Distracted by the Arab Spring?

For the last couple of months the world has been paying close attention to the events in the Middle East and North Africa except maybe for the wedding of William and Kate. While the Arab Spring is admittedly a major step in the promotion of democracy, and extremely interesting to those of us interested in international relations, it is starting to appear that the protests (and their respective fallouts) are distracting the world from other major developments around the world (except for the death of Osama Bin Laden).

While this likely does not come as a surprise to some, the severity of this distraction is something I believe is worthwhile to look at. Today, the International Crisis Group sent out an alert that warned of serious trouble between Sudan and its newly separated southern region:

"North and South have deployed forces in and around Abyei in breach of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) and subsequent security arrangements, as both seek to control the territory come Southern independence on 9 July. While previous clashes have involved civilians, informal militias, and/or police, last week's involved members of security forces on both sides. Further escalation and additional tit-for-tat deployments risk pushing Abyei beyond the tipping point, endangering lives and the fragile peace in Sudan.

Fighting broke out at a security checkpoint near Todach in the Abyei area on 1 May, after Sudan Armed Forces elements of the Joint Integrated Units (JIU, a largely failed CPA mechanism comprising troops drawn from the Northern and Southern armies) allegedly delivering an authorised weapons shipment were stopped by Southern police forces; fighting erupted leaving some 14 dead. In addition to the immediate threat posed to civilians in and around Abyei, at risk are recent gains of the CPA and the peaceful secession of the South."

The fact that the escalation towards conflict in Sudan has largely been ignored in favour of Libya et al. is interesting AND concerning. Achieving peace in Sudan has been a target of multiple actors in the international community. The Obama administration - including the president, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice - had identified achieving peace in Sudan as a prominent goal of American diplomacy in Africa. In addition, the United Nations and the African Union have sent numerous peacekeepers to the area and facilitated multiple attempts at creating, and sustaining, dialogue between the conflicting parties.

After all the investment that members of the international community have made into resolving Sudan's conflict with its southern region, the mostly peaceful referendum this past January was hailed as a positive sign that peace might be foreseeable in the near future. With this in mind, the fact that the world has largely forgotten/ignored the recent developments in the Abyei region is worrisome.

It is understandable that some may prioritize conflict (Libya) over potential conflict (Sudan), and while it would be completely unrealistic to demand that a western power (history's primary interveners) involve themselves in another conflict (this would be the 4th war "kinetic military action" for the United States), one would think that the various invested actors would try to exert greater diplomatic pressure on the governments in Khartoum and Juba. in the case of the intervention in Libya, the United States has had little investment in Libya, having only re-established diplomatic ties in the last few years. Meanwhile, the United States has been an active supporter of Southern Sudan's independence efforts and vocal about the situation in Sudan's western region of Darfur, or at least until it got distracted by the Arab Spring! Even the UN Security Council has remained, at least officially, silent about the growing likelihood of renewed conflict in Sudan!

It's probably too early to start prognosticating how renewed conflict in this region would unfold, but a number of questions come to mind when considering the lack of response to the increased likelihood of conflict between Sudan and Southern Sudan:

1) has peace in Southern Sudan fallen victim to the hope for democratic reform in the Middle East and North Africa?
2) do fast-moving developments trump long-standing diplomatic investments?
3) for some, is spreading democracy more important than the promotion of peace?
4) is this an example of the media being able to dictate what is important in international affairs?
5) has Sudan become a tired subject in international affairs?

I'll probably think of more questions as time goes on or events proceed, but these are just some of the questions that come to mind when taking a first look at what is happening.

Happy Mother's Day everyone

European Security Treaty will be an another example of failed collective security

In last week's edition of the Embassy the head of the Russian Embassy to Canada's political section, Dimitry Trofimov, has an article attempting to glorify Russian President Dimitry Medvedev's proposal for a European Security Treaty (EST), claiming that"it could provide equal and indivisible security for all states, both members and non-members of any given bloc, and create a common set of co-ordinates agreed by all 56 states in the Euro-Atlantic area." He goes on to suggest "such a treaty should create in the Euro-Atlantic area a reliable collective security system on the basis of principles of polycentrism, rule of international law and the central role of the United Nations, unified and indivisible security of all states, inadmissibility of isolation of any state, and the creation of zones with different levels of security."

