tdaxp

Refugees Peacekeepers ICJ

Refugees

Are IGOs very powerful
- Barnett & Finnemore argue so
- but, Big Cheese is very skeptical
- B&F would say IGOs indepent
- but BC finds serious problems with all their cases
- think of UNHCR -- growed because of UNHCR actions or because States found it convenient, especially with Soviet invasion of Hungary (internally displaced persons, not refugees)
- also think of politicization after Rwanda genocide, where Hutu militias mixed in with civilians at UNHCR camps
-- in Rwanda case, UNHCR Secretariat was unable to make States act because not in State interest, and UNHCR did not "teach" a new interest
- /but/ - UNHCR then "rented" Congo soldiers (under UN Observers) -- UNHCR militia?
- BC: IGOs independent when States do not care
- also during Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, UNHCR more active in Pakistani camps than Iranian camps, because States hostile to Iran, but US friendly to Pakistan
- BF and BC agree that the bureaucracy is important - Secretariat, not just Secretary
- BF argues there is a "culture of repatriation" in UNHCR, but BC cites memoirs of UNHCRs who fought against states (and lost) on forced repatriation
- BC: though it's against internationa law, states forcibly return refugees to dangerous situations "all the time"

my q: "Does this create the danger of an 'illegal norm' against non-repatriation?"

BC: "This goes back to the old question on Article II/4 (the use of force). If states violate something all the time, but claim they don't, does this erase law?"

my q: "To what extent is the UNHCR's camps during Afghan War proof of B&F's thesis, because a permanent UNSC combatant could not stop UNHCR?"

BC: UNHCR regime was created by Western powers against Soviets during invasion of crisis Hungary . So Afghanistan is not an exception

back to lecture:

remember, original UNHCR regimed created "against" Soviet Union
- but it become big during India's dismemberment of Pakistan

BC: "The Western states view of the UNHCR is that the UNHCR should care for these people... over there"

student Q: What about situations in Europe where refugees go through several countries? Is there still a country A, B, C, D, E, etc, even if they are only in the country for minutes and the state does not know they are there?
BC: a "tangled area" of internation law; the problem is caused by economic underdevelopment
- UN peacekeepers as "enablers" of human traffic becuase they use the indentured workers (brothels, etc)

UN Peacekeeping

- UN Charter says nothing about peacekeeping (not forseen in 1945)
- "purely customary international law... it arises out of practice"
- first largescale UN Peacekeeping in 1956 in response to the Suez Crisis
- some smaller "blue helmet" forces earlier (India, Israel, etc), but only in Suez does it become thousands
- next big one: Congo (1960-1964)
- (UN almost collapsed because of Congo / French, Soviet refusals?)
- pecaekeeping is "armed interpositioning" with the consent of the parties effected
- would fall under Chapter VI on UNC (The Peaceful Resolution of Disputes)
- whereas Chapter VII is action against somebody (Enforcement)
- BC: "journalism aside, Peacekeeping is not Enforcement"

UNAMIR
- United Nations Assistance Mission in Rwanda
- began to Implement Arusha Accords / Ceasefire
- Chapter VI (Peacekeeping) Operations
- Delaire (author of "Shake Hands with the Devil") wants to take action, but Secretariat skeptical because UN Secretariat (Kofi Annan, Peacekeeping Department, etc) refuse because of Chapter VI concerns
- another example of State pressure trumping what the IGO would otherwise want
- BC: charitable interpretation is that Annan wanted to 'save UN peacekeeping,' because unlateral UN peacekeeping acts would alienate US, UK, FR, etc
- Operation: Turquoise - after-the-fact France-supported UN chapter VII operation to save French-speaking Tutsi allies of Paris

International Court of Justice (World Court)

- can get a binding case three ways
1. Ad Hoc Agreement between states
2. Treaty Decision
3. Any state can uliterally make a declaration under article 36/2 that the ICJ has jurisdiction for certain kind of cases (as long as there is reciprocity under the same conditions with nation that would sue)
- can get a mediating case one way
1. UNSC asks for an advisory agreement

