Diplomacy

Home
Diplomacy

The Durban Paranoia

Anne Bayefsky is still sputtering about the United States' cowardly decision not to pack its bags and fling them in the face of every other country interested in holding a meaningful conference on racism. Holding her nose, Bayefsky dives into the bureaucratic minutiae of the preparatory meetings to which -- gasp -- the United States decided to send a delegation and, unsurprisingly, is appalled by what she sees. The very Constitution is in jeopardy, in her frantic outlook, because the U.S. delegates did not reject out of hand the idea that countries should...wait for it...oppose hate speech. The provision in question:
States Parties condemn all propaganda and all organizations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any form, and undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination...
To assuage free speech concerns, the U.S. delegation made sure to cite a later provision reassuring "the right to freedom of opinion and expression." But far from calming Bayefsky, this only stokes her rage; by even referencing the UN's International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, rather than tearing it to pieces, the United States is, in her twisted paranoia, sacrificing its very sovereignty, and binding itself to the sordid agenda of the Durban Review Conference's more unsavory participants (the Irans and Cubas and North Koreas of the world that the Right will stare down so readily when it comes to military bluster, but to which they ascribe a bizarrely aggrandized influence when it comes to diplomacy). In a remarkable reverse-Orwellian feat, Bayefsky unconcernedly relies on assumptions that, when it comes to Durban, everything means exactly the opposite of what it appears to mean. Thus, the anti-racism conference is invariably a "racist confab," and any motion to curb hate speech is certainly an insidious attempt to eat away at our treasured principle of free speech. By ceding the territory of meaning to the conference's nefarious actors -- that Iran has an anti-Semitic agenda should come as no surprise to anyone -- Bayefsky is essentially stooping to their level. Human rights have meaning and value, and it would be encouraging to see skeptics like Bayefsky express some interest in strengthening the concept worldwide, instead of simply retreating and retrenching in America's own fortress of freedom.

What is it about these Meetings?

Japanese finance minister Shoichi Nakagawa resigned today after this drunken performance at a G7 news conference. Andrew Sullivan dryly notes "If you were Japan's finance minister right now, wouldn't you be reaching for the sake too?" But what I want to know is what is it about these kinds of meetings that engenders such hard drinking on the part of policy makers? To wit, watch Nicolas Sarkozy stumble into this April 2007 G8 press conference. He basically admits that he is drunk--and that it's Vladimir Putin's fault! Methinks the next G7 or G8 meeting should be held in Salt Lake City.

U.S. Sending Delegation to Durban Review Conference Preparations

To forestall any potential conniptions from those for whom "Durban II" conjures up all sorts of fervid demons, this does not mean that the United States has decided to participate in April's anti-racism conference. What it does mean is that the Obama Administration intends to actually interact with the rest of the international community, rather than to rashly erect walls and issue pre-emptive boycotts (not to mention other sorts of pre-emptive action). What's more, the administration seems to be handling this tricky issue -- which has become both a diplomatic and a domestic one -- quite adroitly. Instead of simply appeasing the very vocal constituency distorting and shouting down the conference's purpose, administration officials took the step of actually talking with Jewish leaders about the decision to send a delegation. Contrary to suggestions that the Durban process is a priori anti-Semitic, not all of these prominent Jewish groups have come out against U.S. participation in the conference. Talking, then, does not amount to capitulation to America's enemies; it turns out to be what our friends at home want, too. While shrill voices on the Right proclaim that anything short of an out-and-out boycott of all things remotely connected to Durban, announced loudly and vehemently, would amount to a surrender of moral leadership, Obama's team seems to be conscious of not only the potential pitfalls of the conference, but also the benefits of interacting with the rest of the world on a very important issue. Sending a delegation to preparatory meetings does not bind the United States to anything opposed to its interests; on the contrary, the decision falls very much within U.S. interests to renew its role as a global leader and willing conversant. This is not naivete; it is intelligence.

