With our country engaged in three critical military conflicts, the last thing that Congress and the White House should be doing is squabbling over which branch of government has the final authority to send American troops to war. But that is exactly what has been happening, culminating with the House’s rebuke of the Obama administration last Friday for the way it has gone about the war in Libya.

On one hand is a bipartisan group of House members who argue that President Obama overreached because he failed to seek congressional approval for the military action in Libya within 60 days of the time the war started, as required by the War Powers Resolution. The lawmakers are particularly upset because the administration sought, and received, support from the United Nations — but not from them.

On the other hand is the White House, which argues that history is on its side. The 1999 NATO-led bombing over Kosovo lasted 18 days longer than the resolution’s 60-day requirement before the Serbian regime relented.

Stuck in the middle are the American people, particularly our soldiers in arms. They would be best served if our leaders debated the substantive issues regarding the conflict in Libya — and those of Afghanistan and Iraq — rather than engaging in turf battles about who has ultimate authority concerning the nation’s war powers.

There is, unfortunately, no clear legal answer about which side is correct. Some argue for the presidency, saying that the Constitution assigns it the job of “Commander in Chief.” Others argue for Congress, saying that the Constitution gives it the “power to . . . declare war.” But the Supreme Court has been unwilling to resolve the matter, declining to take sides in what many consider a political dispute between the other branches of government.

We believe there is a better way than wasting time disputing who is responsible for initiating or continuing war.

Almost three years ago, we were members of the Miller Center’s bipartisan National War Powers Commission, which proposed a pragmatic framework for consultation between the president and Congress. Co-chaired by one of us and the late Warren Christopher, the commission could not resolve the legal question of which branch has the ultimate authority. Only the court system can do that. Instead, the commission strove to foster interaction and consultation, and reduce unnecessary political friction. The commission — which represented a broad spectrum of views, from Abner Mikva on the liberal end to Edwin Meese on the conservative end — made a unanimous recommendation to the president and Congress in 2008.

The commission’s proposed legislation would repeal and replace the War Powers Resolution. Passed over a presidential veto and in response to the Vietnam War, the 1973 resolution was designed to give Congress the ability to end a conflict and force the president to consult more actively with the legislative branch before engaging in military action. The resolution, a hasty compromise between competing House and Senate plans, stated that the president must terminate a conflict within 90 days if Congress has not authorized it. But no president has ever accepted the statute’s constitutionality, Congress has never enforced it and even the bill’s original sponsors were unhappy with the end product. In reality, the resolution has only further complicated the issue of war powers.

Our proposed War Powers Consultation Act offers clarity. It creates a consultation process, defines what constitutes “significant armed conflict” and identifies specific actions that both the president and Congress must take.

On the executive side, the president would be required to confer with a specific group of congressional leaders before committing to combat operations that last or are expected to last more than a week. Reasonable exemptions exist, including training exercises, covert operations or missions to protect and rescue Americans abroad. Likewise, if an emergency precedes engagement, or secrecy is required that precludes prior consultation, then consultation can follow within three days. Under this proposal, the strike on Osama bin Laden would plainly fall within the president’s prerogative, while an action such as our current engagement in Libya would require advance consultation and congressional action at the appropriate time.

On the legislative side, Congress would have to vote on a resolution of approval no later than 30 days after the president had consulted lawmakers. If Congress refused to vote yea or nay, it would do so in the face of a clear requirement to the contrary. Inaction would no longer be a realistic option.

Given the Constitution’s ambiguity, no solution is perfect. But Congress and the White House should view the War Powers Consultation Act as a way out of the impasse. It is what the American people want when their leaders confront the serious questions of war and peace.

James A. Baker III was secretary of state from 1989 to 1992. Lee H. Hamilton is a former Democratic representative from Indiana who chaired the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Related posts:

1. There’s a Better Way to Gauge Congress
2. Drones Can’t Change War
3. Reducing the Deficit Requires Skill and Risk

As Hungary prepared to take the six-month rotating presidency of the European Union on New Year’s Day, the country faced a slew of criticism over its new censorship laws.  The laws put Prime Minister Viktor Orban and his ruling Fidesz party in control of overseeing the public media and create a party-run media council to regulate both public and private broadcasters.  Hungary’s Nepszabadsag newspaper declared that “the freedom of the press in Hungary has come to an end.” A Washington Post editorial decried the law as “more suited to an authoritarian regime than to a Western democracy.”

