Intervention Still Exists: A Response to Albright

(Image from UNAMID)
Though well-written, former US Secretary of State Madeline Albright's June 11 op-ed in the New York Times, "The End of Intervention," utilizes language that is too strong and misleading.

Humanitarian Intervention is NOT dead.

Albright makes the following three points as a premise to make her argument:

1. "Totalitarian governments are alive and well." -- This is true. Burma is used as an appropriate example in the article.
   
2. "Their neighbors are reluctant to pressure them to change." -- Also true. ASEAN has been doing little to effectively pressure the government of Burma to stop its atrocities. South Africa failing to respond adequately to the current crisis in Zimbabwe is another contemporary example of this.
3. "The notion of national sovereignty as sacred is gaining ground." -- Maybe. Albright argues that Iraq and Afghanistan has helped lead to national sovereignty becoming more prominent in global politics.
   

After establishing these points, then comes her core argument: humanitarian interventions that were seen in the 90s are "impossible in today's climate." The title of the op-ed, "the end of intervention" hammers this point to readers.

But...really? Didn't the UN Security Council (China included) authorize one of the world's largest armed peacekeeping forces to Darfur? Haven't peacekeeping forces in the Congo, the Balkans, and Cyprus been renewed? Isn't intervention into Somalia currently being debated?

Humanitarian intervention is definitely not impossible in today's climate. It still exists and is being continued. Though Albright's 3 points effectively highlight some of the challenges that the international community is facing, that is what these are - challenges. With grassroots support, these and other obstacles (like China) were overcome with UN Security Council Resolution 1769 authorizing UNAMID, the peacekeeping force now being deployed in Darfur to the disappointment of Khartoum. Though the process has severe faults, it is a fact that the troops are being deployed.

The Global Conscience's "Confusion"

Albright also says:

"The global conscience is not asleep, but after the turbulence of recent years, it is profoundly confused. Some governments will oppose any exceptions to the principle of sovereignty because they fear criticism of their own policies. Others will defend the sanctity of sovereignty unless and until they again have confidence in the judgment of those proposing exceptions."

Though national sovereignty is a factor in the process to decide to intervene, Albright misses the main challenge that has been "confusing" governments throughout history: national interest. It's not that states are afraid to get the UN approval to invade sovereign territory. When going about it via a multilateral approach that is strongly supported for a just cause (e.g. Burma), such a course of action is not only legal (as authorized by Chapter VII of the UN Charter) but will also be highly-acclaimed internationally.

What is hindering governments from intervening is not the "sanctity of sovereignty" but the sanctity of their own interests. Without sufficient political or economic interest, heads of states usually do not see any reason to expend political, economic, human, and military resources to go intervene and stop human rights violations from occurring. Especially in our current plummeting economy, from the standpoint of the leader of a country, intervening in, for example, the middle of desert in Africa simply does not make sense. It is just not within the interest of the country. Intervention is not only extremely expensive but may take the tolls of many lives (ie: Black Hawk Down). This major challenge to intervention has and will always exist.

So, back to Albright's argument -- has the climate changed regarding the role of national interest in decisions to intervene after Iraq? A little bit. As Albright points out, the unilateral nature of the US invasion has raised skepticism of intervention and led to delegitimizing UN authority.

However, the UN is still somewhat functioning and has just as much teeth as it has always had (not too much). More importantly, a hybrid UN-African Union armed peacekeeping force was successfully authorized to Darfur in 2007 (post-Iraq) - a monumental accomplishment.

So what does this mean?

1. As in the case of Darfur, the threshold of overcoming national interest (and other challenges) to intervene can be breached through grassroots support. Whether humanitarian intervention continues to happen or not is really up to how much the people of the world care.
2. The case of Burma. People cared about Burma but nothing happened. Why? The answer is simple. As Albright puts it, the international system is "a collection of legal nuts and bolts cobbled together." It takes a lot of time to get through these nuts and bolts. It took over 2 years of work and a number of failed resolutions to get UNAMID authorized. Unfortunately, there is no way this could have been accomplished for Burma in less than one month.
3. So how do we fix it? This is the million-dollar question this blog is constantly searching for. UN reform obviously, but how? How can we create an international mechanism that can effectively and efficiently respond to humanitarian crises such as Burma? Any comments will be much appreciated!
   