The problem with collective security is that it has never worked as it is supposed to function. The idea behind collective security is that it is an alternative to the balance of power. Its principle, as Earnest Claude puts it, is "that in the relation of nations, everyone is his brother's keeper." All states guarantee to secure, collectively, each and every state that is party to the system. Any threat to the peace by any state to any other state must be seen as a threat to the security of all states and they must respond accordingly. The problem with CS is that when threats to the peace are identified, the call to respond has never been recognized and responded to by all the member states of the security organization.

Now advocates of this treaty might argue that in smaller numbers, collective security is more likely to work but given the fact that on the UN Security Council, Russia has been a regular roadblock to proposals for humanitarian and other types of intervention as have other European powers, France and Germany. Furthermore, France has only just rejoined the integrated command structure of NATO, with domestic protest, after many years. With this in mind, what are the chances that these "reluctant" powers will act more often and with greater effect when history has shown them not to be.

Rather than building another toothless security organization that will only further clutter the international community, the European community might be better served to work to make the United Nation's collective security mechanisms more effective.

There are also problems with how the EST would be structured. One of the themes that Mr. Trofimov identifies is that all members would be guaranteed equal security and that no member would seek to provide for their own security at the cost of the security of another state. The problem is that this theme also "respects the right of any state to maintain neutrality." This means that if it is not in the best interests of a state to become involved in a conflict then it is not required to participate. Therefore, the same problem of participation that is faced by the UN is again confronted in this treaty. There is also the inherent conflict, routinely found in collective security, that the treaty guarantees that the other member states will come to the rescue of an embattled member, but then weakens this guarantee by allowing states to opt out of any missions it does not want to participate in. This is the same design that the UN's security mechanisms employ thus making this agreement unnecessary and possibly even make it less likely for the UN's mechanisms to work when needed.

I wonder why Russia is proposing this now when one year ago, if this agreement had been in place, Russia would likely have been confronted by the organization's members over the conflict in Georgia (not to mention Georgia's ally, the United States). But therein may lay the answer; Russia might be proposing this new security organism in response to the US presence currently found in Europe's predominant security structures. This proposal could very well be Russia's newest response to NATO eastward expansion and have no real concern for an effective security organization in Europe.

- blenCOWe

North Korea Restarts Korean War

North Korea has announced that it no longer considers itself to be bound by the terms of the truce that brought about the end of the fighting in the Korean War. The truce was not a formal peace agreement and as such the war had never officially concluded. What has apparently sparked this revival of war dialogue has been South Korea's decision to join the US in their initiative to conduct searches for nuclear weapons on ships heading to or coming from North Korea.

This, coming shortly after a nuclear explosion and testing of missiles, is just another example of North Korea's pattern of cutting across the grain of the international order. It seems that the Kim Jong Il regime is determined to buck the status quo and elevate itself to major player status. The problem is that even with nuclear weapons North Korea will not be a major player in international politics. It has neither the economic or diplomatic clout to back its military strength. To use a basic schoolyard comparison, North Korea will be the kid who thinks that they are a bully but doesn't have the respect of the others on the playground and gets beaten up both by the major bullies and by groups of smaller kids. How's that for imagery!

In recent years Russia and China have been North Korea's biggest allies on the UN Security Council. Their "friendship" has basically been that these two major players do not approve of North Korea's "bucking" of the system but do not want to see its sovereign borders crossed by any of the other powers. In restarting the Korean War, the DPRK risks provoking these, so far, sleeping giants. By posing a risk to the international order, North Korea may effectively force Russia and China to take a stronger position against their rogue actions.

If North Korea lashes out then the international community has the obligation to "put the rabid dog down." To allow this kind of behaviour to go unchecked will merely ensure that it is continued into the future. One rabid dog is a problem that must be managed before it contaminates anyone else.

