Global Policy In Brief

Intervention vs. non-interference in states' internal affairs: Is this really what’s at issue in the Security Council debate on Syria?

2012-02-09T13:41:00.005-05:00

The Western media have reacted predictably to the Syria crisis, separating Security Council adversaries as usual into two camps. The “good guys” are seen as champions of a new post-sovereign international order while the “bad guys” defend blood-thirsty dictators in a cynical use of the doctrines of non-interference and national sovereignty.

The media congratulate the US and its European allies for upholding the international community’s right and responsibility to intervene in states’ domestic affairs to “protect civilians” and to get rid of nasty regimes. Russia and China – among other offenders – are framed as backward obstructionists clinging to outdated notions of “sovereignty” while civilians are massacred by the thousands. “Emerging powers” like India and South Africa are chastised for falling prey to the Sino-Russian arguments, for recalling the Western interventions that shaped their own colonial past, and for not wholeheartedly embracing the West’s enthusiasm for its selective version of human rights and democracy.

The media analysis conveys little about the history and the current high stakes politics. The web of great power interests and rivalries largely disappears. We hear little about the control of oil, military bases, clandestine operations, and murky alliances – except, of course, when it comes to the bad guys.

At the UN, the “Permanent 3” (P3) - the US, the UK and France – have consistently framed the issue in these crude terms. In public and in private, the P3 ambassadors have expressed their dismay at Russia and China’s willingness to put ideology before the lives of innocent civilians. After Russia and China vetoed a Security Council resolution on Syria on February 4th, US Ambassador Susan Rice immediately announced that she was “disgusted” by their use of the veto and that "any further blood that flows will be on their hands."

The New York Times, along with most of the media, has echoed this line. Neil MacFarquhar, the NY Times’ bureau chief at the UN, sums up the issue in the following terms:

"Fundamentally, the argument over Syria reflects a deeper divide between those who would use the Security Council to confront nations over how their governments treat civilians, versus those who consider that it has no role whatsoever in settling domestic disputes. Syria is the latest example in an argument that stretches back through all recent conflicts."

Such clichés were abundantly on offer at the time of the Libya intervention too, and they are daily repeated by the press and, unfortunately, by many NGOs as well.

Great powers invoke “sovereignty,” “human rights” and other moral and legal terms to further their own interest and to generate public support. Rarely, if ever, do they take into account the real suffering of the victims of these crises – the ordinary people.

Indeed, the P3’s commitment to a post-sovereign world is blatantly inconsistent. The P3 had no problem in letting Saud Arabia exercise its sovereign right to violently repress demonstrations. Nor did they hesitate to protect the government of Bahrain when popular protests flared there. Throughout the years, they have been unconditionally supportive of Israel’s sovereign “right to defend itself,” irrespective of what this meant for Palestinians.

We should not forget that these advocates of a post-sovereign world are keen to hold on to their own sovereign powers. The United States, first and foremost, rejects inroads on its sovereignty. It refuses to put its troops into a UN peacekeeping mission under the command of a foreign national and it intensely opposes International Criminal Court jurisdiction over its leaders and military chiefs.

The record of Western intervention is not encouraging in terms of protection of civilians and promotion of democracy. Iraq provides one striking case in point. So do Haiti, Afghanistan, Somalia and many others. Before we get enthusiastic about the interventionist approach and succumb to the tempting calls of “something has to be done,” it is well to consider the historical record and to examine the options.

We can well hope that Bashar al-Asad and his regime disappear as quickly as possible and that the Syrian people enjoy democracy in the nearest future. But it will be wise to avoid the cynical, emotion-laden arguments of the Western diplomats and their uncritical media note-takers. Serious thought, not simplistic reactions, will be needed if a durable and democratic future is to be won in Syria.

Scaling Up (Mal)Nutrition – Corporate Food Branding at the United Nations

2011-11-04T10:09:00.001-04:00

The UN meeting room was filled to capacity on September 22with political leaders, senior diplomats, UN officials, foundation staff andcorporate executives. They had come tomark the first anniversary of “Scaling Up Nutrition” (SUN), a UNmulti-stakeholder-partnership aiming at better health through targeted foodprograms. Host Ban Ki-moon, the UNSecretary General, expressed gratitude to private sector companies for their“leadership” in the SUN project, which operates in twenty-one developingcountries including Nepal, Niger, Mozambique and Guatemala. But ironically the corporate partners - notablysnack and soft drink giant PepsiCo – have remarkably poor records on consumerhealth.

Over the years, major food companies have engaged inmisleading advertising and promotion of products that are downrightunhealthy. They have targeted youngconsumers and promoted a “snack” culture that undermines regular, healthymeals. They have used unsustainableproduction methods and sometimes child labor. The industry wants to erase theseunfavorable images and to create a positive and nutritious narrative.

Dr. Mehmood Khan, head of PepsiCo’s new “Global Nutrition”subsidiary, told the UN gathering that he wants to expand the sales of his fledglingunit to $30 billion annually, through a focus on nutrition. Khan and his “global team of experts” areworking on “product innovation” and one such project ambitiously targets young“pre-pre-natal” women, supposedly in order to promote healthy babies later. However, nutrition scientists point out thatPepsiCo’s products will replace traditional, locally grown foods that arehealthier and cheaper. Pepsi currentlysells $30 billion worldwide in sugary soft drinks like Pepsi Cola and Gatorade- and salty, fatty snacks such as Frito Lay potato chips. These products are meticulously engineeredand branded to attract and hold consumers, promoting unhealthy eating habits andsoaking up scarce food budgets among many of the world’s poorest people.

Dr. Khan, who is also PepsiCo’s Chief Scientific Officer,announced that his company has developed a pilot product for sale in India - asnack that is fortified with protein, iron, and other nutrients. Pepsi has beenselling the snack for two rupees (about four US cents) and the company has foundthat forty percent of the target market purchased the snack and twenty percent madea repeat purchase. He did not offerinformation on improvement in hunger and nutrition among target Indianconsumers. PepsiCo, he announced, islooking to partner further with governments, development agencies and theprivate sector to expand sales of the product. Dr. Khan, a former lead physician at the MayoClinic, acknowledged that most of PepsiCo’s current products are not nutritious. He affirmed, however, that the company is nowcommitted to future markets in nutritious – or at least less mal-nutritious – products.

A representative of theBill and Melinda Gates Foundation also spoke at the event, emphasizing that themajority of the world eats foods produced by the private sector, hence Gates’interest in partnership with private companies. Infact, small family farmers produce a large majority of the world’s food, apoint that policy experts often make but that corporate gatherings studiouslyavoid.

Much of the remainder of the discussion was empty rhetoricand self-congratulation. A UK representativesaid that London is planning to increase its development aid funds for seventeencountries and “scale up” research. Anofficial from Canada announced that a large portion of Ottawa’s food securityplan is focused on getting “the right food to the right people in the righttime.” A World Bank representative said that the Bank is seeking improvednutrition lending through a “multi-sector approach.” “There has been extraordinary progress,” saidan enthusiastic UN official. US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton called on theinternational community to “keep working together.” Everyone seemed to agree with the dubiousnotion that PepsiCo and its private sector partners would help solve theworld’s crisis of malnutrition.

To view a UN News article highlighting the meeting, click here.

Picture Credit: wfp.org

The Palestinian Bid for Statehood

2011-09-14T10:28:00.005-04:00

The Palestinian Authority’s bid for statehood recognition at the UN this September has elicited a range of responses and opinions. The Arab Spring has opened the way for political change in the region, inspiring Palestinians in their struggle for statehood. However, opinion is divided as to the best path to advance Palestinian rights and national aspirations at this moment in history.

Skeptics argue that formal recognition at the UN will not in fact create a sovereign Palestinian state, nor will it effectively end the Israeli occupation. Israel will continue to control security within the occupied territories and manage the flow of people and resources across borders at an array of checkpoints. In 1988, the declaration of an independent state of Palestine at the UN failed to produce effective statehood, so some are doubtful about prospects for meaningful change following a similar route this September. But the struggle for statehood can be long and complex, and much has happened since 1988.

A key question concerns the PA’s legitimacy to act on behalf of the Palestinian people. Prime Minister Salam Fayyad’s PA government was not elected and faces accusations of authoritarian rule. According to the Palestinian National Initiative, the PA government lacks a constitutional or democratic basis. PLO and Fatah leaders have also been very critical of Fayyad. The split with Hamas in Gaza also presents a very serious problem for Palestinian unity. Without democratic arrangements in place, the Palestinian people cannot hold the PA accountable. Ultimately, the PLO, and not the PA, remains the legitimate representative of the Palestinians in their relations with other states, peace negotiations with Israel, and as an Observer at the UN.

Because international recognition of the Palestinian state may change little on the ground in the occupied territories, some Palestinians feel that the PA’s symbolic bid at the UN represents a surrender of hard-fought issues at the core of Palestinian political identity. Some critics oppose the UN bid on the grounds that a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders threatens to legitimate the terms of Palestinian dispossession in 1948, waiving Palestinians’ historic claim to refugee right of return.

Palestinians remain fundamentally divided over the eventual goal of a two-state solution. Some Palestinian youth believe that one unified state is the only viable option for equality and universal human rights for all Palestinians. Sari Nusseibeh argues that if a negotiated two-state solution is not possible, dissolving the PA and focusing on the one-state solution is preferable to “enclaves of Palestinians living under the hegemony—military and otherwise—of Israel.” Thus, it may be easier for Palestinians to fight for their civil rights, access to adequate social services, and the right of return within a bi-national Israel-Palestinian state.

According to Farid Abdel-Nour, although one Palestinian narrative of the two-state vision sees surrender and accommodation to overwhelming Israeli power, an alternative narrative embodies the verdict of a global moral consensus associated with justice, international law, and Palestinian pride and dignity. Through this alternative narrative, international recognition of a Palestinian state could help imbue the two-state solution with its original meaning for Palestinians, rooted in the first intifada in 1987 when the Palestinian people demanded it for themselves. International recognition may also reinvigorate Palestinians with a new sense of political agency. These events may put pressure on Israel to discontinue settlement activity and end the blockade of Gaza, creating new avenues for direct negotiations. Under Fayyad’s guidance, the PA has helped to keep this second narrative of the two-state solution alive.

Ultimately, international recognition of the state of Palestine is a step in the right direction for peace, security, and protection of human rights in the region. Although UN status does not determine statehood and international recognition at the UN is not a panacea, a Palestinian declaration of independence would situate Palestine on an equal plane with Israel. It would create new avenues for Palestinians to gain access to international justice and accountability for violations of international law (including the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory). International recognition may also spur a new round of peace talks aimed at realizing the two-state solution, ending the impasse and bringing political actors back to the negotiating table. Many hopes have been dashed since the first intifada in 1987, yet the two-state solution remains the best possible option for restoring Palestinian dignity and ending the conflict’s bloodshed.

To view more on Palestinian Statehood: The UN and Beyond, click here.

Picture Credit: huffingtonpost.com

From Public Good to Private Profit: The Shifting Discourse on Land Grabbing

2011-09-06T17:29:00.000-04:00

The large-scale acquisition of land by foreign governments, hedge funds and private investors, commonly referred to as “land grabbing,” has accelerated exponentially in recent years. In a time of economic and environmental insecurity, investors view farmland as a tradable asset with the potential to deliver significant profits. Proponents of land grabs, including the World Bank and the UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), claim land deals are “win-win” situations where investors gain financially and host countries develop their economies and infrastructure to increase food security. In reality, land investments displace rural populations, often without any notice, and diminish their access to land, jobs, and food.

Trends in Land Grabbing

Land grabbing practices have evolved in the last decade. Today, the practice is not just limited to governments buying up land as part of their national food security strategy. Private investors, including Heads of State Muammar Gaddafi and Malian President Amadou Toumari Toure, are buying up land in Africa for personal gain. Harvard and Vanderbilt, two well-known American universities, have also been suspected of buying and leasing vast tracts of African farmland.

Many developing countries welcome agribusiness investments and offer fertile land to foreign investors at very low costs. The World Bank promotes these policies and provides technical assistance to governments to spur direct investment in agriculture in developing countries. This effectively incentivizes a trend that threatens global food security and the livelihoods of small-scale farmers. As of February 2011, at least 115 million acres of land were leased to foreign investors worldwide. Even in the newly independent state of South Sudan, as much as 9% of the land is said to be owned by foreign firms.

Land grabbing is no longer restricted to the developing countries in the South and has started to occur in the Global North. In the US, there is a new class of “gentlemen farmers” who are “buying wheat fields in Kansas and acres of soybeans in Indiana.” Investors unhappy with current investment options, such as risky stocks and bonds, have found that land is cheap, reliable, and increasingly valuable. This trend is becoming increasingly common-place: 25% of buyers in Iowa are investors.

Shifting Discourse

In recent years, the discourse around land grabbing has shifted dramatically. At first, land grabbing was marketed as a “responsible agricultural investment”—good for both farmers and investors. Today, land grabbing no longer holds the pretense of being an accountable practice and instead is branded as a positive investment for land buyers only.

Land-buyers understand these benefits and are purposefully vague when discussing their land deals. For example, CalyxAgro, a World Bank backed firm, advertises its services as “identifying, acquiring, transforming and operating agricultural land in Latin America.”This leaves the nature of “transformation” hidden and conceals the real motive behind the land buyer’s interest in the investment.

Although firms deny claims that small-scale farmers and indigenous peoples are forcibly moved from their villages, studies have found that land grabbing deprives pastoralists and peasants access to their land. A 2008 joint report by the FAO and the International Institute for Environment and Development found that in the Kisarawe district of Tanzania, a British firm acquired 9,000 hectares of land and “cleared 11 villages, which, according to the 2002 population census, were home to 11, 277 people.”

Proponents of land grabs claim that acquiring foreign land prompts investment in local infrastructure and benefits farmers; however, foreign direct investments in agriculture do not contribute to rural development. Those supposedly “benefitting” from land deals have called for an end to land grabbing. On June 22, 2011, a group of more than 500 NGOs delivered a petition to G20 leaders asking for a halt to land grabs. With food prices skyrocketing and wheat trading at record prices, institutions such as the World Bank must stop molding international food policy and promoting land deals. If left unchallenged, the consequences of land grabbing will be devastating.

To view more on Land Ownership & Hunger, click here.

Picture Credit: farmlandgrab.org

Syria: the Rule of Law vs. the Rule of Power in the Security Council

2011-07-22T16:10:00.015-04:00

Since early this year, Syria has been rocked by pro-democracy protests engendered by domestic problems and the toppling of autocratic leaders in Tunisia and Egypt. The Syrian government’s response to these protests has been violent. European countries and the US have advocated for a UN Security Council resolution condemning Syria’s human rights violations. However, Brazil, India and South Africa (3 of the 10 Elected Members) have threatened to vote against any such resolution. The UK, France and the US (3 of the Council’s 5 permanent members, often referred to as "the P3") have condemned the emergent powers for acting in their own self-interest. Such a claim, however, ignores the P3’s own biased use of international law as a framework to further geo-strategic interests.

The Situation in Syria

Syria has operated under Emergency Law since 1963, effectively suspending most constitutional protections for citizens and resulting in sweeping powers of arrest and detention for the security forces. The current Syrian president Bashar al-Assad succeeded his father Hafez al-Assad, who was in office from 1971 to 2000. Whilst citizens are entitled to vote for or against a presidential candidate, there is no open multi-party voting system.

Further, the imposition of neo-liberal policies has resulted in worsening conditions for the poor. The erosion of subsidies for basic goods and agriculture has negatively impacted local industry. At the same time wheat is trading at record prices. Unemployment, especially amongst the youth, has continued to rise. Such factors, together with examples from successful Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings, have brought people to the streets of numerous Syrian cities in predominantly peaceful protests.

