Given that one of my distant relatives (no, not Johnny Depp) was one of the first Americans assigned the task of defeating pirates, I take a particular interest in the subject of piracy. Throw in my few years in the U.S. Navy, and I can’t help myself. Even though I was technically on vacation last week, I followed the story of the Maersk-Alabama and Captain Richard Phillips with great interest. And I exulted when three of the four pirates met their end. The safe return of the Maersk-Alabama and her entire crew was a clear win for the cause of justice, and could serve as a model. Future efforts to protect ships from pirates are likely to include some combination of greater vigilance on the part of the shipping companies and crews, in collaboration with the navies of the many different nations who have an interest in keeping the sea lanes open and free. (This is one of the themes that I develop in my new book, and that I will discuss next Monday at Cato.)

We do not need to reorient our grand strategy to deal with pirates. We don’t need to reshape the U.S. Navy to fight a motley band of young men in leaky boats. As my colleague Ben Friedman has written, piracy is a problem, but decidely minor relative to many other global security challenges.

But some are criticizing the approach taken to resolve last week’s standoff. They say that the only way to truly eliminate the piracy problem is to attack and ultimately clean out the pirates’s sanctuaries in lawless Somalia. This “solution” fits well with the broader push within the Washington foreign policy community that would deal with our security problems by fixing failed states.

I have gone on at length, usually with my colleagues Justin Logan and Ben Friedman, on the many reasons why a strategy for fixing failed states is unwise and unnecessary. I won’t expand on that thesis here, other than to point out that of all failed states in the world, Somalia is arguably the most failed of the lot. “Fixing” it would require a massive investment of personnel, money, and time — resources that would be better spent elsewhere.

Mackubin Owens offers one of the more intriguing defenses of this approach in a just published e-note for the Foreign Policy Research Institute. Owens likens a strategy of fixing Somalia to Gen. Andrew Jackson’s military operations in Florida, a story that features prominently in John Lewis Gaddis’s Surprise, Security and the American Experience. As Owens notes, when some members of President James Monroe’s cabinet wanted to punish Jackson for exceeding his mandate — in the course of his military campaign he captured and executed two British citizens accused of cavorting with the marauders who had attacked American citizens – Secretary of State John Quincy Adams jumped to Jackson’s defense, and proposed a different tack. He demanded that Spain either take responsibility for cleaning up Florida, or else give it up. And we all know what happened. Under the terms of Adams-Onis Treaty of 1819, Florida became a territory of the United States. 26 years later, it became our 27th state.

I’ve vacationed in Florida many times. Walt Disney World is wonderful for the kids; I’ve been there six times. I spent three memorable days watching March Madness in Miami a few years back. Spring training baseball is great fun.  Adams couldn’t have imagined any of these things when he acquired a vast swampland; he cared only that Florida under Spanish control, or lack thereof, posed a threat.

Here is where the parallels to the present day get complicated. I’ll admit that I’ve never been to Somalia. Perhaps they have their own version of South Beach, or could have some day. But I’m frankly baffled by the mere intimation that our national security is so threatened by chaos there that we need to take ownership of the country’s — or the entire Horn of Africa region’s — problems.

And yet, that is what many people believe. And this is not a new phenomenon. In many respects, we have chosen to treat all of the world’s ungoverned spaces as the modern-day equivalent of Spanish Florida.

Well, some more good news. The Sudan/ Darfur envoy is going to be announced as early as today and the choice is Gen. Scott Gration, a former air-force pilot and Africa specialist. He advised candidate Obama on Africa policy and traveled with him to the continent in 2006. A Darfur activist noted the following from Gration’s DNC speech:

“In 2006, I went with Senator Obama to Africa, and experienced firsthand the leadership that America needs. In the shadow of Nelson Mandela’s prison cell, I saw a leader with the understanding to build new bridges over old divides. That leader is Barack Obama. In Nairobi, I saw a leader with the courage to confront corruption directly with the president of Kenya. In Chad, I saw a leader who listened to the stories of refugees from Darfur – a leader committed to end that genocide…..”

