Cabo Delgado atrocities: A call for humanitarian regulation

The public domain has been awash with pictorial and visual depictions of horrendous acts of terror against the civilians in the Northern Province of Mozambique . While there have been some frantic efforts by the Government Securities aimed at counter-terrorism, there is still a long way to go. The operations by the Al-Shabab militant group have proved sophisticated, characterized by mass executions of civilians, deception and assimilation of local people to fight against the government. Military operations by both the parties to the conflict are a far cry from implementation of jus in bello (law of wars). In its nature, armed conflict does not take regard to human rights ,in particular, the right to life ,right to dignity and not to be subjected to unnecessary harm or suffering. Weapons of war are manufactured for the very purpose of inflicting the best possible harm in order to compel the opposing party into surrendering. However, gurus of Conflict theory like Sun Tzu, the Asian philosopher have queried the morality of armed operations that tend to cause harm to unarmed and vulnerable civilians. It is through those ancient experiences and the dire effects of World Warr II that the global community have made serious steps towards regularization of armed conflict . This was done through the Geneva Laws (the Conventions) and the Additional Protocols to the same. Coupled with these, are the Roman Statute governing the International Criminal Court and the Hague Conventions on Weapons of war. When the Geneva Conventions and their subsidiaries were crafted, the notion of terrorism was not as far-reaching and settled as it is in the twenty-first century epoch to the extent that regulating this particular type of conflict was circumstantially inevitable as was regulating wars of liberation during imperialism. In light of this position, terrorism was not given definition in the Geneva Conventions except that acts of terror are prohibited. The ‘omission’ of the definition of terrorism does not come as a surprise since the terrain wrings political connotations and is usually marred with hidden agendas and conflict of interest. For example , the Al-Shabab in Mozambique makes use of sophisticated weapons beyond the reach of the government security forces. In facilitation of their havoc, the militant groups make use of Western and Asian weapons often expensive to acquire. The only viable explanation given to justify their resource base is pillage, looting and illicit deals in occupied territories. In Nigeria for example, Boko Haram is infamous employing advanced technological devices to avert counter-terrorism efforts. However, since this paper is not for international relations purposes, it will be confined to dispensing with the legal implications of events in Mozambique and the extent to which the international bodies can enforce such laws. The law applicable International Humanitarian Law(IHL) is the law that applies during armed conflict. It consists both the Geneva Conventions and Customary International Humanitarian Law contained in legal texts and historical practices. As highlighted above, IHL operates as a regulatory regime rather than a curbing regime because armed warfare is inevitable. Its main emphasis lies on the protection of civilians during times of war. There is a silver line of distinction between IHL and Human Rights Law and this rests on the fact that, the former is applicable only during warfare while the latter applies every second of human existence. However ,both serve the human rights elements on humanity. The primary objectives of IHL are to protect civilians during an armed conflict. Fundamental doctrines such as necessity, proportionality, principle against causing unnecessary harm ,distinction and humanity form the summation of the Geneva Conventions. Every law emanating therein stems from those principles. It therefore goes without mentioning that, IHL is at the core of protection of humanity when it is most vulnerable. Mozambique Al-Sabab terror and IHL According to Article 33 to the 4th Geneva Convention ( relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War) ,all acts of terrorism are prohibited. Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions broadens the scope of restriction on acts of terror but goes no further than characterizing the acts. It reads ,the civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited. However, since the Conventions do not explicitly define terrorism, guidance can be drawn from Yonah Alexander who elucidated that it is the use of violence against random civilian targets in order to intimidate or create generalized pervasive fear for the purposes of achieving political goals. Prominent Historian and eminent scholar on terrorism and political violence , Walter Laquer noted that , terrorism aims to induce a state of fear in the victim , that is ruthless and does not confirm with humanitarian rules. It thrives on publicity as an essential ingredient for terrorist strategy. A read of the laws applicable is suggestive that, terrorism is about inducing fear, compulsion and forcing submission. Acts of terror normally instill shivers on the spines of civilians more often than it disturbs political authorities. Their effects on the government of the day are often remote and indirect. Thus, an examination