The Syrian government has sought to cling to power by granting small concessions but primarily through the use of force. Syrian forces have fired upon protestors. It is estimated that 1,400 protestors have been killed. Numerous others have been detained. Youths have been arrested for writing pro-democracy graffiti. UNICEF has called upon Syria to investigate the reported killing of children. Amnesty International has received reports of Syrian forces firing on ambulances carrying the wounded and on trucks carrying families. Gross human rights violations have been, and continue to be, committed.

Syria in the Security Council and the Libyan Precedent

At the beginning of June, 2011, the UK, France, Germany and Portugal distributed, amongst the fifteen Council members, a draft resolution condemning the systematic human rights violations by Syrian authorities. Reuters reported that changes were made to the original draft resolution to make it look less like a prelude to military intervention. In the event that the draft resolution is put to a vote, Russia and China are likely to use their veto against it due to close historic and economic ties with Syria. Brazil, India and South Africa have expressed legitimate concerns with the draft resolution and have also threatened to vote against it. They have been chastised by the P3 and some NGOs for acting according to national interests and being obstructionist.

No one wants the human rights abuses to continue. However, there is a concern that if Syria does not comply with the resolution (and it is unlikely to), non-compliance will be used as a justification for an escalation of Western involvement in the country – whether permitted explicitly by the resolution or not.

Brazil, India and South Africa often cite UN Security Council Resolution 1973 (March 17, 2011) on Libya as justifying their concerns. Following attacks by the Libyan government on pro-democracy activists, this resolution called for the Gaddafi regime to undertake a ceasefire and end the violence and attacks against civilians. The resolution permitted “all necessary measures” to protect civilians and imposed a “no fly zone” in Libya.

Brazil and India abstained in the Council vote on resolution 1973 whilst South Africa voted for it. However, representatives from all three countries have now expressed concern that, rather than protect civilians, NATO forces in Libya are primarily concerned with regime change. Whilst there is no doubt that Gaddafi has been a violently repressive leader, regime change is not authorized under resolution 1973. Using the resolution on Libya as an example of NATO forces acting outside of a UN mandate, Brazil, South Africa and India have questioned whether, in the event that Syria does not comply with any future resolution, NATO forces will again act outside of the UN resolution to intervene militarily in Syria.

The P3 have vested interests in both Libya and Syria. The countries are strategically placed - the first in North Africa and the latter in the heart of the Middle East. The ultimate aim of a NATO led military intervention would probably be to instill a regime friendly to Western interests.

Double standards

The problem is also one of selectivity. Why are Western countries eager to take action in Libya, Sudan and Syria but not in Bahrain, Yemen or the occupied Palestinian territories where human rights abuses are also occurring? The answer usually given by the P3 is that each country is different and thus necessitates a different response. However, an examination of recent cases highlights that the P3 only act when their interests are at stake.

International law Professor Richard Falk has pointed to double standards in the use of the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine, which provides the basis of the Libyan resolution and which drives the current draft resolution on Syria. The principle is based on the idea that the international community has a responsibility to ensure that human rights are respected across the globe.

The P3 argue that they are acting with leadership and responsibility in calling for an end to human rights violations in Libya and Syria. At the same time, they portray Brazil, India and South Africa as irreverent “less-experienced” members –emerging powers that all want to become permanent members of the Council but who are refusing to take an important stand. But, surely, real leadership and responsibility would look to ensure the universal application of human rights norms in a manner that prevents all abuses.

Brazil, India and South Africa often act according to their own interests and should not be idealized as beacons of progressive resistance to Western imperialism. However, it is ridiculous to contend that the US, UK, France and others have not used the UN as a forum to further their own geo-strategic ends. The double standard is clear: Western countries promote the norms of international law when they correspond to geo-strategic interests, but otherwise neglect them.

Falk has said that the rule of law depends, for its legitimacy, on treating equals equally. If equals are treated unequally then what is called the rule of law is really just another version of the rule of power. Real responsibility would look to ensure that the human rights of all civilians were protected with the same enthusiasm – whether in Palestine, Bahrain or Syria. Responsible countries should not support any country engaging in policies that violate human rights.

The structure of the UN Security Council (with veto powers and permanent membership for the US, France, UK, China and Russia) is a form of constitutional recognition of double standards. Although the veto power constitutes an accommodation to geo-politics, it also inhibits the application of the rule of law on a global level.

Picture credit: Reuters

'The War You Don't See': Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel/Palestine

2011-06-24T17:54:00.006-04:00

Seven months prior to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, the UK government released a dossier asserting that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). In February, former US Secretary of State Colin Powell gave a speech at the United Nations where he emphatically outlined Iraq's supposed nuclear capabilities and alleged support of Islamic fundamentalism. We now know that the dossier, speech and other similar official statements were based on unreliable, inaccurate and deliberately doctored evidence. "The War You Don't See” is a 2010 British documentary film written, produced and directed by, the award-winning journalist, John Pilger. The film asks why mainstream media outlets were not more critical - in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq war - of claims that Iraq was developing WMDs, funding Islamic extremism and harboring terrorists.

Edward Bernays (who coined the phrase “public relations”) used fear to win US public support for the First World War. Bernays described public relations as “an invisible government” capable of acting as the ruling power through “the intelligent manipulation of the masses.” In the film, media historian Professor Stuart Ewen outlines how fear justified the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Iraq posed no real threat but came to symbolize the greatest threat - with the mainstream media adopting the symbolism. Facts no longer mattered. Steve Rendall gives the story of Associated Press journalist Charles Hanley. In January 2003, two months prior to the invasion of Iraq, Hanley reported that Iraq’s alleged nuclear sites (apparently responsible for developing WMDs) were inoperative. No mainstream media outlet published Hanley’s article. By failing to research, report or publish claims that were contrary to the official line, mainstream media outlets were complicit in generating public support for an unjust and arbitrary war.

Throughout the film, journalists “imbedded” within the US and UK militaries give personal accounts of how they were “taken-in” by effective propaganda machines. A UK Ministry of Defence cable released by Wikileaks reveals that independent journalists were considered “threats.” The bombing of Al-jazeera’s compound in Iraq is recounted and the lack of coverage given to civilian fatalities in Iraq and Afghanistan considered. Photo-journalist Guy Smallman provides an emotive narration of the Granai airstrike in Afghanistan. Carried out by US forces on May 4, 2009 in the Farah Province, the airstrike killed a large number of civilians, mostly children and women.The mainstream media gave little attention to the airstrike. In accordance with Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky’s propaganda model such victims are considered by the media as “unworthy” – highlighting their fate would threaten perceived US power interests in the region.

The Guardian film reviewer Peter Bradshaw said the film’s force was in its contention that civilian casualties are “to be ignored." However, the film also highlights the systemic bias within mainstream media outlets which, for a number of reasons, publish material that protects the interests of the powerful. Governments and oil companies continue to benefit from the Iraq war. At the same time, threats to US national security have increased as a direct result and while the people of Iraq no longer live under a brutal dictator, their lives remain insecure. Former British Foreign Office diplomat Carne Ross testifies to the unreported suffering inflicted on Iraqi civilians by the post-Gulf War economic sanctions and bombing, which went unquestioned by journalists reliant on official information channels. Journalists also failed to question why sanctions were being imposed long after Iraq ended its nuclear program. The film indicates that where great power interests are at stake the mainstream media will fail to ask the serious questions.

The film was due to have its US premier in the week of June 20, 2011 in Santa Fe at an event organized by the Lannan Foundation, a liberal organization advocating freedom of speech. Pilger was due to attend and discuss free speech, US foreign policy and censorship in the media. The film was, however, abruptly cancelled by the Lannan Foundation and Pilger’s visit cancelled. Pilger called it a “compelling symbol of our extraordinary times” where an “organization, espousing freedom of speech, has moved ruthlessly and unaccountably to crush it.”

The film is available for downloading here. The trailer and reviews are on Pilger's website www.johnpilger.com

Response to US State Department Statement on Israel and Palestine

2011-06-24T17:42:00.006-04:00

On June 15, 2011, the US State Department released a statement by Esther Brimmer (Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of International Organization Affairs) entitled “Multilateral Cooperation between the United States and Israel: Fighting Delegitimization, Moving Forward Together.” The statement had been delivered at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (NEP) and it illuminates Washington’s “unbreakable” and “ironclad” bond with Israel. With a second term election approaching, the Obama administration is courting the Israel lobby again.

Brimmer cites Washington’s “extensive military cooperation and assistance” to Israel as “one pillar” in an “unparalleled strategic partnership” with Israel. The administration, Brimmer says, will be “unshakeable” in its opposition to efforts that de-legitimize Israel. Apparently, the US will consider a Palestinian declaration of independent statehood at the UN, expected this September, as a de-legitimizing effort. “We reject” she said “counterproductive attempts to resolve permanent status issues at the UN.” Throughout the Arab Spring, civil society voices have called for a resolution to the Israel/Palestine conflict. Nonetheless, Brimmer lists numerous ways in which Washington has worked “tirelessly” to ensure that Israel’s “legitimacy” is not in dispute.

According to Brimmer, examples of Israel's "positive global agenda" include: aid, an appointment to the Human Rights Council’s Special Working Group on discrimination against women, and the passing of annual resolutions on agricultural technology. Such actions cannot absolve Israel of its responsibilities under international law, however. From the US perspective, Israel’s excessive use of force against Palestinian people is legitimate, it seems. Attempts to hold Israel accountable are perceived as “unbalanced” and “one-sided.” Israel and the US perceive any criticisms of Israel and calls upon Israel to comply with international law as “de-legitimizing” efforts.

Brimmer portrays the UN as a venue in which US power interests can be promoted rather than a venue that upholds universal standards or the rule of law. In 1967, the UN Security Council passed a unanimous resolution calling on Israel to withdraw from the territory it occupied during the Six Day War. In 2002, 72% of both Palestinians and Israelis supported a peace settlement based on the 1967 borders. International consensus on this has prevailed for more than twenty years. But negotiations have not implemented the 1967 resolution. Instead, over time, Israel has expanded its settlements in the territories and altered the demographic make-up of East Jerusalem. Nonetheless, the US continues to insist on a peaceful “negotiated settlement” rather than UN efforts.

UN Special Rapporteur Richard Falk has suggested that the Palestinians have been too patient and too willing to accept the role of Israel’s leading supporter as a mediating diplomatic force. The Palestinian National Authority is, therefore, looking towards the UN for a resolution. Indeed, if put to a vote, the UN General Assembly is likely to pass a resolution recognizing Palestine as an independent state. The US will veto any UN Security Council resolution on Palestinian membership in the UN. The threat of such a veto may convince the Palestinian National Authority to go back to the phantom negotiating table. More likely, though, the Palestinian National Authority will try to use a UN General Assembly resolution to gain wider recognition and press for real independence.

The Guantánamo Bay Files: Revealing the Mindset of the US Military

2011-05-02T10:03:00.003-04:00

The release of the “Guantánamo Bay files” has sent shockwaves throughout the global media, now busy pouring over the 759 detainee assessment dossiers. With files highlighting the reality that many Guantánamo inmates were either innocent or only low-level operatives in al-Qaeda or other terrorist organizations, further fingers are pointing at the suspected human rights abuses arising from the infamous Cuban prison. President Obama, who promised to oversee the closure of Guantánamo Bay within his first year of office, is set to face a challenging period ahead.

The “secret” classified documents which describe in detail particulars ranging from levels of threat indicators, to potentiality of prisoner release, range from 2002 to 2009. They list, amongst others Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, “mastermind” of the 9/11 attacks and Hambali (Ridouan Isomuddin), accused of organizing the 2002 Bali bombings, as well as Sami al-Hajj, an al-Jazeera cameraman inexplicably incarcerated for 6 years, and Naqib Ullah, aged just 14 when he was taken to Guantánamo. When reading through the dossiers, it becomes very clear just how many innocent victims were deported to the prison: approximately 150 Afghani and Pakistanis were captured post 9/11 in the hope of extracting minimal intelligence. Considering this gross mistreatment of innocent civilians, it is equally clear why the Pentagon has strongly condemned the leaks, claiming they could undermine its anti-terrorism efforts.

The Guantánamo Bay files offer a remarkable insight into the US military’s investigation and handling of suspected terrorist. However, Guantánamo remains a prison cloaked in secrecy and steeped in infamy. As revealing as the dossiers seem, many crucial issues such as torture, the role and existence of other prisons, and the compliance of client states are not tackled by the leaks. These official documents fail to address the inconvenient truths which would incriminate the practices of US military, as they provide detainee analysis as opposed to raw information. We witness the mindset of the interrogators, the piecing together of parts of the al-Qaeda puzzle and the fear-mongering assumptions made by the intelligence services. Only with the release of medical records, guard logs and CCTV footage, would the intimate details of the Guantánamo system ever become clear.

So what do the Guantánamo leaks reveal in these early days of release? Primarily, they send alarm bells ringing regarding the wide-scale incarceration of innocent victims, from an “incompetent” or knowingly unlawful US military. As Bernhard Docke, German lawyer informed Der Spiegel, "Guantanamo appears to be an autistic and Kafka-esque machine of suspicion in which vague conjecture, simply through the passage of time and constant repetition, becomes supposedly solid fact." The files consolidate suspicion that Guantánamo prisoners, innocent or not, are held in a state of perpetual limbo, apparently outside of any legal jurisdiction. Regardless of the lack of juicy details, the dossiers confirm that the US needs to drastically and speedily reform its anti-terror policy as the Wikileaks and whistle blowing phenomena sweep the globe.

The Tax that Would Never Happen

2011-03-25T11:26:00.008-04:00

A few weeks ago the European Parliament voted in support of a Europe-wide financial transaction tax. The vote is non-binding, but it marks an important step towards restoring the balance between a European population hit by the financial crisis and a still very unregulated and under-taxed financial sector.

A tiny tax on currency trade and other financial transactions (equities, certificates, derivatives) could help to both regulate the market and raise revenue to help pay for the bailouts of the banking sector, finance global development and tackle climate change.

A tax of between 0.01 and 0.05 percent could raise nearly 200 billion Euros on the EU-level and US$650 billion on a global level. Compare this to the US$32 billion that the United Nations and all its organs and agencies spend annually, or the US$140 billion that constitutes world official development assistance.

The European Parliament is far from the only high-level body that supports a tax on financial transactions. In Europe, the governments of France, Germany, Austria and Spain are supporting the tax. Further prominent business people and economists including George Soros, Warren Buffet, Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman and Jeffrey Sachs are backing the proposal.

The idea of a tax on currency transactions is not new. Economy Professor James Tobin originally proposed such a tax in the early 1970s to decrease harmful currency speculation by throwing “some sand in the wheels” of the markets. Since then, the foreign exchange market turnover has expanded dramatically to over $4 trillion per day. In the meantime, the tax has made it back on the agenda at regular intervals.

For example, after the Asian financial crisis in 1997-1998, economists, NGOs and progressive politicians called for a tax to prevent similar financial crises in the future. The idea remained controversial, however, with strong opposition from large banking centers like Wall Street and the City of London. Even supporters of the tax often expressed skepticism that it would ever gain sufficient political traction.

Then, after the turn of the millennium, global taxes were promoted again during high-level discussions at the UN on how to finance international development. In 2004-2005, French President Jacques Chirac and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio "Lula" da Silva, led a high-profile campaign supporting several kinds of international taxes to finance the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

Partly to minimize opposition, the campaign emphasized the revenue-raising aspects of the taxes and downplayed the vital role taxes can play in steering policies. But, powerful interests like banks and institutional investors kept vigorously opposing taxes on financial transactions and by June 2005 the high-profile campaign of Chirac and Lula had boiled down to discussions on a much less ambitious airline ticket tax.

Perhaps this time will be different. The global financial crisis has turned things on its head. Banks and financial institutions no longer enjoy the same amount of trust or clout. Citizens are questioning the favors and benefits given to the banks and financial institutions that caused the global crisis and governments are having to respond to those concerns.

