How many people must die before you actually act?

Can a madman who seems to pose the question “I rule you or I kill you” be convinced to withdraw by the sanctions decided yesterday by the UN Council without military back up?

Rather belated, the US decided to pose unilateral sanctions on Libya and the EU, NATO, and the UN Security Council are following suit, with the latter adopting yesterday a unanimous decision to pose tough measures on the not-so-much Jamahiriya of Libya. Up to now, an overwhelming figure of 1,000 is estimated to be the death toll according to the Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Franco Frattini[1] and the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon[2].

Sanctions are a useful tool in the long run and their usefulness lies in its preventive nature; that is before the escalation of a crisis. However, it is not quite effective in the short run and especially now in Libya where the situation is way out of control; let alone by itself. As Fouad Ajami of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies reminded us, Qaddafi survived sanctions before[3]. The Council decided to ask the International Court of Justice to investigate for crimes against humanity, to impose an arms embargo on Libya, and sanctions such as a travel ban and an asset freeze on the ruling elite[4]. Will these actions prevent the massacre in Libya? Is it possible that a Mad Dog who in essence poses the question “I rule you or I kill you” be restrained by such means? Hardly so. While the Western countries discuss sanctions, and until they actually implement their decisions, the number of murdered Libyans will rise and the West will share responsibility for this.

Qaddafi was in front of the urgent ultimatum, as the UK leadership suggested[5], long enough: withdraw and asylum or Hague and trial for crimes against humanity. Qaddafi has vowed to fight to his “last drop of blood” rather than abandoning its rule; there is indeed no need to wait much longer, the man responded already. Ban Ki-moon recognised that “even bolder steps might be necessary” and added that the Council’s decision “while it cannot, by itself, end the violence and the repression it is a vital step- a clear expression of the will of a united community of nations”.

From that point and on, the West needs to take immediate and decisive steps to prevent more killings. Immediately implement the decisions of the UN Council especially those related in humanitarian aid but also support the resistance forces, prepare a unified Western coalition and as Professor Bruce W. Jentleson suggests[6] wisely, include the Arab League and the African Union, and threaten for intervention. Military intervention even if risky is probably the only option to prevent the atrocious crimes currently committed in the country. That is not to suggest a full range military action but rather surgical operations such as shooting down airplanes that intend to attack protesters. Military force should back the international community’s decisions in order to be taken seriously by Qaddafi and his elite.

Let us also not forget, that if the West is truly interested in promoting democracy in the world, it has a moral obligation not only to save the Libyans from the bloody hands of their rulers but also to guarantee support for a regime change, with respect to their national integrity, providing the necessary checks and balances for the creation of a democratic state that the Libyans so righteously are struggling for.

 

by Madalena Papadopoulou

---

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/world/europe/24italy.html?_r=1

[2] http://turtlebay.foreignpolicy.com/blog/16159

[3] http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/02/26/libya.un/index.html?hpt=T1

[4] http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10187.doc.htm

[5] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/25/libya-uk-gaddafi-sas-embassy?CMP=twt_gu

[6] http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/23/libya-after-qaddafi/preparing-for-a-military-option

Bringing Mladic to Justice

Serbia’s attempt to apprehend the war criminal Ratko Mladic is not merely a matter of Serbian national interest...


“We will do it in Serbia’s interest.”

These are the words of Serbian government spokesman, Milivoje Mihajlovic, referring to his nation’s increased efforts to apprehend Ratko Mladic, the former army general indicted for 11 counts of war crimes, including crimes against humanity and genocide, committed during the Bosnian war. Mr Mihajlovic’s comments reflect the fact that the arrest of Mladic is the last barrier preventing Serbia’s application process in to the EU, a goal they have been officially seeking since December 2009. The government has recently searched an apartment belonging to the son of the fugitive, having raised its reward for information leading to his capture from 5 to 10 million euros late last year as part of an expanded effort to arrest the war criminal.
 
