In times of crisis or violence, children are often the most vulnerable members of society — psychologically scarred by the acts of brutality that occur around them, susceptible to manipulation and in many instances forced to fend for themselves if their families are displaced by fighting.
In Syria, children are put in even greater jeopardy by the deliberate actions of their government — acts that include widespread arrests, detention under horrendous conditions and outright torture for their confessions.
These are some of the grave and disturbing findings published last week by United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and his team of field researchers. The report was delivered and briefed to members of the Security Council in the hope that the chamber would at least be able to come together and issue a clear statement of condemnation against the crimes that have been perpetrated. (more…)
While much of the world is focused on the dismantling of Syria’s chemical weapons program, the United Nations Human Rights Council is devoting serious resources to another major issue in the Syrian Civil War: the lack of accountability for those who are engaged in atrocities.
In a speech to reporters in Geneva, Switzerland, the international body’s top human rights official, Navi Pillay, disclosed that her colleagues had uncovered numerous incidents in the fighting that amounted to war crimes or crimes against humanity.
Observers of the Syrian Civil War, which is now in its third years, might not be surprised. Reports of what can well be considered crimes against humanity have regularly surfaced. Syrian military forces deliberately bomb densely populated areas, regardless of how many civilians are in the vicinity. Entire neighborhoods have been destroyed by the regime’s use of fighter aircraft, heavy artillery and helicopter gunships. Cluster munitions and barrel bombs that explode on impact, covering wider areas than regular munitions, have been used throughout the year. Bakeries, schools and power stations have all been targeted — if not to destroy rebel supplies and command centers, than to frighten civilians into thinking twice about supporting the opposition.
But in a twist that could potentially add renewed urgency to the humanitarian crisis in the country, Pillay singled out President Bashar Assad for either ordering or condoning these abuses. (more…)
Most of the 193 countries that are part of the United Nations consider winning a temporary spot on Security Council a great honor. As the body’s sole authority on debating issues of international peace and security, countries in every region of the world are often quick to put themselves in the running in hopes of joining the exclusive club.
While thousands of international diplomats are attending this week’s festivities at the annual United Nations General Assembly, American officials are squaring most of their attention on Iran’s new president, Hassan Rouhani.
Since his surprising victory in Iran’s presidential election this summer, the former nuclear negotiator and cleric has generated his fair share of excitement in world capitals, talking of moderation, coming together in pursuit of shared goals and expressing a willingness to become more transparent about his country’s nuclear enrichment efforts.
Compared to his predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Rouhani comes across as a wise sage who understands the nuances and sensitivities of international politics. The president himself criticized Ahmadinejad’s administration for speaking in bold, black and white terms and conducting a foreign policy that, he said, resulted in nothing but global sanctions preventing Iran from exporting its oil.
With an economy in tatters, Rouhani recognizes that he needs to change how Iran does business if there is any hope for those sanctions to be relaxed. (more…)
When asked by a CBS reporter during a press conference if there was anything Syria’s president Bashar al-Assad could do to avert a military strike, Secretary of State John Kerry casually suggested that his regime could hand over all of its chemical weapons to international monitors.
“Sure,” Kerry said. “He could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week. Turn it over, all of it, without delay and allow a full and total accounting for that.” To demonstrate just how unrealistic he deemed the possibility, Kerry quickly added that Assad was unlikely to even consider the idea. “He isn’t about to do it and it can’t be done, obviously.”
Forty-eight hours later, Kerry’s offhand remark has turned into a major diplomatic initiative led by the Russians to postpone or cancel outright an American airstrike on Assad’s military bases. (more…)
President Mahmoud Abbas and his Palestinian Authority face one of the most pressure packed days on Thursday when their diplomats are expected to send in a draft statement to the United Nations General Assembly for enhanced status in the world body.
The draft resolution, which was introduced to the United Nations earlier this month and announced (PDF) in front of the General Assembly in September, calls for the international community to recognize an independent Palestinian state on lands that have been occupied by Israel since the 1967 war — East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. But perhaps the most important aspect of the draft is the possibility of great power for the Palestinian Authority at the United Nations, including participation in the International Criminal Court.
