Flesh and Teeth

As this blog has been tending towards the question of international justice, and coming to some sound but somewhat discouraging conclusions, I thought I should point out when, it appears, the UN is getting it exactly right. Since July, an independent court comprised of Cambodian and international personnel has been trying senior Khmer Rouge leaders for war crimes and violations of international law. Though cynics might argue that it is too late to hand down judgments so long after the fact, I tend to think that it does indeed make a powerful statement. There is no statute of limitations on national memory, and, as such, crimes as heinous as those committed by the Khmer Rouge regime cannot go ignored.

But there is more at work here than simply bringing international criminals to justice. One of the main functions of international bodies like the UN and the ICC is to help institutionalize a set of norms for country behaviors and interactions. National governments tend to send confusing signals - the US condemning human rights violations and sanctioning North Korea, for example, while at the same time maintaining brisk and happy trade relations with China, another human rights offender. This is because nations have multitudinous, conflicting interests, and, regardless of how you view policy machinations, no country can achieve all of its objectives simultaneously.

The international organizations that countries and concerned citizens create have a significantly more focused role, especially when it comes to human rights. They set the norms by which individuals and nations can judge the behavior of other bodies in the system. Putting war criminals on trial is an unambiguous sign that shows what sorts of policies and actions are not allowed by these norms, and strengthens and further defines the image of what the world Ought (capital "O") to be. It is less that the UN has a freer hand when it comes to international trials (though it certainly does), or that it's multilateral bent gives it more international legitimacy and the moral high group (although that is a key reason for its existence). What the UN is able to do is establish and reinforce a vision of the world in which human rights violators are punished and governments are held responsible to a higher authority. Every time more details of that vision are made manifest, the very notion of international justice itself becomes less chimera and more of a concrete - and achievable - objective of the international landscape. The system may lack consistent enforceability (see Moldova and Rwanda/Uganda/DRC posts) but considering international justice is an invention of the international system, it needs to be made real before we can expect it to have much bite.

Are we still fighting the Cold War?

Hello dear readers!  I am posting Kathryn Lindquist's opinion piece titled "Fighting Old Wars".  She presents a view of the war in Afghanistan and our struggles in Pakistan through the visor of Cold War military history.

“But above all, UN Day is a day on which we resolve to do more, more to protect those caught up in armed conflict, to fight climate change and avert nuclear catastrophe; more to expand opportunities for women and girls, and to combat injustice and impunity.”

I'm glad Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon places the rights of women/girls on the list of priorities with climate change, armed conflict, and nuclear catastrophe. We tend to forget how soft power can have as much harm on individuals, women and girls especially, as hard power has on the lives of any population.

a Palestinian state?

So, it goes without saying that the Israeli-Palestinian situation always stirs debate. I really wonder what kind of discussion/debate/ridiculous antics will arise when Palestinians ask the Security Council to proclaim a state in Gaza and West Bank.

Come on, if that doesn't get someone to respond, I don't know what will.

Germany and integration

Germany is, in my opinion, one of the most thoughtful and active members of the UN. In fact, just recently, the country won one of the rotating seats on the Security Council and signed a cultural relations pact with India. With its economic leadership and truly introspective foreign policy (it once opened debate on whether or not its troops should use force if sent for peace keeping missions), Germany can be considered the "model" member. If you are a savvy reader, you know that the other shoe is about to drop. Chancellor Merkel claimed the multicultural experiment, that is Germany, has utterly failed. I know a little bit about the political discord that has been brewing between Germans and Turkish immigrants. I also understand it takes a bit of a leap to use domestic framework as a way of measuring future foreign policy. But, I cannot help but ask whether or not a country's internal politics can sharply transform its foreign politics. The debate surrounding "non-integrating" Muslims (see: mostly Turks) has been ongoing and existing concurrently with Germany's remarkable activity in the UN. This brings us back to the Sovereignty-Unity balance within the UN.

Do you believe that domestic and foreign policy can be philosophically exclusive?

I spent nearly two years in the Republic of Moldova so this article caught my eye and made me think. In the country, Human Trafficking, which is funded by outside sources, represents a kind of "black" market economy that pays police to turn their heads and coopts many politicians. In fact, Moldova was a Tier 3 country, the lowest rating, regarding Human Trafficking in 2008 until it barely squeezed by for a Tier 2 rating in 2009. I have a lot to say on the subject but want to pose questions instead: Can the ICC be effective in places where corruption and violation of human rights are so entrenched? Can it stand against crippling institutional memory and grow beyond political nicety into actual implementable power?

I am not sure. I tend be idealistic and subscribe to such day-dreams as the 2048 Project but on other hand am skeptical about the possibilities in countries where I have real experience.

Southern Sudan

A few months back, there were rumblings in southern Sudan about a possible secession vote in January.  I could link to a few articles like this one but those rumblings have already turned into reality.  The UN Security's Councils brief stop in Juba, the southern capital of Sudan, clearly marks how serious of an issue possible secession represents.  Southern Sudan controls nearly 80% of crude oil production in all of Sudan.  Unlike the cases of East Germany or Transnistria, southern Sudan also has a larger population along with a heavily developed industrial sector.  If the vote turns out in favor of secession, northern Sudan will face almost certain economic hardship.  What are your thoughts?  America fought a war for a reason not unlike the one facing Sudan.  Will the Comprehensive Peace Agreement protect the results of the vote?

Expectations and the UN

There have been a slew of articles recently posted in the NYTimes about the Rwanda, Uganda, DRC triangle of genocide, rape, and general violence. It caused quite a stir.

It all started with a UN report on possible cases of genocide committed by Rwandan rebels; the report itself was altered after Uganda threatened to pull its peace keepers in response to how the country was also mentioned. The first report was dead-on. It explained why the UN's peace keepers are ineffective in the DRC and why they cannot prevent genocide, rape, and general violence.

These articles stand in stark contrast to the not insubstantial peace keeping success in such former violence-riddled countries as Liberia. With positive coverage, for example how the MDGs are progressing, the UN has not suffered much Nasa effect, where only failures are printed. But, I guess I want to ask what the expectation is with regard to peace?

While on an intellectual level I agree with the excuses: women don't confess to male peace keepers about being raped, information does not travel fast enough in the bush to arrest rape gangs before they act, and new gangs commit unpredictable acts of genocide and rape on a whim to win concessions from government bodies, I expect more. I expect more because the UN has implemented successful all-female police units in countries with high crime, high rape gang statistics. Cell phone technology is ubiquitous and is leveraged in remarkably rural settings for simple communication such as ordering medication. Lastly, this really isn't a shock. We know what's going on, at least to the extent where and how the instability is manifesting itself. Even Economists agree on individual country's peace index.

What do you think?

the first official posting

Hi UNA-EB members, community, readers, and more!

This blog is a place of discussion, thoughtful discourse, and intelligent debate.  In that spirit, I want to post a paper produced by a very bright former UNA-EB volunteer, Shilpa Muralidaran, who spent the summer of 2010 delving into the Israel-Palestine Debate.  

This is a test post!  Welcome to the UNA-EB Blog!