Diplomatic Assurances

There is an article in the October 2007 issue of the IBA News on Diplomatic Assurances. The article examines what happens when a country determines that an individual or group of individuals poses a national security threat and seeks to deport the individual(s) to his country of origin.

Countries such as the UK are negotiating "diplomatic assurances" from the foreigner's country of origin to ensure the foreigner will not be tortured or ill treated if he is returned. Enforcement of these agreements is left to NGOs but there is no penalty for failure of the home country to comply with the agreement.

The article describes the following situation:

In a recent case taken to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) [in the UK], two Libyans accused of being members of the Libyan Islamic Fighters Group appealed against a decision to be sent back to their country. The British Governemtn was relying on a no torture agreemet with Libya, but the court examined the human rights situation in Libya and ruled that there was a 'real risk' that the Libyan Government would not stick to promises of humane treatment.

Rulings like this mean that there are people in the UK who, according to the government are a threat to national security, but who cannot be sent back to their home countries.

I'll ignore for the moment that I don't really care what happens to someone who is determined to be a national security risk to the US. Assuming I did care, I'd still want the scalp of the judge that made that ruling. He has in effect put the safety and welfare of two foreigners and likely terrorists above the safety and welfare of his fellow countrymen. He has overruled his government in matters of national security in favor of two foreign individuals who threaten his government.

Here is another situation:

The UN Committee against Torture and the UN Human Rights Committee has said that Sweden was in breatch of international obligations when it expelled two Egtyptians, Al Zari and Agiza, in 2001. they were transferred from Stockholm to Cairo on a US Government plane, following written assurances from the Egyptian Government that they woul dnot be harmed. Post-return monitoring was also agreed.

According to Human Rights Watch, despite monthly visits from Swedish diplomats, boh detainees allege they were torutured and ill treated in detention. 'The Swedish case provide dthat diplomatic assurances did not work', Hall says.

If you are a troublemaker and you come to the US from Egypt, you'd better think twice about causing trouble in the US. You run the risk of receiving a one way ticket on board a military transport plane back to Egypt. What happens to you once you return is not our problem. You should have thought about that before you left.

And to those in the US who want to ensure enforcement of 'diplomatic assurances', how about that $2 billion we send to Egypt every year. That had better come with a lot of strings attached to it since we don't appear to be getting anything else for our money.

And while we're at it, the last entity that should weigh in on the topic is the Human Rights Commission, now the Human Rights Council. Who reading this (clearly a family member) wants the Saudis or Pakistan opening their mouths about anything related to human rights or the United States for that matter? When the safety and security of the US is at stake, the UN better be mum.