Global Security

And the winner is...

Mark Leon Goldberg September 14, 2009 - 11:59 am

Comment ( 0 )  

By Sameer Lalwani

The UN backed commission's charge of electoral fraud confirmed what most Afghans and observers already knew—that this was a messy election revealing the corruption, fecklessness, and disarray of the government. But the implications are much more strategically disturbing.

In terms of the US and NATO's counterinsurgency strategy, the best possible outcome they could have hoped for was a sweeping electoral mandate for a single candidate (presumably President Karzai) to avoid the infighting and delays in a runoff and demonstrate to the Afghan people (and the international community) that there was a unified Afghan state ready to return to the business of governance and state development.

Unfortunately, the electoral outcome was the worst of both worlds—a fractured vote mired in illegitimacy amidst allegations of vote-tampering and ballot-stuffing with President Karzai likely barely accumulating over 50% of the vote. <!--break--> Even if Karzai is able to consolidate control by bringing his challengers into his government, it will likely come at the cost of further corruption and ineffectiveness in the government ministries. For instance, the deals Karzai had to make even before the election by bringing in Dostum and Fahim, can already undermine the government's reputation and centralization efforts.

For an established government, a close election that begets a stable and non-violent transition of power demonstrates the durability of the democracy. But for a nascent and inchoate government that is effectively competing with an insurgency for the loyalty of an uncommitted people, an election that produces such disarray can be devastating. The primary component of a counterinsurgency strategy is to achieve a political solution rather than a military one, aided and abetted by a population- rather than enemy-centric strategy. But to induce a political solution, a strong, centralized state needs to be able to govern effectively to demonstrate the value of political competition within the state rather than violence outside of it. This is especially pressing as the Taliban has begun to set up parallel governance structures.

The face of a hearts and minds campaign is actually the Afghan central government with the US and NATO playing a supporting role. The election was opportunity to prove Afghan leadership to domestic and international audiences and it seems to have failed.

Some of Charles Tilly's impressive body of work suggests that many states begin as protection rackets that eventually acquires public confidence and legitimacy as they become more effective. But an ineffective government that cannot offer protection from insurgents (due to the weakness of the army) will be seen as just a racket—a predatory state—by the people and by the international community. At that point the unofficial winners of the election will be the Taliban.

 

Even the pros of attacking Iran are bad ideas

John Boonstra August 10, 2009 - 2:39 pm

Comment ( 0 )  

Conservative British journalist and historian Paul Johnson has a rambling op-ed in Forbes, supposedly on the possibility of an Israeli "surgical strike" on Iranian nuclear facilities. What's worth pointing out is this error in logic that Johnson makes, which is similar to a flawed assumption made by many Iran commenters:

Knocking out Iran's nuclear capability would be much more difficult because of the distance to be covered by Israeli aircraft and because the plants are underground. These difficulties must be weighed against the fact that the Iranian regime is unpopular everywhere because of its recent crooked election and the savagery with which protests against the results were put down.

The implication here is that, while the "con" to launching an attack on Iran is that it would be logistically difficult for Israel to do, the "pro" to this debate is that the Iranian government is unpopular and not very legitimate. Wait a minute. Wouldn't bombing Iran be very unpopular with Iranians? Couldn't this, just maybe, undo the very unpopularity and illegitimacy with which the Iranian regime is now saddled? Further on in the piece Johnson admits as much:

What we don't know is if a successful Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would discredit the regime to the point that it would be forced out of power or if such an attack would be used to discredit the opposition, causing Iranians to close ranks behind their extremist leaders. [emphasis mine]

Generally, when bombs fall on people, they get mad at the people doing the bombing. It's a simple enough lesson, but one that many, in their unconsidered haste to bring about the regime's downfall, miss quite entirely. The second of Johnson's possibilities, or a version of it at least, seems much more likely to result from a missile attack; this would only enhance the government's hardline posture, and give needless credibility to its attempts to focus attention on outside "enemies."

Plus, who in their right mind would suggest a bombing campaign if we don't even know what the results of a successful attack would be? Missiles fired by armchair hawks tend to do a lot less damage than those that actually create the messy carnage of reality.

