(image of Yukiya Amano, 2006)
The UN investigation into the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, led by the Chilean ambassador to the UN, Heraldo Munoz, begins today.
John Oliver (no, not that one) has written a short paper for the U.S. Coast Guard arguing why the United States should ratify the Law of the Sea treaty. Citizens for Global Solutions' Lydia Dennett sums it up:
Oliver then goes on to discuss the many ways that the Law of Sea benefits the U.S. One of the biggest is National Security. This law would provide resources necessary for fighting the global war on terrorism and protecting our military power overseas. As this is one of the most important issues for the United States it is surprising that this law has not been ratified. Oliver also discusses environmental and economic advantages as well as the war on drugs. The Law of the Sea would give the US territorial claims to the 200 nautical miles on its coast which would help the control of drug trafficking.
UPDATE: Via Josh Keating, Dave Weigel reports what Mark suggested last week: that the fight over Harold Koh's confirmation might presage a battle over the Law of the Sea (and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty).
(image from flickr user Ian-S under a Creative Commons license)
Analyzing the rumor that Kim Jong-Un might not be North Korea's next designated "Dear Leader" "Brilliant Comrade" after all, Brian Fung speculates that Pyongyang's internal political dynamics might just be responding to the pressure of UN sanctions.
Without reading too much into it, the announcement raises a handful of questions. One: does this mean UN sanctions are having an effect? Jong-Un's close association with the North Korean military could be a liability at a time when the regime's funds have been frozen overseas, and its cargo ships are under surveillance. Picking a less militant leader could prompt the UN Security Council to loosen the sanctions, or lift them entirely.
I'd like to believe it, but I'm not sold. What last month's missile tests seemed to indicate was that North Korea's military hardliners were making their presence felt, responding to questions of Kim Jong Il's choice of successor with an emphatic "we're still the ones in control." And while I wouldn't preclude the possibility of North Korea's leaders amping up their rhetoric to the outside world as a way to conceal any possible internal moderation, threats of a "fire shower of nuclear retaliation" don't exactly befit a state that wants to move away from a political system dominated by the military.
(image from flickr user jonprc under a Creative Commons license)
The estimable Eve Ensler has been doing yeo(wo)man's work in calling attention to the horrific use of rape as a weapon of war in eastern DR Congo. Yesterday she wrote a forceful op-ed in The Washington Post on the subject, criticizing the UN for not doing more to implement a historic resolution passed by the Security Council last year that officially designates rape a war crime.
A few points: first, the passing of Resolution 1820 last year was itself an impressive accomplishment. That said, it was also embarrassingly belated. Rape has been a favored tactic of war criminals throughout history, and, morally at least, it has stood as a crime throughout.
Ensler is rightly incensed that a firm system of accountability is not in place to punish perpetrators of rape:
Rapes continue to be committed with near complete impunity. While the number of criminal prosecutions has risen marginally, only low-ranking soldiers are being prosecuted. Not a single commander or officer above the rank of major has been held responsible in all of Congo. Rapes by the national army are increasing, too.
I couldn't agree more that more perpetrators, especially those in the higher ranks, need to be prosecuted. But to suggest, as Ensler does, that the UN should be doing the prosecuting misunderstands the confines within which the organization works. It is not mandated to conduct trials of Congolese citizens. That is the responsibility of a Congolese government that has, unfortunately, far too often turned a blind eye to rape conducted by its own soldiers and by the rebels it is combating.
Both the UN and other countries' governments should be doing more to press the Congolese state to treat the crime of rape more severely. Resolution 1820 was a milestone. More important, as Ensler so passionately argues, is making sure that its potential is realized on the ground, in some of the worst places in the world to be a woman or girl.
(image from flickr user Julien Harneis under a Creative Commons license)
As if being indicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity was just a lukewarm bath...But prosecutors are going to go for the full boil -- a charge of genocide -- again, as the ICC will re-hear evidence for the crime that it declined back in its original March ruling.
