|
9314. alistairconnor - 3/4/2009 5:47:52 PM My preferred alternative to vonKreedon's targeted assassination policy
Judges at the International Criminal Court ordered the arrest Wednesday of President Omar Hassan al-Bashir of Sudan, charging him with war crimes and crimes against humanity for a concerted government campaign against civilians.
He may live out his days peacefully in Sudan. Or not. Milosevic died in prison, which is not a bad outcome.
Is there a dissuasive effect? In the long term, I think so. On condition that justice is pursued objectively and tenaciously, and is seen to be done. 9315. vonKreedon - 3/4/2009 6:47:18 PM AC - I was just coming here to comment on the arrest order. Now, if the intent is to stop the ongoing crimes in the Sudan this order doesn't do squat. The only immediate impact is that Bashir can't leave Sudan. Big deal. So, does the US, or France if you prefer since the US is not as yet an ICC member, now have standing to attempt to insert a military team to arrest Bashir? Milosevic didn't end up in prison until there was regime change in Serbia, is the international community willing to allow crimes against humanity to continue in hopes that eventually the regime will be overthrown without outside help? 9316. alistairconnor - 3/4/2009 7:27:50 PM In any case, it's a necessary part of the arsenal, and the US's absence from the ICC is to its shame.
Respecting sovereignty and international legality carries a heavy price in terms of being powerless with respect to crimes against humanity. However, I suggest that the major nations need to render their foreign policy moral and transparent before they can have the moral legitimacy to intervene in sovereign nations. To put it mildly, few people outside the US were convinced of the good faith of the US in the humanitarian intervention in Iraq... To give another example, the Somali intervention was an example of how not to do it, there were no clear objectives or chance of a positive outcome.
This judgement puts pressure on Bashir to negotiate and to behave better in future. It also legitimizes those who would seek to overthrow him. All this may be rather irrelevant, as long as he has the support of the Chinese, who do not brook these niceties... 9317. magoseph - 3/4/2009 7:32:39 PM The mystery continues to be why she accepted the post in the first place. Will she quit over a policy difference concerning, say Israel, so that she can try to run against him in 2012?
I think that Hillary is too intelligent not to realize that her political future lies with Obama and the young voters.
9318. vonKreedon - 3/4/2009 7:48:14 PM This judgement puts pressure on Bashir to negotiate and to behave better in future. It also legitimizes those who would seek to overthrow him.
The first sentence is something I'm reading in the press, but I don't buy it. As you point out later, as long as the Chinese, as well as the African Union and Arab League, continue to support Bashir. Further, what evidence there is currently seems to point to an increase in the Bashir regime's internal strength rather than a decrease resulting from international pressure. So the ICC warrant certainly gives international legitimacy for those who want Sudanese regime change, but it doesn't seem to be doing anything to actually effect such change internally.
So, again I pose the question, what active steps, if any, do you support to put a swift stop to ongoing crimes against humanity? 9319. vonKreedon - 3/4/2009 7:49:38 PM Inadvertant sentence fragment:
As you point out later, as long as the Chinese, as well as the African Union and Arab League, continue to support Bashir.
Should read:
As you point out later, as long as the Chinese, as well as the African Union and Arab League, continue to support Bashir I don't see non-invasive international pressure haveing any significant impact on the ongoing crimes against humanity. 9320. vonKreedon - 3/4/2009 7:52:30 PM And yeah, the US's absence from the ICC sucks and I hope that the Obama administration will change that. 9321. vonKreedon - 3/4/2009 8:00:12 PM And yeah, the US's absence from the ICC sucks and I hope that the Obama administration will change that. 9322. vonKreedon - 3/4/2009 8:02:44 PM Oh frak, why do keep forgetting about the frakking refresh/double post bug? 9323. alistairconnor - 3/5/2009 10:41:42 AM So, again I pose the question, what active steps, if any, do you support to put a swift stop to ongoing crimes against humanity?
1) An operational military wing of the UNO, in practice a standing army, which can be mobilised and projected anywhere in the world following a decision of the Security Council.