After months of back-channel talks by the United States and an overt Israeli campaign to pressure the European member states to vote against or abstain from the measure, Israel has come to the realization that the Palestinians will succeed in their effort. Israeli diplomats and spokesmen for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are now downplaying the impact of the vote, calling it a symbolic gesture that will do nothing to improve the chances of a two-state solution. (more…)
Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas has made it clear that he will formally push for an enhancement of Palestinian status at the United Nations sometime in November. What is also clear is that Abbas’ effort, unlike his attempt at the Security Council last year to gain full member state status, is almost certain to succeed. With the General Assembly traditionally dedicated to the Palestinian cause and with no American veto of the measure impossible, the resolution will pass by a simple majority vote.
What is less certain, however, is how Israel and United States will react in the event that the Palestinians achieve their goal. A successful vote in the General Assembly would give the Palestinians the right to join a number of multilateral organizations for the first time, including the International Criminal Court, where Palestinian representatives could plausibly charge Israel for war crimes. For a country that has long used the concept of national security to justify its occupation of the West Bank and its embargo of the Gaza Strip, Palestinian membership of the court would serve as a legal headache for the state of Israel.
All of this begs the question: what measures will Israel take to counter, or punish, Abbas’ United Nations campaign? The United States presumably would support Israel in any countermeasure that is deemed reasonable. Obama Administration officials have argued that a unilateral Palestinian move at the United Nations would hurt the chances for a negotiated, final status peace agreement.
Israeli newspaper Haaretz reports that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his allies are already combing through a list of options that they can take once the Palestinians acquire their “nonmember state” upgrade.
One option under consideration, withholding tax revenue that is collected on behalf of Abbas’ Palestinian Authority, has been used by the Israelis in the past when disputes arose over the peace process. A large chunk of the Palestinian Authority’s revenue comes from the taxes and customs duties that the Israelis collect and transfer to Ramallah. A decision to withhold those transfers could lead to the worsening of a financial cash crisis that economists ay is the worst in the Palestinian Authority’s eighteen year history.
Another option being mulled by Israeli policymakers is a total boycott on talking, dealing with and communicating with Mahmoud Abbas as long as he remains president. The Israelis used a similar policy with respect to the late Yasser Arafat when they no longer believed that he was interested in formulating a lasting peace. This policy would pack a major punch but also be incredibly rash. Washington would be likely to oppose it, seeing Abbas as the best hope for dialogue that the Israelis have had in a long time.
The Obama Administration may also decide to make its displeasure known by ratcheting up its own pressure. As was hinted by American officials during Abbas’ Security Council plan last year, donations and funding to the Palestinians could be put in jeopardy. The United States are the single largest financial contributor to Abbas’ West Bank government. Washington provides (PDF) close to $500 million in aid this year alone.
That funding could be threatened thanks to American legislation already on the books which mandates Congress and the White House to cut off funding for the Palestinians if their government acquires “the same standing as member states or full membership as a state in the United Nations or any specialized agency […] outside an agreement negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians.”
Depending on how the law is interpreted, an attempt by the Palestinian Authority to increase its United Nations representation from an “observer entity” to a “nonmember state” could possibly meet the criteria of an American aid block.
So while Abbas will receive the support he needs to attain more prestige at the United Nations, he will confront some very uncomfortable, if not painful, reprisals after the vote ends. With his government facing a terrible fiscal crisis, the Palestinian leader may well have to justify to his people why a greater voice in New York is more important to their cause than an administration that can pay its bills.
Lakhdar Brahimi, the man who took over from Kofi Annan in August envoy to the Syrian crisis on behalf of the Arab League and the United Nations, never had much of a plan to jumpstart the type of diplomacy that is essential to ending the conflict. That is not entirely his fault. No matter how hard he might work, he cannot initiate peace talks when both sides are actively seeking the other’s destruction. Even for someone like Brahimi, who has been a veteran diplomatic troubleshooter for over fifty years, the civil war in Syria is a problem that many of his colleagues worldwide akin to mission impossible.
Just because resolving the war is hard does not mean that Brahimi has given up. Indeed, after spending weeks circulating around the Middle East for meetings and consultations, he managed to broker a short-term, tentative ceasefire for the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha which ends this Monday.