As I said earlier, the President has outlined a vision for Africa, let’s hope that the appointment of Gration is the start of a rapid push to build out the Africa team so that the people are in place to develop and execute policies based on that vision.

A few years ago I spent a fair bit of time working on the challenges facing Northern Ireland. I was happy to have the opportunity to play a small role on the issue and quickly came to understand that the NI Envoy had a key role to play in efforts to secure the peace in that area.

Today, Ben Smith (via Toby Harnden) let us know that Mark Tuohey is likely to be named the NI envoy by President Obama. This seems to be a good fit, Harnden let us know that Tuohey’s credentials include the fact that he “advised the Patten Commission on policing – a subject that remains a thorny issue in Northern Ireland.” Smith also suggests that the President “heard” the concerns raised by the Irish-American community when they responded negatively to “candidate Obama’s” suggestion that an envoy would not be needed. Whether that is true or not, as far as I’m concerned, this appointment is a good move from the President and worthy of praise. Having said all of that, it is also fair to say that this decision got me thinking about another part of the world I care about – Africa.

It struck me today that there are other regions of the world where the need to name an envoy is probably more acute than NI. One area that comes to mind immediately is Sudan/Darfur and another is the Congo.

Now, I understand that the question of an envoy for Sudan/Darfur is under active consideration within the administration (Darfur activist and actor George Clooney noted that a review was under way last month after his White House meeting with the President and Vice President) and Sen. Clinton suggested today that an appointment would be made within days.

This is without question good news, but as I read today’s announcement, which comes on the heels of important policy steps and appointments re: the Middle East and Central-South Asia, I was left with a feeling that the administration is falling behind the curve when it comes to Africa.

I wanted to test this sentiment and spoke to a few friends and colleagues with an Africa focus and it is fair to say that there is a growing sense among progressive foreign policy types that the administration’s Africa policy and appointments are in fact behind schedule.

Perhaps this critique seems harsh considering we are still within the first 100 days so let me be clear about one thing. I absolutely believe that the President has a lot on his plate and his priorties must be the economy, energy and Iraq-Afghanistan-Pakistan. BUT it is also important to note that the President has built an all-star foreign policy team precisely, one would suspect, to ensure active engagement in areas where he cannot focus at this time.

If you believe that this true, and I do, it seems fair to say that the President is being let down a little by his team. During the campaign he laid out his approach to a range of Africa centric challenges and now his team needs to build on that vision. It is time for the Secretary of State and the foreign policy group to develop and execute not only a Darfur/ Sudan policy but a broader strategy for Africa as quickly as possible – there are a range of crises that require US led multilateral attention quickly including those in Sudan/Darfur, the Congo, Somalia and Zimbabwe.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has just issued an arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. This action has historical implications with al-Bashir becoming the first sitting head of state to be subjected to an arrest warrant in the life of the court (the charges are war crimes and crimes against humanity). Now that the ICC has acted all eyes will turn first to Khartoum to see how the al-Bashir regime responds and then to Washington for the Obama administration’s reaction.

The challenge for the Obama administration is to leverage the pressure the court’s action will bring to bear on the Sudanese leader. I would like to see the administration publicly support the arrest warrant and make clear that the U.S. will not sit idly by if any member of the Security Council – notably China – attempts to shield Mr. al-Bashir. I’d also like to see the administration name a special envoy to take charge of the Sudan/Darfur issue (there are a number of attractive options but I’d urge the President to choose Gov. Richardson, who has worked this issue in the past, to serve).

An envoy would be in a position to take advantage of the space created by the ICC and push for a comprehensive peace agreement. Such an agreement would likely include: 

A long-term U.N. peacekeeping group in the region.
Complete demilitarization of the militia groups.
Governance concessions by the Sudanese central authorities.
Transfer of two other alleged war criminals – former Minister of State for the Interior Ahmed Haroun and janjaweed militia leader Ali Kushayb – to the ICC. 

The ICC has created some space – let’s hope the administration can use it.

