It may have seemed almost farcical at first -- pirates, really? -- but the seriousness of the danger off Somalia's coast reached a new level over the weekend.
A Ukrainian ship seized by pirates off the coast of Somalia was carrying 33 tanks and other weapons, the Ukrainian defence minister has confirmed.Pirates had previously seized a number of passenger and cargo ships, spurring armed intervention from the French and Security Council action authorizing Member States to aggressively combat piracy in Somalia's lawless waters. The involvement of heavy weaponry, though -- even if the pirates have no interest, or use, really, for the tanks -- have made this chapter in the saga a natural headline-grabber. American ships are closely monitoring the pirates, who are anchored in Somali waters off one of the country's notorious pirate towns and have pledged to "defend ourselves, until the last one of us dies." The main objective is to ensure that the weapons are not offloaded and make their way into the hands of Somali insurgents. The rumor that the tanks were bound for the Government of South Sudan -- which would be in contravention of an international arms embargo but which the government of Kenya has denied, insisting that it was to be the legitimate recipient -- merely underscores the hazards of transmitting weapons in these pirate-infested waters.
Back in June, clashes between the regular armed forces of Djibouti and Eritrea left scores of people dead. At the time, little was known about what sparked the fighting and which side was to blame. Djibouti claimed that Eritrean soldiers raided a border outpost inside Djibouti territory. Eritrea denied the it was to blame.
Amidst a general state of confusion, the Security Council ordered the UN to send a fact finding mission to assess what took place and offer recommendations to resolve the conflict. Unfortunately, the Eritrean government refused to speak to the UN officials, or grant them visas. (Read this post for some background on why Eritrea might harbor a grudge against the UN.)
So, the fact finding mission's report really only reflects Djibouti's side of the story, which is as follows:
The two countries previously agreed that Eritrean civil engineers should construct a road linking a town in Eritrea to a town in Djibouti (but to which Eritrea periodically makes claim). As civil engineers build the road, their are joined by Eritrean Defense Forces, which start digging trenches and fortifying the disputed border town. A military build-up ensues, but Eritrean Defense Forces start defecting to the Djibouti lines. Eritrea demands Djibouti hands back the deserters. Djibouti refuses Eritrea's ultimatum. The remaining Eritrean forces opens fire on the Djibouti line. At least 44 people are killed.
That was in June. So what to do now? The Secretary General says that first and foremost, Eritrea must cooperate.
To provide momentum for such a political process, both countries must be made to believe that it is in their vested interest to have a balanced fact-finding mission, which would reach conclusions only after hearing from both sides. The Djibouti authorities have so far cooperated and facilitated the work of the fact-finding mission; the onus is now on the Eritrean leadership. If Eritrea alleges an invasion by Ethiopia or aggression by Djibouti, as it has done, then it has an international obligation and responsibility to cooperate with the United Nations to establish the factsThe report concludes that it is in neither side's interests to escalate this conflict. That's true. The Horn of Africa hardly needs another war.
Via EcoWordly
Yesterday, Congo's government chose to withdraw more than 1,000 troops from an area in eastern Congo near Virunga National Park. Despite an ongoing conflict, the military has agreed to depart in an effort to help protect the park's valuable natural resources, which include the endangered mountain gorilla. Last week the army engaged a rebel group led by Laurent Nkunda in communities near the park's borders. Nkunda's group is still residing in the park, and has been there for almost a year now. Emmanuel de Merode, the director of the Virunga National Park was quoted by the Associated Press as saying "demilitarizing Virunga National Park remains our greatest and most difficult challenge. The Congolese National Army has taken the first step, which represents a major breakthrough at a time when the threats to the park have never been greater."Virunga national park is home to about 1/10th of the world's remaining Mountain Gorillas. In a conflict as brutal as the one in Eastern DRC, the government's decision to unilaterally de-militarize the park can pass for good news. Check out the Enough Campaign for some background information on the conflict.
In the midst of a slew of what seems like the typical bad news out of Somalia -- killings by insurgents, killings by Ethiopian troops, hijackings by pirates -- two developments of the last two days may give at least a flicker of hope.
The U.N. Security Council authorized on Tuesday an African Union force in Somalia for another six months, a day after Somalia's government signed a peace agreement with some opposition figures. A unanimous resolution also asked U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to work with the AU to strengthen U.N. logistical, political and technical support to help bring the African Union Mission in Somalia, or AMISOM, up to U.N. standards.Even taken in concert, these two steps will by no means end the chaos reigning in Somalia. For one, not all of the groups responsible for violence in Somalia -- including the most intransigent extremists -- signed the accord reached yesterday. For another, the re-authorization of AMISOM's mandate simply represents a continuation of an all too unstable status quo. Nonetheless, with Nigerian units forthcoming, if the UN can follow up on its commitment to upgrade the AU force, then this will represent the best feasible scenario for the moment, when rashly deployed UN peacekeepers would likely only fall into the trap of struggling to maintain an incomplete peace.
The prosecutor of the International Criminal Court just announced that alleged war crimes in Georgia are "under analysis" by his office.
