OBTAINING ISO/IEC 17020:2012 ACCREDITATION FOR TYPE A INSPECTION BODIES

Obtaining ISO/IEC 17020:2012 Accreditation for Type A Inspection Bodies involves several steps, guided by the Kenya Accreditation Service (KENAS), the national accreditation body. 

ISO/IEC 17020:2012 specifies the requirements for the operation of various types of INSPECTION BODIES, and Type A refers to organizations that perform INDEPENDENT, THIRD-PARTY INSPECTIONS.

Below is an outline of the procedure:

1. Understand the Standard Requirements

The first step is to ensure that your inspection body meets the requirements of ISO/IEC 17020:2012. This standard outlines the general requirements for the competence of inspection bodies, the impartiality of the inspections, and their capability to provide reliable results.

Type A inspection bodies must demonstrate full independence and impartiality from clients, i.e., they should not have any conflicts of interest.

2. Prepare Your Inspection Body

Establish a Management System - Create a documented Quality Management System (QMS) that aligns with the ISO/IEC 17020:2012 standard. This system should address all the areas required by the standard, such as:

✓Competence of personnel

✓Impartiality and confidentiality

✓Control of inspection methods and equipment

✓Documentation and record-keeping

✓Continuous improvement mechanisms

Internal Audits and Review - Regularly conduct internal audits and management reviews to ensure that your inspection body is operating in accordance with the requirements.

3. Contact KENAS

Submit an Application - Submit your application to KENAS for accreditation. You will need to provide detailed information about your inspection body, such as its structure, scope of services, personnel qualifications, and a description of the inspection methods used.

Scope of Accreditation - Clearly define the scope of your accreditation. This will include the types of inspections you perform and the sectors you serve (e.g., construction, safety, quality assurance).

4. Pre-Assessment (Optional)

KENAS may offer a pre-assessment to evaluate your readiness for accreditation. This is an OPTIONAL step but can help identify areas that need improvement before the formal assessment.

5. Document Review and On-Site Assessment

KENAS will review the documentation you have submitted and will conduct an ON-SITE ASSESSMENT to verify that your inspection body meets all the requirements of the ISO/IEC 17020:2012 standard.

The on-site assessment involves evaluating the COMPETENCE of personnel, examining your FACILITIES, inspection EQUIPMENT, and reviewing your DOCUMENTED PROCEDURES.

6. Address Non-Conformities

If any non-conformities are identified during the assessment, you will be required to correct them within a specified time frame. KENAS will review your corrective actions to ensure compliance.

7. Final Decision

Once KENAS is satisfied with your inspection body’s compliance to the ISO/IEC 17020:2012 standard, they will issue the Accreditation Certificate for your inspection body.

This accreditation will allow you to officially offer accredited inspection services under the recognized international standard.

8. Surveillance and Re-Assessment

After accreditation, KENAS will conduct regular surveillance audits to ensure that your inspection body continues to meet the requirements of the standard.

ACCREDITATION is typically VALID for THREE YEARS, after which a re-assessment will be conducted.

Key Documents and Information Needed:

✓Application form for accreditation

✓Evidence of compliance with ISO/IEC 17020:2012 (e.g., QMS documents, inspection procedures, competence of staff)

✓Details of inspection methods and equipment

✓A list of services provided and their scope

Contact Information for KENAS:

KENAS: The Kenya Accreditation Service is the governing body responsible for accreditation in Kenya.

Website: www.kenas.go.ke

Phone: +254-20-4939020

By following these steps and ensuring compliance with the relevant standards and procedures, your inspection body can obtain ISO/IEC 17020:2012 Type A accreditation in Kenya.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Lex Partners Advocates LLP is a participating Law Practice within the SLS Group. 

LESSONS FROM THE FALL OF GACHAGUA

Knowing Your Place

Gachagua struggled to grasp the true significance of his position as Deputy President of the Republic of Kenya. Holding such a high office means embodying the values of the Presidency, which is the pinnacle of our constitutional framework. Those in this role are expected to maintain a standard of decorum and conduct that is above reproach.