Troubling as the media censorship is in itself, it is even more troubling when considered in tandem with the approach Orban is taking to deal with the ailing Hungarian economy.  Since his party’s victory in the parliamentary elections in April of last year, Orban has focused on short-term measures to the chagrin of the EU and the International Monetary Fund, which both want Hungary to focus on long-term spending cuts.  One measure is a controversial reversal of a 1997 pension reform, a move that may in the long-run slow efforts to deal with Hungary’s debt, which is 80 percent of its GDP.  Orban has also sought to increase the party’s influence on monetary policy, allowing a Fidesz-controlled parliamentary committee to fill vacant posts on the Central Bank’s Monetary council.  But rather than ease these concerns, the measures have done little to assure others.  International unease continued as Fitch rating agency downgraded Hungary’s foreign currency credit rating to just above junk status last month.

Politically, Fidesz, with a two-thirds majority in parliament, is increasing its power in regulatory areas.  Add censorship of the media and a recipe for disaster may be brewing.  The political and media repression taking place now could impede good policy development and formulation because there is no one to offer an alternative path.   In practical terms, any attempt by Orban to introduce future controversial proposals on big-ticket items like the economy could be met with even less political opposition and a media that cannot fully question the government’s current course. And policy mistakes can have wide-ranging consequences: if the Hungarian economy gets worse, the consequences may not be confined solely to Hungary, as the European debt crisis has shown.

In addition, the economic challenges in the Euro area are high on the EU agenda.  But Fidesz’s consolidation of power and the direction it is taking on its own economy raise questions about Hungary’s credibility to lead such a discussion.  It could also weaken the country’s leverage to push for meaningful progress on economic and other issues during the country’s EU presidential tenure.

The recent regional and international spotlight that has been on Hungary in the run-up to the EU presidency may fade as other challenges take precedence.  But it should not.  As a democratic NATO ally, Hungary should be subjected to such scrutiny and understand that in the long-run, it has its benefits.  A healthy opposition and a free media are crucial to acting as a check on the ruling party.  And Hungary should not realize how important that check is only after its own checks bounce.

Related posts:

1. An “Iron Hand” is No Substitute for Democracy
2. Reason for hope in Egypt
3. To Sanction or Not To Sanction: A report from Myanmar

The Afghanis and the global community will be sorting out the effects of the September 18 Parliamentary elections for weeks if not months.  Reports from the Independent Election Commission, and thousands of local and international observers, including those deployed by Democracy International (of which I served as a short term observer), will no doubt be mixed.  Nine years after the U.S. – led invasion and months after the American military “surge”, much of the country remains in the control of insurgents.  For up to date election-related information check the Democracy International website www.afghan2010.com.

President Obama said he believes the “Afghans have done a commendable job in setting up as best as they can a structure for a fair and important election.”  This understated sentiment certainly does not do justice to the tremendous, and perhaps overwhelming, challenges facing the Karzai administration.  A significant number of polling centers did not open or closed early due to Taliban attacks.  I counted at least twelve mortar attacks, a firefight, and a Taliban truck blaring threats to anyone who voted in one contested provincial capital.  Even the Afghan security forces were unable to deploy to many polling sites.  Over three thousand formal complaints, allegations of fraud, intimidation, and technical problems further degraded the poll’s legitimacy in the minds of many voters.

That said, it was truly remarkable to witness voters, particularly women, scatter after hearing explosions near the site only to return and cast their vote hours later.  The Election commission reported that 4.3 million votes had been cast.   Whatever the actual turnout, millions of Afghans felt voting was worth risking their lives.

I have to agree with a prominent observer serving (who also served with Democracy International), “[F]or all the inspiring images I saw of Afghans at the polls, at its core Afghanistan remains a deeply dysfunctional and dispirited country.” (Michael Cohen, AOL)

Many Afghans told observers that the announcement that U.S. troops will withdraw next year emboldened the Taliban and local warlords.  An American commander opined that the strategy of pushing the Taliban out of the population centers only made the insurgents more difficult to root out.   As so many invading forces have experienced since this country became independent, the mountains serve as an intractable refuge for guerilla forces.

529 foreign troops killed since January from the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), make this the deadliest year since the 2001 invasion. The previous record was 521 in 2009.