Where have all the fish gone? Have we reached the end of the line?

2011-03-15T15:36:00.003-04:00

By 2048 we might have a world without seafood. Bluefin tuna, cod, salmon, snapper or halibut will not exist in our diets because they will have been fished out. Even clams, lobster and shrimp are at risk.

The End of the Line, the first major documentary film revealing the impact of overfishing, examines the impact of human fish consumption on the world’s oceans. Charles Clover, the investigative journalist who wrote the book on which the film is based, confronts politicians and restaurateurs who seem to care very little about the destruction of our oceans. Clover says that, "we must stop thinking of our oceans as a food factory and realize that they thrive as a huge and complex marine environment.”

Multiple reasons have caused the current crisis. Consumers demand more variety of fish and unknowingly eat unsustainably caught seafood. According to a recent report on the decline of predator fish, humans have caught and consumed over 65 per cent of all large fish species in the last 100 years. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that over 70% of the world’s fish species are either fully exploited or depleted. Experts say that this ecological imbalance will forever change the oceans, with only small fish such as sardines and anchovies surviving in future decades.

Governments and politicians overlook the advice of scientists who set limits on the numbers of fish which should be caught to maintain and restore depleting fish species. The UN Environment Program says international organizations and governments should regulate the number of fishing boats and the days they fish in order to stabilize fish populations.

Furthermore, the global fishing industry reacts slowly to a fish crises on which their livelihoods depend. Fishermen discard more than 10 per cent of all the fish caught for human consumption. As much as two-thirds of the fish caught in some areas ends up back into the water, usually dead. EU rules specify that when a quota for one species is exceeded, fishermen must throw surplus catch back into the ocean. EU Ministers plan to make the most radical change to fisheries policy in 40 years: a common fisheries policy, aiming to reform fishing quotas. Fishermen do not need to throw away their by-catch. This is a small step in the right direction. However more people should be educated about eating sustainable seafood, and politicians should respect the science and support the creation of marine reserves.

To view the End of the Line trailer and website, click here.

The Economics of Happiness: Think Localization, Act Against Globalization

2011-02-16T15:06:00.004-05:00

This new documentary film asks the viewer to think about the problems caused by globalization and to consider the benefits of localization. The film makers urge the audience to consider a different lifestyle, leading to greater happiness and wellbeing through interdependence at a community level. The films’ underlying thesis is that “going local” is a powerful strategy to help repair our fractured world – our ecosystems, our societies and our selves’. The imagery evokes a feel-good response from the viewer and inspires the audience to build collective civil society movements that support the growth of local food, local businesses and eventually local economies.

Directors Helena Norberg-Hodge, Steven Gorelick, and John Page blame globalization - an unsustainable global economic system - for many modern problems like climate change, poverty, hunger and the epidemic of depression. In addition, the film shows how globalization “breeds cultural self-rejection, competition, and divisiveness” as well as how it “structurally promotes growth of slums and urban sprawl”.
The Economics of Happiness then offers practical solutions to counter the negative effects of globalization. Activists can use messages from the film to grow local movements and increase support for wellbeing, the environment and community at a local level. The film makers anticipate that society as a whole will become happier if action is taken at a community level to localize.

Whilst globalization appears to be a phenomenon knowing no bounds and few alternatives, peoples’ movements, like the one this film is seeking to build, show that the effects are neither irreversible nor inevitable. We can all work together to shape an alternate future where local traditions, cultures and communities are preserved, ultimately safeguarding our happiness. We can build a globalization of cooperation, solidarity, and respect for the environment while simultaneously restoring our own sense of wellbeing and faith in humanity.

To find out more about the film, click here.

To find out more on GPFs position on globalization, click here.

“Haiti: We Must Kill the Bandits” – Recently Released Documentary Offers Searing Indictment of UN Intervention in Haiti

2011-01-17T14:41:00.004-05:00

While the world focuses on the one-year anniversary of the earthquake that devastated Haiti, a recently released documentary is a welcome reminder that Haiti’s history didn’t start in 2010. Haiti: We Must Kill the Bandits offers an uncompromising perspective on the years 2004-2005, when Haiti went through a coup that ousted democratically elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide and a subsequent occupation by foreign troops under a UN Security Council mandate. The director, Kevin Pina, a Creole-speaking American journalist who has lived in Haiti on and off for 15 years, tells a story that has so far largely been outshone by the official narrative.

The title of Pina’s documentary is borrowed from General Augusto Heleno Ribeiro Pereira, the military commander for the UN peacekeeping force in Haiti from 2004 to 2006. Pereira allegedly claimed that “we” – presumably the UN in conjunction with the Haitian police - had to “kill the bandits – but it will have to be only the bandits, not everybody.” He was referring to the armed gangs reportedly operating from the Cité Soleil slum in Port-au-Prince. The thought of an officer in charge of a UN peacekeeping mission describing his mission as “killing” is disturbing enough, but the term “bandit” also has a heavy historical background. During the 1915-1934 US occupation of Haiti, the Marines were already rounding up “bandits,” as all the young men who were fighting against the US military presence were called. “Bandits” became a popular term to label the resistance movement. That the UN should embrace it decades later is disturbing.

Haiti: We Must Kill the Bandits follows what happened in Haiti after President Aristide was ousted by a coup in February 2004. While Aristide was forcibly flown to Africa, the Multinational Interim Force (MIF) – mainly US, Canadian and French troops - was sent to Haiti under a Security Council mandate, supposedly to offer “humanitarian” protection to the population. This intervention brought to power a government led by Gérard Latortue, a former UN official who lived in the US at the time of the coup.

In June 2004, the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) took over from the MIF. The mission was headed by General Pereira from Brazil, and staffed mainly with Brazilian soldiers. A US cable from March 2004 released by Wikileaks reveals that Brazil first insisted that it would only participate in a peacekeeping mission sent under Chapter VI, but in the end conceded to a Chapter VII mission (see paragraph 4 of the cable). This is not trivial. While Chapter VI missions are “traditional” peacekeeping missions – they require the agreement of all parties concerned and impose heavy restraints on the use of force by peacekeepers – Chapter VII missions can be defined as “peace enforcement” rather than “peacekeeping.” For a Chapter VII mission to be deployed, the Security Council has to determine that the situation constitutes a serious threat to international peace and security. Under Chapter VII, the mandate outlines circumstances in which peacekeepers are permitted to fire their arms, for instance to protect UN personnel or civilians.

The Chapter VII MINUSTAH was mandated, among other things, to “ensure a secure and stable environment” in “support of the Transitional Government” (the Latortue government) and “to assist with the restoration and maintenance of the rule of law, public safety and public order in Haiti through the provision inter alia of operational support to the Haitian National Police and the Haitian Coast Guard.” In other words, the Security Council was lending support to a de facto regime with a heavily-armed peacekeeping mission, contributing to the militarization of the situation in Haiti. After watching Pina’s documentary, one is left with the impression that MINUSTAH was sent less to “keep peace” than to perform riot control. “Without the UN, this government would fall in a week,” Pina rightly points out.

The UN peacekeeping force effectively assisted the Latortue government in its efforts to silence supporters of Aristide’s party Lavalas under the guise of fighting the “bandits.” Pina’s documentary presents compelling evidence that activists from Lavalas suffered harsh repression at the hands of both the Haitian police and MINUSTAH. Large Lavalas demonstrations starting from Cité Soleil, a bastion of Aristide supporters, were met with violence by the Haitian police. While the UN officially condemned the killing of demonstrators by the police, a shocking footage from the documentary shows that in one occasion General Pereira refused to intervene even as demonstrators were being shot a few meters away.

Worse still, in July 2005, MINUSTAH led an assault on Cité Soleil against the “bandits.” 22,000 rounds were shot in just seven hours. The footage from the raid’s aftermath is difficult to watch, even though Pina blurred some of the most graphic footage. We see a woman wailing as the body of her dead husband lies on the floor of their house, and a young priest showing the bullet impacts on the walls of his church. A blind man nursing several gunshot wounds sings a tune he composed after the raid to lament the death of his two children.The chorus goes “What have I done to you, MINUSTAH foreigners?”

The voice of these people is rarely heard in the establishment media. When it is mentioned, it is often to dismiss it as “propaganda.” As journalist Isabel MacDonald underlines in her review of the documentary, “Haiti: We Must Kill the Bandits provides a rare account from the other side of the vast racialized class divide that separates the international press from Lavalas’ base of support.” Kevin Pina may show only one side of the story – he acknowledges it at the beginning of the documentary - but it’s a side that remains badly underreported. His documentary is a must-see for anyone trying to go beyond the worn-down clichés the media use to describe the crisis in Haiti.

We Must Kill the Bandits can be seen here.

More info on the Haiti Information Project (HIP), the alternative media organization which produced the documentary, can be found here.

Ansel Herz, a freelance journalist based in Port-Au-Prince, published on his blog an interesting comparative review of Pina’s documentary and “The Battle for Haiti,” a PBS documentary which “lauds the United Nations peacekeeping mission and the Haitian police for waging a heroic but doomed battle against violent gangs.”

Picture credit: Reuters, 2007

So what is going on with Af-Pak? A review of a week's coverage of the Afghan war

2010-12-20T11:27:00.010-05:00

Anyone reading the news about Afghanistan last week would be forgiven for being confused. In the course of a few days readers were submerged with a series of contradictory headlines. On December 14, we were told that “Intelligence Reports Offer Dim View of Afghan War.” The following day, another article reported that “For Red Cross, Aid Conditions Hit New Low in Afghanistan.” This left us ill-prepared for the December 16 announcement by Barack Obama that his strategy in Afghanistan is “on track.” So what exactly is going on there? Three conflicting narratives – from US intelligence agencies, NGOs on the ground and the US military, respectively - are competing for the public’s attention. Whose narrative should we trust?

Losing “hearts and minds”

The picture painted by NGOs on the ground is not pretty. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) gave a news conference this week to “express deep concern that Afghanistan security had deteriorated to its worst point since the overthrow of the Taliban nine years ago.” This is particularly significant given that the ICRC usually avoids the public eye and rarely voices its concerns so openly. But it chose to break its usual reserve to report that the number of Afghan civilians killed or forced to leave their home has steadily increased “against the backdrop of a proliferation of armed actors.” Reading between the lines, some might see a thinly veiled reference to the 30,000 troop surge ordered by Obama when he took office.

While civilian casualties have risen, relief workers have also been victims of worsening violence. At least 100 workers have been killed so far this year, the worst tally since the war started. This has prompted a sharp reexamination of the US strategy to win “hearts and minds,” which NGOs accuse of militarizing humanitarian aid. The US counterinsurgency strategy is based on associating development aid to the military push, which is illustrated by the “Provincial Reconstruction Teams” (PRTs) staffed by both troops and civilians. Most of the time, these civilians turn out to be contractors from profit-making private development companies. Not surprisingly, they have often been targeted by insurgents as being part of the conflict. Eighty aid contractors employed by USAID were killed this year. While NATO officials argue that the insurgents don’t distinguish between aid workers, NGOs such as Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) have managed to operate relatively safely by not becoming associated with any program strengthening the government. As one member of MSF points out, “the government is just one of many warring parties.”

Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Pakistan

The US counterinsurgency strategy is failing and more civilians are being killed than ever. But for US intelligence agencies, the biggest problem in Afghanistan is not the US military presence, of course. It’s Pakistan. Two reports released this week – one on Afghanistan and one on Pakistan – argue that there can be no success in Afghanistan unless Pakistan agrees to hunt down insurgents operating from safe havens across the border. The reports lament Pakistan’s lack of cooperation with the US even when it’s accepting $2 billion in so-called “aid” money (most of it goes to the Pakistani military).

Pakistani citizens, whose opinion is rarely considered worth hearing, would beg to disagree with the assertion that the Pakistani government doesn’t take US interests to heart. Diplomatic cables recently published by Wikileaks reveal – or rather, confirm - the degree of corruption within the Pakistani government and the ease with which it acquiesces to US demands. In 2008, for example, Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gilani told American Ambassador Anne Paterson that he “didn’t care” if drone strikes were launched against his country as long as the “right people” were targeted. “We’ll protest in the National Assembly,” Gilani added cynically, “and then ignore it.” As Pakistani writer Tariq Ali puts it: “The WikiLeaks confirm what we already know about Af-Pak. Pakistan is a US satrapy: its military and political leaders constitute a venal elite happy to kill and maim its people at the behest of a foreign power.” Researchers at the New America Foundation estimate that between 1,283 and 1,971 people have been killed since drone strikes started 6 years ago.

Incidentally, more than 100 drone strikes were reported during this year alone, up from 53 last year. Apparently this is still not enough for the CIA, which has been running this not-so-covert war since the Bush era. No doubt these recent intelligence reports are aimed at pressuring the Obama administration to step up US war efforts in Pakistan.

The Al Qaeda red herring

Not that Obama needs any pressuring, really. Pakistan was right at the center of his speech on the Afghanistan review. While the review was more optimistic about the situation in Afghanistan than the intelligence reports, it also targeted Pakistan as being critical to achieving anything close to success. The Obama administration is planning to step up attacks against insurgents in the tribal areas, which means more strikes using Predator and Reaper drones. The old Al-Qaeda bogeyman has been brought out of the closet to justify what is slowly becoming a full-fledged war on Pakistan. "Today, al-Qaeda's senior leadership in the border region is under more pressure than at any point since they fled Afghanistan nine years ago” says Obama. This means, of course, that strikes have to be intensified to preserve the momentum.

Let me get this straight. About a year ago it was reported that Al Qaeda had a grand total of 300 members in the tribal areas of Pakistan. This year there has already been 100 drone strikes, which killed more than 1,200 people. Almost every time the establishment media, dutifully relaying official statements, identified the dead as “militants” or “suspected militants.” And still we are to believe that more strikes are needed to completely defeat Al Qaeda. Next we’ll learn that it has found a way to clone its members.

Who to believe?

So which of these 3 narratives sound more convincing? The difference between the US intelligence agencies’ position and that of their military counterpart shouldn’t be overstated. Although one is slightly more optimistic than the other, ultimately they both advocate for the same thing: intensification of the war on Pakistan. We are told that there’s a “dispute” between the military and intelligence agencies (see this NY Times article) and a debate within the Obama administration, but in reality they’re just two sides of the same coin.

The problem in Afghanistan is not Pakistan. The problem is that the US is following the path of every colonial power before it. The occupation and counterinsurgency are creating a major backlash among the population, who’s getting tired of being “liberated” after 9 years of war. This is something that neither the military nor the intelligence agencies can acknowledge, of course. Instead they’re hoping that pointing their fingers at Pakistan long enough and screaming “Al Qaeda! Al Qaeda!” at the top of their lungs will create enough distraction so that people forget to look at what’s really going on in Afghanistan. But are we seriously supposed to believe that the solution to Afghanistan’s woes is to increase strikes on Pakistan, a country that recently experienced a natural catastrophe worse than the Asian tsunami of 2004, the Pakistan earthquake of 2005, and the recent earthquake in Haiti combined, and that is already incredibly volatile?

A Goodies Basket of Diplomatic and Security Guarantees for Israel – In exchange For a Mere 90-Day Settlement Freeze

2010-11-23T15:13:00.020-05:00

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel seems to have secured enough votes from his Security Cabinet to approve a US-backed settlement freeze which is suppose to break the current impasse in the peace negotiations with the Palestinians. The Washington Times reported that Mr. Netanyahu brought the proposal before the Cabinet with “great determination” to secure a positive vote. According to the New York Times, President Obama commends Mr. Netanyahu for taking such a constructive step – “it’s not easy for him to do.”