 

UN Group issues recommendations on U.S. use of mercenaries

Mark Leon Goldberg August 3, 2009 - 2:48 pm

Comment ( 0 )  

One tricky area of international and national law is how to approach private military contractors.  So-called PMSC, or Private Military and Security Companies are becoming a more and more common feature of international security operations.  The suite of national and international law, however, has generally not kept pace with the increasingly frequent use of armed forces that are not government entities.   This is a relatively new, post-cold war phenomenon that has come to the fore with the expansive use of PMSCs in American-led operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Into this mix is a UN body affiliated with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, called the Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries.  The "group" as it were, is a panel of five independent international experts, led by Shaista *Shameem of Fiji.  Today, the group concluded a two-week fact finding mission in the United States and released a set of recommendations. It found that significant progress has been made on regularizing accountability mechanisms for PMSCs through legislation enacted in January 2008 and an internal Department of Defense "Interim Final Rule" issued in January 2009.  Still, the working group identified areas where the United States could improve its oversight of PMSCs. 

Although the US authorities have put in place mechanisms to better monitor PMSCs,there is still very little information accessible to the public on the scope and type of contracts. The lack of transparency is particularly significant when companies subcontract to others. The Working Group would like to reiterate that the responsibility of the State to protect human rights does not stop with contracting or subcontracting. It is indeed the responsibility of the State to ensure that any contractor to which it outsources its functions, fully respects human rights, and, in cases of violations is prosecuted and held accountable.

The Working Group is greatly concerned that PSMCs contracted by US Intelligence agencies are not subject to scrutiny from the US Congress and Government, due to classified information. The Working Group believes the public should have the right to access information on the scope, type and value of those contracts. The Working Group hopes that the US Government will take the necessary steps to remove all obstacles to transparency and accountability on the intelligence activities contracted to PMSCs in order to ensure full respect for and protection of human rights and prevent any situation that may lead to impunity of contractors for violations of human rights.

To that end, the working group offered a few recommendations:

<!--break-->

Congress should adopt legislation that comprehensively provides criminal
jurisdiction over contractors and civilian employees, including those working
for the intelligence agencies and ensure its effective implementation; 
 
 The Department of Justice (DOJ) should ensure prompt and effective
investigation of any allegations of human rights violations committed by
PMSCs and prosecute alleged perpetrators.  For that purpose, the DOJ should
strengthen its investigative resource capacity and appoint an independent
prosecutor;
 
 When contracting and sub-contracting, the US Government should ensure
victims’ right to an effective remedy and ensure that victims have access to
justice; The right to remedy should also include access to a fair administrative
process to claim compensations;
 
 DOJ should promptly make public statistical information on the status of these
cases, disaggregated by the type, year, and country of alleged offence;
investigations launched, prosecutions and penalties;
 
 The US Government and Congress should press for further transparency and
freedom of information and reduce the application of classified information as
well as State secret privileges in Court, in particular regarding alleged human
rights violations involving PMSCs;
 
 The US Government should make available to the public specific information
on the number of PMSCs operating under US contracts, the names of the
companies, the number of personnel, weapons and vehicles as well as the
activities for which they were contracted, within legitimate limitations such as
national security and privacy.

The US Government should regularly release statistics on the number of
private military and security contractors injured or killed while supporting US
operations; 
 
 The US government should consider establishing a specific system of federal
licensing of PMSCs and especially of their contracts for operations abroad.
Such licensing should include obligatory training of personnel on norms of
international humanitarian and human rights law, and require the verified
absence of national and international criminal record among PMSCs
employees;

 The US Government should put in place a vetting procedure before awarding
contracts. This would require an assessment of past performance, including
steps taken to provide remedy, compensation to victims for past abuses and
prevent further abuses. Otherwise, suspended or convicted companies and
employees involved in human rights abuses should be banned.
 
 Congress should launch an investigation on the use of PMSCs on rendition
flights.

Sounds reasonable. 

* UPDATE:  A UN insider notes: "while the High Commissioner’s staff provides logistical support for the Working Group, it’s more correct to characterize them as a group of independent experts selected by the member countries of the UN Human Rights Council"  Not "affiliated" with the OHCHR as I had originally written.

