Uganda: Expulsion of Aliens,and Human Rights

A more accurate characterization of the persons involved here–as will be subsequently seen–is British citizens of Asian extraction.

See Langley Winston E. Okolo Julius Emeka , “Expulsion of Aliens: A Violation of International Law?” Journal of Social and Behavioral Sciences, forthcoming October, 1973.

Even regional conventions which create binding international obligation make certain exceptions. See Art. 3(1) of the European Convention on Establishment, December 13, 1955, 529 U.N.T.S., 140, which was adopted to complement the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, November 4, 1950, 404 U.N.T.S., 221. See also Robertson A. H. , “The Contributions of the Council of Europe to the Development of International Law,” Proc. of Am. Soc. Int. Law 201–212 (1965).

For a diary of developments, see “Uganda Diary,” Africa Report (November-December, 1972), at 26–27.

There are differences as to what the consequences would be. See Times (London), September 14, 1972 at 3; “Uganda Diary,” op. cit., p. 26.

See Tanzanian Government's position in Times (London), August 22, 1972 at 6, 8; see also Caminda Jerome , “World Variation on Racialist Theme,” Times (London), August 39, 1972 at 12; Higgins Rosalyn , “The Right In International Law of An Individual to Enter, Stay In and Leave a Country,” 49 Int. Affairs , pp. 341–357 (1973). There is no credible evidence to suggest that race was a factor in motivating the expulsion.

See the United Kingdom's position in 9 U.N. Monthly Chronicle (October, 1972), at 88–89.

Time, September 25, 1972 at 32. Dr. Okoi Arikpo, Nigeria's Foreign Minister, perhaps summed up the attitude of most African states when he separated the problem of Uganda's right to expel foreigners and President Amin's methods of getting the Asians out. He characterized General Amin's “style” as “regrettable,” and added that “It is hard to ask 50,000 persons to leave their homes and property within 90 days.” He, however, maintained that “Uganda had the right to exclude from its territory citizens of another country and Britain had the duty to receive its citizens.” Amin, he concluded was “potentially sane.” See West Africa, no. 2887 (October 9, 1972), at 1372. See also, “Amin and Africa,” West Africa, no. 2886 (October 2, 1972), at 1311 for a general African reaction.

Low D. A. , Uganda in Modem History, 169 (1971).

Portal Gerald , The British Mission to Uganda in 1893, 155 (1970). See also Gregory Robert , India and East Africa, 109–110 (1971).

Richards Audrey , The Multi-Cultural States of East Africa, 76 (1969).

Id. 17. See also Herrick Allison Butler , Area Handbook for Uganda 3 (1969).

Id. 44.

Low , op. cit., 167–172; Rich rds, op. cit., 22–23.

Richards , op. cit., 26. Here the author is not merely dealing with the distinct symbols of St. Michael and St. George, reflecting British culture, but the independent symbols of the Ganda and other indigenous ethnic groups as well as that of the Asians who were not only divided into Hindu and Moslems, but the latter is again divided into the Shiah and Sunni. For a treatment of Uganda's traditional culture see Cunningham S. F. , Uganda and Its Peoples (1969); Fallers Lloyd , “The Predicament of the Modern Africa: An Instance from Uganda,” 57 American Anthropologist 290–305 (1955).

See Herrick , op. cit., 1–2.

The two dates represent the beginning of British rule to Uganda's independence.

This was approximately when Britain began to think seriously of Uganda's independence.

See note 15. See also Apter David , “The Role of Traditionalism in the Political Modernization of Ghana and Uganda,” 13 World Politics 45–68 (1960).

Gregory , op. cit., 101.

Herrick , op. cit., 92. For an interesting comparison see May John A. , “Asians Test Britons,” Christian Science Monitor , September 7, 1972 at 9. That social contact between Asians and Africans is uncommon has also been noted by several other students of Uganda society. For instance, Southall and Gutkind in a 1957 study of Kampala society noted that although poorer Asians come into close contact with their African servants, “Nevertheless this has not so far led to any great feelings of solidarity between them.” See Southall A. Gutkind P. C. W. , East African Studies 26 (1957).

He included Egypt and East Africa, too.

See Gregory , op. cit., 111.

Id.

Since the entire Indian subcontinent was governed as one entity, no distinction was made between Indians and Pakistanis.

Gregory , op. cit., 110.

Id, 393.

Id., 490. This educational imbalance was later to have serious effects on the efforts of the Ugandan Government to Africans, for example, the Civil Service. In fact, in 1962 the Report of the Uganda Africanisation Commission frankly stated that “in practically every phase of Government activity progress is impeded for lack of skilled men.” See Delf George , Asians in East Africa 58 (1963).