After receiving the formal plan from the envoy, the Syrian government stated that it would be willing to adhere to its demands, as long as the armed opposition, which the regime has consistently referred to as “terrorists,” does not use the calm to ambush its soldiers or resupply its men.
Brahimi’s initiative, however, is not really a ceasefire in the traditional sense of the word. With an opposition that lacks a strict and centralized chain of command and a regime that has a poor record of keeping its promises, the proposal is more like a general, ad hoc respite from the fighting than a hard-pressed, ironclad peace agreement.
It took only a few hours for violations to occur. By the end of the first day of the truce, activists reported a death toll of forty to as high as seventy, half of what the daily toll has been for the past few months but far from indicative of a ceasefire.
Violations are unfortunate but they are almost to be expected. The conflict in Syria has reached such a heightened level of violence that most of the parties engaged in the fighting are more intent on winning outright than negotiating. The Assad regime has shown no inclination that it is willing to talk with it opponents, despite the urgent calls of United Nations officials and Arab governments that dialogue is the only way that the war can end without violence spilling over Syria’s borders. The Syrian National Council has softened its negotiating position as of late but the conditions that it continues to put forth are still too stringent from Bashar al-Assad’s perspective.
The rebels, in the meantime, are far more interested in getting rid of the regime by force than sitting down with a president they think of as bloodthirsty and ruthless. With tens of thousands of lives already lost, Free Syrian Army rebel commanders are not about to cast away the sacrifices that have been made by opening up discussions with a government discredited in much of the world.
This is why Brahimi’s ceasefire, while noble, is not likely to lead to any substantial political settlement. You cannot lay the groundwork for negotiations if the people who matter consider talking a sign of weakness and surrender.
For most countries, the annual meeting of the United Nations General Assembly is both a chance to represent their citizens on a global stage and an opportunity to hold discussions about some of the world’s most urgent international security issues. Speeches are made, applause is heard, delegates meet behind the scenes and documents are drawn up. But for the Palestinians, the General Assembly is the best chance they have in a year to press their case for enhanced membership in the organization.
Since an attempt to attain full state status in the Security Council failed last year, Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas is reportedly lowering his sights on the General Assembly, where the Palestinians have overwhelming support for their position in their dispute with the Israelis.
For Abbas, whose government has been strapped for cash and is just now recuperating from a series of protests in the West Bank over high prices, a push to improve the Palestinians’ status in the United Nations to “nonmember observer state” is his way of staying relevant.
Will a successful Palestinian bid in the General Assembly do anything to alleviate the problems that have plagued the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for so long? For the most part, probably not. (more…)
In the 1994 film Clear and Present Danger, based on the Tom Clancy novel by the same name, the president of the United States announces that drug cartels present a national security threat. In the 1990s it was not hard to imagine that the next threat would come from a nonstate actor since the Soviet Union, the United States’ and their allies’ only state threat, did not exist anymore. However, the attacks of September 11, 2001 shifted the world’s focus to terrorism. But threats from transnational criminal organizations, including drug cartels, are still a major threat to global security and is a threat that has not got a lot of attention.
As of 2011, transnational crime is estimated to cost 3.6 percent of total global GDP. 2 percent of that is from money laundering. The scope of transnational crime covers a wide range of activities from drug and human trafficking, to environmental crimes (illegal logging, dumping and poaching), money laundering, counterfeit medicines and cyber crimes. All of these represent a variety of dangers to populations and states. (more…)
If there was anyone in the world who still believed that the civil war in Syria could be resolved through a concerted, staged diplomatic process, whatever support that was left in that camp was quickly extinguished on Thursday.
For the third time since the uprising in Syria began seventeen months ago, Chinese and Russian diplomats came together to veto a British backed United Nations Security Council resolution that would have punished the regime of Bashar al-Assad if it failed to comply with Kofi Annan’s six-point peace plan.
Afraid that the British proposal would have authorized the use of military force under Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter, China and Russia rejected the draft resolution as “biased” and unproductive. (more…)
With the high-profile defection of Brigadier General Manaf Tlas, an elite member of the Syrian regime and close personal friend of President Bashar al-Assad’s, comes the renewed sense that the conflict in Syria is beginning to mirror developments in previous “Arab Spring” uprisings.