The Presidency symbolizes national unity and should consistently demonstrate adherence to national values and principles of public service. Integrity in both words and actions is essential, as is the ability to work harmoniously with others. The principle of collective responsibility requires that officials support approved government policies; dissenters should resign rather than undermine the administration.

Additionally, the obligations under the Official Secrets Act are crucial and often overlooked. Gachagua failed to meet these essential expectations.

Loyalty is Everything

“Value loyalty above all else,” a line from Raymond Reddington, the main actor in the TV show The Blacklist, captures a vital lesson in both personal and political relationships. Betraying loyalty in pursuit of personal gain can lead to losing trusted allies. 

In politics, disloyalty can be catastrophic. If one attempts a coup and fails, the repercussions can be severe—often leading to charges of treason. 

Whether or not one is charged with treason, it’s important to remember that a government doesn’t forget. You can only surprise it once!

Humility

Humility is not a sign of inadequacy; rather, it reflects magnanimity, kindness, and politeness, regardless of one's status. It means extending an olive branch to adversaries rather than gloating in victory. Recognizing our shared humanity reminds us that privileges do not define our worth.

True humility stems from a grateful heart. Gratitude is the foundation of all virtues.

INEFFECTIVE USA AND NATO: THE CAUSE OF MAJOR WORLD PROBLEMS

INTRODUCTION

In the complex landscape of international relations, the perceived weaknesses and inefficiencies of the United States and NATO have emerged as critical factors contributing to major global crises. From conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, and Lebanon to turmoil in Yemen, Iran, and the Sahel region, the consequences of these shortcomings are evident. 

This article explores how the inadequacies of these Western powers exacerbate existing tensions and create new challenges in the world, particularly from 2020 to 2024. Through a comprehensive examination of these issues, we aim to elucidate the nexus between U.S. and NATO effectiveness and global stability.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

The Formation and Evolution of NATO

NATO was established in 1949 as a collective defense mechanism against potential Soviet aggression. It was intended to provide a framework for mutual defense and to promote peace and stability in Europe. However, the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s raised questions about NATO's purpose and effectiveness. As the geopolitical landscape shifted, NATO expanded eastward, which, according to critics, antagonized Russia and set the stage for future conflicts (Mearsheimer, 2014).

U.S. Foreign Policy: Shifts and Consequences

The U.S. has historically promoted a foreign policy focused on containment, democracy, and economic development. However, inconsistencies and overreach, especially in the Middle East and North Africa, have led to significant failures. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan showcased the limitations of military power, raising questions about the efficacy of American interventions in achieving long-term stability (Garamone, 2021).

RECENT GLOBAL CONFLICTS AND NATO’S ROLE

Ukraine: The Struggle Against Aggression

The ongoing conflict in Ukraine serves as a stark example of NATO's challenges and the U.S.'s limited effectiveness. Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 was met with weak sanctions and a tepid response from NATO, leading to a perception of Western impotence (Norris, 2023). The escalation of the war in Ukraine following Russia's full-scale invasion in February 2022 highlighted NATO's struggles to provide a decisive military response.

In 2023 and 2024, while the U.S. and NATO increased military support for Ukraine, including advanced weaponry, the conflict continued to escalate with significant humanitarian consequences (Kofman, 2023). Critics argue that NATO's delayed response and the lack of a coherent strategy have emboldened Russia, contributing to prolonged instability in the region.

The Gaza Conflict: A Humanitarian Crisis

The ongoing violence in Gaza, particularly during the flare-ups in 2021 and the escalation in 2023, has revealed the limitations of U.S. influence in the Middle East. The Biden administration's approach, which emphasized a balance between supporting Israel and advocating for Palestinian rights, has often appeared ineffective (El-Amin, 2023). As violence surged, NATO's inability to exert diplomatic pressure or broker a lasting ceasefire demonstrated its ineffectiveness in addressing humanitarian crises in the region.