Nicaragua v. United States
- 1980s
- Nicaragua claims that because US gave compulsory jurisdiction to League of Nations' PCIJ back in the day, grant still given to UN ICJ
- US claims Nicaragua didn't join the League of Nations, so invalid
- ICJ rules against US on procedurial grounds
- old (Truman -> Reagan) jurisdiction given, except for Connoley amendment (except for domestic jurisdiction as defined by US) and Vandenburg amendment (which argues multilateral treaty can't be used as basis unless ALL UN Members are a party)
- ICJ rules against US on substantive grounds
- ICJ said instead, US violated customary internation law, to which all members are a party
- so US "walks aout," Reagan withdraws grand of compulsary jurisdiction (never regiven by any administration)

BC: "In general, the end of the Cold War hasn't changed too much for the ICJ. During the Cold War, about two or three cases a year. After the Cold War, up to ten cases a war. Of UNSCR5, only UK has given grant of compulsary jurisdiction (except for cases pertaining to armed conflict)"
BC: "States don't like to use the World Court [ICJ], because that would establish a precedents of the ICJ deciding cases. Even European states, which have regional courts, do not use the ICJ much."
BC: "Many legal scholars do not see a great role for the ICJ. It can be in particular issues, and its been a bit of the thorn in the side of the US on death penalty cases involving illegal aliens... but in the earlier cases, these people would executed anyway."

International Criminal Court (ICC)
- not based on the principle of universal jurisdiction
- not part of the UN

Pinochet case
Judge Gurzon prosecuting under IL
BC: "universal jurisdiction" is why Rumsfeld, Kissinger don't leave the country much - "unindicted war criminals"

BC: US policy to Cubans the same as China's policy toward North Koreans

"U.S. to Fight Terror With Terror," The Onion, http://www.pamolson.org/OnionTerror.htm.

"Iraqi Police Use Kidnappers' Videos to Fight Crime," by Christine Hauser, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/05/international/middleeast/05mosul.html, 5 February 2005 (from One Free Korea).

From parody...

WASHINGTON, DC—In a response to recent acts of extreme violence against Americans in Iraq and mounting criticism of U.S. military policy at home, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced the government's new strategy of fighting terror with terror Monday.

"Look, in order to catch a rat, you gotta think like one," Rumsfeld said in a grainy and degraded videotape message filmed at an unknown location and released to CNN Monday. "We've been pussy-footing around the war on terrorism for years. All that time, the answer was right in front of us: In order to wipe out terror around the globe, once and for all, we've gotta beat them at their own game."

...

On the seven-minute tape, Rumsfeld is joined by counter-terrorist leaders Vice-President Dick Cheney and Attorney General John Ashcroft, each seated on folding chairs in front of an American flag. Ashcroft described some tactics the government currently uses—pre-dawn assaults on civilian targets and subjecting potential stateside traitors to psychological intimidation—as a "small step in the right direction."

...


"It's time to get this war over with," Cheney said. "The philosopher Eric Hoffer said, 'You can discover what your enemy fears most by observing the means he uses to frighten you.' Well, we've been observing, but finally we've started taking notes. We'll have these terrorists running scared in no time." Cheney urged Americans to "be on alert" in upcoming months.

To reality...

MOSUL, Iraq, Feb. 4 - In one scene, the videotape shows three kidnappers with guns and a knife, preparing to behead a helpless man who is gagged and kneeling at their feet.

In the next, it is one of the kidnappers who is in detention, his eyes wide with fear, his lips trembling, as he speaks to his interrogators.

"How do I say this?" says the kidnapper, identified as an Egyptian named Abdel-Qadir Mahmoud, holding back tears. "I am sorry for everything I have done."

In the first week after the elections, the Iraqi Interior Ministry and the Mosul police chief are turning the tables on the insurgency here in the north by using a tactic - videotaped messages - that the insurgents have used time and again as they have terrorized the region with kidnappings and executions.

But this time the videos, which are being broadcast on a local station, carry an altogether different message, juxtaposing images of the masked killers with the cowed men they become once captured.

...

In another segment, after mentioning that Iraqi security forces had engaged in a gun battle, an Iraqi official says, as if making a grim public service announcement: "This is how we will treat the people beheading you." The video then showed what appeared to be a body covered by a sheet.

But seriously, this is a great step forward.

Iraq is fighting a civil war against Ba'athist and Salafist terrorists and the Sunni Arab tribes that support them. Iraqi knows what impresses these thugs; we know what makes them think they are men. For years the world has been listening to the Ba'athi-Salafist language of violence. Now our allies have are speaking that language.

Free Iraq is the balance. A free Middle East is in the balance, and because we have bringing this freedom Americna strength is in the balance. Iraq is treating these anti-Iraqi terrorists like the non-persons they are.