Check out Gregg Carlstrom’s recent opinion piece about the lack of consensus among policymakers from both sides of the aisle, Searching for Plan B in Afghanistan. “Obama’s Afghan strategy, unveiled last winter after a lengthy strategy review, has always sat uneasily with many observers. Some doubted his decision to escalate the war at all; others questioned his focus on southern Afghanistan, his lofty goals for training the Afghan army and police, his confidence in the Afghan government’s ability to deliver basic services…Today that consensus has all but collapsed,” according to Carlstrom.  Carlstrom goes on to survey the various policy options from conservatives to anti-war experts, none of which seem to provide a realistic blueprint for bringing about a peaceful, unified Afghanistan in the near term.

In response to the press reports about internal debates, Secretary Gates said that while he believes “we will find some areas where we can make some adjustments and tweaks”, he does not expect “any basic changes are likely to occur”.  Adm. Mullen agreed, saying that “there certainly could be some adjustments, but we think the strategy is sound.”

James Prince is currently blogging from Afghanistan, where he is serving as an election observer. His full bio can be accessed here.

Related posts:

1. Too Important to Fail: The Least Bad Call on Afghanistan

Nowhere have the principles of self-determination and territorial integrity clashed more persistently and tragically than in the Balkans, which remain unsettled after the genocidal Yugoslav wars of the 1990s. Kosovo is one of the major loose ends left to tie up in the region. Eleven years after the 78-day NATO bombing campaign against Serbia, Kosovo has yet to win recognition as an independent state. In 2008 Kosovo declared independence and passed a new constitution, issued passports, established 19 embassies, formed a military, and chose a national anthem. However, its international status remains ambiguous to this day. Bloody conflicts still erupt between Albanians, who comprise nearly 95 per cent of the population, and Serbs despite the presence of 9,900-member international peacekeeping force. Ironically, its presence may be all the more needed since the International Court of Justice (ICJ) announced that Kosovo’s declaration of independence “did not violate general international law.” Although publicized as a victory for Kosovo, the ICJ July 22 ruling has only increased ambiguity over Kosovo’s sovereignty.

The international community cannot continue to sit on the fence about the Balkan problem as it had for disturbingly long while Slobodan Milosevic’s forces rampaged from Slovenia and Croatia to Bosnia and Kosovo. It is time the world recognizes Kosovo, which has suffered from Serbian genocide and accepted compromise after compromise while its international status was being debated, and establishes clear rules for negotiating ethno-national conflicts in the future to ensure Kosovo’s recognition does not set a dangerous precedent. Until then, the lack of clarity on evaluating the antithetical principles of self-determination and territorial integrity will continue to be politically exploited in the Balkans and elsewhere.

Although the ICJ did note that international law recognizes “a right to self-determination for the peoples of non-self-governing territories” and that “the principle of territorial integrity applies only to the sphere of relations between states,” its ruling was so carefully worded and narrowly put that it left Kosovo in limbo. The question posed at Serbia’s request to the Court by the UNGA allowed the Court to say nothing about Kosovo’s final status, and its ruling will hardly sway anyone’s decision on recognizing Kosovo as a full independent state.

In short, Kosovo’s status remains unclear. Kosovo still views itself as independent. Belgrade has sworn to never recognize Kosovo as an independent state. Because of the ICJ’s ambiguity, the task of conferring legitimacy to Kosovo remains with individual states. Currently 69 countries recognize Kosovo, but the recognition of at least 100 is needed for Kosovo to join the UN. China has confirmed that it will not recognize Kosovo, as has Russia, which gets both a boost to its interests in Georgia and a chance to reiterate its support for Belgrade. The five EU states that did not recognize Kosovo in the past did not change their position either: after all, the ICJ ruling is a view on nothing more than the occurrence of Kosovo’s declaration, as the Court itself did not neglect to mention. Thus, the ruling has turned out to be politically convenient to all: those concerned about separatism; those involved in the Kosovo war in the 1990s; those recognizing Kosovo and those who do not – in short, for all those who don’t live in this long-suffering region.

The ruling and the excuses it allows others to make result from the contradictory provisions and the lack of clarity on how to reconcile self-determination with state sovereignty in international law. For example, under the Helsinki Final Act, both self-determination and territorial integrity seem to be equally important. The UN Charter of 1945 and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 both stress the right to self-determination. Additionally, the developing norm of Responsibility to Protect establishes that if the state manifestly fails to protect its citizens from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, the international community has the responsibility to “take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner”.