It is a sad state of affairs that Serbia only begins to take the hunt for Mladic seriously now that it has the incentive of EU membership. This is a man wanted for the most heinous crimes, including the infamous 1995 genocide of some 8,000 Muslim boys and men in the eastern town of Srebrenica and for orchestrating the near-four year siege of Sarajevo. Unlike the man who still evades capture for the atrocities committed on 9/11, Mladic has not been hiding in the unmapped mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan; he has been residing on the turf of multicultural mainland Europe. The fact that he has been at large for so long is a disgrace to European justice and a humiliation to his victims. With the chief UN war crimes prosecutor for the former Yugoslavia, Serge Brammertz, set to travel to Serbia yet again next month to assess whether the country is doing all it can to apprehend Mladic, it is vital that he maintains the full weight of UN pressure on Belgrade.

The day that Ratko Mladic is delivered to The Hague to join his psychopathic former boss, Radovan Karadzic, will be a good day, not for ‘Serbian interests’, but for international law and criminal justice.


by Matt Jones

Murderers to Ministers?

Amid the remarkable turn of events which have seen Hezbollah figures implicated in the murder of Rafik Hariri, only to end up with ever more power in their hands, Lebanon’s citizens are right to take to the street in protest and deserve greater backing from the West...

A Hezbollah-controlled government would "clearly have an impact" on relations between Lebanon and the US, said Hilary Clinton in response to Najib Mikati’s ascent to prime minister-designate.  You don’t say?  Hezbollah’s ongoing ascent to the status of a serious political force is nothing short of a foreign policy catastrophe for the US and its allies.

Lebanon’s ongoing political crisis has been fairly kind on Hezbollah.  In fact, considering that a number of its members have been heavily implicated in the assassination of Rafik Hariri, Hezbollah has come out of the situation pretty well indeed. 

In accordance with the Lebanese constitution which, by design, shares power between Sunnis, Shias and Maronite Christians, Mikati is, of course, a Sunni.  Yet, having ousted Prime Minister Saad Hariri earlier this month, Hezbollah has ensured that his likely replacement falls, as much as is possible, on their side of the fence in the Sunni/Shia divide.  Has this completed the terrorist’s transition from murderers to ministers?  Perhaps not just yet, but the rise of Mikati who Nasrallah himself termed a “compromise figure” is clearly a step in the right direction for Hezbollah and a stride back for the West.

And so Lebanon’s citizens should be saluted for their political activism in taking to the streets and making their voices heard.  Protests in Tripoli, in the north of the country, were the most intense as 20 people were treated for injuries and a satellite truck used by Al-Jazeera was set ablaze.  But in Beirut also, protesters blocked a road with burning tyres and rubbish containers showing their support for Saad Hariri.

Clinton’s timid response, on the other hand, is straight out of the diplomatic textbook, when really, stronger action is needed.  Lebanon’s protestors deserve more robust support.  But more to the point, tougher action is required on an issue which is a painfully uncomfortable for the US too.  Hezbollah’s rise confirms a distressing reality for the US and its allies: Iran’s (and Syria’s) growing influence in the already notoriously unstable region.  Does a Hezbollah-controlled government “clearly have an impact,” then?  Sure.  But I can think of far more sobering ways of putting it.

by Dane Vallejo

This blog was originally published by The Henry Jackson Society, accessed at http://www.henryjacksonsociety.org/thescoop.asp?pageid=106&poid=1065

'Baby Doc' is not here to cure anyone...

As if Haiti did not have enough problems to deal with already, here comes one more burden...

Former dictator Jean-Claude Duvalier, aka ‘Baby Doc’, has returned to Haiti amidst political instability, chronic economic problems, and spreading disease.  In spite of a massive international support effort, the small Caribbean island is still struggling to recover from the devastating earthquake that hit last year, killing more than 316,000 people and flattening the capital, Port-au-Prince.

   After spending nearly 25 years in exile, Baby Doc says he is back to help.  Given the Haitian former-dictator’s abysmal track record, not to mention the ignominious manner in which he left the country (he was forced out in 1986 by popular unrest and a revolt) that this is Duvalier’s true intention seems unlikely indeed.  Much more probable is that he is back to take advantage of the political situation.