- blenCOWe

Russia Changing its Tune

"Russia has no claims on the North Pole nor does it plan to militarize the Arctic, but it aims to persuade a United Nations commission of additional territorial claims."-- National Post

Apparently this is Russia's stance on the Arctic, according to the Russian envoy to the Arctic Council. Funny enough though, this appears to contradict Russia's recent track record when it comes to the Arctic.

The short list of relevant events can be as follows:

- the expedition that planted the Russian Flag on the North Pole

- the recent, and noticeable, change in military activity like flyovers by Russian airplanes that have been approaching US and Canadian airspace

- Russia's announcement that it will create a military unit designed to operate in Arctic conditions

- not to mention the all the rhetoric coming from Russia like when "expedition leader Artur Chilingarov made a series of eye-catching claims at the time, such as: 'the Arctic has always been Russian and will remain so."

Could this be a sign that Russia has decided its case for territorial expansion into the Arctic is not as strong as it may have thought? Reasonably there must be a pretty good reason for Russia taking a step back from its claim to such a resource rich area. Maybe the time has come to change tactics and challenge Russia on what it isn't saying rather than what it has been saying.

Just a thought...

- blenCOWe

The North Korean Pullout Threatens to De-Stabilize East-Asia

The Regional peace and security of East Asia is more than likely at risk of suffering from a massive destabilization due to an announcement from North Korea today that it will now boycott the disarmament talks taking place between the six stake-holders and will re-start production of weapons-grade plutonium and other nuclear power projects.

North Korea's state media outlet, Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), released the announcement hours after the UN Security Council had condemned North Korea's rocket launch of April 5, 2009. Realistically, this appears to be a very rash decision by North Korea, even more so because of the escalating effect it may have between the involved actors. The authoritarian state also claimed that as a means of defending itself, it will work to strengthen its nuclear deterrent, building up its nuclear weapons arsenal.

The North Koreans claim that they are being unfairly targeted because of their poor ties with the United States, arguing that "according to the US logic, Japan may launch a satellite because Japan is its ally but we must not do the same because we have a different system and we are not subservient to the US" -- Al Jazeera

The difference, however, is that Japan hasn't withdrawn itself from the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) or pursued a program of of nuclear deterrence. The reason why the United States and the other powers of the UN Security Council have denounced the actions taken by North Korea is because of the threat that the rocket technology poses to the security of the region. The issue is not the satellite that North Korea claims was the reason for the rocket launch but the technol0gy used to launch the satellite into orbit. The Taepodong-2 missile, with a range that places most of East Asia within reach, is what has caused the strong reaction by world powers. Loaded with a nuclear bomb, the Taepdodoong-2 would give the DPRK a credible deterrent against nuclear power China and a preponderance of power against the other states. Both of these would be distinctions that do not accurately represent North Korea's place in the international order; a real threat to the balance of power that currently exists.

Another point to consider is the fact that while the United States has been active in denouncing the DPRK's actions, is has not done so alone. Despite claims that the United is merely trying to punish one of its non-allies, North Korea should recognize that all of the permanent member of the Council have denounced the rocket launch including Russian and China (who, to date, has been North Korea's strongest ally in the council. As such, this is not merely a matter of the big bad bully beating up on the smaller state but international society responding to a threat to international peace and security.

- blenCOWe

Go Canada!

Mr. Harper has stepped up...finally!

No, I'm not talking about fiscal updates or economic stimulus packages; both of these things are important to Canada right now but I prefer to talk about Canada's position in the world.

I have written in the past that Canada must push to gain a greater position in world affairs. That was why I was a harsh critic when Mr. Harper announced a number of months ago that he would not commit Canada to competing for a seat on the UN Security Council in the 2010 elections.

Fortunately for Canada (and Mr. Harper), things have changed. Today, Minister of Foreign Affairs Lawrence Cannon, announced that Canada will in fact be challenging for the seat.