At the same time, the centuries-old Westphalian principle that a state controls its territory and citizens remains a cornerstone of the modern state system. Upholding this principle is the natural urge of all states dealing with separatist movements. In the wave of post-Cold-War disintegration that broke the Soviet Union into many pieces, the principle of self-determination, strengthened by the reluctance to shed blood on behalf of the Soviet central authorities, has triumphed. But on the whole, states’ concerns about their territorial integrity were much more often heard and sympathized with by the international community; states’ views on sovereignty have been driven home with far more force than could be mustered by any group striving for self-determination.

The United States currently maintains around 1,600 troops in Kosovo and will have to keep its forces in the Balkans for much longer unless it takes the lead in urging a resolution of Kosovo’s disputed status. Until Kosovo’s problem is resolved one way or another, meek moves like the one by the ICJ last week will only make the lives of the 120,000 Serbs in Kosovo harder, the region’s economic plight worse, and the relations between the Albanians and the Serbs tenser. Given the atrocities they suffered from the Serbs, Kosovo’s Albanians won’t accept anything less than independence, and it’s time their aspirations are honored.

The concern about the precedent Kosovo’s recognition may set is legitimate. Today’s Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transdnestria, Nagorno-Karabakh, Tibet, and many other regions present difficult challenges to the international community. However, establishing clear rules for evaluating the legality of a people’s claims to self-determination and a state’s claims to territorial integrity will help minimize whatever the reverberations of deciding Kosovo’s fate may be. Until the relationship between these two conflicting principles of self-determination and territorial integrity is clarified, participants of ethno-political conflicts will continue exploiting the aspects of the international law that best serve them, and the international community will continue hiding behind whatever provisos allow it to shirk responsibility best.

Related posts:

1. 98.83% in Sudan: What’s Next?

Kyrgyzstan, a former Soviet state in Central Asia, has made many headlines after its corrupt President Kurmanbek Bakiyev was toppled in April. On June 10th, riots erupted between the Kyrgyz and the Uzbek minority in Bakiyev’s stronghold Osh, leaving hundreds dead and sending a flood of refuges to neighboring Uzbekistan. The June 27th constitutional referendum ratifying a new constitution was deemed successful, but true peace is elusive in southern Kyrgyzstan. The violence continues as the Kyrgyz police abuse ethnic Uzbeks, and the unrest threatens to spread to neighboring countries. Riots may flare up anew when the local clans start vying for power in the upcoming parliamentary elections. Kyrgyzstan’s weak central authorities are unable to rein in the violence.

During this time, only the lazy refrained from opining about the Kyrgyz misfortune, but nevertheless world governments have not followed words with actions. Russia and the United States have limited their response to Kyrgyz pleas for help to providing humanitarian relief. Their continued inaction may have dire consequences. Even in the unlikely scenario that the conflict resolves itself, the indecisiveness of the two world powers will leave a bitter aftertaste in the former Soviet republics.

Just recently, Moscow and Washington were so anxious about securing their military bases that they were cutting deals with Bakiyev’s authoritarian regime: in 2008, Bakiyev threatened to close the U.S. military base to secure a Russian loan, changed his mind when the U.S. more than tripled its rent for the base, and appeased Russia by allowing it a second base in the country. Now that their bases are secured, both countries are indifferent to Kyrgyz problems. To be sure, Russia fears chaos in its backyard, and the United States hopes for a stable Kyrgyzstan as it wages war in Afghanistan. However, Moscow and Washington have so far shunned responsibility for stabilizing the region.

When asked to send peacekeeping troops by both sides in the conflict in June, the Kremlin refused, citing the “internal” nature of the unrest. Russia has never hesitated to use force in the past; twenty years ago the Soviet troops were sent to Kyrgyzstan’s Osh to quell a very similar conflict. Russia’s recent foray into Georgia proves the Kremlin is willing to go far to achieve its objectives in the region. Moscow’s objectives may also explain – though not excuse – its current inertia. The international opprobrium after the August 2008 war has made Russia wary of sending its troops to intervene in the affairs of other states, whatever the reason.  Today, any presence of Russian peacekeepers in Kyrgyzstan could be criticized by neighboring Uzbekistan, if not by the international community. Russia sees no need to interject itself between the Kyrgyz and Uzbek, potentially angering both sides. If anything, the unrest between the two pro-Russian ethnic groups could, conveniently for Moscow, put the U.S.’s feet to the fire by endangering the Manas transit hub for Afghanistan supplies, even more crucial after Uzbekistan closed a US base in 2005, making it more dependent on Russia’s cooperation.