From these descriptions, one is led to think that Mr. Netanyahu is making quite a noble effort in the name of peace by accepting the harsh terms of the proposed freeze. Hardly. For a mere 90-day freeze on construction in the West Bank – Jerusalem is excluded from the freeze – Mr. Netanyahu is being handed a goodies basket of diplomatic and security guarantees from the US. The deal is incredibly lop-sided especially considering the widespread opinion internationally that Israel is violating international law by continuing settlement construction.

The proposed deal, negotiated by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, means Hanukkah has come early for Mr. Netanyahu. In exchange for a one-time-only 90-day settlement moratorium, Israel will receive 20 F35 Jets worth $3 billion, a promise that the US will veto any future Security Council resolution that recognizes Palestinian statehood in the West Bank, Jerusalem and Gaza without Israeli agreement, as well as assurances that the Obama administration will not press for any further settlement freezes. Yet supposedly this was “not easy” for Mr. Netanyahu to accept.

The effect this deal will have on the peace process is questionable. The effect this deal will have on broader peace and security in the Middle East is unfortunately clear. The new F35 Joint Strike Fighters Jets that are part of the deal have not yet even been deployed to US forces. Funneling more highly advanced arms into the Middle East, while a welcome boon for US arms exporters, will only fuel the upward spiral of military spending and the Middle East regional arms race. Meanwhile, despite showering Israel with gifts, the Palestinian question will in all likelihood still remain unresolved once the 90-day freeze is over.

“We had to destroy them to make them safe”: Orwell in Afghanistan

2010-11-18T11:41:00.009-05:00

The New York Times reported yesterday that NATO troops in Afghanistan have launched a widespread campaign to destroy abandoned homes and farms thought to be “booby-trapped.” As troops advance in newly won districts around the city of Kandahar, they are encountering buildings left heavily rigged with explosives by Taliban insurgents. In the name of safety, NATO has undertaken to systematically destroy almost every unoccupied home or unused farm building in areas where it is operating. Troops are using an impressive – and, some might say, disproportionate - array of tools including “armed bulldozers, high explosives, missiles and even airstrikes.”

According to the Times, the campaign has garnered widespread support from Afghan officials, and even part of the local population. The common wisdom is that there is no other way to get rid of the explosives and protect the population. In a twist that smacks of Newspeak, an Afghan official argues that “we had to destroy them to make them safe.” “Destroying to Save Lives” is the Orwellian title the Times has chosen for the slideshow illustrating the article. War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is power, and destruction is protection.

These “house-borne improvised explosive devices,” as the troops have taken to call them, certainly represent a danger to both the US military and Afghan civilians. However, they are being used as an alibi to justify a wider campaign of destruction aimed at depriving the Taliban of hiding places and fighting positions. As the Times underlines, the US military is not only destroying homes, but also “tree lines where insurgents could hide” and “agricultural walls.”

This is eerily reminiscent of the strategy adopted by the US during the Vietnam war, when the military used massive quantities of Agent Orange to destroy forests and deprive the National Liberation Front guerilla of food and cover. The defoliation program was also aimed at driving the rural population away from the countryside to US-controlled cities, thus removing the guerilla’s support base.

The enemy has changed, but the strategy hasn’t. Nor have the justifications for it. Then as now destruction was presented as a necessary step for protection: if the communists take control of Vietnam / if Afghanistan becomes a safe haven for Al Qaeda, it will be the end of the civilized world as we know it. If what happened in Vietnam is any indication, apparently Afghanistan will only be deemed completely safe once it is totally destroyed.

Punish the whistleblowers, reward the passive onlookers: the staggering double standard around US war crimes

2010-11-11T15:58:00.006-05:00

The US Justice Department has announced that it would not press charges over the destruction of CIA videotapes depicting the “enhanced interrogation” of terrorism suspects. In 2005, Jose Rodriguez Jr, a top CIA official, authorized the destruction of 92 tapes showing two detainees being repeatedly waterboarded. Although the CIA was instructed by a court law not to destroy evidence of torture, CIA officials argue that their motive was innocent: they were only trying to protect the identity of the interrogators.

This decision shocked many civil liberties and human rights groups. However, it is consistent with the stance adopted by the Obama administration, which has vowed to “look forward, not backwards,” and has made no serious efforts to investigate crimes committed during the so-called “war on terror.” Not surprisingly, the very people who attempted to cover up the widespread use of torture against terrorism suspects are walking free. According to one of Rodriguez’ attorneys, he “is an American hero, a true patriot who only wanted to protect his people and his country.” And his own back.

Conversely, attempts to “look back” are not welcome, and whistleblowers are being treated like criminals. The website Wikileaks angered many powerful people when it published classified documents on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. These documents revealed how the US military was responsible for the widespread killing of civilians, and had passively condoned the torture of detainees at the hands of Iraqi security forces.

Bradley Manning, the US soldier accused of leaking classified military documents on the Afghan war to Wikileaks, could face a 52 year sentence. Salon’s Glenn Greenwald reported this week that US citizens associated with Wikileaks had been detained at US airports and their electronic equipments seized, “all without a search warrant, without being charged with a crime, and without even being under investigation.” In July, Jacob Applebaum, a spokesman for Wikileaks, was detained at Newark airport while returning from a trip and interrogated at length. His electronic equipment was confiscated, and still has to be handed back to him to this day. Last week, David House, a 23-year-old researcher who created the Bradley Manning Support Network, was detained at O’Hare airport and interrogated by two FBI agents.

Accusing Wikileaks of having blood on its hands was not enough. Now the US government has seemingly launched a campaign of harassment and intimidation against Wikileaks and its supporters. Meanwhile, in the name of “looking forward,” charges are being dropped against the people responsible for covering up the systematic torture of detainees. How long will it be before looking backward becomes a crime?

The NYT and the art of selective reporting: Women suicides by fire in Afghanistan

2010-11-08T13:58:00.006-05:00

Last August, Time Magazine used as its cover a shocking picture of Aisha, a young Afghan woman who was sentenced to have her nose and ears cut off by a Taliban commander. Next to the picture was the caption “What Happens if We Leave Afghanistan” - no question mark. Time’s cover was seen by many as a thinly veiled attempt to justify the war in Afghanistan by way of the long debunked argument that the US-led intervention is about protecting women. Although the situation of Afghan women has certainly not markedly improved since 2001, they still serve as a convenient alibi for US war efforts in the region.

This was illustrated again this morning by an article in the New York Times. “For Afghan Wives, a Desperate, Fiery Way Out” might be less obvious in its politics than Time’s cover, but its take on the plight of Afghan women is very similar. The article focuses on the high number of women who each year attempt to commit suicide by setting themselves on fire. Most women resort to this extreme act after years of abuse by their husband and their family. In some cases, the burns are actually inflicted by relatives, as a way to get rid of a woman who has “stained” the family’s honor.

No doubt the fate of these women is terrible. However, the Times’ coverage of the situation is severely lacking. Not once in the article does the author mention that the US has been occupying Afghanistan for almost 10 years now. There is absolutely no examination of how this might affect the situation of Afghan women. While the article states that women are attempting suicide to escape “from poverty, from forced marriages, from the abuse and despondency,” it is careful not to add “war” to the list of ills affecting women in Afghanistan. The fact that women are often the first victims of conflict – which robs them of their husbands, confines them to their home, forces them to move as troops advance, and often kills them – never seems to cross the author’s mind. The suffering of Afghan women is not worth reporting if it’s inflicted by anyone else than those backward Afghan men. “Violence in the lives of Afghanistan’s women comes from everywhere: from her father or brother, from her husband, from her father-in-law, from her mother-in-law and sister-in-law” – but certainly not at the hands of US soldiers.

Tellingly, when the article mentions that the number of burn cases is “up nearly 30 percent from last year,” it never links this increase to the escalating US war efforts in the region. The addition of 30,000 US troops in Afghanistan last year appears nowhere. It’s as if the lives of these women and the US military intervention were happening in two parallel universes.

This selective reporting allows the author to subtly reinforce the idea that Afghan women need protection. By pointing to the gruesome fate of these women, the article implies that they’re in need of a benevolent benefactor that will “liberate” them. But the US intervention so far has had the opposite effect. If anything, it has made life more difficult for these women. While the article mentions that poverty is one of the lead causes of suicide, it evades the question of how women’s livelihoods have been affected by the war. By omitting this fact and others, the Times seems to be suggesting that the solution to the plight of Afghan women is more war, not less.

Washington’s Huge New Arms Deal with Saudi Arabia: a reality check for the MDG conference at the United Nations

2010-09-16T16:47:00.000-04:00

When political leaders from around the world gather at the UN to consider the Millennium Development Goals, there will be plenty of rhetoric about commitments to reduce poverty, hunger and disease. But the real commitment of the powerful players is certainly not to “pro-poor” policies, as we are daily reminded.

Providing a reality-check on international priorities, the Wall Street Journal announced on September 15 that US aviation firms will be selling $60 billion in arms to Saudi Arabia for advanced fighter jets and military helicopters. The paper reported that there is also a $30 billion package for naval ships in the pipeline and another large contract for ballistic missile defense under discussion. The Saudis will obtain 84 new F-15 fighters, along with dozens of Apache, Black Hawk and Little Bird helicopters – one of the biggest arms deals of all time. Struck in the midst of an economic crisis, the deal has been hyped in Washington as a “major job creator,” a source of economic stimulus, and an important gesture to a friendly ally.

Oil for arms – that is the essence of the arrangement -- with hefty profits on both ends of the deal. At a time when governments are slashing their budgets and tens of millions are unemployed, this is one of the sickening “solutions” that are being offered, to promote economic recovery.

Such deals inevitably touch off local arms races and prestige purchases. The Israelis will be buying from the same companies an even more advanced and long-range fighter, the F-35. The oil-rich Emirates are on their own arms-buying spree. And we can imagine that the Iranians, fearful of this flood of new weapons in the neighborhood, will be desperately hustling for additional means of defense.

The arms trade is definitely about wealth promotion, not poverty alleviation. First and foremost, the great arms deals enrich the company shareholders. The deals also involve massive corruption that enriches political and military figures. Consider, the last great Saudi arms contract, the Al-Yamanah deal, worth £40 billion, struck with UK arms giant BAE. The company, keen to sell its advanced Tornado fighter aircraft, doled out millions to members of the Saudi royal family, notably Prince Turki Bin Nasser, Commander and senior procurement officer of the Royal Saudi Air Force. Using fake offshore accounts and secret Swiss bank arrangements, BAE showered Prince Turki and his family with luxurious travel and expensive playthings - even a gold-plated Rolls Royce.

Sir Dick Evans, BAE chief executive, had earlier assured the House of Commons that his firm was “in complete compliance” with strict anti-corruption rules. But the UK Serious Fraud Office smelled malfeasance and began an investigation. Suddenly, on orders from Downing Street, the whole enterprise of investigation was shut down in late 2006. Prime Minister Blair had determined that the investigation was contrary to the country’s “strategic interest!” The Saudi royals were relieved.

Of course, Washington will insist that it has more robust rules, that everything is on the up-and-up, that oversight is working well with the new arms deal. But no credible evidence leads to such a conclusion.

As for the world’s poor, they will have to wait their turn. After the arms bills and the slush funds have been paid, the banks bailed out and the wars waged, perhaps something will be left over for the Millennium Development Goals.

France's Plutocracy - the Bettencourt Scandal shakes the Republic

2010-09-14T14:14:00.003-04:00

A scandal is shaking France, with all the ingredients of a mystery thriller: an aging heiress, her alleged gifts of manilla envelopes stuffed with money for illicit campaign contributions, an island in the Seychelles owned through secret accounts in Luxembourg, a butler who surreptitiously records his employer’s conversations, other offshore accounts and tax-avoiding schemes centered on Switzerland, and sordid political implications that reach high into the national leadership, including the president of the republic, Nicolas Sarkozy.

Known as L’Affaire Bettencourt, after the heiress, Lilliane Bettencourt, the scandal has been grabbing headlines in Europe for weeks, as police carry out searches and the internet hums with newly-disclosed treasures of information on the case. Bettencourt, worth $20 billion, is heiress to the L'Oreal cosmetics fortune.

Such a scandal reveals, in all its sordid detail, the inner workings of France's plutocratic system. Thanks to the butler’s recordings, comments by accountants, and other evidence dug up by the judicial police, we see how the super-rich pour money into political campaigns through secret contributions in defiance of strict limits in the law. The facts of the case are not yet proven and perhaps never will be, but there is strong evidence in the form of a cash withdrawal of fifty thousand euros just prior to an alleged meeting at which money was said to have been funneled secretively into Sarkozy’s campaign war chest.

Then there are the offshore bank accounts and properties that Madame Bettencourt owns, in spite of French laws banning such tax-evasion arrangements. Ironically, Eric Woerth, then Budget Minister, made public gestures to close down offshore abuses, while his wife was working at the time for the money managers of Mme. Bettencourt, who were actively maintaining large offshore holdings. As treasurer of Sarkozy’s party, Woerth was almost certainly involved in the illicit contribution scheme and he has now resigned from that post. But he continues as Minister of Labor, in charge of a major rollback of French public pensions. To curry favor with Woerth, Mme. Bettencourt’s key financial advisor gave a cushy job to Woerth’s wife, according to his own report in one of the tape recorded conversations.

Recently the scandal has taken another nasty turn. When Le Monde newspaper published leaked police documents revealing further evidence of Eric Woerth’s complicity, France’s domestic intelligence service opened a secret investigation to track down the leaker – in direct violation of national laws protecting journalists’ sources. Le Monde has accused President Sarkozy of himself ordering the investigation, in defiance of a press law he introduced into the National Assembly in January. Sarkozy is fighting for his political future, and no holds are barred to protect the plutocracy and their dear friends in government.

Diamonds are Forever?

2010-08-13T04:11:00.002-04:00

“I’m used to seeing diamonds shiny and in a box.“ At least now we know why Naomi Campbell gave the “dirty looking stones” to the Nelson Mandela Children’s fund. They just weren’t shiny enough.

Yes, like many, I also watched Campbell testify before the Special Court for Sierra Leone Court last week. I had routinely switched on CNN and found myself in the middle of a live broadcast of Campbell’s account of what happened that midnight in September 1997, in the Cape Town home of the then South African President Nelson Mandela.

It was quite on surreal to watch Campbell – a British supermodel of Chinese Jamaican descent known for her unique look, but also her anger-management problems – testify before an international court in a case against former Liberian President Charles Taylor, who has been charged with murder, rape, mutilation and sexual slavery during wars in Liberia and Sierra Leone. The prosecutors had asked the UN-backed Court to subpoena the British supermodel in order to link the Liberian former president to ‘blood diamonds’ which he allegedly received from the Sierra Leone’s rebel group Revolutionary United Front (RUF) in exchange for arms and munitions.

In the end, Ms. Campbell, the defense counsel, the lead prosecutor, and the court’s presiding judge managed to put up quite a show. Campbell revealed that she received some “small, dirty looking stones” in her room from strange men, that she had “actually never heard of Liberia at that time”, and that her appearance before the Court had been “a big inconvenience to her.” Then there was the embarrassing dispute between the lead prosecutor and the judge on whether Campbell was actually the Court’s or the prosecutor’s witness. It almost seemed as if both realized that Campbell’s testimony had actually been a waste of time and that it had only served the huge media frenzy surrounding Campbell’s appearance before the Court.

Campbell’s testimony attracted an excess of mainstream media to the tiny Dutch city of Leidschendam – a city that no one outside the Netherlands had ever heard of – to cover the matter. In addition, CNN, among other networks, provided a live broadcast of Campbell’s testimony for over an hour and a half. After actress Mia Farrow – another big star – testified before the Court last Tuesday, CNN even decided to interview the US Ambassador at Large for War Crimes, Stephen J. Rapp, to clarify matters.