Canada needs this seat, simple as that. Canada needs to become a bigger player in the United Nations community. Under successive governments, not just the Conservatives, Canada's position has fallen in terms of international influence. Even in terms of the concept of Canada being a "middle power", Canada's influence has waned.

In terms of recovering, I see the need to focus on three main areas: military, economics and diplomacy. The first two are not the subject of this post but are simple; Canada's military capabilities need to be increased and Canada must reinvent itself after the global economic crisis as a major economic player (hopefully in a green capacity). The third, diplomacy, involves creating a greater image of Canada in the eyes of the world and showing that we can influence what happens in the international community. Holding a seat on the UN Security Council would be a perfect way to do this.

Committing to this endeavour helps Canada in a number of ways. First of all, the Security Council gives Canada an important voice and presence in discussions that it would not otherwise be present for. The Security Council is probably the most powerful body in international affairs and Canada's presence on it would have a positive impact on our ability to achieve our national interests. Secondly, gaining a seat on the UNSC would show a recommittment to the United Nations Framework. As of recent, critics of Canada's foreign policy have argued that Prime Minister Stephen Harper's foreign policies have been too closely connected to those of US President George W. Bush's policies. The US, under President Bush, has separated itself from multilateral bodies like the UN in favour of going it alone or with a few key allies. By recommitting to the United Nations, Canada would be able to separate itself from the policies of the US and show a commitment to the greater community of nations. Furthermore, the Canadian people would respond favourably to a recommittment to the ideals of the United Nations. Peace, security, human rights, economic and social development and humanitarian assistance are all things that the Canadian people identify with and expect their government to champion.

Canada's competition for this prestigious seat is Germany and Portugal. There are two seats for three countries and Germany has the overwhelming lead. In this race, Canada need only beat one country and Portugal, no offence, should be an easy win. Portugal has neither the record or the capabilities of Canada; its best asset is that it is a member of the EU and from what I gather, the members of the EU would prefer to have one of their own on the council as opposed to a "westerner" with close ties to the United States.

Canada must show up, talk a good game and back it up. It's our move Canada

- blenCOWe

Ambition Without Reality for the New UN Assembly President

The General Assembly of the United Nations has just announced its new president. Former Nicaraguan foreign minister Miguel D'Escoto Brockmann has been selected after running unopposed by anyone from the Latin American states of whose turn it was to hold the position. Upon the announcement of his selection Mr. Brockmann revealed his own plans to make the United Nations a more democratic institution. That's a pretty high and mighty position considering the fact that he didn't really have to compete agains anyone to gain his elected position!

Anyway...

The main component to Brockmann's plans for democratization is to change the amount of power the Security Council holds in international politics. Also targeted in his plans for democratization are the IMF, World Bank and the UN bureaucracy.

I applaud Mr. Brockmann for coming out and voicing his strong opinions on the problems with the United Nations system but what he is actually saying makes me think that he does not actually understand his position is. First of all, as president of the General Assembly, Mr. Brockmann cannot change the IMF and World Bank (which are not even UN bodies) and is unlikely to be able to influence much amongst the secretariat of the United Nations (which is an entirely separate body in the UN system). Secondly, to alter the powers of the Security Council (e.g. remove/reorganize the vetoes), one would have to change the UN charter. To do this would entail gaining the support of two-thirds of the members of the UN including the five veto-wielding powers (Great Britain, France, Russia, Germany and the United States). Now considering that the great powers cannot come to a consensus on pressing issues like Darfur and Zimbabwe, how does Brockmann expect them to agree on this? Furthermore, the vetoes themselves hold a certain level of distinction for their possessors. They confer the ability to directly influence the United Nations both in the Security Council and in the General Assembly. The five Great Powers will not agree to relinquishing their vetoes because it would weaken their position in international politics. For example, the vetoes held by Great Britain and France represent their level of power and influence in the immediate post-1945 period, not their current level of influence, holding on to their vetoes are paramount to these declining powers. In the past, there have been calls for reform to the Security Council, many of which included increasing the number of veto votes to include the current power states like China, Brazil, India, etc. The great powers would not agree to this because it would diminish their stature in the system, so to think that they would agree to completely letting go of their special status is extremely naive.