Folks,

Just a short post from me this morning. The Baltimore Sun just ran an op-ed I co-authored with my friend Howard Salter titled “Will Obama Act to End Darfur Tragedy?” In the piece we consider whether the administration will look to leverage the forthcoming arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir  to secure a peace agreement for Darfur. 

Our piece has come out on the same day as this Washington Times editorial which urges the President to shun the Court. I’m not shocked at the stance taken by the WT but am curious to see what take my fellow bloggers and visitors to ATA have on this issue.

Cheers

Friends – I hope you find this joint effort with my friend Amjad Atallah of interest. Amjad is the Director of the Middle East Task Force at the New America Foundation.

International Justice Systems and the Muslim World: Why Bashir is Wrong 

by Raj Purohit, and Amjad Atallah

If the International Criminal Court (ICC) issues an arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir in February, it will certainly be met by a volley of criticism from the accused as he continues to frame the ICC as a tool of the west in its fight against the Muslim world. Al-Bashir can be expected to use the world-wide revulsion over the civilian deaths in the Gaza Strip to deflect attention from his own crimes. 

However, human rights activists should not cede ground to Mr. al-Bashir and his allies on this issue; instead they should embrace a debate centered on the relationship between international justice and the Arab and Muslim worlds while maintaining a moral consistency across every conflict that highlights the inviolability of every civilian life. 
(more…)

On January 26, 2009, the International Criminal Court will take a significant step towards its aim of prosecuting the architects of grave war crimes when the Court’s first trial begins.  The case of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, the former leader of the military group the Union of Congolese Patriots (UCP), has taken a long and tortured path to the trial stage, and in doing so, has exposed various weaknesses and problems in the Court’s structure and operation.  Nevertheless, the trial represents an historical moment for international justice and, if conducted in a fair and efficient manner, may go a long way towards addressing the concerns of critics of the Court.

Lubanga was the first individual to be arrested under the mandate of the Court and, in many ways, the story of his case has also necessarily been the story of various “teething problems” of the Court.  Some, such as the question of the participation of victims in the proceedings, have been tackled both solidly and seriously by the Court.  Others, such as the issue of confidential exculpatory documents obtained by the Prosecution, have been subject to conflicting opinions from the Trial Chamber and the Appeals Chamber, with no clear policy of the Court emerging.  Of course, these are problems, which can be found in all judicial systems, national or international, and their appearance at a court still in its infancy is especially of no surprise.  However, where the very existence of the court still remains a highly political issue in parts of the world (most notably, in the US in the case of the ICC), each flaw and weakness can take on a pronounced importance in the eyes of critics, and provides valuable fodder for arguments against the work of the court.

There is currently no indication of how long the trial will take or when judgment in Lubanga’s case can be expected.  The operation of the international courts for Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia and Sierra Leone have demonstrated that justice can be a slow beast.  And with conflicts currently raging from Gaza to the Congo itself, it is easy for the work of the Court to slip into the background, to be seen as a somewhat comforting afterthought to what really counts – namely, what happens in the field.  However, to see the Court and Lubanga’s case in this light is to ignore that the Court, in its enforcement of international law, indirectly governs what goes on in the field.  It may currently be very weak, but the threat of being prosecuted for war crimes and the need to respect certain legal boundaries must occupy at least some of the thought of commanders and combatants in conflicts around the world.  The trick is for the Court to show that it is a relevant and powerful means of deterrence and punishment, and not the impotent, unwieldy and politicized body its critics would have you believe.  Lubanga’s trial represents the first opportunity for the Court to do so and therefore, while it may be eclipsed on the front page of the newspaper by more immediate conflicts, we should remember that the architects of and participants in those conflicts may one day face the same processes and penalties that Lubanga may shortly face.

The UN has prepared a draft report on the recent escalation in the civil war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), and the results are damning.  The report, which is due to be presented to the Sanctions Committee of the Security Council this week, accuses the governments of both the DRC and Rwanda of fuelling the long-standing conflict through the covert supply of arms, personnel (including child soldiers) and financial aid.