Greece-Macedonia Name Talks Begin Again

As promised last month, a new round of discussions between representatives from Greece and its contentiously-named neighbor to the north was undertaken this week. The bar was set low, with the modest goal, according to American UN mediator Matthew Nimetz, of creating "a more positive climate" in the often rancorous negotiations of how to reform the currently cumbersome name of Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM). In that light, having a "good, solid discussion" with no new proposals was certainly preferable to hitting upon some debilitating snag. The issue, for those who have not been following closely, is that Greece's northernmost province is also called Macedonia. It's not out of possible confusion that Athens objects to the name "Macedonia" for the country, though. Particularly given the province's large Macedonian minority (as in, FYROMians) and its historic significance (the provenance of Alexander the Great, for instance), Greece worries that Skopje may have designs on annexing its territory. I must observe, though, even setting aside the silliness of this overblown fear -- if Greece blocked its objection to Macedonian entry into NATO, for example, would NATO really permit a member's takeover of territory of another sovereign nation? -- the irony of the situation. While Greece is supposedly making a big deal out of the name controversy to avoid geopolitical strife, plenty of such strife is occurring in the very process of choosing a different name. I mean, when one country has already taken the other to an international court over the issue, relations can't get much worse. Plus, this proposal, though probably unorthodox, strikes me as reasonable:
Skopje is expected to continue insisting on the so called double name formula including one name for international use and another for bilateral relations with Athens. Greece on the other hand wants Macedonia to change its name and use the new name everywhere...
If Athens is truly worried about the bilateral implications of using the name "Macedonia," then shouldn't its concerns be relieved by Skopje's pledge to use a different name in interactions with Greece? And frankly, short of outright invasion, I don't think the rest of the world is particularly suspicious of a country and a bordering region sharing a name. Now if one of these countries were China, of course, and the other Taiwan Chinese Taipei, we'd likely have a much easier solution. (image of Alexander the Great statue in Macedonia, from flickr user Dime01 under a Creative Commons license)

The President of Sudan to be a Wanted War Criminal

Well, it's happening. Finally. And amen. I said most of I wanted to say about how the United States should respond in my American Prospect piece but there is one key point worth making--so key, in fact, that I will put it in italics. If handled with the proper diplomatic touch, this warrant will make peace in Darfur and Sudan more, not less, likely. Others disagree. They argue that the ICC is an impediment to peace because it gives Bashir little incentive to work with the international community. The problem with that line of reasoning, though, is that it ignores the fact that Bashir was never a credible partner for peace. This is because from the start of the conflict until today, Bashir never faced external political pressure sufficient to budge him from an unrelenting hostility toward international efforts for peace in Sudan. The ICC warrant is such a critical development because it gives the international community a chance to change this prevailing political dynamic. It is a brand new tool to with which to pressure Bashir. One specific way this warrant can be used to good political effect is in support of the rapidly crumbling Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), which Bashir signed in 2005. The CPA was a peace agreement between the central government and southern Sudanese rebels (not Darfuri rebels) but it nonetheless paves the way for the democratic transformation of Sudan. The problem, though, is that the central government has not lived up to its obligations under the CPA--and is working to undermine national elections called for by the CPA later this year. (Check out this report from the International Crisis Group, which explains how the central government is using armed proxies to change the demography of key regions to gain electoral advantage.) The international community--and by that I mean mostly the United States, western countries and the Security Council--suddenly has a new tool at its disposal to press Khartoum into taking credible steps toward the full implementation of the CPA. And if Bashir does demonstrate a new found commitment to the CPA, the Security Council can --as it is wont to do under the ICC's charter -- suspend the warrant. To make this work, the United States needs to make the ICC warrant central to its Darfur diplomacy. This means pressing as many countries as possible to pledge to support the warrant, including countries that could be considered Sudan's allies in Africa and the Arab world. The more isolated Bashir becomes, the more willing he may be to strike a deal. I imagine that this kind of utilitarian view of the ICC may make some of my friends in the human rights community somewhat uncomfortable. But for now, I think the overwhelming priority for all of us who are concerned about Darfur should be peace. Accountability can come later. The international community needs to take advantage of the golden opportunity that just landed on its lap. UPDATE: This landed in my inbox from the ICC: "Following press articles published today, the International Criminal Court (ICC) wishes to inform the media that no arrest warrant has been issued by the ICC against President Omar Al Bashir of Sudan. No decision has yet been taken by the judges of Pre-Trial Chamber I concerning the Prosecutor’s application of 14 July 2008 for the issuance of such a warrant." I guess we'll have to wait just a little bit longer. Photo from Flickr user Ammar Abd Rabbo