Darfur: Waiting for Justice

Aegis Trust, Human Rights First, and a number of other human rights organizations teamed up to release the video below called "Waiting for Justice."

This video was released on the eve of International Criminal Court's chief prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo's delivery of a progress report to the UN Security Council.

As stated in its press release, the video calls for justice in Darfur and collects witness testimonies of wanted Sudanese officials committing murder and supporting Janjaweed attacks against innocent civilians.

The International Criminal Court just announced yesterday that "the whole state apparatus" of Sudan is liable for militias committing mass atrocities in Darfur.

As evidence amasses against the Sudanese government, we need to ensure that policymakers are adequately utilizing this leverage to put an end to the atrocities and facilitate an effective peace process as soon as possible.



Darfur - Waiting for Justice from Aegis Trust on Vimeo.

Zimbabwe: Mugabe's Rival Detained

(Image from AFP)

On the way to a rally, Robert Mugabe's chief rival Morgan Tsvangirai was arrested on June 4, along with 13 high-level officials of his party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). The police, having stopped Tsvangirai's 14 vehicle convoy, arrested even the MDC's chairman and the vice president along with the presidential candidate. The police has not given party officials any reasons for the arrest, but just said "our bosses want to see you."

The United States quickly responded by urging Zimbabwe to safely release Tsvangirai immediately and also asked South Africa to pressure Mugabe.

This arrest comes at a time where tensions are at peak between the two sides as the June 27 runoff election approaches. Amnesty International has documented how state-sponsored human rights violations have been continuing against thousands of innocent civilians, since Tsvangirai outpolled Mugabe in March.

See this previous post for more information regarding how the situation has been deteriorating.

ICC: "Whole State Apparatus" of Sudan Liable for Darfur Crimes

(Image of Ocampo from VoA)

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has finally found the Sudanese government to be officially liable for mass atrocities being committed in Darfur, directly linking the "whole state apparatus" of Khartoum with Janjaweed militias that have been massacring civilians on a massive scale for 5 years.

ICC Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo will be delivering his report to the UN Security Council on June 5. The report is to update the Security Council on the progress of Darfur cases as well as explore options to deal with the lack of cooperation that the Sudanese government has shown the Court.

In response to the report, the Sudanese ambassador has called the report "fictitious and vicious," and proceeded to say: "We will never submit any of our citizens to be tried in the Hague. Ocampo is destroying the peace process and we demand that this man be held accountable for what he is doing to the peace process in Sudan."

More on this to come after Ocampo delivers his report tomorrow.

Iraq: Tough Call for Refugees

(Image from JF)

After undergoing intense, international pressure by states, activists, and even Angelina Jolie; the Iraqi government has allocated $195 million to encourage refugees to return to their homes. The funds are said to go towards the covering of costs of travel, financial aid, and the compensation of destroyed property.

As the government has been increasingly sending the message that the security situation has vastly improved, 2 million internally displaced Iraqis and yet another 2.5 million in neighboring countries now are facing a tough call to decide when the right time is to return home. The Iraqi Ministry of Migration and Development said: "We expect as many as 100,000 people to return this year to their homes whether we pay for them or not as Iraq is witnessing a remarkable security development."

The refugee crisis in Iraq is immense. As of March 2008, one of five Iraqis have been displaced, which has particularly overwhelmed the neighboring countries of Lebanon, Syria and Jordan with torrents of refugees. Unfortunately, these destinations do not exactly provide a safe haven. Human Rights Watch has reported how, for example, "Iraqi refugees in Lebanon live in constant fear of arrest...Refugees who are arrested face the prospect of rotting in jail indefinitely unless they agree to return to Iraq and face the dangers there."