Like I said, I applaud President Brockmann for his ambition but I believe he seriously needs to temper this ambition with a heavy dose of reality.

- blenCOWe

Whose Victory is it?

A victory over racism? Not quite!

The defeat, by veto, of the recent UN Security Council resolution concerning Zimbabwe is being praised by Robert Mugabe and his fraudulent government as "a victory over racism and meddling in its affairs."

This was not a victory over racism, it was a victory over democracy and the rule of law. What has happened here is that a precedent has been set that authoritarian governments who abuse their power to maintain their position. In the future, dictators will be able to look back and point to this situation and use it to justify their actions.

What is really ignorant in this situation is the tone that Zimbabwean officials have taken towards the international community. For example, the Information Minister Skihanyiso Ndlovu told Reuters that,

"We are very happy with the turn of events and would like to thank those who helped defeat international racism disguised as multilateral action at the U.N."

This was not a random move or an act of spite. This resolution was a show by the majority of the members of the Security Council (who are elected by the international community) to condemn the manner in which Mugabe has retained power.

And those members of the Council who helped to bring down the resolution, what was their reason? They claimed that,

"imposing sanctions would indeed have impacted negatively on the current dialogue process among Zimbabwe political parties."

That seems like a responsible answer but one that doesn't reflect the current realities of the situation. These talks, that Russia, China and South Africa were afraid of damaging, are virtually non-existent as of right now.

Reuters is reporting that, "President Robert Mugabe's party and the opposition failed last week to agree to a framework for talks to end Zimbabwe's crisis." Without even a framework in place, how can these three nations believe that taking action against the Mugabe government would negatively influence the talks when the two parties cannot even agree to the manner in which the two sides will come together.

In the end, these members are using the talks as a shield from their unwillingness to take a stand against the ongoing attrocities.

This was a victory for Mugabe and Mugabe alone and has nothing to do with racism or influencing the peace talks.

- blenCOWe

This is Getting Old!

I don't even know why the United Nations even bothers sustaining the Security Council anymore. It continues to show that it is a toothless relic of an idealist era. The presence of the five veto votes makes it almost impossible for the Security Council to act when and where it is needed the most.

First, China blocked the Council from taking action in Darfur. Now China and Russia have vetoed a resolution to sanction Mr. Mugabe's fraudulent government in Zimbabwe. In both cases, oppressive regimes have used violence and human rights violations, numerous people have been killed, beaten or forced into hiding, received international attention through activism and news, and... have faced little or no action from the UN Security Council. Also relevant has been the fact that China have used its veto both times to prevent any action from being taken.

Unlike events of the past (e.g. Iraq, Cold War), these situations have nothing to do with imperialism or hegemonies. Darfur and Zimbabwe are humanitarian crises. They involve oppression through force and should be easily condemned by the rest of the international community. Unfortunately, though, this has not been the case. The existence of these vetoes prevents the Security Council from fulfilling its full potential.

For as long as the Council has existed, it has been ineffective. It was understandable (and by this I don't mean acceptable) because of the realities of the Cold War period. But the world has changed since then. No longer do spheres of influence dominate world politics in the same way that they used to. The countries of the world should be able to stand up and fight against those that commit these humanitarian attrocities. This has nothing to do with the arguments that the Security Council is an apparatus of the victors of WWII. What this has to do with is the sheer inability for the Council, as it is constructed, to be able to function effectively with the task it was entrusted with.

I think it is time to seriously approach reform or disbandment of the Security Council and in such a way that those who currently wield the power are unable to stop the change. To do so would re-invigorate both the Council and the UN and would provide a more capable framework for international security.

Furthermore, China is showing again that is will not protect human rights. Preventing the Council from acting in Darfur and again in Zimbabwe and the fact that is was caught selling arms to Mugabe's enforcers in the lead up to the election. And then, of course, there is the Tibet issue! China is showing its support to the those who use violence to take away the human rights of its victims/opponents.

That is some foreign policy!

- blenCOWe