Of course there are also those that look at Europe and its divisions and conclude that they need not fear it and that it has no effective influence anyway. With the decline in preparation, desire and "guts" for military intervention for any purpose, whether in the framework of "the responsibility of protection" in failing states or in that of regions requiring international intervention to prevent genocide, different governments and regimes act with excessive confidence in that they will evade punishment. Additionally, the fear of international tribunals has declined, as there are a handful of governments and NGOs that are inclined to the idea of delaying and toning down tribunals, for the sake of dialogue, in the name of stability and under the pretext of limited options.
This alone does away with the means of isolation to influence and alter directions. Arab regimes are among those that are still being monitored and scrutinized. Thus the Arab League and its partners, both in terms of governments and of individuals preoccupied with finding a regional solution to break away from the grip of international pressures from both sides, must be aware of the harm that will result from encouraging those regimes to continue acting recklessly and wagering on the decline of the means of restraining them in the era of division and polarization. Polarization, after all, is not necessarily in the interest of Arabs, and neither are the new coalition models.
Arab interests ultimately lie in respecting international resolutions and international legal institutions. Ending impunity is a principle that will benefit Arabs before others, as the victims of impunity are Arab individuals and populations. Most Arab issues find a legal basis for their solutions in Security Council resolutions, starting with Resolution 242 and the principle of land for peace, and most issues discussed at the UN seem to be Arab in nature.
Hence Arabs have no interest in undermining international legitimacy, international tribunals, and international laws, in participating in initiatives of procrastination and delay as a cure, or in encouraging coalitions which are in effect being formed at the expense of the future of Arab causes.
Russia today is preoccupied with the priority of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, to teach Georgia a lesson and inform all those concerned in the Caucasus and in former Soviet republics that Vladimir Putin's Russia is determined to carve out an international position for itself that avenges it from what Yeltsin did to the Soviet Union.
Russia today is not the Russia of yesteryears, of the bipolar era of the Cold War, when it used the Arab-Israeli conflict as a major means of polarization. Today, the Palestinian cause is not a priority for Moscow. Even with respect to the issue of settlements which Arab states wish to raise at the Security Council, there are no indications that Russia is willing to endorse such an initiative. The Arab ministerial decision was indeed right to try and pressure the Security Council to issue a stand against illegal settlements, which the quadripartite commission demanded an end to, while Israel continues to expand them against all international legitimacy. However, those Arab states must not fail to throw their weight behind this proposition in all seriousness and with suggestions and strategies that highlight Arab alternatives, if peaceful negotiations for a two-state solution and the establishment of Palestine alongside Israel were to fail. In the Arabs fail to do this, their initiative will be mocked and will backfire.
Similarly, with respect to another issue that some Arabs wish to raise at the Security Council, it is necessary to take heed of the impact of attempts to obtain a Security Council resolution that would temporarily suspend the proceedings of the International Criminal Court regarding Darfur, based on article 16 of the ICC charter. According to this article, the ICC may not initiate an investigation or prosecution in the twelve months that follow a request made by the Security Council to "suspend" one of its cases. It is well known that ICC Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo has issued charges against Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir for his involvement in genocide in Darfur and demanded issuing an international warrant for his arrest.
What was said about British and French stances supporting the suspension of the prosecution, with no tangible return such as arresting primary suspects believed by the ICC to have committed war crimes, ultimately turned out to be untrue. It is no small matter for France or the UK to undermine the ICC and its president, especially on an issue such as this. According to those intimately familiar with the issue, the nine votes necessary to support such an initiative at the Security Council are not available.
There is no need to criticize the efforts of the Arab League and the African Union to find a practical solution for this crisis and to convince the Sudanese president to accept a "package solution", the details of which are not yet officially known. Such a package is known to include emphasis on the seriousness of the Sudanese judiciary's efforts to investigate and punish those who have committed atrocities in Darfur, as well as on the seriousness of the Sudanese government in finding a political settlement for the dispute in the Western Sudanese province.