Hiding its inaction with an image of a law-abiding state that shuns unilateral action, Russia called a summit of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and had CSTO  uncover an excuse for inaction in its own charter, which allows for collective military actions only in response to a threat from another state. As a leader of CSTO, which also includes Belarus (which sheltered the deposed Bakiyev), Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, Russia could easily find an appropriate chapter in the U.N. Charter allowing it to deploy CSTO troops, had it wanted to do so. However, inaction is what Russia has consciously chosen.

The United States has no less responsibility in maintaining stability in the region. After all, it was among the supporters of the Tulip revolution that had brought the now deposed Bakiyev to power. Where the previous U.S. administration may have not thought twice before intervening, the Obama administration called for multilateral action and is demurely exchanging “opinions on potential solutions to the crisis” with Uzbekistan, which it had once criticized for human rights violations and authoritarianism.

Not unwisely, the United States seeks to coordinate its security response with Moscow. Washington hopes Russia takes the lead. There is only one difference between the U.S.’s and Russia’s equally passive approaches to the problem: Russia shields its inaction behind CSTO, while the United States covers up with the Organization for Security and Cooperation for Europe (OSCE). Washington favors sending in an OSCE police force – a measure that is being decided by the OSCE Security Council this week. Clearly, an unarmed mission will not be able to stop another outbreak of violence, and only a strong dose of peacekeeping and mediation can fix the problem. While the United States cannot act too boldly in a post-Soviet state like Kyrgyzstan, it can surely be more active in advocating multilateral action beyond humanitarian aid.

The United States and Russia have a shared responsibility in stabilizing Kyrgyzstan, and the costs of their inaction are growing. The two countries cannot ignore ethnic conflicts in the region and should work on developing a common approach to security problems in Central Asia. If neither Moscow nor Washington take the lead in Kyrgyzstan (which may become the first parliamentary republic in Central Asia, if the fall elections succeed), China (which is far less tolerant of democratic developments) may have to step up to fill their roles. If they continue to stand idle, Russia and the United States may miss an opportunity to strengthen their positions in the region and instead allow the suffering of many innocent people.

No related posts.

For the past 8 months, Zimbabwe’s Ministry of Mines has been amassing a huge stockpile of diamonds plucked from the Marange diamond field in the eastern part of the country. The stockpile, which now tips the scale at around 4.6 million carats, is the unwanted byproduct of the Kimberley Process, the UN-backed regulatory body that certifies diamonds as conflict-free. Under the auspices of the Kimberley Process, 75 countries have agreed to adhere to strict standards governing the mining and sale of diamonds to ensure that the stones do not fund regional conflicts or contribute to human rights violations. If member countries are unable to meet the standards of the Kimberley Process, they are suspended or barred from selling diamonds under the Process. Zimbabwe fell into that category this past November when the Process suspended the country after investigations confirmed that the Marange mine was the site of grave human rights violations, including the alleged massacre of several hundred illegal miners by the Zimbabwean military.

Zimbabwe’s temporary suspension, however, is now under reconsideration and may soon be lifted. Several weeks ago, over 70 representatives from Kimberley Process member countries met in Israel to consider Zimbabwe’s case. Although the meeting ended without a decision, the Zimbabwean government’s position has enough support to make it conceivable that exports may be approved the next time the representatives meet. The South African businessman sent by the Kimberley Process to inspect Zimbabwean mines recommended that the country be approved, and African countries have largely backed Zimbabwe’s position. The main opposition to approval comes from three Western countries- the US, Canada and Australia- and numerous NGO and advocacy groups.