See Short Philip , “Scrutiny of the Causes and Effects Involved in Expulsion of East African Asians,” Times (London), August 30, 1972, at 12; Weinraub Bernard , “Uganda Asians See Ouster Hurting Africans,” New York Times, September 5, 1972, at 3; 9 U.N. Monthly Chronicle 95 (October, 1972); and Short Philip , “Uganda: Putting It in Perspective,” 18 Africa Report 34–38 (March-April, 1973).

Short , Times (London), op. cit. There is an interesting list of professions, total number of persons therein, and the specific nationality of persons in the professions, also.

It is interesting to note that this unspecified relationship lasted until 1962, date of independence. 651 Parl. Deb., H.C. (September 5, 1961), 366, 384–5.

Herrick , op. cit., 3.

Richards , op. cit., 44–45.

Apter David , The Political Kingdom in Uganda 166 (1961).

New York Times , January 25, 1971, at 3; Lewis Anthony , “Attack on Obote Arouses Uganda,” Id., January 13, 1970, at 13.

Low , op. cit., 206–209.

Lewis , op. cit.

The British Nationality Act of 1948, 11 and 12, George VI C.56 (1948).

See Part II, Sec. 5(1); Part I, sec. 4(1,a) in Id. Compare with 651 Parl. Debates, H.C. (5 ser.) 366, 384–5 (1961).

See Uganda Constitution, Chapter II, sec. 7(1).

Id., sec. 7(2); Sees. 8(1)–9.

The first significant modification was made in 1958, but this is not related to the subject of concern here. See Pub. Gen. Acts, 6 and 7 Elizabeth II, C.10 (1958).

Id., 10 and 11 Elizabeth II, C.21 (1962), Art. 2(b) and 3. See also 651 Parl. Debates, H.C. (5 ser.) 369, 370–372.

The terms “British Subject” and “Commonwealth citizen” are used interchangeably.

See Editorial of Times (London), August 31, 1972 at 13; New York Times, September 1, 1972 at 3, refers to Britain's legal obligation without specifying same; John Allen May, “Where Will Uganda's Expelled Asians Go?” Christian Science Monitor, August 19, 1972 at 2. The position of the Commonwealth Secretary, Ian MacLeod, when Uganda gained independence and Lord Perth who participated in many constitutional conferences pursuant to the independence of East African countries also support the above.

May, op. cit.; 9 U.N. Monthly Chronicle 88–95 (October, 1972).

See Lauterpacht H. , The International Bill of Rights of Man (1945).

Schweitzer Albert , The Teaching of Reverence for Life 1–11 (1965).

Preamble to the U.N. Charter; Art. 1(3); Art. 13(l,b); Art. 55(c); Art. 56; Art. 62(2); and Art. 68.

See U.N. Doc. A/8111 (1948); 43 Am. J. of Int. Law (1949), supp. at 127. See also Buergenthal Thomas , “The United Nations and the Development of Rules Relating to Human Rights,” Proc. Am. Soc. Int. Law, 132–139 (1965) and Roltz-Benneth J. , “Human Rights, 1945–1970,” Annual Review of U.N. Affairs (1970) at 63.

Brierly J. L. , The Law of Nations, 294 (1963); see also Schwelb Egon , “The Influence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on International and National Law,” Proc. Am. Soc. Int. Law, 217–229 (1959).

U.N. Doc. A/Res. 220 XXI (1967); 61 Am. J. Int. Law 861–890 (1967).

As of the date of writing only nineteen states have ratified the Conventions, far less than the number of ratifications required to have each of the Conventions enter into force. Their legal effect is, therefore, as limited as that of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. See Akehurst Michael , A Modern Introduction to International Law 104 (1970).

The writers are aware that there are other international instruments pertaining to human rights. But the above have the most direct bearing on events in Uganda. See, for example, The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, General Assembly Resolution 2263 XXII (November 7, 1967); and Declaration on Territorial Asylum, General Assembly Resolution 2312 XXII (December 14, 1967).

Under Commonwealth arrangements, “Commonwealth citizens” are not regarded as aliens, so there may be some arguments about the application of the above clause. Such argument need not be raised since the expellees were not “Commonwealth citizens”–as will be subsequently demonstrated; and even if they were, the designation is subject to so many exceptions, and it is so vague in the legal status it confers that it would be worthless in this context.

See Art. 13 of the Covenant. It should also be noted that the International Law Commission in its “Revised Draft on the Responsibility of States for Injury Caused in Its Territory to the Persons or Property of Aliens” asserts that aliens enjoy the same rights and are entitled to the same legal guarantees as enjoyed by nationals; and that said rights ought not to be less than those recognized by contemporary international instruments, such as right to life, liberty, and security as well as the right to own property. But it also maintains that limitations and restrictions may be imposed for reasons of security and economic well-being of the nation. U.N. Doc. A/C.N. 4/134/Add. 1, December 11, 1961, at 4.