This attention on Campbell’s testimony has been extremely disproportionate compared to the scarce media coverage of the Charles Taylor case in the previous years. This “celebrity meets war crimes suspect incident” seems to be very unfortunate for the victims of the Sierra Leonean civil war or victims of any ongoing armed conflict in Africa. Guardian blogger, Marina Hyde, has characterized it perfectly by stating that we should “hope that Janjaweed militia are making a pitch for posterity by sending baskets of muffins to Lindsay Lohan, because if and when they are ever brought to justice, they sure as Shirley aren’t going to make the major bulletins without that kind of news peg.”

Soon after Campbell’s show performance, the Court resumed with the continuation of the evidence of Issa Hassan Sesay, the convicted former interim leader of the RUF, which Mr. Taylor is accused of receiving blood diamonds from. CNN, however, had already shifted its focus to other important news.

Histories in a Time of War

2010-08-05T14:02:00.006-04:00

A recent article by Christian Caryl in Foreign Policy Magazine criticizes the mainstream view of Afghanistan as an unconquerable “graveyard of empires” where the US effort is “doomed to fail.” Caryl’s point – that the popular conception of Afghanistan’s past lacks real knowledge of the region’s history – is well-taken. He argues that this understanding is based on the past 30 years of the country i.e. beginning at the time of the Soviet invasion. However, Caryl offers his own, equally reductive account of Afghan history. In a nutshell he says: Afghanistan has been part of one empire or another since the 5^th Century BC. So, the Soviet intervention was a “radical break with the country’s past, not an extension of it” and the US has a chance to help Afghans “attain the future they deserve.”

Caryl’s article shows how the Western historical accounts of regions involved in the War on Terror are tailored in accordance with shifts in policy. The reworking of Afghanistan from an empire-beater to a region that has been (and thus can be) successfully ruled by an outside power appears just as the WikiLeaks controversy has raised domestic doubts in the US about Washington’s war in Afghanistan and as the US Congress has nevertheless decided to continue funding a force surge there. Caryle reduces the battle over the historical portrayal of Afghanistan to a dichotomy of “unconquerable” versus “conquerable” and the “graveyard of empires” versus the “cradle of empires.”

The history of Iraq has also been spun and re-spun during the War on Terror. In the early period of the US invasion of Iraq, a black and white narrative was touted with Saddam Hussain as the evil tyrant and an undifferentiated Iraqi mass as victims awaiting freedom. Only after civil war erupted in Iraq did accounts of deep-rooted sectarian conflict and a history of “complex” ethnic relations emerge. When Saddam Hussain’s overthrow did not result in a clear “mission accomplished” result, Saddam’s portraiture changed. Toby Dodge, a well-known policy analyst, laid out a revised understanding of Saddam Hussain in his 2005 book “Inventing Iraq”:

[…] Saddam Hussain must be understood less as the cause of Iraq’s violent political culture- or even of Iraq’s role as a source of regional instability – and more as the symptom, albeit an extremely consequential one, of deeper, long-term dynamics within Iraq’s political sociology. The degree to which these dynamics can be overcome – with what expenditure of resources – is the crucial question facing US and UK administrators.

As the US increases its involvement in Pakistan, we witness a similar tendency. Pakistan has already been subsumed into “Af-Pak” – a purely Washington invention with little historical meaning. Furthermore, the North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan which borders Afghanistan receives the bulk of any media attention and a history constructed around terror has largely become a stand-in for the history of the entire country. Foreign Policy Magazine, an influential US publication, recently produced an “Ultimate AfPak Reading List” or the “guide to the most critical readings on Afghanistan and Pakistan.” The list includes four categories relating to Al-Qaeda and two relating to Pakistan. One of these is “Pakistan: the Jihadists post 9/11” and the other is “Pakistan: General Interest.” The “General Interest” category is comprised of titles such as Islamist Networks: The Afghan-Pakistan Connection and Most Wanted: Profiles of Terror.

Irresponsible portrayals of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan show a propaganda process at work and can create dangerously misinformed public opinion. This undermines the function of the public as a critical body that can keep a check on state powers and thwarts the possibility of democratic oversight and meaningful citizen engagement with foreign policy issues of the day.

Corporate Accountability on Conflict Minerals

2010-07-22T18:19:00.002-04:00

A new US law does not do enough to sever the link between natural resources and conflict. However, it's a good start. Here's why.

“Rider” legislation – passed mainly because it is tacked on to the end of unrelated, yet popular bills – is frequently seen as an example of how elected officials (ab)use procedures to boost their own popularity with constituents.

However, one such rider has been widely heralded. According to a small clause in the major financial reform bill President Obama signed into law this week, American companies are now required to publicly disclose whether they have attempted to ensure that their products are free of “conflict minerals” from the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Civil society activists praised the new law, saying that it is an important measure that may help separate consumer goods from conflict.

Indeed, there are good reasons to support this bill. While its proponents do not claim it will solve conflict in the DRC, it has taken a concrete step on the issue that mandates some action on the part of corporations. It is a realistic first step that has the potential to project the issue of conflict minerals onto a larger political agenda.

Industry officials, such as those from Hewlett Packard, also supported the legislation. Although it might seem strange that the tech industry would welcome further regulation, it is important to note that the bill does not impose penalties on companies that report taking no action. Some have criticized the bill for doing too little and failing to exert sufficient pressure on corporations to exert transparency. The law is mainly useful for concerned consumers who want to distinguish between companies that monitor their minerals and those that do not, and make purchases accordingly.

It is true that there is little reason for corporations to fear the new regulation. However, there are potential ramifications for corporations that should be considered before criticizing the new law.

Now, corporate executives can exercise less plausible deniability when pressured to address allegations that their products contain conflict minerals. This is especially true when a corporation’s competitors are taking steps to investigate their own supply chains.

Pressure will come not only from consumer activism, but from increasing competition in the tech sector. Transparency on conflict minerals could become a selling point.

Although this law is a positive development, further steps must be taken to stop minerals from funding conflict. The most urgently-needed measure is an international convention on the supply of minerals commonly linked to conflict, similar to the Kimberley Process on Diamonds. Although more research is needed into how mineral supply chains could be tracked to the source, this is perhaps the only measure that has the potential to hold both corporations and producers sufficiently accountable.

For now, though, this rider law is a pretty good start.

Civilian Death Tolls (or the Lack Thereof)

2010-07-22T13:54:00.004-04:00

Action on Armed Violence has recently released a report titled “A State of Ignorance.” Produced in the background of the Iraq Inquiry in the UK, the report uses official public statements and information obtained under the 2005 Freedom of Information Act to document the UK government’s unwillingness to produce, or formally endorse, any kind of assessment of Iraqi civilian deaths since the 2003 invasion. During the course of the occupation, the UK and US governments shifted responsibility for civilian death estimates completely onto the resource-constrained government in Iraq. The “impossibility of assessment” argument was touted time and again to suggest that there was no reliable methodology available for making such an estimate.

Failure to produce its own estimate did not stop the UK and US governments from rejecting a post-war mortality study published in The Lancet, one of the oldest scientific medical journals in the world, and carried out by the researchers at the Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health. In a press briefing in November 2004, the British Prime Minister's Official Spokesperson dismissed the Hopkins estimate on grounds that it was based on “extrapolation” and treated Iraq “as if every area was one and the same.” This was both inaccurate and misleading. In response to a second Lancet survey, former President George Bush spoke at a news conference in October 2006 and stated that the study was “pretty well discredited.” Moreover, a dangerous attitude of callousness about producing such estimates and their futility comes through in the stances adopted by both governments. For instance, the “State of Ignorance” report cites Adam Ingram, former UK minister for the armed forces, saying that “counting civilian casualties in Iraq would not have stopped them occurring.”

For a detailed analysis of this issue, see the Displacement and Mortality chapter from GPF’s Iraq Report: http://www.globalpolicy.org/images/pdfs/displacement-mortality.pdf

The Iraq (Chilcot Commission) Inquiry in the UK was launched with the aim “to identify lessons that can be learned from the Iraq conflict.” This ongoing process provides the media and civil society a reason to recall attention to the issue of official death tolls. Specifically, we must reaffirm that official death tolls are absolutely crucial and that public statements like “we do not do body counts” are unacceptable. The impetus for this goes beyond just a notion of accountability for damage done. The legality (under international law) of the decision to intervene in Iraq and the conflict in Iraq itself hinges upon the notion of proportionality. Proportionality is a crucial element in the laws of war. In particular, it refers to the idea that foreseeable harm caused by military operations should not be excessive in relation to the expected benefit. By deliberately avoiding the issue of death tolls in the case of Iraq, the UK and US government have dodged this legal question, thus further obscuring the disputed legality of the war in Iraq.

Iraq is hardly an isolated case. A more current example is the US reluctance to commit to inquire into a death toll in Pakistan resulting from US drone attacks. Following the report of Philip Alston, UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, which suggested that the use of drones by the US may violate international law, Harold Koh the legal advisor for the US State Department made a statement in March 2010 defending the legality of drone warfare. He said:

[T]his administration has carefully reviewed the rules governing targeting operations to ensure that these operations are conducted consistently with law of war principles, including: […] the principle of proportionality, which prohibits attacks that may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

However, in the absence of a clear civilian death toll, there is little substance to assess this argument. A ball park figure of 750-1,000 civilian deaths is cited in a number of news reports and publications. This would mean a ratio of 10-15 civilians killed in Pakistan for every militant. While the laws of war and the Geneva Conventions do not define proportionality numerically, having such numbers certainly casts doubt upon Mr. Koh’s claims. Perhaps with credible statistics for civilian casualties, US citizens would have provided more effective opposition to the Obama administration’s decision to broaden these attacks and carry them out increasingly in many countries.

Iranian Democracy and UN Sanctions

2010-07-14T11:06:00.007-04:00

Iranian opposition leader Mir Hossein Musavi – the man who came close to unseating Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as President in last summer’s contested election – spoke out this week about Tehran’s foreign policy.

Like many detractors of Security Council Resolution 1929, Musavi called the UN sanctions against his nation unjust. Unlike Ahmadinejad, however, he did not dismiss the sanctions as nothing but a “used handkerchief.” On the contrary, Musavi spoke frankly about the implications of the new round of sanctions. The Iranian people will bear the burden of political and economic isolation. Whether the sanctions were imposed justly or unjustly, the regime is deceiving Iranians by obscuring the consequences of the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program. As Musavi implied in his remarks, this deception should be expected from a regime that has a deficient human rights record.

Many detractors of Security Council Resolution 1929 will claim that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty gives Iran the “inalienable right” to pursue a nuclear program. In other words, Tehran is justified in pursuing its nuclear program and should not have to submit to so-called “safeguards” (i.e. inspections and surveillance). Since Iran’s actions are lawful, legitimate, and justified, sanctions against Iran are unjust, say many.

Surely, there is some truth to these claims. The sanctions have a convoluted legal basis and have been subject to inspiring principled challenges. However, critics fail to acknowledge a very important link between Iran’s foreign policy and its domestic policy. Musavi’s remarks about democracy in Iran and how it relates to the nuclear issue raise a number of questions:

Do Iranians feel that their country should pursue its “inalienable right” nuclear program? What if it comes at the cost of tough sanctions and international isolation? Have Iranians consented to their government’s foreign policy?

Conflicting reports from Iranian expats and media outlets make it difficult to define public opinion on this issue. What is clear, however, is that Tehran continues to go to great lengths to censor free speech and suppress political and moral opposition. Musavi correctly points out that until Iranians are freely able to challenge their government’s foreign policy, the regime lacks enough legitimacy to conduct itself as it does internationally. Of course, observers must critically consider whether multilateral and especially unilateral sanctions are legitimate, but a glaring problem remains: the disconnection between the Iranian people and the government’s foreign policy.

The prospects of progress are not encouraging. Challenging the regime is increasingly difficult, constricting the space within which civil society and political opposition might offer an alternative to Tehran’s rigid position on the nuclear issue. Since 2009, the regime has grown increasingly strict against democracy activists and the Green Movement has all but vanished. News sources mentioned that Musavi’s latest remarks may draw the ire of the regime.

If Musavi is indeed persecuted for his remarks, the regime will have demonstrated its intolerance for contrarian rhetoric, even as it retains its role as something of a contrarian on the international level. On the other hand, if the regime addressed Musavi’s remarks – even if it made no substantive progress toward his recommendations – its foreign policy might retain more legitimacy.

Technology: Fuelling Conflict or Potential for Action?

2010-07-09T15:41:00.004-04:00

Read the news story that inspired this poston GPF's website.

In his recent op-ed piece for the New York Times, Nicholas D. Kristof describes the efforts of the Enough Project. Playing off of an advertising campaign of the Apple Corporation, this group of activists has effectively used YouTube and Facebook to raise awareness of conflict minerals in common gadgets like iPhones, PC computers, and Blackberrys

Most people have heard about “blood diamonds,” but “conflict minerals?”

Conflict minerals, like coltan, tungsten, and gold, fuel war in places like the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Virtually all parties to the conflict have fought to control natural resources to fund their ongoing campaigns in brutal ethno-political conflict (I talked about this “resource curse” in a previous blog). These resources find their way into common daily appliances like cell phones, computers, and soda cans – iPhones are not the only gadgets potentially linked to conflict.

In his op-ed, Kristof quotes an organizer of the Enough Project.

“There’s no magic-bullet solution to peace in Congo,” notes David Sullivan of the Enough Project, “but this is one of the drivers of the conflict.” The economics of the war should be addressed to resolve it.

Sullivan and Kristof hit the nail on the head, but their analysis of this issue can be taken a step further.

As Sullivan said, conflict in the DRC is extraordinarily complex: it is ethnic, political, and economic. Natural resources are not the cause of this war, per se, but they certainly sustain the carnage. And as Kristof reminds us, the dollars and cents of war often go unnoticed in the dramatics of mass atrocities, elusive rebel leaders, and crushing disease.

The United Nations has attempted to address these scourges, by sending its largest-ever peacekeeping force to the DRC, by financing numerous reports on the situation, and by promoting action on justice and reconciliation in the region. However, the UN is has been unable to sever the links between minerals and conflict. The United Nations cannot alter insatiable consumer demand for the minerals that buy weapons, pay foot soldiers, and pad the pockets of warlords.

By pressuring corporations to avoid using conflict minerals, people can highlight the consequences of our consumption patterns in conflict zones. While it remains difficult for people to meaningfully get involved in the high-level security issues involved in resolving conflict in the DRC, this is something that ordinary people could do from so far away. The Enough Project is effective because it uses consumer culture to empower people without treading the murky waters of armed humanitarian intervention.

Of course consumer “pressure” is not enough. Activists should consider concrete steps that the private sector, governments, and consumers alike might take to ensure that corporations are fully and legally accountable for their sourcing.

In “pressuring” corporations, activists should consider how they might link their critical discourse to international organizations like the UN, national politics, and the work of other NGOs. At a certain point, high-level action – whether it is an international regulatory framework on minerals or stronger national laws ensuring human rights standards for corporations using minerals – will be needed to enact the measures that enforce real accountability on corporations. Activists can get the ball rolling, but unless they coordinate their activities with high-level political processes, their work may not succeed.

Technology allows us to pressure corporations, governments, and international organizations. If conflict minerals are the dark side of technology, then the democratic space opened up by technology is the bright side. We must do the utmost take advantage of the opportunities it presents. The Enough Project is on the right track.

ICC Agreement over the Crime of Aggression: a Success for the Big Five (part 2)

2010-06-17T17:26:00.004-04:00

On June 12, 2010, the member states of the International Criminal Court (ICC), observer states, international organizations, NGO’s and other participants concluded the Review Conference of the Rome Statute in Kampala, Uganda. During this two-week conference, 4000 delegates took stock of the ICC work in the last eight years and discussed proposed amendments to its founding treaty. The main challenge of the meeting was the amendment on the crime of aggression. The delegates finally came up with a ‘watered down’ resolution which defines the crime of aggression but fails to give the Court primary jurisdiction over the crime.