If the Kimberley Process member countries decide to lift the suspension, they will do so to the detriment of Zimbabwe’s future. On the surface, the Kimberley Process decision rests on whether Zimbabwe can prove that the Marange mining operation does not contribute to conflict or violate human rights in any way.  However, as the US well knows, any decision to allow Zimbabwe to sell vetted stones on the international market will carry repercussions not only for miners in Marange but for the country as a whole. For the past thirty years Zimbabwe has been ruled by President Robert Mugabe, whose unwillingness to relinquish power has seen his country deteriorate to the point where the Fund for Peace and Foreign Policy have officially designated it the 4^th worst state in the world. Mugabe’s ZANU-PF party is using the Marange field as a much-needed source of funds in poverty-stricken Zimbabwe, funds that it believes can strengthen ZANU-PF and ensure supporters’ loyalty. By diminishing the massive revenue stream from the Marange mines, the Kimberley Process can help weaken ZANU-PF’s finances, thus both preventing it from exponentially increasing its domination of the unity government and weakening its ability to compete with the political opposition, MDC, when Mugabe dies.

That day is looking closer than ever. At 86, Robert Mugabe is slowly coming to the inevitable end of his long reign over the disintegration of Zimbabwe. Mugabe’s death will almost certainly spark a power struggle for control of the country between his ZANU-PF party and opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai’s MDC. While both parties nominally share power under the auspices of a 2009 agreement, in reality the unity government is heavily dominated by ZANU-PF. Decades of entrenched power and corruption have proven impossible for MDC to supplant, and Mugabe has repeatedly reneged on promises and plans to meaningfully share power with Tsvarangirai.

Nevertheless, MDC is in a stronger position than ever before. ZANU-PF remains the prevailing force in Zimbabwe’s government, but the creation of the unity government was a significant victory for the MDC, allowing it to squeeze its foot through Mugabe’s door and step into the halls of government. In light of Tsvangirai’s past- tried for treason in 2003; beaten almost to death by state security forces several years later- his ascension to the post of Prime Minister is impressive. Bolstering MDC’s recent advances is the party’s popularity with the Zimbabwean populace: since 2000, MDC has won every national election in Zimbabwe. Yes, Tsvangirai is still harassed, and MDC supporters are still beaten and imprisoned, but there is now a faint glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel. If the MDC can hold on until Mugabe’s death, meaningful political change in Zimbabwe may yet be possible.

The biggest obstacle to this future is the strength and unity of ZANU-PF, which is where the Marange field comes into play. At 60,000 hectares, the Marange field has been described as “the biggest find of alluvial diamonds in the history of mankind” and, more succinctly, “a freak of nature.” Potential revenues from the mine apparently fall between $1 billion and $1.7 billion a year, or “half the crisis-ridden country’s total forecast GDP this year and enough to end its economic woes almost at a stroke.” It is certainly more than enough to pay off key ZANU-PF supporters, notably the armed forces and police, and to ensure a loyal coterie of “haves” willing to throw their weight behind the party in any potential future struggle for control of the country. For ZANU-PF, Marange is a fiscal catalyst for bringing about the return of one-party rule in Zimbabwe and ousting the MDC for good.

ZANU-PF’s behavior over the past several years has proven this to be an accurate assessment. The human rights violations at Marange- the reason Zimbabwe was suspended from the Kimberely process in the first place- came about when ZANU-PF dispatched the military to consolidate its control over the Marange field.  And although the diamond field is technically under the ownership of the UK-based African Consolidated Resources, the ZANU-PF-controlled ministry of mines has chosen to simply ignore the company’s claim. As a result, profits from the Marange field have been finding their way into the pockets of ZANU-PF’s top brass, including those of the Minister of Mines, who was found to have pillaged $18 million worth of diamonds earlier this year. The national treasury, headed by a minister loyal to MDC, hasn’t seen any of the revenues, nor have the people of Zimbabwe.

A decision by the Kimberley Process member countries to lift Zimbabwe’s suspension will thus condone and enable ZANU-PF’s legal pilfering of Marange, simultaneously strengthening Mugabe’s regime whilst undermining MDC’s prospects. As a member of the Kimberley Process, the US must not allow this to happen.

Critics may point out that even if the Kimberley Process does continue to suspend Zimbabwe, ZANU-PF will find ways to sell the diamonds anyways, as it has repeatedly threatened to do. Smuggling of diamonds into neighboring countries is already a quotidian occurrence, and likely to continue. Unfortunately, the Kimberley Process is flawed and thus unable to effectively stop such smuggling. Nevertheless, the price and buyers that Zimbabwe will be able to get for uncertified diamonds will be far below that of the legitimate market, and the resources of the Marange mine are so vast that it is difficult to conceive of a smuggling operation that truly exhausts the field’s resources.

