Last week and this, International Criminal Court received the attention it deserves because of Hollywood and glamour. Pity it took the testimony of Naomi Campbell and that of Mia Farrow, who contradicted her, to turn the spotlight on the trial of a leader who allegedly used blood diamonds to pay for a civil war in neighboring Sierra Leone.
It should be noted, however, that the prosecution's case is pretty weak if this testimony is the strongest evidence they've got. But at least the media, particularly the myopic one in the US, paid attention. That's something, I guess.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Putin at 10
Image by World Economic Forum via FlickrProbably few have noticed but Vladimir Putin has now been in power for over 10 years. Plucked from nowhere by a failing Boris Yeltsin, he succeeded in restructuring Russia - sometimes not in a good way - with the massive support and approval of the Russian people. He crushed the nascent free media. He crushed the oligarchs - at lease those who refused to tow the line.
The devastating heat wave and fires during the past month have dented his popularity - but there are few countries in the world who don't blame their leaders for events beyond their control. Like the weather. But, then, people are not particularly smart in general and like easy answers. Most of the time it is the response to disasters that usually kill the politician. This phenomenon has taken aim at the Russian Prime Minister where calls for his resignation have surfaced this week. Ain't gonna happen.
Putin will be remembered for consolidating the state and not indulging in revolutionary fervour. As a result, changes that started and faltered under the Yeltsin years have taken place merely because Putin said "do it".
Last May when I was in Moscow to review progress on the consolidation of a certain number of government agencies - something my colleagues and I advocated in 1995 - the progress that had been made when Putin had said "do it" three years ago was astounding. He also cleared out the old - aged and backward vodka swilling - guard in government, replacing it with very bright and very young professionals.
I saw a report recently that while visiting Nizhny Novgorod - the fourth largest city in the country - he promised those standing amid smoldering ruins that once had been their homes that all would be rebuild before November. Indeed, work had already begun. All because Putin said "do it".
From a human rights, civil society and media freedom perspective, I don't particularly like him. But, more leaders should be able to get things done with similar determination.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Under the Radar News
As I sit here without a car on a Sunday to get out of the metropolis of Maseru (with the added injury of being called at 7 ON A SUNDAY MORNING about borrowing it), I've been going over some news snips about matters that rarely covered but which may be of interest and - like the butterfly effect - could have consequences very far away.
If few outside of Eastern Europe, Russia and Caucuses have noticed, that's hardly a surprise. But, recently the last dictator in Europe, President Lukashenko of Belarus has been at odds, to say the least, with Moscow. In a series of escalating moves, he has made an alliance of convenience with Georgia and its President, Sakaasvili to the extent that Sakaasvili was allowed to castigate Russia on a popular TV station in Minsk. To say that this has annoyed Moscow is an understatement. I give it a month.
On the other side of the planet, Hugo the Great has severed ties with Columbia in a hissy fit claiming that Uribe was capable of and indeed, plans provoking a war with Venezuala and impeding regional integration. Chavez seems to be feeling left out of everything lately - haveing been so successful in destroyng the economy and unable of realizing it is Brazil calling the shots.
There has never been privately owned media in Turkmenistan - until now. The President, Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov, has ordered it so.
In case it appears that the burqa ban is only an issue in Europe - Damascus has now made the move.
Finally, this is really discriminatory! And from the Dutch, no less.
If few outside of Eastern Europe, Russia and Caucuses have noticed, that's hardly a surprise. But, recently the last dictator in Europe, President Lukashenko of Belarus has been at odds, to say the least, with Moscow. In a series of escalating moves, he has made an alliance of convenience with Georgia and its President, Sakaasvili to the extent that Sakaasvili was allowed to castigate Russia on a popular TV station in Minsk. To say that this has annoyed Moscow is an understatement. I give it a month.
On the other side of the planet, Hugo the Great has severed ties with Columbia in a hissy fit claiming that Uribe was capable of and indeed, plans provoking a war with Venezuala and impeding regional integration. Chavez seems to be feeling left out of everything lately - haveing been so successful in destroyng the economy and unable of realizing it is Brazil calling the shots.
There has never been privately owned media in Turkmenistan - until now. The President, Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov, has ordered it so.
In case it appears that the burqa ban is only an issue in Europe - Damascus has now made the move.
Finally, this is really discriminatory! And from the Dutch, no less.
Independent Investigation Launched - Turkish Gaza Flotilla
About time. Although it will come as a surprise to no one that Israel will refuse to cooperate with the UN on this investgation.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
and, speaking of Russia....and the ICJ
The recent advisory opinion by the ICJ regarding Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence from Serbia will pose a problem for Moscow. It's statements to the court may come back to haunt it.