Instead, the UN Security Council is given the main role in determining the existence of an act of aggression. In other words, where the Security Council has made such a determination, the Prosecutor of the ICC may start investigations in respect of a crime of aggression. In the absence of such Security Council action, the Prosecutor may start proceedings on his own initiative or upon request from a member state. However, in order to do so, the Prosecutor would have to obtain prior authorization from the Pre-Trial Division of the Court. Furthermore, the Court would not be able to exercise jurisdiction with respect to an act of aggression committed by a non-member state or with regard to member states that have not accepted the Court’s jurisdiction over this crime. The agreement also includes a review clause, meaning that the amendment shall not enter into force until the majority of member states grants formal approval after January 2017.

This compromise agreement obviously shields non-members, such as the United States, China, and Russia, from future ICC investigations. Therefore, one could say that the permanent members of the Security Council came out as winners of the Review Conference. According to analysts at the conference, they showed tremendous resistance to the crime of aggression being subject to the jurisdiction of the Court and were determined to the keep their exclusive power to handle cases of aggression. The US, Great Britain, Russia, China and France have all committed the crime against other sovereign states in the past and the Security Council as a ‘jurisdictional filter’ would prevent their leaders and others they might choose to protect from being prosecuted for acts of state aggression.

The agreement can be considered as a step forward for international justice as the delegates set out the mechanism by which a prosecution for the crime of aggression would be brought before the ICC. The conditions, however, are questionable, as Security Council involvement undermines the independence and legitimacy of the ICC. Furthermore, it provides carte blanche impunity for the nationals of the permanent Security Council members who are responsible for the planning, preparation, initiation or execution of an act of aggression. The US, for instance, attended the conference as an observer state and was particularly eager to prevent the ICC from prosecuting American officials for aggressing on the territory of other states. In the end, it got what it came for.

Afghanistan’s Minerals: Hope or Despair?

2010-06-17T16:58:00.006-04:00

Why we should view the discovery of Afghan minerals with a critical eye. Read the original news story on our website.

A New York Times report has drawn attention to the Pentagon’s discovery of enormous mineral deposits in Afghanistan said to be worth nearly $1 trillion. Although high-level Pentagon officials and some Afghan officials have optimistically discussed the potential these resources hold for the Afghan economy, history indicates that the minerals may take the country down a less inviting path.

There are three reasons why the discovery of these resources does not bode well for Afghanistan:

1. The Pentagon is in charge.

According to the Times report, the Pentagon discovered that the Soviet Union had conducted geological surveys when it occupied Afghanistan in the 1980s. Promising preliminary results sparked the Pentagon’s curiosity, and it used high-tech military equipment to survey the country and eventually make the discovery.

Even if we concede that military equipment was instrumental in the discovery of the vast reserves, it is difficult to understand why the Pentagon has maintained control over plans to exploit the minerals. The Pentagon’s expertise and interests are military in nature: what place does the Pentagon have in Afghanistan’s economy?

The Pentagon has apparently sought the support of the U.S. Geological Survey and hired consultants to develop Afghan minerals management capacity, but U.S. military officials have not indicated when they plan to complete these preparations. If the Pentagon’s goal is to help rebuild Afghanistan’s economy with some security objective in mind, then it should hand over the development of these resources to the Afghan government and internationally-approved experts.

Anything less would suggest a link between Afghanistan’s resources and the U.S. military establishment. Critics of the Afghan mission might use the Pentagon’s interest in minerals to support their long-standing claim that the mission is proof that the U.S. uses its military in pursuit of resource control.

2. Opposing superpowers may clash once again in Afghanistan.

In the 1980s Afghanistan was a Cold War battleground where two superpowers vied for global supremacy. In that superpower chess match, perceptions mattered. On December 25, 1979, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan based largely on the false notion that the U.S. was planning to encircle the USSR from the South. President Carter pledged to robustly defend U.S. interests in the region, mistakenly believing that the USSR was beginning a new phase of expansionism.

Perceptions are equally important today, but the players are different.

American officials are apparently already tense over Chinese interest in Afghan minerals – not to mention its investments in natural resources around the globe. However, the longer the Pentagon remains in the driver’s seat on Afghan minerals, the more China may perceive a threat to its economic interests in its backyard. Washington may in turn perceive a Chinese defense of its influence in South-Central Asia as an affront to a decades-long U.S. commitment to Afghanistan. Under these conditions a majority stake in Afghan resources could become as symbolic as it would be financially lucrative. History suggests that another convergence of competing superpowers in Afghanistan could be catastrophic.

3. The conflict could become a whole lot more difficult to resolve.

Experts ever-more-frequently use the “resource curse” model to explain why the discovery of valuable natural resources rarely brings good fortune to impoverished, divided societies.

From Sierra Leone to Colombia to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the discovery of abundant natural resources like diamonds, emeralds and coltan have raised the stakes of complex ethnic and ideological conflicts. After the discovery of natural resources and in the absence of a strong, neutral and disciplined central government to enact appropriate legal oversight, warring parties have exploited natural resources to fund their campaigns of violence. As multinational corporations, foreign governments, domestic factions, and corrupt politicians have joined the fray in search of wealth and power, parties to the conflicts have been increasingly motivated by wealth. As a result of this potent combination of greed and grievance, conflicts have become more deadly and more intractable.

Afghanistan is plagued by extreme ethno-political division and by rampant corruption. Taliban, rival warlords, and Afghan officials already leech off the opium produced by desperate farmers. Given how much an illicit, underground trade has shaped the conflict in Afghanistan, there is no telling how much $1 trillion-worth of poorly controlled licit minerals might intensify complex relationships between rival ethnic groups, competing social factions, corrupt politicians, organized crime, and international terrorist organizations.

Theoretically, the value of these resources means that things could go very well for Afghanistan. Countries like Norway have successfully and independently managed newly discovered natural resources by making sound investments in sources of stable, long-term economic growth. If Afghanistan can control corruption and neutralize the incentives for personal gain, there is hope that it might translate these newly discovered resources into a stronger, more secure future.

If the Pentagon is going to play a role in the development of Afghanistan’s minerals, U.S. politicians must demand transparency and accountability from the military. If the Pentagon’s operations in this area are limited in both time and scope, with firm but realistic deadlines for addressing ethno-political conflict and corruption, the people may benefit.

History does not suggest such an outcome. We cannot avoid the dangerous potential of this discovery unless we are mindful of the historical, political, and economic forces at play.

The Great Game

2010-06-11T10:39:00.009-04:00

What President Köhler’s resignation reveals about the present world order, and what Germans (and the rest of us) should do about it. Read the original news story on our website.

German President Horst Köhler suggested in a May 2010 interview that Germany maintains a military presence in Afghanistan to protect its economic interests. Köhler resigned just days later after his comments elicited an uproar from the German press.

At first glance, something seems not quite right. Köhler’s resignation was odd for a politician of his stature. Why would a major figure resign over a seemingly small slip of the tongue? Furthermore, why did none of his domestic political allies – Chancellor Angela Merkel included – defend him, much less comment on the scandal?

Köhler’s comments would not have sparked the same outrage in most other NATO countries, where leaders speak frankly about the military as a legitimate tool for the defense of “the national interest.” Germans, on the other hand, are keenly aware of their history and feel that their armed forces should only conduct operations that enjoy broad international support in toward the achievement of outward-oriented objectives. In this sense, it is perhaps possible to understand why the press disparaged Köhler for his remarks, but it remains unclear why he felt compelled to resign over the matter.

An op-ed in the Wall Street Journal’s online edition seized upon the essence of what happened:

“Mr. Köhler's remarks offered Germans a chance for much-needed self-reflection: What are German interests in the 21st century? How can a peaceful Germany protect them? What is Germany's role in a globalized world?

Instead of that debate, Germany lashed out at its president.

But while President Köhler may go, the core of his message remains true: Germany is now a big-boy nation. With that comes adult responsibilities, and sometimes those are unpleasant. It can mean putting German lives in the line of fire, and standing up for what you believe in.

Horst Köhler understood that. It's time his country did, too.”

In other words, the clear answer seems to be that Köhler was a victim of Germany’s unwillingness to come to terms with what it takes to play ball with the “big-boy” nations. The Wall Street Journal piece is amused at the idea that Germans would roast their president for something that their allies have been doing for years. Germany, the author says, has to behave in a way befitting of a great power if she wants to merit her spot as the +1 to the P5.

Of course, the essence of realpolitik is that states are expected to behave in these sorts of ways. States must compete as furiously as they can or watch their relative power decline in this anarchic world. So if you believe that such a world exists and that it will exist forever, then observers who concede that states like Germany are justified in militarily pursuing their economic interests will seem “realistic” and “pragmatic”.

But hold on a second. What if Köhler’s critics have it right? Shouldn’t we all be outraged that people die at the hands of foreign soldiers in Afghanistan and around the world in the name of “the national interest?” If we allow leaders to convince us that the only way to secure “our” interests is to go out and fight for them, then we have accepted two disturbing assumptions:

1. That keeping our country secure and our economy stable occasionally requires us to invade other countries
2. That keeping our country “secure” and our economy “stable” is in “the national interest”

Many Germans do not accept these assumptions. Horst Köhler resigned because he realized that the truth of his remarks ran counter to the lessons Germany learned at the fall of the Third Reich: the unimpeded pursuit of power can only lead to the unimpeded annihilation of the vulnerable. His political allies, realizing that the implications of what he said were essentially correct, allowed him to take the fall rather than initiate an open debate over the legitimate place of the military as it relates to German identity.

If anything, Köhler’s resignation signals a need to examine critically the basic tenets of the present international order. Germans have for years challenged the assumptions held by their NATO allies, yet they have placed too much faith in their government and military to act in a way that aligns with the way they see Germany’s place in the world. Germans should not pass up this opportunity to question whether the lessons history has imparted to them have been steadily forgotten, beginning at least with Gerhard Schroeder’s intervention in the Balkans.

Germany should take this opportunity to discover its interests beyond the prevention of terrorism, and beyond strong trade relations with other NATO powers. Rather than join the team of “big-boy nations”, Germany should consider playing a new game altogether. That’s a game that we should consider joining, as well.

Nuclear Games and Natural Gas

2010-06-11T10:39:00.008-04:00

Allegations of Burmese nuclear weapons research are more than what they seem. Read the original news story on our website.

Lately, nuclear weapons have made for front page news. We’ve seen evidence of Israeli-South African weapons cooperation during the apartheid era, talk of new sanctions against Iran at the Security Council, and the conclusion of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Conference at the United Nations. This week Burma – or Myanmar, depending on your political sensibilities – joined the list of countries charged with conducting clandestine nuclear weapons research.

First, a UN report indicated that North Korea may have sold nuclear secrets to the military junta in Rangoon. Then, prominent U.S. Senator Jim Webb canceled a trip to Burma in light of the alleged Korean connection. Finally a Norway-based group, called the Democratic Voice of Burma, released an extensive report detailing evidence that the junta has been actively developing a nuclear weapons program, albeit quite primitive.

These reports should not be surprising. Perhaps the only country in the world with a more repressive, isolated government is nuclear-armed North Korea. Nuclear technology has proliferated, and a regime as paranoid as the Burmese junta seems to be almost a stereotypical candidate for secretly dabbling in weapons research. The apparent predictability of this situation should not dispel the need to apply a critical eye to related developments. After all, news sources routinely sensationalize news stories that are based on nothing more than ambiguous, disputed “facts.”

First of all, who made these allegations?

Most news stories are based on the report by the Democratic Voice of Burma (DVB). This organization’s sleek website expounds the ideals of an organization committed to providing “accurate and unbiased news to the people of Burma.” The website does not provide any information about it staff members beyond their names and contact information, and it gives no details whatsoever about the sources of its funding. Although DVB’s promotion of democracy in Burma should in general be lauded, observers should investigate whether this organization is “pro-people” or “anti-government” before concluding that its principal goal is indeed to provide “accurate and unbiased news to the people of Burma.”

Secondly, why was Senator Webb planning to visit Burma in the first place? This is an interesting, if not tangential piece of news that has come to light in the wake of the nuclear allegations.

During the Bush administration, the neo-conservatives bordered on dogmatic in their opposition to the military junta. Webb, on the other hand, has advocated engagement with the junta. Any speculation in this regard is difficult, but one cannot help but recall the words of Hillary Clinton:

“In her own trip to Thailand for an Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) conference in July, Clinton had hinted that the United States might ‘expand our relationship with Burma, including investments in Burma,’ leading some observers to speculate that the secretary might share some of Webb's controversial views.”

(See the rest of Josh Rogin’s work for Foreign Policy: http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/09/18/webb_of_controversy)

Burma’s large natural gas deposits have long been the subject of geopolitical wrangling, and China has typically been the beneficiary due to its close relations with the junta. Although Webb has distanced himself from the State Department, it seems that these nuclear reports may have brought out a lot more than a weapons program.

Not that this, like the allegations of Burmese nuclear research, should be particularly surprising. Where energy resources exist, there is often more at stake than nuclear proliferation and the democratic rights of an oppressed people.

The ICC Review Conference: a Crucial Moment for the Crime of Aggression (part 1)

2010-05-27T16:42:00.003-04:00

From May 31st to June 11th, the States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) will gather in Kampala, Uganda, to consider amendments to the Court’s founding treaty and assess the work and impact of the Court’s work since its establishment in 2002. This conference marks an important opportunity to strengthen the Court’s jurisdiction over the most serious international crimes.

The most controversial issue will be the adoption of a provision defining the crime of aggression and setting out the conditions under which the Court would exercise jurisdiction. It is expected that the jurisdiction part will present a more serious obstacle to adoption than the actual definition.

The United States will attend the Review Conference as an observer since it has not ratified the Statute. US participation results from the improved relationship between the US and the Court since President Obama took office. The US, however, is a strong opponent of any aggression proposal without a prior UN Security Council determination that an act of aggression was committed. This would give Washington a veto over any such charges. The Obama administration fears that a broader jurisdiction of the Court will increase the possibility of politicized cases against US military and government officials.

This time, the US does not stand alone in its ICC criticism, albeit not for reasons of self-interest. Some, including the former chief prosecutor of the Yugoslavia and Rwanda Tribunals Richard Goldstone, claim that the inclusion of the crime of aggression into the ICC’s jurisdiction would politicize the Court, undermine its independence, and limit the support from governments that is essential to its work. Certain human rights group are also calling for States Parties to defer their negotiations on the crime of aggression; fearing that an aggression amendment could diminish the role of the ICC in international justice.

The big question at the Review Conference will therefore be whether the States Parties will yield under the pressure to defer the negotiations over jurisdiction, or whether they will conclude the negotiations, reinforce the jurisdiction of the Court, and thereby undermine the ICC’s improved relationship with the US.

Who are the real pirates?

2010-05-03T16:11:00.002-04:00

On April 27, the Security Council unanimously voted in favor of five recommendations to tackle piracy of the coast of Somalia; including, proposals to create a tribunal to prosecute the pirates. However, Resolution 1918 fails to address one of the main causes of Somali piracy - illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing by foreign companies.

According to the High Seas Task Force, eight-hundred IUU fishing vessels operate in Somali water, reaping profits of $450-million annually. This sum outstrips foreign development assistance to Somalia five-fold.

The IUU fishing vessels, which are mainly based in Europe and South East Asia, started fishing Somali waters after the collapse of the government in 1991. In the absence of coastal patrols and monitoring, Somalia's rich fish stocks were easy targets for large, foreign fish trawlers. A UN report in 2006 recognized these problems, labeling Somali waters "an international free-for-all."

Unfortunately, this UN report has done little to inform the Council's recent decision. So, why not?

European and Asian fish markets depend on IUU catches, especially if prices are to be kept low. Foreign IUU trawlers began fishing Somali waters following the chronic depletion of their own local fish stocks.