Yet, despite these fears, some view returning to Iraq a worse option - not necessarily because of the continuing violence, but simply of the lawlessness that has yet to be remedied. One father recounted how, after he and his son were released from a jail in Lebanon, they returned to Iraq only to have his son kidnapped. After paying a ransom to get him back, they returned to Lebanon and said: "I don’t want to go back to Iraq. I want to stay in Lebanon, even if they break every bone in my body, even if we don’t feel safe here, because we are illegal.”

So, will minimal compensation, financial aid and subsidies for travel really ease the concerns of these refugees? Probably not.

And even if it did, $195 million is not nearly enough to make a difference. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) projected their basic operations to cost $800 million in 2008. Having barely half of these funds that they require, the aid organization just said last month that they would unfortunately have to slash programs in Syria and Jordan. Of the millions out there, UNHCR has only been able to register 280,000 refugees in these countries.

The International Rescue Committee estimates that $2 billion is needed annually for the next 2-4 years to aid refugees in Syria and Jordan alone.

Politics have been hindering support for Iraqi refugees not only in Baghdad, but also in Washington. Organizations such as Refugees International have been criticizing US financial support as insufficient.

As awareness is raised on this issue and debate heightens, policymakers need to understand the magnitude of this problem and the difficulty of the problems which these refugees face. Enough financial support needs to be generated so that adequate support can realistically be provided to: 1) help those who want to return go home safely; and 2) help those who do not want to return by properly assisting them to resettle elsewhere.

To College Graduates

I know there are a few readers who have just graduated college - Congratulations!!!!

Freaking out after being thrown out of the utopian bubble of college 2 years ago, I remember myself desperately seeking advice from the wise while trying to figure out what to do in life.

Check out the following commencement address made by Samantha Power, author of A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide.

Powerful and wise words that I think are dead on point. Definitely worth a read!

Read her speech here.

The Obliteration of Abyei: Another Civil War to Begin in Sudan?

(Image from Washington Post)

Due to fierce fighting between the Northern Sudanese regime and Southern Sudan, the town of Abyei has been obliterated in the past few weeks. Over 100,000 have fled, infrastructure has been demolished, and the clashes between the two sides now threaten a resurgence of yet another civil war in Sudan, as the conflict in Darfur continues to rage on.

Background

The Northern Sudanese regime and officials of Southern Sudan have been continuing to negotiate the implementation of the 2003 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) that ended a civil war that lasted for two decades. One of the major sticking points of negotiations has been ownership of the oil-rich town of Abyei which resides on the border (see map above).

To resolve the conflict between the two sides over this region, the CPA's Abyei Protocol [PDF] gave the town special administrative status, with its borders to be determined by an independent commission. In 2005, the commission's report was rejected by the northern Sudanese government. As tensions continued to increase, violence began to spurt in late 2007/early 2008 between the two sides.

Experts have been closely watching this conflict, forecasting that the oil-rich town would be the starting point if civil war were to re-emerge in Sudan.

A Town Obliterated

(Image from BBC)

The ENOUGH project documented the obliteration of the town of Abyei throughout May 2008. According to their reports , Sudanese armed forces of the north had been illegally deploying there in Feb. 2008. Since then, the 31st Brigade of the Sudan Armed forces had been using terror tactics such as night shootings to systematically clear the region of civilians.

By May 16-17 2008, the town of Abyei had effectively ceased to exist. Local S. Sudanese officials estimated that over 100,000 had fled and that at least 25% of the town's structures had been demolished.

The head of the UN Mission in Sudan Ashraf Qazi said: "We have been to the centre of Abyei and it doesn't exist any more...It's totally charred. It's totally devastated. And it's an absolute human tragedy and it is something that must never happen again."

Urgent Need for Concrete Action

Abyei accumulated about $529 million in oil revenues last year. As both sides desperately continue to squabble over ownership over this territory, experts fear a return to civil war.