 

India Launches a Nuclear Sub

Alanna Shaikh July 28, 2009 - 10:06 am

Comment ( 0 )  

On Sunday, India launched their first Indian-built nuclear-powered submarine, named Arihant.  It’s a 6000-ton vessel, capable of launching a range of missiles and currently armed with nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles. The Indian officials at the launch were particularly effuse in their thanks to Russia for providing technical support to the sub’s development. The Russian ambassador to India was present at the launch. The sub, in fact, is only 60% Indian materials; the rest, in particular the mini-reactors, was supplied by Russia.

Arihant means “Destroyer of Enemies” in Sanskrit, and India’s major potential enemy is not happy about the sub launch.  Pakistan stated that the sub threatens regional security – a spokesman for the Pakistan navy said that “the Indian move would have far-reaching destabilising effects on the security environment not only of Pakistan but also of all the littoral states of Indian Ocean and beyond.”

Pakistan’s concerns sound far-fetched to me. The Indian naval presence isn’t aimed at Pakistan or its brown-water navy; it’s aimed at China. I think Pakistan’s frustrated that their own military is tied up trying to suppress militants and maintain their borders, while India has breathing room to develop and launch new weapons. What I am really interested in is China’s response to the sub launch, both in terms of expanding Russian influence in India and India’s new ability to target China.  I’d also like to know what Hilary Clinton has to say.

 

IMF approves Sri Lanka Loan, U.S. gives $8 million for resettlement

Mark Leon Goldberg July 27, 2009 - 11:48 am

Comment ( 0 )  

The International Monetary Fund's board of directors approved a $2.6 billion loan to Sri Lanka last week.  The vote was not without controversy.  There are currently hundreds of thousands of ethnic-Tamil civilians trapped in military run concentration camps that are largely off-limits to international humanitarian organizations and international media.  These hundreds of thousands of people streamed out of the conflict zone in April during the waning days of Sri Lanka's long civil war.  Ban Ki Moon has called the largest of these camps, Manik Farm, "the most appalling scenes" he has witnessed. 

The loan's defenders say that Sri Lanka needs this money to address a "balance of payments" that, if left unaddressed, "could have a devastating effect on the economy and people." Not all member states bought that argument--or at least thought it sufficient to overcome their human rights concerns.   The United States, the United Kingdom, France, Argentina and Germany, which collectively represent over a third of the IMF executive board's voting shares, did not vote to approve the loan.  

Meanwhile, former UN Dispatch Human Rights Salon participant and current assistant secretary of state for refugees Eric P Schwartz visited Manik Farm.  Speaking to reporters outside the camp on Monday, Schwartz announced $8 to help the resettlement of the IDPs.   From the Associated Press:

He said the U.S was "deeply concerned about a range of issues where further progress is essential."

"In particular the vast majority of displaced persons remain confined to camps," he said.

"Moreover there remain burdensome limitations on access to those camps for those international humanitarian organizations and others who are in a position to ameliorate the conditions faced by these victims of conflict," he said.

Schwartz says he received assurances from top officials in Columbo that the displaced will be allowed to return home soon.  I suppose we will have to wait and see if these officials follow through on their committments and obligations to international law. 

 

Flogging a dead horse?

Emily Ross July 23, 2009 - 2:10 pm

Comment ( 0 )  

Well, let’s hope not.  But, according to Gareth Evans, this is what we’re at risk of if the General Assembly session on the Responsibility to Protect continues casting the debate in terms of humanitarian intervention. 

Contrary to what Noam Chomsky would have us believe, R2P is not humanitarian intervention.  In fact, the concept involves a wide range of policy options short of the use of force to prevent military intervention when mass atrocities are already occurring. 

As Gareth Evans, co-chair of the historic International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) clearly stated, “the core theme [of R2P] is not intervention but prevention”.  Instead of dwelling on morally questionable cases of “humanitarian intervention” past, States should look forward to define policy options across the spectrum of prevention, capacity building and response, to ensure such unthinkable crimes as the 1994 genocide in Rwanda are never repeated. 

Fiery rhetoric which re-ignites neo-colonial fears will do nothing to ensure Kofi Annan’s famous words of “never again” are realized.  Let’s hope this afternoon’s session, where States will have the opportunity to make formal remarks on the Secretary-General’s report, will move the debate forward, not back.