Local fisher-people have also reported physical abuse from these piratical foreign IUU fishing vessels: doused in boiling water, fishing vessels crushed and nets cut. Also, the IUU fishing methods are far from "conventional"; cyanide and explosives are polluting this fragile ecosystem and destroying fish-stocks.

Security Council members must stop protecting IUU fishing fleets and take a more creative stance to tackling piracy. Suggestions could include creating a UN-mandated Somali coastguard and further investing in a fish DNA-tracking system so that IUU vessels cannot pass under the radar.

Buddhist Drummers sound the Shame of Nuclear Weapons

2010-05-02T13:14:00.005-04:00

On Sunday morning, May 3rd, Buddhists from Japan beat hand drums and uttered a moving chant for peace, outside United Nations headquarters in New York. Holding tall purple banners with Japanese lettering and dressed in bright yellow robes, they signaled the gathering of citizen groups from around the world for the UN Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Official proceeding will begin on Monday.

The Japanese drummers remind us that nuclear weapons are not just an abstraction, but a frightful weapon that was used to such devastating effect in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and still threatens life on earth. Unlike the previous NPT review conference five years ago, this one offers some hope that progress can be made. The recent START agreement between Washington and Moscow was a sign that movement is possible. But NGO analysts are concerned that the nuclear states will again refuse to commit to serious disarmament -- even if this leads to proliferation and mounting nuclear danger. A resurgent nuclear power industry, promoted as a green energy source, increases the nuclear problems that loom ahead.

Thousands of civil society representatives at the conference will be pushing for complete nuclear disarmament, not just “non-proliferation” with all its uneven application and propaganda abuse. Everyone at the UN is well aware that states like Israel, Pakistan, India (and South Africa under apartheid) have been allowed to develop nuclear weapons with no punitive action by the “international community,” while others like Iran, Iraq and North Korea have been subject to punitive sanctions and even invasion. Washington's interests usually decide.

The most serious violators of the Non-Proliferation Treaty are not the “rogue” nuclear states, but the Permanent Members of the UN Security Council – the United States and Russia first and foremost, but also China, the UK and France. The treaty, which came into force in 1970, requires the nuclear powers to take steps to disarm. This was the bargain the heavyweights made with non-nuclear states forty years ago. But they have done little since then to fulfill their promise and their actions today suggest they do not intend to disarm this time around either.

On Sunday afternoon, thousands of anti-nuclear activists marched across Manhattan to publicize their cause. Signs were held aloft in many languages, while drums, flutes and chants filled the air. Okinawans were there to remind us of the military bases that have made their island a lynchpin of the US nuclear weapons arsenal for many decades - bases that the island's people urgently want removed. Among the marchers were the the Buddhist drummers from Japan, drumming the shame of of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These citizens are insisting that at last the nuclear powers act responsibly and take the path towards a world free of the threat of nuclear annihilation.

Where were the Iraq Elections Monitors?

2010-04-29T09:49:00.001-04:00

On March 7, Iraq held parliamentary elections amid a mysterious absence of international monitors. In spite of many subsequent press articles about contested results, silence has prevailed about the missing monitors. Why would human rights organizations and monitoring agencies ignore such a major election? And why would they not take up the story as news of problems has emerged?

The main Iraqi parties and candidates have all charged that the election was dishonest and unfair. Some have said that the US embassy and the CIA were working to promote the election of Iyad Allawi, the leader of the anti-Maliki bloc. Allawi was named by the US to the Iraqi Interim Governing Council, set up soon after the occupation began. He is reliably said to have long been on the payroll of the CIA and British intelligence. Charges have been made against Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, too, for fraudulent or very dubious election maneuvers, including denials of candidate status for persons on the basis of their religious affiliation or former Baath Party connection.

While some of the election problems are known, we know little about the activities in the polling stations, or on the streets, on election day. Little has been reported about the freedom of the electoral campaign, for that matter. Curiously, reporters have scarcely ever asked why we have so little reliable information about the situation on the ground and why independent international election monitors stayed away.

Washington insists that electoral polls are the centerpiece of democracy. Yet the usual monitoring organizations in the US, like the Carter Center, the International Republican Institute and others, decided not to engage. Adding to the mystery, the Europeans didn't do their usual strong monitoring contingent either. Nor did the big human rights organizations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH) act vigorously in assessing the election process and calling for more international scrutiny.

Danger and difficulty simply cannot be an excuse for this lapse. After all, international monitors closely followed elections in Palestine and in Afghanistan, places that posed many more challenges (and expense) than Iraq.

After the findings of scandal during the elections in Afghanistan, did the usual watchdogs decide to give this one as pass? Or did USAID simply refuse to pay for scrutiny this time around? And what did the United Nations find out, since its UNAMI assistance mission was involved in the election process? UN Iraq envoy Ad Meikert has said that the elections were not fundamentally flawed, but we all remember that the UN also gave its stamp of approval to the fatally-flawed Afghan polls.

We need serious and reliable answers about the Iraq elections and there are honest Iraqis who could provide them. Otherwise, it will be tempting to conclude that dirty tricks prevailed, that a cover-up may have been put in place, and that the famous "sovereignty" of Iraq may still be a long way away.

Media Coverage Misrepresents Yemen's Real Problems

2010-04-28T17:42:00.000-04:00

Yemen has found itself splashed all over the news again following the failed attack on the British ambassador, Tim Torlot, in Sa'ana. The last time Yemen enjoyed such media popularity was when Omar al-Farouk, a Yemeni-trained Al Qaeda operative, failed to explode a plane en route to Detroit in December 2009. Media focus on isolated violent incidents threatens to divert attention from Yemen's real troubles.

Yemen's most pressing problems are not violent fundamentalism; rather, rapid population growth, high illiteracy, a devaluing currency, a corrupt and ineffective government, chronic water scarcity and a dangerous qat addiction are this country's real enemies.

The US more than doubled its military assistance to Yemen this year, taking it to more than $150 million. This monumental sum would be better spent building schools, creating sustainable water infrastructures and shifting agricultural practices away from qat cultivation. After all, it is estimated that there are only around 100 Al Qaeda operatives in Yemen anyway!

The structural issues at the heart of Yemen's troubles are starting to be understood. Even David Miliband, UK Foreign Secretary, who heads the "Friends of Yemen", has opined that: "the assault on Yemen's problems cannot begin and end with its security challenges and its counter-terrorism strategy."

The diplomat bomber has put Yemen back on the map for all the wrong reasons. The attack runs the risk of undermining the development investment this country badly needs. If the media continue to focus on violence, terrorism and fundamentalism they risk creating a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Profit at Any Cost

2010-04-28T10:00:00.001-04:00

Eritrea is on the verge of political and economic collapse. Foreign mining companies provide a controversial life-line to this country's corrupt and increasingly repressive government, led by President Isaias Afewerki. The foreign companies - from Canada, Britain, China, Australia and Bermuda - are complicit partners in this East African country's unsavory politics and appalling labor conditions.

Like many African countries, Eritrea is laden with sought-after natural resources. Rich deposits of gold, silver, copper and zinc have attracted numerous companies from the global North. The mining companies are encouraged by Afewerki's low-cost requirements for mining rights. In neighboring Sudan and Egypt, the governments own fifty-percent and sixty-percent of mining rights respectively; whereas, in Eritrea state participation can be as low as ten-percent!

A more sinister issue lies at the heart of these foreign mining ventures: working conditions comparable to slavery.

Foreign mining firms rely on local labor - mostly subcontracted by government owned companies. These workers are "recruited" through a "national service" program - which controls a workforce that has risen to around 300,000. Those enrolled are paid a pitiful $12 a month. The foreign mining companies pay the government up to $300 a month for these workers, allowing Afewerki and his cronies to pocket the $288 difference.

The much-trumpeted "corporate social responsibility" of mining companies in Eritrea - like Nevsun Resources Ltd., Andiamo Exploration, London Africa, Zhongchang Mining and Sub Sahara Resources - is clearly nothing but veneer. There is nothing responsible about siphoning millions of dollars from a country in desperate need, supporting a corrupt and repressive regime and encouraging abhorrent labor practices.

A New US Dollar

2010-04-26T12:22:00.005-04:00

On April 23, the US government introduced with great fanfare a new $100 bill. Officials bragged about the clever printing innovations that would make the bills extremely difficult - if not impossible - to counterfeit. The new product reflects a steadily-growing number of $100 bills in circulation - even though US citizens overwhelmingly use smaller bills, and ATMs rarely (if ever) dispense such big notes.

Most $100 bills circulate outside US national territory. Dollar bills are used nearly everywhere as a parallel means of exchange, especially in countries with weak and unstable currencies. In particular, the dollar is favored for corrupt deals and criminal operations, where cash often changes hands in suitcases or under the table. Demand has been so brisk, that the US Treasury has kept the printing presses busy. Bills of $100 denomination or larger have increased by about $275 billion since the beginning of 2002, according to the New York Times.

It appears that the US government is exporting about $30 billion per years in bank notes to the rest of the world. Considering that the cost of producing these notes is relatively low, this gives the US a much-needed boost in its chronically unbalanced international payments, which in 2009 were $419 billion in the red. The new bill apparently aims to shore up this valuable export market.

In the recent past, there have been many critics of the dollar as the world’s major currency. The dollar is losing some of its luster as a universal store of value. Large-denomination euro bills are now coming into favor. In fact, circulation of large euro notes has increased about $600 billion in value since 2002, about twice the value increase of the large-denomination US dollar notes. Clearly, people are not as keen on the dollar as they used to be.

Though slipping, US currency exports still continue to be a big and even vital business, and Washington hopes to keep it that way.

Dollar notes are more than payment balances. They are also convenient tools of foreign policy. In the 1990s, Washington engaged in wholesale exports of dollars to complete with the Russian ruble. According to press reports at the time, a jumbo cargo jet departed every week from Kennedy Airport, bound for Moscow, packed with crates of newly-printed $100 bills, direct from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Tens of billions of dollars found their way into the Russian economy by this aerial route, feeding the underground deals of the new oligarchs.

Washington also used greenbacks to finance the new government it created in Afghanistan with hundreds of millions in cash. And soon after ousting Saddam Hussein, US authorities organized an airlift of currency to pay for expenses of the occupation government in Iraq. According to a later Congressional investigation, US Air Force C130 Hercules cargo planes ferried more than $12 billion in newly-printed US currency from New York to Baghdad. In just over a year, from May 2003 through June 2004, 363 tons of US currency crossed the ocean to Iraq in shrink-wrapped plastic containers. The great majority of notes in these operations were in the $100 denomination.

The dollar is still big business and the printing presses keep on rolling. The new hundred dollar note is a move to boost the dollar’s mystique, at a time when the greenback is losing its global standing. But it will take more than a fancy print job to return the dollar to its former glory.

Women Farmers, Peasant Movements and Land Grabbers

2010-04-23T17:27:00.004-04:00

Yesterday, Earth Day, the United Nations recognized the central role of women farmers in feeding the world. The speakers at a special event on this subject were not the usual diplomats and experts, but instead dynamic and outspoken women farmers from a number of countries. They told the large audience that the majority of the world’s food is produced by smallholders, not by large, industrial farms. Also, they affirmed that women run the great majority of smallholder farms.

Increasingly, the women food producers have formed regional and international networks and they have developed considerable political clout. They have pressed their governments for more favorable policies, such as rights to own land, rights to inherit land, access to credit, and other policies that are favorable to the small producer and to environmentally-friendly production practices. This is an impressive global political movement that intersects the rising movements of smallholders generally – led by organizations such as La Via Campesina.

But for all the impressive self-organization of the peasant farmers, and the justice they seek, the entire rural system they represent is under threat as never before.

Agribusiness companies and investors are buying up large blocks of land, gambling that food prices will soon rise and land prices will skyrocket. Financiers everywhere are piling into this new investment game and they are assembling vast investment pools to do it. This process, known as “land grabbing,” has been well-documented by the organization “GRAIN.” Sometimes, governments bring in the military or armed police forces and simply expel the peasants from the land, claiming they have no clear “title.” In other cases, the pressure is more subtle, but the results are the same. The world is heading into a brave new world of techno-farming.

These land-grab farms are nothing to celebrate. The multi-billion dollar profits for Wall Street investors come with enormous social, environmental and nutritional cost. Hundreds of millions of people will be expelled from the land and forced to migrate into urban slums. Rainforests will be cut down. Unsustainable agricultural practices will proliferate.

To make it all seem fair and reasonable, the World Bank is now issuing a set of new rules that supposedly take care of the problems. But these rules do little but provide an imprimatur of “responsible” investment. It is clear that the rules were written by and for Wall Street and that they will do virtually nothing to stem the tide of peasant displacement and agro-industrialization. Already, according to the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, land equivalent to the size of France has been seized and this is only the beginning.

Those interested in seeing the land grabbers in their native habitat can sign up for a conference on May 6-7, at the Roosevelt Hotel in New York. Entitled “Global AgInvesting 2010,” the conference will promote this “emerging asset class for private and institutional investors.” “Endowments and foundations” are especially encouraged to attend, says the advertisement on the internet.

So, on Earth Day plus one, we need to ask: what can stop this speculative juggernaut? And how can we support the rural farm communities – half of our humankind - who are fighting for sustainable food production. We all have a stake in the outcome.

Peak Oil is Official!

2010-04-22T16:39:00.005-04:00

The US Department of Energy has finally admitted that global petroleum production will soon be heading into permanent decline. Glen Sweetnam, a high official of the Energy Information Administration, revealed this new assessment in a little-noted statement on March 30. Until recently, his agency predicted large increases in oil production over the coming 2-3 decades.

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) publishes widely-used data on global oil production, consumption and prices. Though Sweetnam rejected the validity of “peak-oil” theory, his statement was widely seen as an admission that the theory has predicted trends far more accurately than his agency has done. He acknowledged that world production has reached a “plateau” and would not rise significantly higher.

Until recently, the EIA predicted that production would rise from the current level of about 85 million barrels per day to 120 million by 2030. After five years of unchanged global production, as recorded by the EIA’s own data, those predictions are now considered laughable. People inside the agency have confessed that production estimates were not based on any study of new oil discoveries, but simply by projecting increases in demand and assuming supply would keep pace.

Not only did Washington insist on wildly optimistic scenarios, but it put pressure on the International Energy Agency to publish growth-oriented numbers. The IEA also “predicted” that world production would rise as high as 120 million barrels per day. The Guardian newspaper discovered that IEA officials had fabricated the numbers because they were afraid to “anger the Americans.” US and IEA numbers were considered definitive and used by most governments for energy-related policy making.

So the secret is now out. The world’s energy policy was based on a lie.

Demand for oil is now rising rapidly, as economies grow again, but oil production is stuck in a short-lived plateau-peak, to be followed soon by a rapid decline. In fact, private EIA data show that world production may actually fall rapidly, to just about 40 million barrels per day by 2030 - one third the earlier estimate - while world demand at present rates of increase would have risen to 110 million bpd. The difference, as shown in a private EIA’s graph, will depend on “unidentified projects” – that is, wishful thinking. A gap of 70 million bpd will have opened. With demand nearly three times supply, oil will be scarcer than caviar, driving prices to extremely high levels (thousands of dollars per gallon perhaps).

So what is being done by Washington and other governments to address this unprecedented crisis? Time is short and the implications vast. The leaders have not made any announcement or devised emergency measures. President Obama, Prime Minister Brown and the rest have avoided the issue almost entirely. Meantime, growth is up, auto sales are rising, and we are headed for the energy abyss.

Today, Earth Day, it is time to begin thinking very differently. Private EIA graphs show production declines beginning as soon as 2011. The end of the oil era is very, very near.

Aide Memoire

2010-04-21T17:38:00.006-04:00

We all forget things. However, there is a huge difference between forgetting to water the plants for a few days, to forgetting to address pressing international political and humanitarian issues for months, sometimes years at a time. When this happens, which is dangerously often at the UN Security Council, it looks less like forgetfulness and more like systematic and deliberate neglect.