Blocking the legal sale of Marange diamonds is not a one-stop solution to Zimbabwe’s political problems. But it is one way that the US can help undermine the supremacy of ZANU-PF and support gradual political change in one of Africa’s worst states.

Related posts:

1. Former Senator Danforth: Why the U.S. should keep the U.N. in business

The Thai name for Bangkok, Krung Thep, roughly translates as “city of angels.” Rarely has this moniker seemed more of a misnomer than the past week, with its climatic battle between the Red Shirt protesters encamped in downtown Bangkok and the Thai government.

Early Wednesday morning, the Thai army made a final push on the protesters’ camp in downtown Bangkok, rolling through barricades in armored vehicles and prompting two prominent protest leaders, Jatuporn Prompan and Nattawut Saikua, to surrender to the Bangkok police on charges of terrorism. At least five people died in the operation, adding to the previous six days’ toll of 38 dead. While Prompan and Saikua asked protesters to surrender, saying “we cannot resist against these savages anymore,” some die-hard elements chose not to, turning instead to rioting, looting and continued street battles in defiance of the government’s 8pm curfew.  One of the more extremist protest leaders, Arisman Pongruengrong, managed to escape government forces. Protesters set fire to around thirty buildings, including the Thai Stock exchange; CentralWorld, one of Bangkok’s biggest and ritziest malls; two banks, a television station, and a movie theater.

While the height of the organized protest is now over, replaced by rioting, the situation is far from resolved. Bangkok is still nowhere close to calm, and guerrilla-style attacks and looting by more militant members of the Red Shirt movement who have so far escaped arrest will likely continue for another few days.

More important, however, are the long-term effects the violence and events of the past month will have on Thailand’s fragile political situation. The activities of both sides of the conflict have entrenched the positions and grievances of each party, and a peaceful and speedy resolution of the country’s difficulties is looking farther away than ever.

While the Red Shirts may have lost this round, their movement is only likely to be strengthened in the long-run. Thai news stations have reported attacks on city halls in at least three provincial capitals in Northeastern Thailand, the heart of the Red Shirt movement, demonstrating the anger the Bangkok crackdown has elicited. The heavy losses incurred by the Red Shirts- most of the sixty-six people killed in the past two months were protesters or civilians- will serve to both increase a feeling of victimization at the hands of the government and provide the movement with sacrificial martyrs. Video footage and reports of army snipers shooting unarmed protesters in the head and soldiers firing at the backs of fleeing protesters will make it hard for the government to claim that it tried to minimize casualties. Moreover, the Red Shirts failed to achieve any of their demands (though this was as much their fault as the government’s), meaning that the underlying problems that prompted the protests in the first place remain unresolved.

The Abhisit government, for its part, has backed itself into a corner. The government made an effort to resolve the stand-off with peaceful means on May 3, when Abhisit offered to call elections in November, much earlier than required by Thai law, but still months off the protesters’ demand for immediate elections. However, negotiations between the parties were hampered by the Red Shirts, who continued to add fresh demands to the agreement until the government withdrew the offer in frustration eight days later. The government also (correctly) believes that much of the Red Shirts’ demands and tactics are being driven by exiled former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, which it euphemistically calls ‘an actor abroad’ and who the government refuses to recognize as a legitimate political player. Finally, the chaos caused in Bangkok has undermined public faith in the government’s ability to exert control and provide security in Thailand, and has caused it a major international loss of face for Abhisit.

In short, no compromise has been reached, no issues resolved, no lights lit at the end of the tunnel. Instead, both sides have confirmed one another’s worst suspicions about the other side. An already messy situation has been significantly worsened by poor choices and tactics in both parties, and it will only continue to deteriorate.

Related posts:

1. To Sanction or Not To Sanction: A report from Myanmar
2. Reason for hope in Egypt

President Sarkozy’s proposed ban on wearing full veils in public sends a clear message to Muslims living in France: your religion is not welcome here. France has already banned the display of religious objects in schools, a law that was primarily enacted to keep headscarves off of pupils, but one that nevertheless was at least nominally fair in its breadth. Sarkozy’s new proposal, which is popular with his party members and the French public alike, is targeted just at Muslim woman, making it – in a word-  discriminatory. Indeed, as France’s top legal advisory body, the Council of State, has noted, the law may be unconstitutional and breach the European Convention on Human Rights, making the chances of the legislation actually passing unclear. Regardless, the damage it done. Sarkozy’s enthusiastic support for the proposal will only serve to distance French Muslims from French society, further alienating a demographic already on the edges.