   Duvalier was arrested and questioned by the authorities, charged with embezzlement and misappropriation of funds whilst in power.  His case is now pending and a judge will decide whether there is enough evidence to prosecute.  It looks likely that he will also be charged with human rights violations, with Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch potentially providing multiple reports detailing the tens of thousands Haitians who were killed by the sinister security forces, ‘Tonton Macoute’, that Duvalier used to control the country during his rule.

   Haiti struggled for years to establish democratic institutions after the former ‘President-for-Life’ left the country, and clearly, a return of a dictator cannot do much to strengthen these procedures.  Duvalier’s 15-year leadership was despotic, so how is anyone expected to trust him to promote democracy now?  But the political vacuum created in November has whetted his appetite for power.  Additionally, let us not forget that Duvalier had to be economically supported by his followers during his time living in France due to the fact he lost a large part of his fortune in a costly divorce settlement and his Swiss account has been frozen since 1986. However poor Haiti is, a corrupt leader may still benefit in economic terms.

   The US State Department said that Duvalier’s fate is a matter for Haiti to decide.  However, Western democracies have a moral duty to support the democratic institutions of the country and should endeavour to help the judicial system to practice unbiased conduct in the case against the notorious ex-dictator as much as possible.  A suffering country with no history of convicting corrupt leaders and a poor collective memory, with most of the population too young to remember, can use all the help and support it can get.

By Madalena Papadopoulou

This blog was originally published by The Henry Jackson Society, 19/01/11, accessed at http://www.henryjacksonsociety.org/thescoop.asp?pageid=106&poid=1057

A Matter of Principle

Why Turkey must not yet be allowed into Europe...

Writing in the Guardian last year, Martin Kettle argued that it was ‘disgraceful’ that Turkey’s bid to join the European Union was moving so slowly. He thus echoed the views of Prime Minister David Cameron who, last July, expressed his anger towards those in Europe who are hostile to Turkish membership, asserting that it is ‘wrong to say that Turkey can guard the camp but not be allowed to sit in the tent’. What neither Kettle nor Cameron seems to recognise is that there are important legal and political reasons preventing Turkey from becoming a part of Europe, and until these challenges are met, its membership must be refused as a matter of principle.

Firstly, the government in Ankara maintains its illegal occupation of Cyprus, a nation already possessing EU membership. Since the forced partition in 1974, Turkey has evicted almost one-third of the original Greek-Cypriot population from their homes, imported Turks from the mainland to inhabit the territory, and persistently used aid and weaponry given to it by the United States specifically for its own defense to help with its occupation and colonization of the island. Turkey remains the only country in the world to recognise northern Cyprus as a state and maintains a 30,000 strong troop presence there to this day.

Secondly, Turkey persists in its denial of rights to the country’s Kurdish minority. Despite constituting around 18 percent of the population, the Kurds have had their language prohibited from being taught in public schools, their political parties banned, and their freedom of expression curtailed by stringent laws. Though the government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan has made improvements on the issue in recent years, there remains a great distance to go.

Finally, the Turkish government continues to lie about the genocide of 1915, in which one and a half million Christian Armenians were systematically murdered by the Ottoman Turks. Though some may argue that what happened almost 100 years ago is unimportant today, imagine what the international reaction would be if the German government refused to accept that the Holocaust ever occurred. Like the events of 1939-45, we have pictures, original Ottoman documents, first-hand accounts of witnesses, a post-war trial, and even movie reel from the First World War to attest to the genocide of the Armenians, yet the Turkish government still peddles the lie that any violence that occurred was the product of a civil war. Moreover, thanks to its grotesque ‘Law 301’ which prohibits ‘denigration of the Turkish nation’, writers who dare to speak out about Turkish atrocities are regularly prosecuted by the government.

A country that maintains its illegal occupation of Cyprus, suppresses Kurdish rights, lies about the twentieth century’s first genocide, and incriminates its own writers for daring to speak the truth about their country’s history is not one that should be allowed into the European ‘tent’. Until the Turkish government is willing to drastically reconsider its position in regards to these important issues, Turkey is destined to remain out in the cold.

by Matt Jones