adloaded

bidvertiser

Showing posts with label State. Show all posts
Showing posts with label State. Show all posts

Monday, 23 January 2012

Elements in state apparatus reluctant to trust elected leaders: Haqqani

ISLAMABAD: “There are forces in Pakistan that want us to live in fear — fear of external and internal enemies.” So warns Husain Haqqani, until November Pakistan’s ambassador to Washington and now a de facto prisoner of the Pakistani generals whose ire he has provoked.

“But just as the KGB and the Stasi did not succeed in suppressing the spirit of the Soviet and East German people, these forces won’t succeed in Pakistan in the long run, either,” Haqqani told the Wall Street Journal in a wide ranging interview at the Prime Minister House. “I did not craft or write the memo that is currently the cause of controversy,” Haqqani told the Journal.

Admiral Mullen claims to have only a hazy recollection of having received, but not taken seriously, an unsigned memo that did not bear the imprimatur of the Pakistani government. The upshot, as Haqqani points out, is a Pakistani scandal that “involves a memo written by an American and delivered through an American (retired Gen Jim Jones), to an American military official who consigned it to the dustbin.”

“I lived in the United States and taught in the United States,” Haqqani says, referring to his time as professor of international relations at Boston University and his stint as ambassador. “But I never sought American citizenship because I wanted to be able to contribute to the process of reform and the idea of civilian supremacy in Pakistan.”

Haqqani says one of the reasons some people in the establishment hate him so much is because of his book — “Pakistan: Between Mosque and Military”. “In fact, when I was made ambassador, somebody said to me that until you recant your book, you will never be forgiven by the Pakistani establishment.”

He explains that “Pakistan has a long history of military intervention in politics. There were years when the military did not directly intervene but used proxies. “Throughout the 1990s, we had four changes of government and forced early elections each time. For example, among the first allegations against Benazir Bhutto was that she was somehow going to compromise the country’s nuclear programme. So, there are elements entrenched in the apparatus of state who are very reluctant to fully trust the elected leaders of the country.”

The Journal pressed Haqqani on the invisible pressures on President Asif Ali Zardari’s unpopular government. “Soon after I resigned President Zardari fell ill,” he notes. “The psychological-warfare machine tried to give it the colour of President Zardari fleeing the country. He went (to Dubai) to get treated and then came back.” Speaking perhaps as much to reassure himself as to lend some support to Zardari, Haqqani adds that “In all psychological warfare, if the targets keep their nerves, then nothing happens.”

As ambassador in Washington, Haqqani was often referred to as “silver-tongued,” a man able to communicate effectively with officials of different political persuasions. Cultivating a relationship with a senator based on shared appreciation of a book on, say, tribal warfare, was the kind of thing that came easily to him. He says he represented Pakistan diligently at a time when US-Pakistani relations were deeply strained. “There is a longstanding culture of grievance in Pakistan,” he says. “A lot of Pakistanis feel the US has not always been responsive to Pakistan’s geo-strategic concerns. The Pakistani national narrative also says that Pakistan has been deserted by the United States many times. And the US has not done enough to try and change that national narrative.”

As for the current US administration, he says that it “does not have the human resources right now to fully understand the complexities of Pakistan and engage with them. They don’t have the people who understand.”

The traditional pattern of US-Pakistan relations has been that American intelligence wants working relations with Pakistani intelligence, and the State Department wants working relations with Pakistan’s foreign office. “The US will have to find a balance between their immediate needs and the long-term usefulness of their actions,” says Haqqani. “They always say the civilian government is ‘too weak’ for them to engage with. But how will the civilian government become strong if, on all major issues, US officials keep running to Pakistan’s military leaders for advice and consultation?”

Still, Haqqani is not about to blame the US for Pakistan’s failures to develop into a normal state. The progressive dreams of the country’s founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, have been “shattered by religious extremism and repeated military interventions in politics.” Enunciating his words carefully, he adds: “While I respect the Pakistani armed forces, I certainly do not support the idea of a militarised Pakistan.”

“Sometimes I wonder if Salman Taseer’s fate awaits all those of us who stand up for a different vision for Pakistan.”


If state waives immunity to its heads, no protection in Swiss law

ISLAMABAD: The Swiss law clearly states that if any state expressly waives the immunity of its head of state, then he cannot invoke immunity in Switzerland, according to the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, which has a special page titled “Immunity of holders of political office and of states.”

The details of this specific law are available on the web page of the Swiss Foreign Affairs Department under the link http://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/home/topics/intorg/chres/imdig.html

The web page says in accordance with the Federal Supreme Court, under certain conditions a foreign (head of) state can be summoned before a Swiss court. A distinction must be drawn between:

* whether the foreign state acted in the exercise of sovereign authority (sovereign act or act of state, “acta iure imperii”) or

* whether it acted as a subject of private law equal to a private person (legal transactions, “acta iure gestionis”).