See Art. 17(1 and 2).

See Art. 2(2).

Here the use of the word “non-nationals” will overcome any objections some may have to any classification of “Commonwealth citizens” as aliens. Besides, even Commonwealth citizens are not always accorded any better status than aliens in Commonwealth countries. They are sometimes treated worse. See Wilson Robert Clute Robert , “Commonwealth Citizenship and Common Status,” 57 Am. J. Int. Law 576–577 (1963), and Keesing's Contemporary Archives (1967–8), at 22678–22682.

Indonesia is specifically mentioned here because that state, apart from the fear expressed in the very sentence, played a leading role in the adoption of this provision of the article.

See GAOR 17th Session,' 3rd Comm. (Sept.-Dec., 1962), at 336. The United Kingdom, in expressing its sentiments and those of other states, did publicly indicate opposition to Indonesia's position. Id. at 342.

It should be noted that Indonesia's position regards the interest of the state as involving elimination of economic inequality.

Emphasis added.

Whiteman B. M. , Digest of International Law, 861 (1967).

460 Parl. Deb. H. C. (5 ser.) 1949, p. 155.

See Time , September 25, 1972, p. 32. “Uganda Diary,” op. cit., p. 26.

Short , op. cit. It should be noted that Asians were generally disenchanted by the influence of the government.

Id.; Time, September 21, 1972, p. 22.

See Bloomfield Lincoln , International Military Forces, 28–30 (1964).

New York Times, January 13, 1973, p. 13; January 30, 1973, p. 60; January 25, 1973, p. 3; January 26, 1973, p. 1, 10; February 3, 1973, p. 8.

See Knipe Michael , “Africans Queue to Buy Business as Asians Queue to Leave,” Times (London), p. 2.

Times, October 9, 1972, p. 36.

See Agency for International Development, Gross National Product: Growth Trends and Data (May 10, 1972), 12–15; AID, Selected Economic Data for Less Developed Countries (June, 1972), 6–8; Hannah John , “Institutional Problems in Developing Countries,” Dept. of State Bulletin (March, 1971), 297–301.

See note 31 above.

See United Nations G. A. Resolution 1803-XVII (December 14, 1962), reproduced in 57 Am. J. Int. Law, 710–712 (1963).

Ibid.

Sohn Baxter , “Responsibility of States,” 55 Am. J. Int. Law 55 (1961).

Akehurst, 11. Emphases are the author's.

For a general discussion see Cheng Bin , “The Rationale of Compensation for Expropriation,” 44 Transactions of the Grotius Society (1958–59), and Domke Martin , “Foreign Nationalizations: Some Aspects of Contemporary International Law,” 55 Am. J. Int. Law 585–616 (1961).

For an interesting comment see Haight George W. , “Human Rights Covenants,” Proc. Am. Soc. Int. Law (1962), 98–99.

William John Fischer Sir , “International Law and the Property of Aliens,” British Yearbook of Int. Law (1928), p. 1 cited by Brierly, op. cit. Some lawyers from developing countries have even generally argued that in questions of aliens' property the national standards rather than the minimum international standards should apply. See, for this view, Ray Guha , “Is the Law of Responsibility of States for Injuries to Aliens a Part of Universal International Law?”, 55 Am. J. Int. Law (1961); Akehurst , pp. 113–114.

See Hudson Manley O. , “Charter Provisions on Human Rights in American Law,” 44 Am. J. Int. Law (1950) and his Integrity of International Instruments,” 42 Am. J. Int. Law (1948); Kelsen Hans , The Law of the United Nations (1950) his Principles of International Law (1966), and his “The Draft Declaration on the Rights and Duties of States,” 44 Am. J. Int. Law (1950). The writers do not doubt that when the international covenants on economic, social and cultural rights and on civil and political rights shall have been ratified by a sufficient number of states, they will have become instruments fixing international legal obligations. As of the date of writing, however, only 19 states have ratified the covenant; and 35 such ratifications are necessary to put them into effect. The U.S.S.R. recently became the nineteenth state to ratify them. See New York Times, September 29, 1973, pp. 1, 10, 11; Washington Post, September 28, 1973, p. A-22.

See, for instance, Lauterpacht Hersch , International Law and Human Rights (1950) and Jessup Philip C. , A Modem Law of Nations (1948).

See Schwelb Egon , “The International Court of Justice and the Human Rights Clauses of the Charter,” 66 Am. J. Int. Law, especially 346–351 (1972).