Eric Witte October 29th, 2008

Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili is denying indications from BBC reporting in South Ossetia that Georgian forces committed war crimes during their short-lived August offensive to establish control over the break-away region.  The BBC found that Georgian forces used indiscriminate force, and may have deliberately targeted civilians.

In cases such as this, where war crimes accusations are leveled against the side that was eventually most wronged in the conflict (in this case by Russia’s savaging of Georgia), it can be tempting for international diplomats to attempt a whitewash.  It is refreshing then to see UK Foreign Minister David Miliband’s reaction to the BBC allegations:

Mr Miliband - normally a strong supporter of Georgia - told the BBC: “I think the Georgian action was reckless, I think the Russian response was disproportionate and wrong.

“And that is the series of events that have landed us where we are.

“On my visit to Tbilisi of course I raised at the highest level in Georgia, the questions that have been asked and raised about war crimes and other military actions by the Georgian authorities.

“We have acted in this without fear, without favour.”

Blind support for Saakashvili in Washington may have encouraged him to blunder into a war he could not win.  It will be interesting to see whether the British reaction to indications of Georgian war crimes has any echo in Washington.

BBC reporting from South Ossetia also strongly indicated that ethnic Georgian villages were targeted by Ossetian and Russian forces.  President Saakashvili says he is open to any kind of investigation.  With all of Russia’s bluster about “genocide” in South Ossetia (which seems an immense stretch, even if war crimes were committed), the International Criminal Court should be encouraged to launch a full investigation.  Who would dare oppose it?  Georgia is a signatory to the Rome Statute, the ICC prosecutor has said that the situation is “under analysis”, and both the Georgian and Russian governments have sent information to The Hague.  But why not raise the stakes and have the Security Council formally refer the Georgia conflict to the ICC?  It may not be legally necessary, but it would be useful to put Russia on the spot to formally sign on to an independent investigation through the Security Council.  Such an investigation may well find that Georgia did commit war crimes, but is likely to find at least as much evidence of Russian culpability. 

• Uncategorized
• Comments(0)

Eric Witte September 17th, 2008

The European Council on Foreign Relations released a report today, A Global Force for Human Rights? An Audit of European Power at the UN [PDF], which finds that the influence of the European Union at the United Nations has markedly declined over the past ten years.  At 80 pages, I haven’t had time to read more than the press release and executive summary, but it looks to be well worth the read.  Authored by Richard Gowan and Franziska Brantner, the report finds that support of EU positions in the General Assembly has declined from around 70% to around 50%.  They detected a similar drop-off in EU influence on the Human Rights Council and in the Security Council.  The shift has been accompanied by corresponding increases in the influence of China and Russia, each finding their support in the General Assembly rising from around 50% to around 75% over the same period.  The authors note several reasons for this troubling dynamic, including these (from the press release): “Europe has lost ground because of a reluctance to use its leverage, and a tendency to look inwards - with 1,000 coordination meetings in New York alone each year - rather than talk to others. It is also weakened by a failure to address flaws in its reputation as a leader on human rights and multilateralism.”

• Uncategorized
• Comments(0)

Eric Witte August 25th, 2008

When the United Nations sent Ibrahim Gambari as a special envoy to Burma on his latest visit, his first goal should have been to do no harm.  Representatives of Burma’s main opposition party, the National League for Democracy, make fairly clear that they think Gambari failed even in this modest aim.  From the BBC:

Burma’s main opposition party has dismissed the latest visit by UN envoy Ibrahim Gambari as a waste of time.

Nyan Win, of the National League for Democracy (NLD), said Mr Gambari had not established any dialogue between the military rulers and the opposition.

He was also annoyed that the envoy appeared to have given tacit backing to the junta’s planned election in 2010.

Detained NLD leader Aung San Suu Kyi refused to meet Mr Gambari, fuelling speculation she is unhappy with the UN.

And Mr Gambari was not invited to the remote capital of Nay Pyi Taw to meet the junta’s top leader, Senior General Than Shwe.

The BBC’s South East Asia correspondent, Jonathan Head, says Mr Gambari now seems to have used up all the credibility he had.

After more than two years of failure his statements remain relentlessly upbeat - yet he seems to put no pressure on the generals, our correspondent says.

Nyan Win expressed particular annoyance with Mr Gambari for negotiating with the generals over their “roadmap” to democracy, which plans for elections in 2010.

“We have made very clear to the UN envoy that the mission should not discuss the upcoming 2010 elections, as the NLD does not recognise the military-backed constitution,” he said.

“The UN envoy was wasting his time on matters that he was not supposed to deal with.”

He added that Mr Gambari had also failed to make any progress on the other major theme of his mission - to secure the release of political prisoners including Ms Suu Kyi, who is under house arrest.

During his six-day visit, Mr Gambari did hold talks with the NLD and meet Prime Minister Thein Sein - a figurehead who holds little real power.

But diplomats conceded that nothing concrete had come of his visit.

• Uncategorized
• Comments(0)

Eric Witte May 22nd, 2008

Guinea may have moved closer to civil conflict on Tuesday, when President Lansana Conté dismissed Prime Minister Lansana Kouyaté, replacing him with one of his loyalists, Ahmed Tidiane Souaré. Kouyaté was a consensus pick for the post following large-scale demonstrations against Conté’s regime in early 2007. As Kurt and I wrote at the time in the International Herald Tribune, the labor unions who led the protests in the face of violent repression received scant support from the international community. The crackdown by Conté’s forces killed around 130. The deal that ended the challenge to his rule left Conté in charge of the army and police. Worse, Kouyaté quickly alienated the very civil society that was responsible for bringing him to power, and little changed for average Guineans who still struggle in poverty - made all the worse by rising global fuel and food prices.

Meanwhile, even after last year’s stark danger sign, it is far from apparent that the international community has given much thought at all to Conté’s succession. Reports persist that the octogenarian Conté, now in his 24th year as Guinea’s dictator, is frail. Representatives of various power centers continue to circle, vying to succeed him. (Kouyaté was one official widely viewed as angling to take over the presidency.)

Within the Mano River Union (MRU), there has been real democratic progress in Liberia since the 2006 inauguration of Ellen Johnson Sirleaf. Sierra Leone, too, seems finally to be making halting progress in overcoming the burdens of corruption and mal-governance. Even the newest member of the MRU, Côte d’Ivoire, is stabilizing. Guinea was deeply involved in the Sierra Leonean and Liberian wars and an outbreak of violence now could cause significant disruption across this part of West Africa, where the United Nations, Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), Britain, France and United States have made such heavy investments in peacekeeping and nation-building.

Even if another short-term solution is found to ease the tension again bubbling up in Guinea, the international community should fully engage civil society and the various ethnic and elite factions with regard to Conté’s eventual succession. Bringing that discussion into an open, transparent process in which all Guineans have a voice - perhaps through agreement on a constitutional assembly - is the best hope for Guinea’s democratic development. Such assemblies are not unknown in West Africa, having proved successful in Mali and Benin. Assisting Guineans on the difficult path to democratic governance now offers the best hope of turning the country’s significant natural resource wealth into desperately needed development, and is vital to the consolidation of peace across the MRU.

• Uncategorized
• Comments(1)