and hopefully there will be marked improvements.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Developing countries to share US$10 billion climate package

Commonwealth leaders welcomed a US$10 billion annual package for developing countries ahead of the landmark United Nations climate change conference in Copenhagen this December.

Leaders of the 53 countries, among them President Mohamed Nasheed, issued a declaration committing to “achieving the strongest possible outcome” in the Danish capital.

“The latest scientific evidence indicates that in order to avoid dangerous climate change likely to have catastrophic impacts we must find solutions using all available means,” the declaration stated. “We must act now.”

Participants at the two-day annual Commonwealth meeting in Trinidad and Tobago agreed that an international legally binding agreement at Copenhagen was essential and pledged their support to Danish Prime Minister Lars Rasmussen to deliver a comprehensive treaty.

Negotiations over the past two years have virtually stalled with developed and developing countries unable to agree on the level of emission cuts and financial assistance to be given.

However a meeting between US President Barack Obama and Chinese Premier Hu Jintao earlier this month breathed new life into the climate change talks as each agreed to lobby for a legally binding deal at Copenhagen.

In their declaration, leaders of the Commonwealth agreed that developed countries should continue to take the lead on cutting their emissions.

“And developing countries, in line with their national circumstances, should also take action to achieve a substantial deviation from business-as-usual emissions with financial and technical support,” the declaration said.

Copenhagen fund

Commonwealth heads welcomed the initiative to establish a Copenhagen Launch Fund to start next year and building to US$10 billion a year by 2012.

The goal received backing by French Prime Minister Nicholas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown who said the UK would contribute US$1.3 billion over the next three years.

“The rest of Europe will do so,” Brown said at the Commonwealth summit. “And I believe American will do so as well.”

US Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon said, “We need to get every country on board.”

Leaders also called for fast funding for the poorest countries as well as those most vulnerable to climate change and requested that 10 per cent of the fund be put aside for small island states and associated low-lying coastal states.

“The needs of the most vulnerable must be addressed. Their voice must be heard and capacity to engage strengthened. Many of us from small island states, low-lying coastal states and least developed countries face challenges, yet have contributed least to the problem of climate change,” the declaration said.

Acceleration

Scientists said last week the effects of climate change were being felt faster than anticipated and oceans were rising by 3.4 mm per year, greater than predicted.

As one of the lowest-lying countries in the world, the Maldives is particularly vulnerable to rising sea levels. In 2007, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted that sea level rises of up to 59 cm within a century would swamp many of the Maldives’ 1,192 coral islands.

“My country would not survive,” said Nasheed at a conference of vulnerable nations earlier this month. “The sums of money on offer are so low, it is like arriving at an earthquake zone with a dustpan and brush,” he added.

In their declaration, Commonwealth heads further called for support for adaptation, technology transfer and capacity building in addition to financial assistance.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)