This would not be applicable in the Sudanese case, since it requires that the permanent members of the SC act in a disinterested fashion, which the Chinese would not do; it also requires a precise military objective. In the case of Sudan, that would have required inserting a military force to stop massacres by separating the belligerents in a civil war. I am in favour of the UN building capacity and legitimacy in order to be able to intervene in such a way.
Since it will be relatively rare that the SC will in fact agree to any such intervention, I am in favour of NATO developing the political will to assume such a role. And fostering regional organisations to do likewise, e.g. helping the African Union.
Everything else needs to be discussed on a case by case basis. For example, I would be in favour of South African military intervention in Zimbabwe, but the African Union would be against it... 9324. Wombat - 3/5/2009 5:43:54 PM Too bad South Africa has not been in favor of any useful intervention--political, economic, or military--in Zimbabwe. Had they been, Mugabe would have been long gone.
9325. alistairConnor - 3/25/2009 11:28:01 PM Former NZ Prime Minister Helen Clark to head the UN Development Program
Could be quite an influential job in these troubled times. 9326. robertjayb - 3/26/2009 2:33:49 AM Not on point I suppose but my long-held idea on dealing with terrorism is to form a super interpol, interpol on steroids. Staff it with really intelligent 007's. This idea comes from being convinced that "wars" on things seldom effective. 9327. alistairconnor - 3/26/2009 1:28:44 PM The problem with an interpol type organization is that it works as a co-operation agency, they do analysis and liaison, they have no authority to do any real police work except by invitation of member states, in collaboration with national police forces.
Even as an intelligence sharing outfit they are only going to be as strong as the weakest link : i.e. if they share intelligence with a porous national police force, then you're sharing it with the bad guys.
The creation of a genuinely autonomous supra-national police force would be nice, but then it would require delegation of sovereignty on the part of member nations in order to operate on the ground. And who would govern it?
Currently, terrorism is fought most effectively by collaboration between national police and intelligence agencies who build up mutual trust and intelligence sharing. And it's actually a lot more effective than we might imagine : it's just that we don't hear a lot about it. By design. 9328. Wombat - 3/26/2009 3:59:57 PM The Europol organizational model, which sticks police officials from EU countries under one roof, with the mandate to work cooperatively on a real time basis (without the need for a formal request for assistance) has been effective.
Another problem with an international, supranational force is membership. All countries in the world participate in Interpol. I can think of a number of countries that might exploit or hinder such force for their own ends. 9329. vonKreedon - 3/27/2009 5:55:22 PM Terrorism on the scale that we are seeing today is more than an international law enforcement issue. The FBI had no means to shut down the Taliban's support for alQaeda. Nor do I want the FBI to have the ability to project military force that it would take to shut down terrorist training camps in various other countries, I want the military to do that.
Now, I'm not at all arguing that law enforcement is irrelevant to an effective response to modern terrorism. An effective response requires a wholistic use of all our resources, intel, law enforcement, diplomatic, financial, and military. But to rule out the military option because that means warfighting and because it's the tool Bush reached for first is to seriously degrade our ability to respond to modern terrorism and so would make our and other countries less safe. 9330. Wombat - 3/27/2009 6:42:40 PM Be careful not conflate Al Qaeda-style terrorism and on-going insurgencies, which tend to have a broader sociopolitical context. 9331. vonKreedon - 3/27/2009 6:47:24 PM Yes, but the two have recognized that by strategic collaboration they can acheive upside synergistice effeciencies that can only be countered by aggressive application of .... ok, I'll stop with the Dilbert speak, I'm not sure why I found that so funny.
But seriously, the two things are different, but in some cases they are collaborating and cross-polinating. 9332. Wombat - 3/27/2009 9:39:51 PM The scary thing is that I actually understood what you wrote...
That strategic collaboration existed in the years leading up to 2001. It no longer exists in that form. 9333. vonKreedon - 3/27/2009 9:53:40 PM Really? I'm curious for more details on the statement that such strategic collaboration does not exist post-2001.
|