Lebanon: The Political Vacuum

Lebanon has faced a profound political and economic crisis exacerbated by regional dynamics and the Syrian civil war's spillover effects. The U.S. has historically been involved in Lebanese affairs, but recent years have seen a decline in effective engagement. The lack of a cohesive NATO strategy to address Lebanon's multifaceted crises, including Hezbollah's influence and the refugee influx from Syria, has resulted in a deteriorating security situation (Mansour, 2023).

Yemen: A Protracted Conflict

The war in Yemen has emerged as one of the world's most devastating humanitarian crises, driven by a complex web of local and regional conflicts. The U.S. has provided military support to Saudi Arabia, which has been criticized for its conduct in the war. Despite widespread calls for a ceasefire and negotiations, the conflict has persisted, with NATO's inability to play a meaningful mediating role contributing to ongoing suffering (Hoffman, 2024).

The Biden administration’s reassessment of U.S. support for the Saudi-led coalition marked a shift but lacked a comprehensive strategy to end the conflict (Walsh, 2023). As a result, Yemen remains in turmoil, with millions facing famine and health crises.

Iran: Rising Tensions

Iran's regional ambitions have created significant tensions, particularly following the U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018. The lack of effective diplomatic engagement by the U.S. and NATO has allowed Iran to expand its influence in the region, supporting proxy groups in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon (Smith, 2022). The failure to restore the JCPOA reflects a broader trend of diplomatic ineffectiveness, as escalating tensions lead to fears of military confrontation.

The Sahel Region: Instability and Extremism

The Sahel region of West Africa has become a hotspot for jihadist activity, with groups like Boko Haram and Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) exploiting weak governance and socio-economic challenges. The U.S. and NATO have struggled to formulate an effective response to these threats, resulting in deteriorating security and increasing violence (Mackintosh, 2023). The lack of coordination among Western powers has hampered efforts to stabilize the region, leading to a humanitarian crisis affecting millions.

Sudan: A Crisis Unfolding

Sudan has experienced significant upheaval since the ousting of longtime dictator Omar al-Bashir in 2019. The subsequent power struggle between military factions has resulted in violent clashes and a humanitarian disaster. The U.S. and NATO's limited engagement in Sudan has been criticized as inadequate, especially given the strategic importance of the region and its implications for broader stability in Africa (El-Amin, 2024).

THE BROADER IMPLICATIONS OF WEAKNESS

Erosion of International Norms

The perceived ineffectiveness of the U.S. and NATO has contributed to the erosion of international norms surrounding sovereignty, human rights, and conflict resolution. Authoritarian regimes have increasingly acted with impunity, taking advantage of the West’s inability to respond effectively to crises (Krauthammer, 2023). This trend undermines the principles that have governed international relations since World War II.

The Rise of Non-State Actors

Weakness in state actors has facilitated the rise of non-state actors, including terrorist organizations and militias. Groups such as ISIS and al-Qaeda have exploited power vacuums created by ineffective governance and military interventions, leading to increased violence and instability (Hoffman & Shapiro, 2023). NATO’s lack of a cohesive strategy to address these threats further complicates global security dynamics.

Global Refugee Crisis

The conflicts exacerbated by U.S. and NATO ineffectiveness have led to unprecedented levels of displacement and migration. Millions have been forced to flee their homes due to violence and persecution, straining resources in neighboring countries and creating humanitarian crises (UNHCR, 2023). The inability of Western powers to address the root causes of these conflicts contributes to ongoing instability.

THE PATH FORWARD: STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVEMENT

Reassessing Military Engagement

To regain credibility, the U.S. and NATO must reassess their military strategies, shifting from a reliance on military interventions to diplomatic engagement and conflict prevention. Emphasizing soft power, development assistance, and multilateral cooperation could enhance their effectiveness (Nye, 2008).

Strengthening Alliances and Partnerships

Reinvigorating alliances and partnerships is crucial for addressing contemporary global challenges. Engaging with non-NATO countries and regional organizations can create a more inclusive security framework (Hoffman, 2021). Strengthening ties with allies in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia will be vital for counterbalancing threats and fostering global stability.

