Inner City
Press asks,
and asked lead
Ambassador
Mark Lyall
Grant and UN
envoy Jamal
Benomar,
doesn't this
restrict or
impinge on
free speech
rights, for
example of
those who want
independence
for the South?
After it was
adopted by the
usual 15-0
vote in the
Council,
French
Ambassador
Gerard Araud
as translated
summarized
that it's
sanctions on
those who
"destabilize
the
transition;"
Lyall Grant
used the word
"derail."
But it would
take less to
arguably
"undermine"
the
transition:
could merely
saying "the
South should
be
independent"
be enough?
When Lyall
Grant came
out, Inner
City Press
asked him. He
denied there
is a problem:
"What we are
trying to
target are
those who are
deliberately,
through their
acts, or
through the
acts of
others, are
trying to
undermine that
political
transition."
(Transcript
below).
One wonders if
the European
court
decisions
about
sanctions now
provide
protections
only to
Europeans.
When Jamal
Benomar came
out, Inner
City Press
asked him
about a
specific
example, the
government's
blocking of
publication of
the Al Hirak
(or Harak)
aligned Al
Ghad
newspaper, and
about the
language of
Operative
Paragraph
18(a),
"obstruct or
undermine."
Benomar
replied by
quoting 18(b)
and (c), about
violence and
violating
human rights.
But again, the
vague term
"undermining
the
transition"
seems an
invitation for
abuse. It
would not fly
in a US court,
under the
First
Amendment
rights of free
speech and
association.
But this is
the UN.
Back
on February
15, 2013 the
Security
Council issued
a Presidential
Statement
expressing
"concern
over
reports of
interference
in the
transition by
individuals in
Yemen
representing
the former
regime, the
former
opposition,
and others who
do not adhere
to the guiding
principles of
the
Implementation
Mechanism
Agreement for
the transition
process,
including
former
President Ali
Abdullah Saleh
and former
Vice-President
Ali Salim
Al-Beidh. The
Security
Council
reiterates its
readiness to
consider
further
measures,
including
under Article
41 of the UN
Charter"
Ali
Salim Al-Beidh
was formerly
the president
of South
Yemen, which
until 1990 was
the People’s
Democratic
Republic of
Yemen. Now
based in
Lebanon -- or
"south Beirut"
as some darkly
point out,
with its Shi'a
Crescent
connotation --
Ali Salim
Al-Beidh is
once again
asserting the
right of
southern Yemen
to be
independent.
Does
that alone
make him a
spoiler,
legitimately
subject to UN
Security
Council
sanctions?
South Sudan
long advocated
for the
independence
it ultimately
received. So
there is
nothing per
se spoiler
about such
advocacy.
The
Security
Council also
on February 26
had scheduled
a delayed
briefing about
the French-led
Council trip
to Mali. They
traveled to Mopti, near
the north, and
met with
leaders from
some
communities in
the north, but
not Kidal.
Former
colonial power
France has
said all must
participate in
a dialogue.
Would refusal
to, and
espousing of a
right to
independence,
be considered
sanction-able
by the
Security
Council?
The
loophole may
be the
allegation of
external
support, an
allegation
amplified and
self-proved in
Gulf and
Western media.
If groups in
Yemen are
making
advances, they
must have
support from
Iran, the dark
talk goes --
therefore,
they should be
stopped and
sanctioned;
they are
terrorists.
Aren't
armed groups
in Syria
getting
external
support? Those
that advocate
secession or
even just
autonomy, like
the Rojava
Kurds, are
excluded from
the process of
Geneva Two.
But are they
spoilers?
Sanctionable?
There is no
law, no
protection of
free speech or
political
participation.
This is the
UN.
Now al-Beidh
may well have
other
problems; it
may be as UN
envoy Jamal
Benomar told
Inner City
Press
at the
Security
Council
stakeout
twice, than
many in the
Southern
Movement are
amenable to
the National
Dialogue and
that by
implication
al-Beidh is an
extreme. But
is advocacy
sanctionable?
Should it be?
We'll see,
under OP
18(a). Watch
this site.
Update:
here's from
the UK's
transcript:
, 