The court, set up in 2002 by international statute, could change its decision if the prosecution could gather additional evidence, the ICC said in March.
My friend Kevin Jon Heller has much more on this, but I didn't think this was (or at least should be) about gathering additional evidence. Any overturning of the rejection of the genocide charge would seem to require an acceptance that the Sudanese government demonstrated intent to target a specific ethnic or racial group; and I'm not sure how additional evidence would prove this intent beyond the extent to which it's already been demonstrated. I've read plenty of accounts, for example, of the prevalence of racial epithets during Janjaweed attacks, some of which was conducted by the UN's own Commission of Inquiry.
So while I think a genocide finding would be legally correct, I have to assume that it was a political decision (albeit a kind of bizarre one) not to indict Bashir with the g-word, and I thus don't hold out too much hope of the ICC changing its mind.
...but the UN is staying. Almost 500 international personnel (and again that many Iraqis) work for the UN in Iraq, maintaining a key presence in cities like Baghdad, Mosul, and Kirkuk. And as pretty much everyone acknowledges, what's most important for the country in the coming months is national dialogue, political reconciliation, and regional cooperation -- the very areas where the neutral brokers wearing the blue berets are taking the lead.
Here's what the UN's outgoing Special Representative in Iraq, Staffan de Mistura, had to say about today's Day of National Sovereignty:
While the Iraqi people and government is today celebrating the withdrawal of the MNF-I forces from Iraqi cities, towns and villages the SRSG said that “what has been achieved is a real source for congratulation. I know that the Government is fully aware of what remains to be done in providing better services to the people, greater inclusiveness at many levels, and improved security for all. But significant progress has been achieved on many fronts. The United Nations Assistance Mission to Iraq has worked hard to contribute to this progress in a number of areas, and my colleagues who will remain behind in the country are totally dedicated to continuing these efforts.”
(image of Fijian members of UNAMI, from UN Photo)
U.S. Permanent Representative Susan Rice suggested as much, in a statement during a Security Council debate on peacekeeping yesterday:
The United States, for its part, is willing to consider directly contributing more military observers, military staff officers, civilian police, and other civilian personnel—including more women—to UN peacekeeping operations. We will also explore ways to provide enabling assistance to peacekeeping missions, either by ourselves or together with partners. Let me single out one immediate priority: we will assist with generating the missing forces and enabling units required for UNAMID, MINURCAT, and MONUC to better protect civilians under imminent threat of physical, including sexual, violence. [emphasis mine]
Both of these would be pretty bold promises. The United States currently contributes just 75 police officers and 10 military observers to UN peacekeeping missions, good for 68th place in the ranking of troop-contributing countries (right behind Romania and Mali) and a tiny fraction of the almost 100,000 personnel operating around the world. This paucity of U.S. personnel in the field has long been a blight on U.S. support for the UN, and it will be quite the accomplishment for Rice's team if she succeeds in increasing the numbers. The United States supports every UN mission that currently exists, and the country should be honored to send its troops police officers and military observers (U.S. troops are not likely to be forthcoming, because that "would mean putting American soldiers under U.N. command" -- a condition that no other country seems to find an impediment) alongside the others who risk their lives for the sake of global peace and security.
The second part of Rice's statement above -- that the United States will work to fully deploy the heinously understaffed missions in Darfur, Chad, and DR Congo -- may just prove even more difficult than contributing a few dozen more American personnel. Thousands of troops for these missions have been supposed to arrive for many months, but due to a combination of host government resistance and reluctance on the part of troop-contributing countries, the missions have struggled on short-handed, unable to fully carry out their mandates. Nudging the right countries behind the scenes will require deft diplomacy, and finally gathering the equipment and vehicles that these troops need will take an investment from wealthy nations that we have not yet seen. One thing's for sure, though: Ambassador Rice will have a hell of a lot easier time going around asking other countries to contribute troops if her own country coughs up a few of its own.