Local officials of the Sudan People's Liberation Movement representing S. Sudan said: "We are being forced to go to war...We are not desiring to go to war -- we have been forced to fight."

In addition, Khartoum has been once again been masterfully manipulating these tensions by weaving Darfur into the mix. Prior to the destruction of Abyei, the Northern regime had asked the South to help them defend against rebel groups from Darfur, which the South declined to do.

Since the country's independence, Khartoum has been known for destructively manipulating regions of Sudan that opposed its elitist rule, by inter-weaving the various armed conflicts throughout the country to create leverage.

As S. Sudan has its hands full of reconstructing their own lands and fighting for their sustained autonomy, it is once again up to the rest of the world to step in and help prevent the country to degenerate even further -- not just releasing vague statements of condemnation, but strategizing and implementing concrete steps of action.

See ENOUGH's policy recommendations here as to what the US and UN can do to.

DRC: ICC Starting to Grow Baby Teeth

(Image from AFP)

On May 25th, the International Criminal Court arrested the Democratic Republic of Congo's (DRC) former Vice-President Jean Pierre-Bemba. This marks the fourth Congolese suspect that has been turned into ICC custody.

Bemba, a multi-millionaire businessman, became a political celebrity to some in the region by leading the Movement for the Liberation of Congo (MLC). The MLC, eventually converting itself into a political party, has now become the DRC's main opposition party.

From his leadership in the DRC, former-Central African Republic (CAR) president Ange Felix Patasse asked Bemba if he and the MLC could help put down a coup in his country from October 2002 - March 2003. During this period, the International Criminal Court alleges that Bemba and his troops committed widespread human rights violations in the CAR -- rape, torture, pillaging, and degradation of civilians. Bemba's arrest marks the first since the CAR referred the situation to the ICC in May 2007.

MLC members have been vehemently protesting the arrest of Bemba, arguing that the blame should be placed on former president Ange Felix Patasse instead. Human rights groups, though satisfied with Bemba's arrest, also advocate that other high-level officials in the CAR like Patasse also need to be held accountable.

It seems that the ICC slowly but surely has been starting to gain some credibility and growing "baby teeth." Though continuing to face challenges and criticisms with each arrest warrant, it is critical that states around the world continue to support the pursuit of a functional mechanism of international justice in our world to impose a cost for impunity.

111 Countries Adopt Convention to Ban Cluster Munitions

(Cluster bombs in Laos - ICRC )

During an international conference that is currently taking place in Dublin, 111 countries pledged to adopte a landmark convention that globally bans cluster bombs.

The treaty will be formally signed in December 2-3 in Oslo. The full text of the document can be found here.

Critics of the treaty point to Article 21 as a loophole, which allows signatories to cooperate with non-signatories. However, the general consensus is that the treaty allows the world to take a huge step in the protection of civilians and will hopefully be a stepping stone to bolster the fight to ban landmines.

What are cluster bombs?
Cluster munitions or bombs are large explosives that contain submunitions that are either triggered from the ground or dropped from aircrafts. They have the potential to cover and kill everyone in an area of the size of several football fields. At least 14 countries have used cluster munitions since World War II.

The use of cluster bombs has had devastating effects against innocent civilians. Not only do they indiscriminately kill, but the duds that do not explode remain in the ground to be lethal for many generations to come. For example, the International Committee of the Red Cross reports how a third of the 270 million cluster munitions that were dropped in Laos in the 1960s continue to kill and terrorize civilians even today. These weapons are still being used in many armed conflicts around the world today, including Iraq and Afghanistan.

For more info, check out and support the Cluster Munition Coalition.

Darfur: Statement by All Presidential Candidates

In a very rare statement, all three US presidential candidates spoke out together against the ongoing genocide in Darfur. Though the statement lacks concrete direction and substantive teeth, the symbolic gesture does send the message that Darfur will be on the the radar screen of the next administration no matter who gets elected.