Prioritizing Diplomacy

Diplomatic engagement must take precedence over military solutions. The U.S. and NATO should work to restore international norms through concerted efforts to mediate conflicts, support peacebuilding initiatives, and engage in proactive diplomacy (Gordon, 2023). This approach is essential for rebuilding trust in international institutions and restoring global stability.

Addressing Root Causes of Conflict

Understanding and addressing the underlying causes of conflict—such as economic inequality, political disenfranchisement, and social divisions—are crucial for achieving lasting peace. The U.S. and NATO must prioritize development assistance and support for good governance in regions experiencing instability (Bennett, 2022).

CONCLUSION

The weaknesses and ineffectiveness of the U.S. and NATO are significant contributors to many of today’s global problems. From military conflicts to diplomatic failures, the consequences of these inadequacies are profound. Addressing these issues requires a fundamental rethinking of strategies that emphasizes collaboration, engagement, and a commitment to multilateralism. The future of global governance depends on the ability of the U.S. and NATO to adapt to the complexities of a rapidly changing world.

REFERENCES

1. Bennett, A. (2022). Understanding Global Conflicts: A Comprehensive Analysis. Routledge.

2. El-Amin, A. (2023). "The Gaza Conflict: U.S. Policy and Its Implications." Middle East Journal, 77(1), 14-30.

3. El-Amin, A. (2024). "Sudan's Crisis: The Role of External Actors." African Affairs, 123(492), 456-472.

4. Falk, R. (2018). The Costs of War: America’s Wars in the Middle East. Black Rose Books.

5. Garamone, J. (2021). "Assessing U.S. Military Interventions: Lessons Learned." U.S. Department of Defense.

6. Gordon, P. (2023). "Diplomacy in a New Era: Rebuilding International Norms." Foreign Policy Analysis, 19(2), 225-241.

7. Hoffman, F. G. (2021). "Reassessing the Future of NATO." Strategic Studies Quarterly, 15(3), 3-24.

8. Hoffman, F., & Shapiro, J. (2023). "The Rise of Non-State Actors: Implications for Global Security." International Security, 47(1), 5-40.

9. Kofman, M. (2023). "The War in Ukraine: Military Dynamics and Western Responses." War on the Rocks.

10. Krauthammer, C. (2023). "The Erosion of International Norms: Consequences for Global Security." The National Interest, 112, 25-30.

11. Liu, Z. (2020). "China's Belt and Road Initiative: Global Implications and Opportunities." Asian Survey, 60(5), 790-815.

12. Mansour, R. (2023). "Lebanon’s Political Vacuum: Challenges and Opportunities." Middle East Policy, 30(2), 56-70.

13. Mearsheimer, J. J. (2014). Ukraine and the West: A Realist Perspective. University of Chicago Press.

14. Mearsheimer, J. J. (2019). The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities. Yale University Press.

15. Mackintosh, E. (2023). "The Sahel Crisis: A Regional Perspective." African Security Review, 32(1), 1-17.

16. Norris, A. (2023). "The West’s Response to Russia: Lessons from the Ukraine Crisis." Foreign Affairs, 102(5), 70-85.

17. Smith, M. A. (2022). "Iran’s Regional Ambitions and the Implications for U.S. Foreign Policy." The Washington Quarterly, 45(2), 29-45.

18. UNHCR. (2023). "Global Trends: Forced Displacement in 2022." United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

19. Walsh, D. (2023). "Revisiting U.S. Support for Saudi Arabia in Yemen." The Atlantic, January 15, 2023.

#Diplomacy #MilitaryEngagement #Sahel #MiddleEast #Sudan #Yemen #Iran #Lebanon #GazaConflict #Israel #Hamas #NATO #SuperPowers #WorldPeace #InternationalTrade #USForeignPolicy #UkraineCrisis

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

International Consulting House Limited is a participating consultancy within the SLS Group