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

Back to Blogging/Response to "Xenophobia to the Rescue?"

Okay so I've been meaning to get back to blogging for a while now but I keep letting myself get distracted by other things (job/school work/travel), but I wanted to write up my two cents concerning a question posed by Steve Saideman concerning xenophobia and intervention and was looking for a way to avoid working on an assignment for my economics course.

So Prof. Saideman asks whether or not intervention motivated by xenophobia is a good thing. I guess the first thing is that it seems to me that it would be just as self-interested as any other reason for intervention. Just like an intervention for strategic interests (US in Iraq for oil) or under the umbrella of the R2P doctrine (guilt from inaction during Rwanda), xenophobic intervention has the intervening states' interests at heart and not those of the victims on the ground. I do, however, see a difference in that a state intervening out of fear of an influx of refugees benefits from a sustainable peace being achieved. This would mean remaining involved afterwards to ensure that the country does not fall back into conflict. For example, France and Italy cannot afford to continually hold back the wave of refugees that would accompany sustained conflict in North Africa. A relatively quick end to the fighting and then some amount of peacebuilding assistance would be in their best interests so that a sustainable peace could be achieved and the flow of refugees could be reversed.

The danger, though, is that xenophobic intervention could lead to a focus on the refugees and directing one's efforts to turning away refugees and subjecting them to dangerous conditions. The 1951 Refugees Convention requires states to allow people to apply for asylum once they set foot on their land. By preventing refugees from landing, countries can avoid having to provide shelter to these people (until their status is determined). Such has already been the case as a boat of Tunisian refugees sunk off of the coast of Italy, killing 35, and another boat, carrying 1800 refugees from Libya was turned away and escorted into international waters. There have been other cases, especially in southeast Asia, where boats of asylum seekers have been forced to turn around and brave international waters in vessels (and conditions) that are unsafe and unsanitary.

So to bring it back to the original question, I would suggest that xenophobic intervention directed at tackling the problem(s) at the source of the refugees (conflicts) is "okay" whereas those acts of intervention aimed at preventing refugees from reaching their shores are bad forms of xenophobic intervention. (I do, however, find it distasteful to label some xenophobic actions as "good". I would say that a better term is needed).

... I guess I have to get back to my econ assignment now that I've thrown my two cents in (sigh)...

What To Do With North Korea?

First North Korea tested a nuclear explosion thought to be 20 times more powerful than their one in 2006 and now, in the same week, they conduct a test of two short-range missiles. Now it would be difficult at best for anyone other than the North Koreans to decipher a strategic direction to these recent actions. Unlike past instances, North Korea went ahead with their plans without announcing them far in advance which typically led to a good amount of hard diplomatic talk usually stemming from South Korea, backed by the United States. The long lead up to tests by North Korea usually allowed them to negotiate some sort of compensation like being removed from the list of state sponsors of terrorism or the removal of sanctions. That is why these recent moves do not make for good foreign policy on the part of the DPRk; by not following their typical problem they have drawn the ire of the great powers while not succeeding in gaining anything of value to them.

But what should the rest of the world do (or not do) in response to North Korea's recent actions?

One type of recourse could be to impose either unilateral or multilateral sanctions upon the totalitarian regime. But sanctions have shown themselves to be largely useless as a means to address North Korean actions. Furthermore, sanctions have been shown to be an ineffective means to punishing a troublemaking state. Sanctions only really punish the weakest people in society leaving the ones in charge unlikely to feel the effects of the sanctions. While it is possible to direct sanctions at the leaders of a rogue nation, it is difficult to do and with the recluse nature of the leadership of North Korea they are unlikely to be successful.

Another avenue is of course to militarily intervene in North Korea. Technically as there has been no official end to the Korean War, the US and South Korea could "legally" intervene in response to the recent actions (I believe this to be accurate but I am by no means an expert on international law). The problem with this recourse is that the DPRK has the 5th largest standing military in the world (approximately 1.1 million active troops); quite a bit bigger than 6th place South Korea (just under 700,000). Also against this course of action is the fact that the United States is already engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan and very unlikely to engage in another war, especially one against a nuclear state.