On the other hand, the efforts of the Arab League, even if alongside the African Union, with the Security Council, to undermine justice and the ICC, do not at all serve African or Arab interests. It should not be the function of a regional organization, especially one that includes countries with a long history of assaulting justice, and of practicing oppression, rape, murder and genocide under different pretexts, to always stand by those in power. The most shameful genocides, with the exception of the Srebrenica genocide which was committed in the heart of Europe, were committed in Africa. Hence it is pointless to claim that the focus on Africa is a matter of racism. Genocides were committed in Rwanda, Burundi, Kenya and Sudan. None of this is a figment of international imagination.
Thus, if the Arab League and the African Union can guarantee binding dates and clear commitments from the Sudanese President to follow a qualitatively new judiciary and political course, then they must present such guarantees when they head to the Security Council to persuade its members of the need to invoke Article 16. Indeed, there is significant objection to applying this article by human rights organizations. It is also important that mediators not be taken with impressions made by non-governmental organizations and institutions that aim at suggesting that their views reflect the truth, whereas in reality they are simply promoting their own views and the views of their members. One such institution is the International Crisis Group, headed by Gareth Evans, former Foreign Minister of Australia. It believes that it is sometimes useful to suspend justice until crises have been resolved, and that it may be harmful for stability to change regimes through the implementation of international justice. The ICG also believes that it is necessary to deal with international tribunals with a great extent of sensitivity, regardless of the political reality and of the facts on the ground.
Gareth Evans has published a book, entitled "The Responsibility to Protect: Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes Once and for All", in which he explains the philosophy of collective international responsibility in prevention and protection using different means, the last of which is military intervention if all else fails. He is of the opinion that diplomatic and political means are the best means to protect through persuasion, and that starting with engagement is a far more effective means than isolation. He believes that legal means such as international tribunals are effective in the framework of "threats" to prompt positive response, but that reality may demand suspending them while attempting to formulate a solution to the conflict, and that guaranteeing that no one will escape punishment is possible after the conflict is over, but not while it is ongoing.
Perhaps the most dangerous among the ideas put forth by Evans and the International Crisis Group is that they put negotiation ahead of justice in the name of political realism and for fear of the "balance of consequences". Indeed in Evans's opinion, justice is only a "theory" whereas the continuity of misery is a "reality" that demands "bargaining".
Such a dangerous theory rewards rather than punishes perpetrators, and promotes impunity instead of supporting efforts that aim to bring it to an end. It is extremely harmful to the principle, theory and ideology of "the international responsibility to protect", which will be prominent during the discussions of the current UN General Assembly session. Such propositions are misleading for those who believe that the opportunity is ripe to carry on with massacres and political assassinations, as impunity is possible, with the support of international think tanks. They will be disappointed when they realize that international tribunals can neither be stopped by institutions based on theories, nor by the diplomatic activity of regional groups and states with a passion for solutions that postpone justice and undermine the institutions of justice, in the name of dialogue for stability and to earn a diplomatic reputation of success in containing crises.
The atmosphere at the 63rd UN General Assembly session will also play its part in general misleading, with respect to different issues, as it will be characterized by the revival of ideological coalitions and the demagogic approaches of confrontation and provocation. The opening speech of the current president of the UN General Assembly, Sandinista Nicaraguan priest Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, as well as his press conference, indicated that he was nostalgic about the Cold War and the era of division and polarization, and that he has remained frozen in the 1960s and 1970s. Perhaps what is most accurate in what he said was that "the greatest case failure of the United Nations is the lack of a Palestinian state", reflecting the UN's "incapacity to implement a resolution adopted more than 61 years ago", in reference to the resolution to divide Palestine. However, Reverend Miguel's speech was mostly characterized by demagogical provocation, having nothing to do with working for conciliation, a responsibility traditionally assigned to the president of the General Assembly.
All this should lead the Arabs arriving at the UN to think carefully about whether this is the right time to present serious initiatives and strategies, or whether it is better at this time to stay away from coalitions and their quarrels. Anything in between will indeed be very harmful to the Arabs and their many issues.
*Published in the London-based AL-HAYAT on September 19, 2008. |