Moscow stated that:
Yet the position that Russia's ambassador presented to the court does not reflect its positions regarding Georgian sovereignty and spells trouble for Chechnya and other non-Russian regions of the Federation.
It's first statement, that general international law does not allow Kosovar independence because the people have no right of self determination is not, in fact and law, true. The court had previously decided in the case of East Timor that the right of self-determination exists in all circumstances under the fundamental principle of jus cogens - a principle of international law which is accepted by the international community as a norm from which no derogation is ever permitted. Russia needs to consider the impact of this position on Chechnya.
The second point refers to a legal position that such unilateral declarations of independence can only be asserted within a colonial context. This argument has been raised before, but has no general support in international law. In any case, the advisory opinion distinguishes the Kosovo declaration as not an issue between nation states, but an internal matter which was triggered by the stripping of all of Kosovo's rights under the Yugoslav constitution under the Milosevic regime. If Russia wants to pursue this position of independence only within a colonial context, how far back should we look? Chechnya could, arguably, be considered a colonial possession, conquered and re-conquered several times in the 19th century by imperial Russia. On the other hand, the Russian argument fails if applied to Abkhasia and S. Ossetia since they could not be considered colonies, ever, of Georgia.
Citing Rhodesia and Northern Cyprus in support of the illegality of the unilateral declaration of independence, Russia ignored the unique circumstances of each of those actions one of which involved the attempt to continue an oppressive colonial regime and the other which is political in nature. The political component is ignored by those, like Russia, who tend not to differentiate between the court's ruling which recognized the legality of the declaration as opposed to political recognition. This is crucial for Cyprus, where the Greeks are opposing opening of any new chapters in EU accession talks for Turkey despite the commitment of the EU to do so based on the 2004 vote by Turkish Cypriots to reunite the island, while the Greeks voted it down. Only Turkey recognizes Northern Cyprus - a very similar situation to that faced by Russia in Abkhasia and S. Ossetia which have been recognized by Venezuela, Nicaragua and some insignificant island in the Pacific. Politically, it is unlikely that Northern Cyprus will be recognized as independent by anyone other than Turkey even if an argument can be made for legal recognition.
Kosovo is recognized, so far, by 69 countries, including the US, Germany and Turkey. Politics matters. Citing Rhodesia and Northern Cyprus is an unwise legal position since both can be used to show the illegality of Abkhazia's and S. Ossetia's unilateral declarations.
Violation of human rights in the 1990s cannot be used as a reason for Independence in 2004 - the next argument put forward by Russia. However, the court did not rely on the violation of human rights as the basis of its decision. Rather, it pointed to the stripping of constitutional rights granted to other regions of Yugoslavia - a position successfully put forward by Croatia. Conversely, violation of human rights is precisely the argument used by Russia to inject troops in support of the Abkhazian and S. Ossetian independence movements.
Despite the frequent admonitions that Kosovo is a unique situation and not precedent - admonitions made by Russia, Turkey (with it's eye on the Kurds in northern Iraq), the UK, US and Germany (in recent statements in Cyprus), it will be used as precedent. But it will be politics, not international law that will govern the outcome.
Moscow stated that:
General international law prevents Kosovo from declaring independence, bearing in mind that the people of Kosovo do not enjoy a right to self-determination.
Russia rejects claims coming from those countries who support the unilateral declaration that international law "does not regulate independence declarations", and reminds that the UN Security Council declared Northern Cyprus and Rhodesia's independence to be illegal, since secession is forbidden outside the colonial context.
Violations of human rights of Albanians during the 1990s cannot be the justification for a unilateral declaration of independence in 2008.Russia supported, to the extent of encouraging and sending troops to assist, breakaway regions of Georgia - Abkhasia and S. Ossetia. At the time of Kosovo's declaration, Russia declared that acceptance would have consequences. Many commentators pointed to the invasion of Georgia, ostensibly to protect the populations of Abkhasia and S. Ossetia from Georgian ethnic cleansing and prevent Georgia from reasserting central authority, as pay-back for Kosovo.
Yet the position that Russia's ambassador presented to the court does not reflect its positions regarding Georgian sovereignty and spells trouble for Chechnya and other non-Russian regions of the Federation.
It's first statement, that general international law does not allow Kosovar independence because the people have no right of self determination is not, in fact and law, true. The court had previously decided in the case of East Timor that the right of self-determination exists in all circumstances under the fundamental principle of jus cogens - a principle of international law which is accepted by the international community as a norm from which no derogation is ever permitted. Russia needs to consider the impact of this position on Chechnya.
