European union's limp response to mass extra judicial killings

Once again, European Union diplomats in Bangladesh have failed to take a firm position on the Bangladesh government's egregious human rights record.

On June 4, the EU heads of mission in Bangladesh, along with Norway, issued a ridiculously weak response to the government's policy of killing over hundred alleged drug traders.

Instead of describing the deaths as alleged extra judicial killings - which is what the evidence suggests that they were - it referred to the deaths as resulting from:

"excessive force in the drive against narcotics."

Whilst the Bangladesh government would deny that the deaths were the result of 'excessive force', this description falls within the general Bangladesh government narrative that its law enforcement bodies were involved in legitimate law enforcement activity. The EU is saying that the force used was a bit much.

In fact the evidence evidence suggests that these deaths were straightforward murders committed by law enforcement authorities - in which people were picked up and killed in cold blood. They should be referred to as alleged extra judicial killings.

Of course, it should be said that the European Union statement was stronger than the really absurdly poor UN Drug Office statement that was issued three days earlier which did not even criticise what the Bangladesh government were doing. It simply stated that countries should:

"adhere to their commitments to promote balanced, human rights-based approaches to drug control"

A bit of credit should be given to the EU statement, I suppose, in that it at least did talk about investigations into the deaths (something that the UN Drugs statement failed to do), stating:

We expect the authorities to ensure that all incidents involving the deaths of alleged criminal suspects are investigated fully and in accordance with due processes.

However, we all know that this is not going to happen - and I think we can bet that the EU wont be putting any more pressure on the government about those investigation.

The EU should learn from the statement given by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights which:

 "condemned the alleged extra-judicial killings of suspected drug offenders in Bangladesh and urged the authorities to ensure that these serious human rights violations are immediately halted and perpetrators brought to justice."

Did the European Parliament get it right?

The European Parliament passed a resolution on Thursday 16 January 2014, which was wide-ranging. The full text is set out below. Underneath the text, I have set out a number of comments. 

The European Parliament,
– having regard to its resolutions on Bangladesh, in particular those of 21 November 2013 on Bangladesh: human rights and forthcoming elections(1) , of 23 May 2013 on labour conditions and health and safety standards following the recent factory fires and building collapse in Bangladesh(2) , of 14 March 2013 on the situation in Bangladesh(3) , and of 17 January 2013 on recent casualties in textile factory fires, notably in Bangladesh(4) ,
– having regard to the Declaration by High Representative Catherine Ashton on behalf of the European Union on the Legislative Elections in Bangladesh of 9 January 2014 and the Statement by High Representative Catherine Ashton on the preparation for general elections in Bangladesh of 30 November 2013,

European Union, the GSP and a 'serious and systematic violation' of human rights principles?

This post follows through from my article today in the New Age newspaper
---------------------------------

Article 25 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights states:

Every citizen shall have the right ....
(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors;

The UN Human Right Committee is the body established to monitor state's compliance with the covenant, and it produces General Statements which are rulings on legal interpretation of articles in the covenant. In 1996 it published such a statement on the meaning of Article 25. This states, inter alia, that the right to vote

‘lies at the core of a democratic government based on the consent of the people’ and that states must take steps to ensure that ‘citizens have an effective opportunity to enjoy’ it.