As Muammar Gaddafi’s inner circle fractured and defected around him and opposition forces consolidated their gains in the rebel stronghold city of Benghazi, the international community invoked the principle of the “responsibility to protect” and mobilized for a military intervention that was spearheaded by NATO forces. This event represents the most recent case of intervention justified by the moral and ethical concepts encapsulated within the “responsibility to protect” doctrine.
Though the principle itself is only a decade old, it has come under considerable scrutiny and criticism within the international community and has undergone several reinterpretations since its normative inception in 2001. (more…)
This week sees the start of negotiations on a global Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) that will aim to regulate and monitor the unruly global arms industry.
Last year’s “Arab Spring” uprisings have given particular salience to these negotiations as in many countries where demonstrations took place, imported weapons and armaments (often from Western exporters) were used against civilians in acts that contravened international human rights.
The ATT aims to create global standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms, covering a full spectrum of weaponry, from small arms to tanks, advanced missile systems and fighter jets.
The talks are the fruit of a long and protracted international diplomatic battle that stretches back years, with the tireless work of civil society advocacy groups, such as the NGO Control Arms, playing an instrumental role in raising the issue up to the forefront of the United Nations’ agenda. (more…)
Former United Nations secretary general Kofi Annan at the University of Ottawa, Canada, November 4, 2010 (gazetteUO)
Kofi Annan, the former United Nations secretary general who was appointed in February by the Arab League and the United Nations to lead a diplomatic effort to end the conflict in Syria, probably knew all too well when he accepted the job that it wouldn’t be easy. Indeed, sensing that the uprising in Syria was quickly changing from a peaceful protest movement to a civil war between supporters and opponents of President Bashar al-Assad, Annan wasted no time getting to work after he was nominated.
The signing of a ceasefire agreement by the Syrian government and the rebel Free Syrian Army on April 12 was the most significant achievement that Annan could produce with the consent of all of the parties, including the regime. The international community subsequently endorsed the move while the United Nations Security Council followed suit by affirming Annan’s initiative through a resolution.
Yet more than two months after the plan was put into effect, the Assad regime’s security forces have done nothing to abide by the charter’s six points which include the release of political detainees arrested in government sweeps, the end of shooting from all sides, the withdrawal of loyalist tanks and soldiers from populated areas and free access for emergency workers and journalists.
Absent the release of a few hundred people from prison, Assad has all but sidestepped the agreement, claiming that his government needs to respond to what is fast becoming a more lethal and capable insurgency movement seeking his ouster. Syrian troops are nowhere near leaving the cities, understanding that doing so would allow their armed opponents to expand their operational reach.
Instead, what we have seen is an acceleration of violence and the deployment of heavier weapons, not only from the Syrian army but from the rebels as well.
Government security forces have stepped up their military offensive this month in an attempt to flush out neighborhoods that have been converted into rebel headquarters. Far more often than not, the Syrian army has conducted those operations in the most indiscriminate way possible, lobbing mortars and shells onto residential areas before allowing the regime’s supporting militias to sweep them.
Assad has begun to use his arsenal of helicopter gunships as an offensive tool in the fight, a response to the insurgents’ greater capability in targeting Syrian tanks with rocket propelled grenades and anti-tank weaponry.
Annan has long recognized that his original peace agreement has failed in its main effort, even if the longtime diplomat refuses to acknowledge that fact in the public eye. Other United Nations officials, including the organization’s head of peacekeeping operations, have started calling Annan’s effort all but dead.
With the skepticism growing, Annan is back to the drawing board, pitching another idea that would bring any state with a major stake in the outcome together for an international conference. The purpose, as Annan has made clear, is to take advantage of every piece of leverage that the outside world has to stop the bloodshed before the conflict reaches the point of a full civil war.
The proposal, first reported by The Washington Post‘s David Ignatius, calls for an international contact group, without the Syrians, to lay out a framework for a post Assad political transition. The permanent members of the UN Security Council would attend as would Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey — four countries that hold their own interests in Syria. If all goes as planned, the consultations would result in a unified document signed by all of the parties outlining a transitional phase for Syria’s politics.
Much like the process in Egypt and Yemen, timelines would be given on electing a new president, creating a new constitution and forming an interim national assembly that is made responsible for administering the state before the seating of an elected parliament.