"Georgia is a State Party to the Rome Statute [that created the ICC]" he said. "My Office considers carefully all information relating to alleged crimes within its jurisdiction -- war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide - committed on the territory of States Parties or by nationals of States Parties, regardless of the individuals or groups alleged to have committed the crimes. The Office is inter alia analyzing information alleging attacks on the civilians."So what exactly does this mean? For one, don't expect any Georgians or Russians to be hauled to the Hague anytime soon--if ever. Being "under analysis" is the first step in a very long series of events before allegations of war crimes turn into indictments or arrest warrants. And it is hardly guaranteed that ICC indictments will ever be pursued in this case. Other criteria: like gravity of the alleged crimes and whether or not local courts are pursuing their own investigations must also be satisfied. Still, this move by the court is significant for the fact that it is the only conflict in the global north that is in the ICC's sights. All four cases before the court are from Africa (Darfur, Northern Uganda, Eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Central African Republic) as are three of the five other situations currently "under analysis" (Chad, Cote D'Ivoire, Kenya, Columbia and Afghanistan). I spoke to an ICC lawyer handling the Georgia case who talked me through the procedural issues but would not discuss the contents of Russian and Georgian allegations of war crimes. This Human Rights Watch report, however, gives you a good sense of what the court may be dealing with should it ever launch a full investigation in Georgia. It's not a pretty picture. UPDATE: The aforementioned ICC lawyer responds: "The one thing not to underestimate, however, is that once triggered the Court process will continue until the evidence driven process finds its conclusion. If crimes have been perpetrated that fit our criteria, someone will be held to account. This may well be after the smoke clears but it is not something that should, or in this case is, being dismissed by the parties to the conflict."
One major obstacle to resolving the conflict between Georgia and Russia in the disputed territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia is, of course, the fact that one of the parties involved happens to be a permanent member of the UN Security Council. As such, Russia wields veto power over any resolution proposed in that body, and thus far, efforts at coming to a resolution have been hamstrung by Russia's insistence on underlining Georgian aggression. This does not mean that both parties are not at fault -- simply that Russia's position on the Security Council may give its intransigence greater salience here.
Just because Russia sits on the Council, however, does not necessarily mean that a dynamic of paralysis is set in stone, however. The ever-valuable Security Council Report calls to our attention this interesting tidbit -- Article 27 (3) to be precise -- from the UN Charter:
"Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to the dispute shall abstain from voting." [emphasis mine]Basically, this means that there is an out for such a scenario in which a Security Council member's neutrality is compromised by its involvement in a dispute (think of a juror recusing him/herself in a case in which he/she knows the defendant personally). While this provision has been invoked rarely in the UN's history, and is not likely to see the light of day in this case, it is nonetheless an interesting way of looking at -- and perhaps even surmounting -- such seemingly intractable situations.
Another attempt to negotiate this enduring regional conflict...
After Russia's admission on July 10 that its military aircraft had flown through Georgian airspace, a livid Georgia requested a Security Council meeting with the participation of its representative. This followed a number of explosions in the breakaway region of Abkhazia, which killed, among three others, a staff member of the UN Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG). In addition to calling for today's meeting, Georgia has responded by bulking up its military, adding 5,000 soldiers and increasing its annual military spending by more than a quarter.
Seeking to calm the increasingly volatile tension in the region, Germany's foreign minister, working with the so-called "Group of Friends" (which also includes the U.S., U.K., France, Russia,and Croatia met with the leaders of Georgia, Abkhazia, and Russia over the past week. Security Council Report describes the prospects for the peace deal that he has proposed to the various sides [note: Sukhumi = Abkhazia and Tbilisi = Georgia...good old synecdoche in the South Caucusus].
The three-phase peace plan envisages a first phase of confidence-building measures, including an end to violence and the return of Georgian refugees to Abkhazia; a second phase of reconstruction; and a final stage focusing on defining the status of Abkhazia. While the proposal is still being refined, initial reactions from Russia and Abkhazia have not been encouraging. Sukhumi called the plan "unacceptable" as Abkhazia is not open to discussing its status and indicated that talks are only possible with Tbilisi if it signs a treaty on non-use of force and withdraws its troops from the upper Kodori Gorge. Tbilisi has said it will not renounce the use of force. Russia appears sceptical of a plan that suggests the return of Georgian refugees to Abkhazia before the situation calms down.This closed-door session thus looks likely to end, unfortunately, much like the last one -- with little real action taken. When one of the parties to the dispute also happens to be a veto-wielding permanent member of the Security Council, progress will be difficult at best. (Flags of Georgia, Abkhazia, and Russia, respectively.)
The former Prosecutor of the Yugoslav War Crimes Tribunal explains how the ICC's action against Sudanese President Omar el Bashir may provide a boon to the peace in Sudan
It is too early to tell what effects the indictment will have on peace efforts. So far, there has been no Darfur peace process to speak of. Part-time United Nations and African Union mediators recently resigned in frustration, calling for a new approach. In the meantime, the indictments may delegitimize the government in the eyes of the Sudanese people, especially the elites in Khartoum. In 1999, after the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslovia issued its arrest warrant for President Milosevic, an opposition group called Otpor turned it into a political weapon with the slogan, "He is finished." Mr. Milosevic lost the elections in 2000. Although other factors contributed to his fall, including lost wars and corruption, the indictments played their part by demonstrating his isolation.Human Rights Watch has more.