This Swiss law will clarify a lot of confusion currently prevailing in Pakistan whether President Asif Ali Zardari enjoys immunity in Switzerland if the Supreme Court denies him the immunity and a letter is written to the Swiss authorities to reopen his money laundering cases.

Following is the full text of the Swiss law, as available on the web page of the Department of Foreign Affairs:

“To enable them to exercise their office unhindered, heads of state enjoy full immunity against legal proceedings abroad. Heads of government and foreign ministers can also claim immunity when travelling abroad. In certain circumstances, this also applies to other members of government in the exercise of their duties.

Besides the personal immunity of officeholders, states and their property also enjoy immunity. Immunity of holders of political office

While abroad, serving heads of state enjoy absolute immunity against criminal proceedings in all actions that otherwise would have been subject to the jurisdiction of these states. The immunity of heads of state is a principle embodied in customary international law.

According to the Federal Supreme Court, immunity is weakened in the following two cases:

* When a state expressly waives the immunity of its head of state, the head of state cannot invoke immunity.

* When a head of state leaves office, immunity no longer holds. A former head of state can claim immunity at most for actions undertaken in the exercise of official functions. If such a connection does not exist, the former head of state can be legally prosecuted.

* Decision of the Federal Supreme Court in the Marcos case (115 Ib 496, p. 500) (fr)

Heads of state have no immunity in the case of war crimes. The statutes of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda make provision for the fact that a defendant’s official position for qualified war crimes, e.g. as head of state, does not relieve such person of criminal responsibility.

The case of Augusto Pinochet, the former Chilean dictator, revived the debate over the criminal responsibility of former heads of state for qualified crimes committed while in office. General Pinochet was held not to be immune from arrest for alleged acts of torture.

In contrast to criminal proceedings, there is less agreement on the immunity of heads of state with respect to offences under civil law. One body of legal doctrine holds that both the official actions and the private actions of heads of state enjoy immunity from civil law proceedings. Another body takes the view that immunity extends only to official, and not private, actions.

Immunity of states and their property

In Europe, the European Convention on State Immunity of 16 May 1972 regulates protection of the property of foreign states. Non-member states of the Council of Europe may also accede to this convention. Very few states have ratified the convention. In Switzerland, the convention entered into force on 7 October 1982.

On 2 December 2004, the General Assembly of the United Nations (UNO) adopted a universal convention on the jurisdictional immunities of states and their property. Switzerland will sign this convention.

Switzerland does not have a law that regulates the application of the immunity of states under international law. In accordance with the Federal Supreme Court, under certain conditions a foreign state can be summoned before a Swiss court. A distinction must be drawn between

* whether the foreign state acted in the exercise of sovereign authority (sovereign act or act of state, “acta iure imperii”) or

* whether it acted as a subject of private law equal to a private person (legal transactions, “acta iure gestionis”).

Only in the first case can the state claim jurisdictional immunity. In the second case, by contrast, the state can be summoned before a Swiss court, but only on condition that there is a connection between the civil legal relationship and Swiss territory.

According to the Federal Supreme Court, Switzerland can also impose sanctions on the foreign state. What holds for jurisdictional immunity also holds in principle for immunity from measures of constraint: Measures of constraint may not be taken against assets and property intended for the performance of public functions.

A state can expressly waive its immunity from jurisdiction and constraint. Such a waiver can take place in various ways, either before a dispute materialises or ad hoc in a lawsuit. Since 1918, the Federal Supreme Court has followed a restrictive line on the immunity of states.


Wednesday, 18 January 2012

Paul: State Rights To Trump Federal Law Would Help

COLUMBIA, S.C. January 17, 2012, 11:28 am ET

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — White House hopeful Ron Paul says he likes the idea of states deciding which federal laws they shouldn't have to follow because they deem them unconstitutional.

The libertarian-leaning congressman from Texas says nullification could be a helpful check on the federal government and that it would be a lot smaller if that principle were part of the Constitution.

Paul is in South Carolina making his final pitch to voters ahead of Saturday's first-in-the-South primary there. He spoke Tuesday at the South Carolina Statehouse, surrounded by icons of the Civil War.

Newt Gingrich said Obama put more people on food stamps than any other U.S. president.

Newt Gingrich said Obama put more people on food stamps than any other U.S. president.

He had a blend of looks, charm, money — and could sit down with journalists and talk a good game.

He had a blend of looks, charm, money — and could sit down with journalists and talk a good game.

Under pressure from rivals, front-runner Mitt Romney defended his record as a venture capitalist.