The last thing possible thing to do is to do nothing. This "nothing" includes mere statements condemning North Korea's actions as well as inaction by the rest of the world. This course effectively encourages the North Koreans to continue this pattern of behaviour in the future. North Korea is showing a blatant disrespect to the rest of the international community by ignoring nuclear regulatory norms. In a time where the upcoming rounds of nuclear disarmament talks are showing promise in their initial stages, this kind of behaviour should not be tolerated. To do nothing is tantamount to ensuring that there will be more clashes down the road between North Korea and the rest of the world.

North Korea appears to be a no-win situation. Sanctions and cheap talk won't work, the only action that will have any effect involves the use of military force but with the United States already becoming over-extended and the lack of political will by the rest this route is almost guaranteed not to happen.

This is what happens when you leave things unfinished (Korean War)!

- blenCOWe

Stand Up and Fight

The sham that was the Zimbabwean presidential "election" is over now and Robert Mugabe will be announced shortly as winning by a landslide. Mugabe will argue that the election is a fair representation of his support because the country's electoral commission refused to remove Morgan Tsvangirai's name from the ballot.

Now while it is obvious that this was not a free and fair election, I believe that there are better ways that this election could have been contested. While Mugabe's ZANU-PF thugs rounded up people and forced them to vote, Tsvangirai was hiding in the Dutch embassy. That doesn't really spark much belief in his commitment to his convictions.

I understand that Tsvangirai feared for his supporters and attempted to pull his name out of the election in order to protect them. His fears are understandable as both he and the members of his Movement for Democratic Change faced violence and detainment in the weeks leading up to the run-off vote. But this brings to mind to old axiom of "no risk, no reward." If he was truly committed to change then he would have continued to contest the election.

This brings to mind the ideas of Vaclav Havel who was a leader of the "Velvet Revolution" and the first president of the Czech Republic. He led a non-violent revolution against the Communist government in Czechoslovakia. He believed that people need to suffer for their beliefs. If Morgan Tsvangirai wanted to truly represent change and democracy for Zimbabwe then he should have continued to contest the election and Mugabe's governance by force. Realistically, with the worldwide attention that this election was receiving, Tsvangirai and his supporters would be less likely to suffer serious harm. They might get roughed up a little bit or detained but this would just add to the negative publicity that Mugabe's government was already receiving. Supporters of the MDC were not able to free themselves from the oppression of this election so why is it fair that Tsvangirai can run and hide while everyone else must suffer.

But this is all moot now that the election is over. So what is next for Zimbabwe?

I applaud Stephen Harper for coming out and denouncing the sham election, calling it an "ugly perversion of democracy" and for proposing sanctions against the Zimbabwean government. Not being short-sighted, I also applaud the other world leaders, including the UN Security Council, for denouncing Mugabe and the ZANU-PF's actions.

But what to do? what to do?

I am in no means an interventionist when it comes to foreign policy. I tend to prefer Realist international theory and niche democracy. I feel that in following these directions, it is possible for a state's foreign policy to be efficient and beneficial for all parties concerned. But in terms of Zimbabwe, I believe some intervention is called for. Mugabe's government is maintaining its control through violence and oppression and this is something that peaceful democracies must vehemently oppose.

Human security should be the foremost concern and it appears that the only way to ensure this would be to intervene and return control of the country to the people. Like any other international action, there will be questions over the "legality" (if there is such a thing in international politics) of intervention. Jean Jacques Rousseau has written that,

"the uprising that ends by strangling or dethroning a sultan is as lawful an act as those by which he disposed, the day before, of the lives and goods of his subjects. Force alone maintained him, force alone overthrows him."

I read this quote a couple days ago and my mind went instantly to thoughts of Mugabe and Zimbabwe. He has come out and said that he would die before succeeding control to Tsvangirai. This opens the door; it is clear that he does not believe in democracy and a fair electoral process. The only way to remove this oppression is to intervene.

But who? Who will answer the call to arms?