Gaddafi Doesn’t Stop at Africa

Fresh off proposing -- to a chorus of mostly unenthusiastic "ummmms" from other African heads of state -- for the umpteenth time in his long career his dream of a "United States of Africa," the "Leader," Libya's president, the-former terrorist-organizer-turned-nuclear-weapon-renouncing-friend-of-the-United States (of America, that is), Isratine-brewer, and now chairperson of the African Union has set his sights a bit farther east.
Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi has said he would like a United States of Africa to include "Caribbean islands with African populations". Col Gaddafi, speaking in Tripoli as the African Union's (AU) new chairman, said this could include Haiti, Jamaica and the Dominican Republic.
Given Gaddafi's penchant for bestowing clever names on his fictional geopolitical creations, one can only assume that he would call this new entity the "United States of Afribbean."

Do Israel-Syria First

Fascinating BloggingHeads exchanging between middle east expert and former State Department official Aaron David Miller and Eli Lake of the Washington Times. Miller argues (pretty convincingly, I'd say) that the Obama administration should focus its diplomatic efforts on a detente between Israel and Syria. This will be hard, he says, but is achievable in the near term and can provide momentum for a lasting regional peace. Check it out. UPDATE: The U.S. Institute of Peace must have been listening. They've just announced a panel discussion on the topic here in DC, scheduled for this Friday afternoon.

Media as Global Diplomat

I'm camped out this morning at the Newseum for USIP's day-long "Media as Global Diplomat" event. There are some impressive panelists, starting with Kathy Calvin, COO of the UN Foundatoin, Edward Djerejian, Ted Koppel, James Glassman, and Andrew McLaughlin from Google. You can watch streaming and perhaps on your iPhone through Ustream. I'll update with any interesting tidbits

Urgent Need for US Leadership on Darfur

The Enough Project team sees a Srebrenica-type situation threatening to unfold in Darfur.
One hundred and ninety six peacekeepers from UNAMID, the joint AU/UN peacekeeping force for Darfur, are stationed in Muhajiriya, a rebel-held town of 30,000 in South Darfur. The government of Sudan has requested that UNAMID withdraw these troops, as it masses its military forces outside the town and uses airpower to bombard nearby camps for displaced persons. Thousands of civilians have gathered outside the UNAMID base in Muhajiriya, just as thousands gathered around similar bases in Rwanda and Bosnia. Khartoum's intention is clear: a full-scale assault on Muhajiriya regardless of the cost to civilians. Given UNAMID's mandate to protect civilians, it would be nothing short of a shameful capitulation for the UN to abandon its post or to allow the Sudanese government to militarily extort the suspension of the International Criminal Court case against President Bashir through these actions.
The international community, and the Obama administration, now faces a crucial moment. It can abandon 30,000 civilians to state-sponsored violence, or it can embrace its responsibility to protect and make sure that Muhajiriya does not become the next Srebrenica. Rather than withdrawing, UNAMID must immediately reinforce its presence in Muhajiriya, and the United States must spell out specific consequences for the Sudan if it does not immediately cease aerial bombings and abandon its plans for this offensive. This is a clear attempt by Khartoum to test the resolve of the Obama Administration in its early days, and the response of President Obama and the UN will determine the fate of thousands of Darfuris.
I would not worry about "shameful capitulation" by UNAMID. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon sounded the alarm on the situation in Muhajiriya today, affirming that peacekeepers will not back down from their mandate to protect civilians there. Also, peacekeeping doctrine has undergone profound shifts in the wake of the 1995 Srebrenica tragedy to insure that those types of situations will not be repeated. Enough is spot on, though, in calling for American leadership on Darfur. We are already two weeks into the new administration and we still do not have a sense of what their Darfur strategy will look like. As the unfolding situation in Muhajiriya show, time is not on their side. Meanwhile, the tense stand-off at Muhajiriya is but one manifestation of the uptick in tensions that is linked to the forthcoming International Criminal Court arrest warrant for Sudan President Omar al Bashir, widely expected to be handed down in the next couple of weeks. As I wrote in a recent American Prospect piece, the correct response to these threats is for the Obama administration to fulsomely embrace the court and give the arrest warrant its full diplomatic backing.