Every month, the Security Council Report (SCR) publishes a table entitled "Aide-Memoire". It contains a collection of important matters pending for Security Council discussion. As the graph below demonstrates, these reminders do little to aid the memory of the Security Council because often twelve months or more go by with the same issue in the SCR table!

The graph above simplifies the topic to either a country name or specific field. Below I will look closer at some of the frequently neglected issues, addressing the consequences of and the possible reasons for the neglect. If more detail is required on topics not covered here, you can look at the Security Council Report website.

Gaza

The aide-memoire on Gaza refers to the UN Security Council failure to address the attacks on UN property and personnel during Operation Cast Lead (27th December 2008 - 17th January 2009), as laid out in the Goldstone Report. Despite express calls from Libya last year, the Security Council declined to schedule a meeting on the Goldstone Report; rather, it left the topic to the ineffectual - and close to pointless - open debates on the Middle East, which occur monthly. Not surprisingly no action was taken in these meetings.

It is clear that this is not an act of forgetfulness by the Security Council; rather, a deliberate obstruction by the United States. The spokesperson for the US State Department, Ian Kelly, even stated: "it was in the interest of all concerned, of all who share this common goal of re-launching these [peace] negotiations, to delay discussion of this [the Goldstone] report." He then went on to state that the Security Council is not the place to discuss it but the UNHRC. Interestingly, when the topic came up at the UNHRC last month, the US voted against all resolutions adopted by the Council.

As Donatella Rovera from Amnesty International stated: "The UN Security Council and other UN bodies must now take the steps necessary to ensure that the victims receive the justice and reparation that is their due and that perpetrators don't get away with murder." Alas, political bullying by Washington and the power of veto will keep this vital topic away from the Security Council agenda for the foreseeable future.

Military Staff Committee

The Military Staff Committee (MSC) is a subsidiary body of the United Nations Security Council. The Committee's role, as defined by the United Nations Charter, is to plan UN military operations and assist in the regulation of armaments. However, the MSC has done and continues to do nothing. Reasons of inaction include the Cold War stalemate and current Security Council politics; however, as Dr. Eric Grove states, really it is nothing but "a sterile monument to the faded hopes of the founders of the UN".

In 2005, the World Summit Heads of Government agreed to reevaluate the role of the MSC. However, this issue - five years down the line - is still being ignored. So what are the consequences of this and why the inaction? Consequences include a completely unnecessary expenditure on five high-ranking, and no doubt expensive, military officers. Furthermore, there is no go-to body for general, cross-cutting peacekeeping issues. Also, a reformed MSC could provide the Security Council with valuable advice and assistance, an important resource for Council members who do not have large and well-funded delegations. Finally, without reform, the MSC consists only of the Permanent Five (US, UK, France, Russia and China) which does not represent current global politics or pay credit/involve those countries that contribute the majority of UN peacekeeping troops.

Why has the MSC remained unchanged for nearly sixty years? I imagine it stems from the P5's preference to have a moribund Committee, rather than a reformed one which could devolve decision making power to other more deserving and involved countries.

Lebanon

Lebanon has two issues pending for Security Council discussion; both on the agenda for a number of years. Both aide-memoires refer to the integrity of Lebanese borders: one concerns Security Council failure to discuss the recent reports of ‘Lebanon Independent Border Assessment Team', and the other refers to UN-mandated assistance to help Lebanon regain the land illegally occupied by Israel, as laid out in Resolution 1701.

It is no coincidence that every time a Security Council issues mention or imply Israel, it falls into the aide-memoire pile. As with Gaza, the Security Council has not forgotten about Lebanese national integrity; rather, the Council has been blocked from addressing the issue by the US and its allies.

The problems of ‘aide-memoire' go to the heart of UN inefficiency. Issues of monumental importance can be sidelined, month after month, if the issue is not to the liking of a veto-wielding Security Council member.

Baltasar Garzon: Pillar of justice or Abuser of power

2010-04-20T10:27:00.000-04:00

Baltasar Garzon, the Spanish “super-judge” famed for his indictments against Pinochet and Osama bin Laden, will stand trial for “knowingly overreaching criminal jurisdiction.” The charges, issued by Spanish right wing political parties and jurists, refer to Garzon’s investigations into the crimes against humanity committed under General Franco.

If Garzon is prosecuted, the case could establish two dangerous precedents. Firstly, the concept of universal jurisdiction – globally popularized by Garzon – will be further eroded. Secondly, and more importantly, his prosecution would undermine the fundamental legal doctrine that the judiciary cannot be criminally liable for controversial investigations.

Garzon used the legal tool of universal jurisdiction to investigate the 114,000 disappearances that happened under General Franco’s regime from 1939 to 1975. Universal jurisdiction, previously used by Garzon to probe foreign countries over crimes against humanity, was in this instance used to override the 1977 Amnesty Law enacted by Spain. The Amnesty Law, passed two years after Franco’s death, was enacted to foster peace and democracy in the post-Franco era. Consequently, Spain did not have a ‘Truth and Reconciliation Commission’ like post-apartheid South Africa or an international criminal court like Cambodia; rather, more than a hundred thousand families were left to deal with unanswered questions about disappeared family and friends.

These unanswered questions formed the grounds for Garzon’s investigations. He argued that universal jurisdiction could override the Amnesty Law because the investigations focused on crimes against humanity. Furthermore, because thousands of the disappearances are yet to be resolved, they are continuing legal issues and therefore fall outside the purview of the Amnesty Law. It is also important to note that Garzon is only investigating the actions of thirty-four dead Franco officials, which suggests he seeks to find peace of mind for the victims’ families, not make criminal prosecutions.

The other issue raised by Garzon’s indictment, criminal liability for judges who initiate controversial investigations, is more worrying. If successful, the case would act as a dangerous precedent because it could legitimize political groups meddling with judicial independence and blocking investigations not to their liking.

International legal agreements that prevent criminal responsibility for pursuing controversial investigations include: Article 14 of the ‘Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’, Articles 4, 7 and 18 on the ‘UN Basic Principles of Independence of Judiciary’ and ‘International Standards on the Independence of the Judiciary’. Imagine if these foundational texts were to be overruled and Garzon were to be prosecuted. History demonstrates the fundamental role of the judiciary in monitoring and overturning unjust government policies: abolition of slavery, acceptance of homosexuality and racial diversity, acceptance of abortion, to name but a few.

Any investigation must be able to come before a court. This is essential to the rule of law. If not, governments could build statutory perimeters around themselves protecting their most abhorrent actions and darkest secrets – a trend that is already increasing! If Garzon is prosecuted, this trend may worsen.

Dangerously Secure Security Council

2010-04-13T12:20:00.001-04:00

Last week, the United Nations Security Council voted to increase the levels of secrecy it operates under. Some diplomats and press corporations argue that this is the greatest setback to UN transparency for decades.

The main issue is the significant reduction of press access to Security Council members. This trend stems from the moving of the Council chamber to the basement of the UN and changing security regulations. The new Council location impedes press access to diplomats as they leave deliberations; something that was available at the previous location. Also, council members can now leave the Security Council chamber and depart the UN building without passing the press. French Ambassador, Gerard Araud, seemed particularly happy about this.

In addition to press restrictions, measures voted in by the Council’s fifteen members include: banning the Secretary General’s note-taker from attending meetings, reducing the number of experts allowed in Security Council consultations and barring non-council diplomats from the inner-sanctums of decision making.

The decision to drastically reduce UNSC transparency grows from certain council members’ fears that information, from closed-door meetings, is being leaked to the press. However, as the ‘Committee to Protect Journalists’ argues, how can the UN push a free-press agenda in its programs across the world whilst eroding it at headquarters. Media coverage provides a vital role in monitoring and informing the work of the Council.

The President of the Security Council for April, Yukio Akasu of Japan, asserts that media access is not being eroded and he will work to have previous privileges reinstated. However, UN Press members seem less than impressed. The President of the UN press club, Giampaolo Pioli, stated that the restrictions were “unjustifiable” and represented “an unacceptable curtailing of the ability of reporters.”

** More on this story can be found here

Crime of Aggression: Pragmatic Reasons or a Fear of Scrutiny?

2010-04-12T16:25:00.003-04:00

In May, states party to the International Criminal Court (and other observers) will gather in Uganda to discuss the 1998 Rome Statute; one topic on the agenda is the definition of a crime of aggression. The crime of aggression was included in the Rome Statute, but a lack of consensus over definition prevented the ICC having jurisdiction over the crime thus far.

The United States, following World War Two, famously included the inclusion of a crime of aggression in the Nuremburg and Tokyo Trials. Robert Jackson, Chief Prosecutor for the US, stated: "to initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime..." However, in a situation that is all too familiar, the shoe does not fit so well when it is on the other foot.

Articles in the New York Times and Washington Post argue that jurisdiction over crimes of aggression would be terrible for pragmatic and political reasons. However, it is evident - both explicitly and implicitly - that fear of judicial scrutiny for US aggression lies at the heart of their arguments.

Both articles assert that jurisdiction over the crime of aggression would be too difficult because one could never successfully enumerate the grounds on which the crime occurs. And indeed, their arguments carry significant truths. There will be considerable difficulties in establishing how to assign individual responsibility for group actions. It will be immensely complex to determine the definition of aggression, and when an act of aggression becomes a crime of aggression. And formulating the relationship between the Security Council and ICC's jurisdiction over crimes of aggression will be far from easy.

However, these are obstacles to be overcome not dismissed. Legal systems across the world have always been plagued by difficulties of definition, but no one gave up prosecuting murder because of the difficulty in defining intent.

ICC signatories are doing wonderful work to build consensus on the parameters of the crime of aggression. One particular definition of the crime of aggression, I believe, is particularly praiseworthy:

"For the purposes of this Statute, the crime of aggression is committed by a person who is in a position of exercising control or capable of directing political/military actions in his State, against another State, or depriving other peoples of their rights to self-determination, freedom and independence, in contravention of the Charter of the United Nations, by resorting to armed force to threaten or to violate the sovereignty, territorial integrity of political independence of that State or the inalienable rights of those people."

How could such a statement be disagreed with? Michael Glennon, the writer of the NYT piece and Professor of International Law at Tufts, argues that jurisdiction over a crime of aggression: "will force hundreds of political and military leaders who act in good faith to guess when and where they will be arrested in their international travels. It will strain relations among allies and exacerbate tensions among adversaries. It will bollix an international equilibrium that already is precarious enough."

Glennon appears unaware that "international equilibrium" is bollixed because of unchecked, unilateral acts of aggression, not the other way round. Universal judicial scrutiny is fundamental if unjust, illegal and destructive acts of aggression, like the attack on Iraq, are to be prevented in the future.

At the heart of US opposition to the ICC and jurisdiction over crimes of aggression is Glennon's worry of "good faith" practitioners being prosecuted. As Stephen Rademaker argues in the WP article: "Washington has always been the sole judge of whether a particular use of force was justified under international law." If the ICC were to take over this role, the US ability to act aggressively would be considerably curtailed. If the structures to investigate crimes of aggression had existed in 2003, would Cheney, Bush and Blair have acted so rashly in Iraq?

Contrary to Rademaker and Glennon, I believe jurisdiction over crimes of aggression will not inundate the ICC with prosecutions; that is not the predominant aim. Rather, jurisdiction over crimes of aggression will reinforce Benjamin Ferencz's wise words that "war-making is no longer a national right" and that no country can act with impunity.

True Colors

2010-04-05T16:38:00.003-04:00

Events in the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) last week reinforced the findings of a previous blog, entitled “US-Israel: Really Breaking Friends”.

Last week, the UNHRC issued five condemnatory resolutions against Israel, and the US voted against all of them. The elaborate show of Obama standing Netanyahu up for dinner and numerous government officials denouncing Israel’s plans to build more settlements apparently meant nothing in reality. Rather, the US performance in the UNHCR demonstrates what this country is willing to do in order to pursue geo-political interests and protect domestic politics.

The US voted against all resolutions, effectively endorsing and encouraging the Israeli sabotage of the peace-process, the Israeli erosion of Palestinian human rights and dignity, the Israeli targeting of civilians, the illegal-Israeli detention of Palestinian women and children, the Israeli withdrawal of food, water, clothing, shelter from the civilians of Gaza, and the Israeli rejection of international law. Perhaps most interestingly, the US voted against Israel “immediately stopping its illegal decision to demolish a large number of Palestinian houses in East Jerusalem.”

The Legality of the Goldstone Report

2010-03-19T15:24:00.004-04:00

An excellent conference in New York last week focused on the legal, moral and religious implications of the Goldstone Report. The conference was organized by the “Israel-Palestine NGO Working Group” and hosted three distinguished speakers: Professor Richard Falk, Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb and Mr. Peter Weiss.

Falk stated that the Goldstone Report was a milestone in terms of accountability with respect to humanitarian law. It was, he said, an exceptionally credible, neutral and factual investigation into the war crimes committed during Operation Cast Lead in January 2009. However, certain media groups and politicians sought to discredit Goldstone’s conclusions, even though the findings were unassailable.

Firstly, said Falk, the discoveries of the Goldstone Report were not new. Investigations by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and an array of Israeli and Palestinian NGOs had already drawn the same conclusions. Furthermore, as the Rabbi Gottlieb so eloquently made clear, there are thousands of first-hand accounts of the atrocities of Israeli occupation in Palestine.

Secondly, the report had a deliberately narrow and unambiguous focus. Goldstone focuses on the targeting of civilians, the targeting of protected buildings (UN schools, hospitals etc) and the use of illegal weapons (white phosphorous, depleted uranium, cluster munitions). Through focusing on three distinct violations of international law, the Goldstone Report remains unambiguous.

Thirdly, the Goldstone Report was conducted by a highly professional team of legal experts, led by the distinguished, South African lawyer Richard Goldstone.

Fourthly, the excuse of the Israeli government that it was acting in self-defense is flawed for two reasons: it was Israel that violated the Israel-Palestine ceasefire; and, as the occupying force, Israel has a duty to protect those it occupies, the Palestinians.

Finally, many critics have argued – like Secretary of State Hilary Clinton - that Goldstone sets “dangerous” new standards for international law; this is not true. Goldstone merely reasserts the foundations that international law was built on: accountability and no impunity.

So, if the Goldstone Report is clearly just and lawful, why does the UN not enforce its conclusions?

Falk argued that a double-standard exists for some UN-member states, the US in this instance. Both President Obama and President Bush stated that they would not seek a permission slip from the UN when pursuing security concerns. The veto given to the permanent five effectively legitimizes the practice of using the UN only when it aligns with national interests.

The erosion of the doctrine of universal jurisdiction is a further problem for international law. Mr. Weiss stated that universal jurisdiction was a positive direction in which international law was moving. Unfortunately, though, changes in British and Spanish law demonstrate how universal jurisdiction is a rapidly deteriorating legal doctrine. The UK is softening its universal jurisdiction following the near indictment of Israeli minister of Foreign Affairs Tzipi Livni; and Spain, once known for being a strong voice for universal jurisdiction, will now only take legal action if the case involves Spanish citizens.

The International Criminal Court would be the logical institution to prosecute the crimes of Operation Cast Lead. However, at the moment, the ICC does not have the jurisdiction to indict Israeli leaders and make them accountable for their actions. Israel is not a signatory to the ICC, and consequently the case must be referred by the Security Council for investigation. But the Security Council veto – namely from the US - stands in the way.

The final and most important obstacle inhibiting international law in Israel is insufficient engagement of civil society. The Goldstone Report, and international law more generally, needs greater recognition and popular support. The importance of civil society engagement stems from two notions: firstly, that morality is found in individuals not governments; and secondly, the idea that few are guilty but all are responsible. Richard Faulk said that all those who believe in international law “should do everything in [their] power to make the Goldstone report something starkly rememberable, as the turning point where those under a geo-political umbrella will finally feel the raindrops.”