Good.

"Pentagon Is Moving Ahead on Getting Ready for Next Occupation, but Who Else in Government Is Doing That?," by Thomas P.M. Barnett, Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog, http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/archives2/001451.html, 26 January 2005.

A visionary comments on a visionary

Rumsfeld is moving the pile: he wants Special Ops Command to focus on killing terrorists (and he wants them to have their own dedicated intell units); he wants Civil Affairs out of SOCOM and back in the Army, which should focus a whole lot more on post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction (something it is loathe to do); he wants the Army and Marines to do more mil-mil training, again freeing up SOCOM's trigger-pullers to focus on killing terrorists; and he want a general shift away from planning for conventional wars to a more balanced approach that highlights the need to be able to handle post-war foes like insurgencies.

This is why Rumsfeld needs to stay. He basically "gets" the challenge and the need for change, and he'll push the uniformed services to get it done.

The real question is: Who else in the U.S. Government is moving in the same direction? Again, ask Rice questions about that in her confirmation hearings. Ask Treasury. Ask USAID. Ask anyone involved in foreign aid, disaster relief, or the Gap in general.

Rumsfeld isn't only a transformational Secretary who triumphed over the Taliban and Iraqi armies in record time. He's also an agile leader who understands mistakes and translates failure's lessons into future victories.

Another reason I'm thankful for President Bush and his wise decisions.

"The Pentagon's New Map," interview of Thomas P.M. Barnett by Steve Inskeep, Morning Edition, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4456685, 18 January 2005.

Dr. Barnett is a former researcher at the Naval War College, and joined NPR morning edition to talk about his book, The Pentagon's New Map. Some excerpts:

On Rumsfeld famous quote on Iraq

Rumsfeld's answer was sometimes you go to war with the army that you have, not the one that you want. Not exactly. You go to war with the army that you've been wanting.

On the People's Republic and oil

The second question is really the question of rising China. We have to look at them much like the British looked at the United States in the first several decades of the twentieth century. We have to see them as a rising power to be co-opted, not confronted. Because I think if you look at their strategic interests and you look at our strategic interests the overlap there is absolutely tremendous. Its Asia whose energy requirements are going to double in the next twenty years. So in many ways our quest for a more stable connected Middle East serves the interests of a rising China far more in a direct sense than it does the United States.

On Iran

I think there are ways to co-copt Iran because I think strategically in the region we have a lot of similar interests if we look at the situation with more objective eyes.

There's a lot more for a seven-minute interview. Give is a listen.

Iraq's Odd man out?
The political currents are running against U.S.-backed Prime Minister Ayad Allawi
Kevin Whitelaw
U.S. News and World Report
December 12, 2004 Edition
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/041220/usnews/20iraq.htm

Even as insurgent violence in Iraq continues to increase, U.S. officials have been reassured by the stalwart presence of Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi. But now, with the January 30 election fast approaching, there is an increasing realization in Washington that the administration's key ally may not be in his job that much longer. In fact, U.S. News has learned that at a meeting two weeks ago, top Bush cabinet officials including Secretary of State Colin Powell and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld discussed the prospect that Allawi might lose his job following next month's parliamentary poll.
advertisement

In recent weeks, most observers have been more focused on whether the elections will even take place--and many politicians continue to fear that insurgents will target electoral workers and polling stations in an effort to disrupt the vote. But President Bush and the interim government continue to insist they will stick to the schedule. This means that time is running out for Allawi, whose efforts to fashion a unity slate of candidates to return him to his post have foundered. Most political observers now say that he is unlikely to be chosen to keep his job because many Iraqis believe he has failed to deliver on promises to improve security or deliver basic services.

Prime Minister Allawi ("No, Allow Me") seems like a great man. He is unbelievably heroic for leading his nation at this desperate time. But even greater and more heroic is the new free Iraq. The identity of the next leader of Iraq matters much less than how he is chosen. May a free Iraqi people have a leader of their choosing, Inshallah.

Allawi, a secular Shiite, could still prevail, but it is not clear that the U.S. military is fully prepared for his increasingly likely departure. Allawi has given U.S. troops a fair amount of room to operate in Iraq--and backed them even during tough times like the siege of Fallujah. On the other hand, the ouster of the U.S.-backed Allawi could help convince Iraqis that the United States really is trying to build a democracy in Iraq.

Yup.

Hat tip Democratic Underground.