The report alleges that the Rwandan government, headed by a former Tutsi rebel, has been supplying troops and heavy artillery to General Laurent Nkunda, the leader of the Tutsi community in the DRC.  Meanwhile, the DRC government (or more precisely, the DRC army) stands accused of collaborating with the FLDR, a Hutu militia encompassing many of the leaders of the 1994 genocide.  The result is a proxy war of sorts, between two governments eager to formally distance themselves from the conflict and keen to portray the civil war as a battle between renegade forces.

The report will force the Security Council in general, and the Sanctions Committee in particular, to think long and hard about novel ways to approach the DRC conflict.  Clearly, the current approach of combining an arms embargo with a significant, in-country UN peacekeeping presence has been ineffective in addressing rising security and humanitarian concerns.  The arms embargo, the UN report has found, has been repeatedly breached by the Rwandan and DRC governments, among other organisations.   The UN peacekeeping force, whilst being the largest and most expensive of its kind in the world today and the beneficiary of a recent injection of a further 3,000 troops, still faces considerable problems in terms of both legitimacy and practical power.  The disparate nationalities of the troops and the size of the peacekeeping force, relative to the civilian population, have made it difficult for the peacekeepers to fulfil their mandate of disarming the rebel forces.  Suggestions that the peacekeeping force has not been appropriately prioritising the protection of civilians, including by respected aid agencies such as Oxfam, have only added fuel to the fire.  (more…)

The likely probability, as I noted in my last post, of Sen. Obama becoming president is now reality.

And though I normally shy away from using words like “historic” because it is such a cliché I think this may be a time when it can validly be used. If, for no other reason than, as a recent Defense Science Board report noted, “It has been more than two generations since the presidency transitioned with American troops engaged in significant combat operations—a deployment begun in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks.”

So now Americans get to indulge in one of their favorite perennial activities; telling him what he should do. Deal with the financial meltdown, close Guantanamo Bay prison, make Africa a greater priority, declare a moratorium on new “free-trade” deals, reaffirm U.S. commitment to international laws, treaties, the United Nations, and multilateral responses to violations of international peace, work for a comprehensive nonproliferation policy, institute a cap and trade policy for carbon emissions, et cetera.

Looking at all the things people want him to work on you would think we elected Superman as president instead of a mere mortal.

Yet let’s not be naive. Even though he has yet to assume office his victory is already starting to create change. For example, as the Washington Post reported , Iraqi officials, who see President-elect Obama’s views on the timing of a U.S. withdrawal as consonant with their own, appear to be leveraging his election to pressure the Bush administration to make last-minute concessions.

Indeed, the Wall Street Journal reported last Friday that the U.S. notified Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki it has accepted many of the changes proposed last week by the Iraqi cabinet in a draft security agreement between the two countries.

Doubtlessly U.S. military officials will advise President-elect Obama to adjust his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by mid-2010. Remember that while promising a 16-month timetable for getting all U.S. fighting forces out, Obama repeatedly insisted on what he calls a “responsible” withdrawal.

And, in truth, if the United States wants to take back the majority of its equipment from all the bases, major and minor it has in Iraq, it will take more than 16 months.

Like all administrations, Obama needs to take stock of the world. Eight years of Bush foreign and national security policies, plus ongoing globalization, emergence of new powers makes the world a very different place. (more…)

Given the prospect of a trillion-dollar-plus government bailout package for Wall Street, tonight’s Presidential debate is likely to stray from the official theme of national security and foreign policy.  But, as Senators McCain and Obama have each suggested, America’s economic future is closely linked to our national security, our international standing, and our competitiveness in the global marketplace.  For that reason, any conversation about putting the US economy back on track will raise some serious questions about the next President’s national security and foreign policy agenda.

The Partnership for a Secure America’s distinguished bipartisan Advisory Board issued a statement asking Senators Obama and McCain five critical questions about foreign policy challenges that will require cooperation between Democrats and Republicans in January of 2009.  The statement begins: “As Democrats and Republicans, we believe that the next President of the United States must initiate a new era of US global leadership based on bipartisanship at home and cooperative engagement abroad.”

(more…)