of the Al-Shabab operations in Mozambique are an exposition of horrendous attacks towards civilians with the ultimate aim to petrify the civilians. Terrorism therefore flaws all the laws and rules that govern law of armed conflict. The Jihadist wing of terrorists is usually uncompromising towards abiding with IHL because it is an obstacle towards their operations. An example is the mutilation, beheading, rape ,kidnapping and forceful recruitment of children in the Palma District by the ruthless Islamist militant group. The terrorist group also applies guerilla welfare (destroying bridges ,bombing transport and cutting communication lines) aimed at starving civilians of food and water, thus offending all the principles governing IHL. Private Military Security Companies These companies often assist governments and militant groupings during military operations as active participators or para-military ancillary taskforce. In Mozambique, the Wagner Group from Russia and the Dyck Advisory Group from South Africa have been contracted to help face the relentless terrorists in the region. These are usually well-equipped and with sophisticated know-how militarily. However, since their operations are motivated by the need to make a fortune, they often enroll less experienced military personnel aiming to cut costs and balloon profits. It is within this context that their operations are not without blame. In an operation in 2020 at Mocimboa, a civilian narrated the reckless attacks by the Dyck Group towards civilians and civilian obstacles in an armed helicopter. They went on to bomb a local hospital after realizing that the terrorists had sought refuge in the hospital, infusing themselves into the civilians. This therefore raises eyebrows because the principle of distinction and necessity were not obliged with by these contractors. It is a rule of thumb under IHL that civilians, if ever they are to be attacked, the military advantage resultant must outweigh the harm on civilians. The Government Forces Mozambique Armed Defense Force(FADM) has been implicated for torturing and maiming civilians that are perceived to be in support of Al-Shabab. Amnesty International reports that, in an unusual process of military reasoning, one naked pregnant woman in the Awasse Town was shot with 36 bullets by a government troop using the Kalashnikov rifle . Further, the government troops have found themselves, out of frustration, using extra-judicial means to draw information on the whereabouts of the militant groups from the civilians. Hence, again, the rules governing Armed Conflict are not being adhered to. This is surprising noting that Mozambique is a signatory to the Geneva Convention on the Protection of Civilians during Armed Conflict. Where are the International bodies? It is common cause that IHL thrives in compliance of State parties and parties to an armed conflict. However ,in situations of terror, that compliance is often difficult considering the offensive nature of terrorist operations. The latter notoriously deviates from IHL, thus prompting the former to follow suit in a bid to equalize military operative stakes. However, compliance with international law should be out of good faith and not subject to domestic or situational dictates. At no justification can human dignity be sacrificed at the instance of operative strategy . Universally, terrorism is a crime and where there is non-compliance , regional and international bodies should intervene and put the madness to a halt. The continued displacement of civilians and occupation of Palma is signal enough that the terrorist operations in Mozambique will be extensive and with a negative impact on the regional stability of SADC ,AU and in future, the global village. Terrorist success stories often invoke further operations and with wide-reaching implications on humanity. If counterterrorism is a reality, regional and international bodies must hearken and answer to the call for intervention in Cabo Delgado. The conflict seems to be systematically deep rooted considering that it dates back to 2017 with over 530000 civilians displaced while 2658 deaths have been incurred to date, 1341 of which are civilian casualties. Practice has it that a conflict warrants intervention wherein the organized military operations are characterized by mass human casualty, continuity and the use of dangerous ammunition .It is therefore prudent that the United Nations Security Council within its peacekeeping mandate, while paying due regard to the IHL principle of Non-Intervention negotiates with the Mozambican Government and reach consensus on ways in which the organ can assist. The intervention will also facilitate investigations on various war crimes committed by all parties to the conflict under the dictates of the International Criminal Court (ICC) Roman Statute. Without this pro-active form of intervention as opposed to diplomatic grandstanding and passive condemnation of terror, the commitment towards silencing the guns is mere rhetoric. Understanding that terrorist operations have a spillover effect, SADC and AU should shift focus towards technical deployment rather than prolonging concerted negotiations at a time grievous atrocity are continuously committed, unabated. Munashe Gutu is a blogger and law student at the University of Zimbabwe He writes in his personal capacity Twitter: barrister_gutu