 

Jakarta bombing

Mark Leon Goldberg July 17, 2009 - 7:49 am

Comment ( 0 )  

By now you have heard of the twin suicide bombing attacks at the Marriot Hotel and Ritz Carlton Hotels in Jakarta, Indonesia.  At least 8 people were killed and 50 injured. Smart money is that Jemaah Islamiya is behind the attack. I found this video depicting the chaos following the explosion. 

 

Sanctions tightening around North Korea

John Boonstra July 15, 2009 - 4:15 pm

Comment ( 0 )  

The facts that China appears to be on board -- not to mention that the UN panel on North Korea sanctions may come to consensus before its deadline -- do not bode well for a defiant Pyongyang.

The U.N. Security Council neared agreement on Wednesday on North Korean firms and individuals to be added to a blacklist for involvement in Pyongyang's nuclear and missile programs, diplomats said

"We are very close" to agreement, Japanese Ambassador Yukio Takasu told reporters. Diplomats from several countries said a council committee that has been discussing the issue for a month was on target to meet a weekend deadline for completing its task and could do so as early as Wednesday.

Meanwhile, North Korea insists that its "sovereignty" be respected before negotiations can recommence. This seems to have it completely backwards. North Korea's leaders aren't exactly the ones to place conditions here; they're the ones who will need to reconsider their country's nuclear program if they are interested in, say, having unfrozen bank accounts or being able to travel anywhere.

Yet I wouldn't be surprised to hear some off-the-mark commentators continue to insist that an utterly isolated North Korea somehow has "the upper hand" in this drama.

 

July Already the Deadliest Month for Foreign Troops in Afghanistan

Peter Daou July 15, 2009 - 2:31 pm

Comment ( 0 )  

A harbinger of things to come or a temporary spike?

The death toll for foreign troops in Afghanistan halfway through July equalled the highest for any month of the eight-year-old war, tallies showed on Wednesday, as a U.S. escalation has met unprecedented violence.

Authorities announced a U.S. soldier had been killed by a bomb and two Turks had died in a road accident, raising the toll of U.S. and allied foreign fatalities in the first half of July to 46, equal to full month highs set in August and June 2008.

In the two weeks since U.S. and British troops launched massive assaults, Western troops have died at an average rate of three a day, nearing the tempo of the bloodiest days in Iraq and almost 20 times the rate in Afghanistan from 2001-04.

 

Did North Korea Launch a Sophisticated Cyber Attack Against the U.S.?

Peter Daou July 8, 2009 - 6:10 am

Comment ( 0 )  

President Obama's recent decision to name a national cybersecurity chief seems auspicious in light of this:

A widespread and unusually resilient computer attack that began July 4 knocked out the Web sites of several government agencies, including some that are responsible for fighting cyber crime.

Suspected cyber assaults also paralyzed Web sites of major South Korean government agencies, banks and Internet sites in a barrage that appeared linked to the attacks in the U.S., South Korean officials said Wednesday.

The Treasury Department, Secret Service, Federal Trade Commission and Transportation Department Web sites were all down at varying points over the holiday weekend and into this week, according to officials inside and outside the government.

As we saw in the Russia-Georgia conflict, cyberspace is becoming the new global battlefield:

According to Internet technical experts, it was the first time a cyberattack had coincided with a real war. But it will likely not be the last, said Bill Woodcock, the research director of Packet Clearing House, a nonprofit organization that tracks Internet traffic. He said cyberattacks are so inexpensive and easy to mount, with few fingerprints, that they will almost certainly remain a feature of modern warfare.

As far as the July 4th attack, North Korea appears to be the main suspect:

South Korean intelligence officials believe North Korea or pro-Pyongyang forces in South Korea committed cyber attacks that paralyzed major South Korean and U.S. Web sites, a lawmaker's aide said Wednesday.

On Wednesday, the National Intelligence Service told a group of South Korean lawmakers it believes that North Korea or North Korean sympathizers in the South "were behind" the attacks, according to an aide to one of the lawmakers briefed on the information.

 

  • Related Sites
  • UNITED NATIONS FOUNDATIONS
  • UN WIRE
  • Join Us On
  • t
  • f