The second point refers to a legal position that such unilateral declarations of independence can only be asserted within a colonial context. This argument has been raised before, but has no general support in international law. In any case, the advisory opinion distinguishes the Kosovo declaration as not an issue between nation states, but an internal matter which was triggered by the stripping of all of Kosovo's rights under the Yugoslav constitution under the Milosevic regime. If Russia wants to pursue this position of independence only within a colonial context, how far back should we look? Chechnya could, arguably, be considered a colonial possession, conquered and re-conquered several times in the 19th century by imperial Russia. On the other hand, the Russian argument fails if applied to Abkhasia and S. Ossetia since they could not be considered colonies, ever, of Georgia.
Citing Rhodesia and Northern Cyprus in support of the illegality of the unilateral declaration of independence, Russia ignored the unique circumstances of each of those actions one of which involved the attempt to continue an oppressive colonial regime and the other which is political in nature. The political component is ignored by those, like Russia, who tend not to differentiate between the court's ruling which recognized the legality of the declaration as opposed to political recognition. This is crucial for Cyprus, where the Greeks are opposing opening of any new chapters in EU accession talks for Turkey despite the commitment of the EU to do so based on the 2004 vote by Turkish Cypriots to reunite the island, while the Greeks voted it down. Only Turkey recognizes Northern Cyprus - a very similar situation to that faced by Russia in Abkhasia and S. Ossetia which have been recognized by Venezuela, Nicaragua and some insignificant island in the Pacific. Politically, it is unlikely that Northern Cyprus will be recognized as independent by anyone other than Turkey even if an argument can be made for legal recognition.
Kosovo is recognized, so far, by 69 countries, including the US, Germany and Turkey. Politics matters. Citing Rhodesia and Northern Cyprus is an unwise legal position since both can be used to show the illegality of Abkhazia's and S. Ossetia's unilateral declarations.
Violation of human rights in the 1990s cannot be used as a reason for Independence in 2004 - the next argument put forward by Russia. However, the court did not rely on the violation of human rights as the basis of its decision. Rather, it pointed to the stripping of constitutional rights granted to other regions of Yugoslavia - a position successfully put forward by Croatia. Conversely, violation of human rights is precisely the argument used by Russia to inject troops in support of the Abkhazian and S. Ossetian independence movements.
Despite the frequent admonitions that Kosovo is a unique situation and not precedent - admonitions made by Russia, Turkey (with it's eye on the Kurds in northern Iraq), the UK, US and Germany (in recent statements in Cyprus), it will be used as precedent. But it will be politics, not international law that will govern the outcome.
New Russian PR Web Site
I''ve done my share of Russia bashing, but this new PR site by the Russian Federation - called Modern Russian - is pretty cool. It actually provides some interesting information which would not normally be found in the news - except perhaps in Russia, and perhaps not even then. Check it out.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
International Court of Justice - Kosovo can say what it wants
I have not read the advisory opinion issued by the International Court of Justice today regarding the legality of the Kosovar declaration of independence from Serbia in 2008, but will. However, from the bits that I have read, it seems that the old saying "be careful what you ask for" really applies to this opinion.
Distilled, it seems the court opined that the declaration of independence by Kosovo was not illegal under international law. This is a punt, it seems to me. Anyone can declare independence with impunity. It is not quite the same as shouting "fire" in a packed theater, but the court essentially affirmed the right to say whatever you want, to a point. From what can be gleaned from the BBC reports, the opinion never stated that the secession was legal. For what it is worth, I think that it is, but we can get into that at another time.
The ultimate result will be how this opinion will be interpreted by, say, South Ossetia, Abkhasia, the Basque region of France and Spain, Chechnya, Russia, France, Spain and Georgia - to name a few. After I have had the chance to actually read the opinion, there will be additional analysis. For the time being, I can positively guaranty that Prishtina will be celebrating and Belgrade will pout.
Distilled, it seems the court opined that the declaration of independence by Kosovo was not illegal under international law. This is a punt, it seems to me. Anyone can declare independence with impunity. It is not quite the same as shouting "fire" in a packed theater, but the court essentially affirmed the right to say whatever you want, to a point. From what can be gleaned from the BBC reports, the opinion never stated that the secession was legal. For what it is worth, I think that it is, but we can get into that at another time.
The ultimate result will be how this opinion will be interpreted by, say, South Ossetia, Abkhasia, the Basque region of France and Spain, Chechnya, Russia, France, Spain and Georgia - to name a few. After I have had the chance to actually read the opinion, there will be additional analysis. For the time being, I can positively guaranty that Prishtina will be celebrating and Belgrade will pout.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)