The catch is that President Assad and the Syrian opposition would have to agree before the document could be given any chance to succeed, permission that Assad is unlikely to give unless he is absolved from any war crimes that have been committed in his name during the course of the sixteen month rebellion.
The idea is an interesting one, for it draws Iran, seen as Assad’s only ally in the region, in from the cold. The United States have already reached the conclusion that inviting Iran would be unwise and contradictory to the conference’s stated mission. It is easy to see why Washington has taken that view: Tehran is widely believed to be supporting Assad’s crackdown by sending weapons, technology and advisors into Syria. Iran’s rhetoric remains solidly on Assad’s side, despite his multiple crimes and isolation from most of the world.
Regardless of Iran’s public statements, excluding it from discussions about the future of Syria could hardly make the transition any easier. Despite its bombast, Iran is a rational power that may be willing to support President Assad’s removal if its core interests are taken into account. American officials may not like it but allowing Tehran to have a stake in the outcome could push them to be more constructive.
Much like the Syria conflict in general, nothing in Kofi Annan’s new diplomatic tact guarantees success. Iranian participation could simply elongate the process, resulting in more casualties. Nor is it certain that Assad would be willing to leave if he is assured exile. But an international conference could be worth a try. Every other option on the table seems ineffective, dangerous or politically unattractive.
If there was ever an instance that could graphically illustrate the ineffectiveness of Kofi Annan’s ceasefire agreement in Syria, it was a deadly attack on the villages of Houla this weekend that ended with casualties of virtually every age.
United Nations officials on the ground in the Arab country are still trying to figure out what exactly happened but preliminary reports backed up by international monitors suggest that the Syrian regime attacked the grouping of small towns with artillery fire and door to door raids by its Shabiha militia allies, killing over one hundred people.
The most shocking and saddening aspect of this attack was how many children died before the offensive was over — 49, most under the age of ten, are among the dead.
Artillery attacks by President Bashar al-Assad’s regime have been deadly for months. Since the Syrian uprising began more than a year ago, some 11,000 civilians are estimated to have been killed in government initiated violence. But when small children are killed by their very own government, some with their jaws blown off from high explosive munitions, the violence takes on a whole new dimension.
The attack on Houla epitomizes just how barbaric Syria’s conflict has become after fifteen months. Indeed, the killing that occurred over the weekend is just the type of case that can convince governments the world over that a change in their approach is needed to contain and, if possible, end the strife.
The question is whether the United Nations Security Council can actually arrive at this point.
To date, the council has been nothing but a hamstrung body, unable to make difficult decisions and too fragmented to pass important resolutions.
Courtesy of Chinese and Russian objections, the council has yet to push through any economic sanctions against the Assad regime for its military crackdown. The stalemate has convinced what once were peaceful demonstrators to take up arms and fight back themselves. The best the United Nations have been able to do is issue press statements about the extraordinary brutality, like the massacre in Houla last Friday and Saturday.
It is not just the Security Council that has been unwilling or unable to act however. Critics have charged the United States, which would like to see the Assad family dynasty collapse for good, with dragging its heels. Officials of the previous administration and some outspoken and powerful members of the Senate have blasted President Barack Obama’s national-security team with indecisiveness and a stubborn resistance to get the United States involved militarily against the Ba’athist regime.
This criticism is coming at a time when Obama Administration officials are weighting their military options — or at least trying to determine how they can assist countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which may be transporting heavy weapons to the Free Syrian Army.
Tired of stalled diplomatic measures and a ceasefire that has been broken by both sides since the pact was first signed, american intelligence officials are reportedly expanding their contacts with the armed opposition in an attempt to figure out which factions are worthy of receiving arms. Washington will still stay away from supplying Assad’s enemies but the administration could come around to the idea of supporting a Saudi, Qatari and Libyan campaign to send weapons to the Syrian president’s opponents.
No one knows whether the scheme will work. At the moment, the question may be beside the point. What is important to note is that the United States are increasingly agitated that Assad is able to snub the world over its calls for dialogue and to end the violence, despite his near total isolation. Horrific and unspeakable acts of violence like the Houla massacre will only embolden that perception.