As a region, Europe has long struggled to relate to and assimilate its growing Muslim population. But all too often, these struggles morph into discriminatory policies that push Muslims to be more European and secular, not policies that incorporate Muslim culture and traditions into the greater diaspora of Europe as a whole. Take, for example, Switzerland’s recent ban on minarets. A law with no practical basis of any kind (Switzerland has only 4 minarets, and more weren’t likely to pop up anytime soon), it directly targets symbols of Islam and is thus inherently prejudiced. After all, Swiss churches are free from such legal encumbrances grounding their spires. In a similar vein to France, Belgium is also currently mulling a law that bans face coverings, legislation that Amnesty International has called a violation of human rights and international law. If France’s and Belgium’s new laws pass, they will simply become yet another obstacle to Muslim assimilation in Europe.

Europeans sometimes wonder why some elements of their Muslim populations seem to hate them so. Obviously, the reasons cannot be traced to just one factor- they are a combination of economic, educational, and social systems. However, Europeans might do well to consider their poorly disguised distaste for many Islamic practices to start. After all, it’s difficult to accept a country that refuses to accept you back.

Related posts:

1. The Coming Counterrevolution?
2. An Opportunity on Global Women’s Rights?
3. Yemen: Widening the Scope

Ordinary Americans are, by and large, pragmatists about legal matters.  They tend to favor legal outcomes that deftly balance competing considerations.  Outcomes that achieve this balance do not do a disservice to broad swaths of people but instead aim to enhance or at the minimum preserve meaningful social policies.  Pragmatism about law, in other words, is really a product of thinking clearly about what the law is for:  the law serves the American people, not the other way around.

Unfortunately, the currently constituted Supreme Court, led by that fearless foe of pragmatism, John G. Roberts, does not care that most Americans loathe the notion that judges ought to carry out their duties without the interests of the citizenry in mind.  Constitutional law, as Roberts himself is keen to emphasize, has nothing to do with sound public policy and should not be tempered by any moral or social concerns, however relevant they may seem to the electorate.  Constitutional law is a free-floating, self-sustaining set of rules that answers to no one, not even the American public.

Think about how dangerous Roberts’ anti-pragmatism and deep hostility toward common sense really is.  Consider a case recently handed down by the Roberts’ Court, Citizens United, which addressed whether campaign finance laws that restrict corporations’ ability to support political candidates are constitutionally valid.  In Citizens United, the Court, led by Roberts, held that “government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker’s corporate identity.  No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations.”

First, note the dirty jurisprudential move being made here:  Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion has placed nonprofits and for-profit companies on the same footing, as if it were plausible to think that nonprofits and for-profit companies care about campaign finance in the same way and for the same reason.  They do not, as nonprofits have less money to give and ordinarily benefit from stronger campaign finance laws because such regulations ensure that large corporations find it harder to buy political favors.

Second, think about how the issue has been framed.  The Roberts Court has insisted, rather comically, that this is about “free speech,” rather than the government’s legitimate interest in ensuring that political contests have an acceptable legitimacy quotient.  This is a bold step by the Court, and one that belies the common view that political contests are influenced to an unreasonable extent by who the largest, best-heeled corporations want to serve in our government’s highest and most important political offices.

Third, the U.S. Congress has since 1890 been quite aware that Americans deeply feel that corporations should not be granted the same speech privileges that individuals clearly have under the Constitution, and have passed a bevy of laws (Tillman Act of 1907, Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002) to reduce the impact of corporate money on political contests.  Citizens United, of course, washes away this entire tradition in one fell swoop.  Under this decision:

1. the 62-year old Taft-Hartley restrictions on corporate expenditures are no longer valid;

1. the Tillman Act of 1907’s ban on direct corporate contributions to political candidates is no longer enforceable; and

1. at least 24 state laws relating to campaign finance have been summarily invalidated.

For constitutional litigators and constitutional scholars alike, the Roberts Court ruling is a clear fail, as the Supreme Court has been making distinctions based on the identity of a speaking for ages when adjudicating First Amendment concerns.  The Court has in the past regulated the speech of (i) students, (ii) virulent racists, (iii) members of the Armed Forces, (iv) government employees, and (v) those who would threaten the President with bodily harm.

But the deeper problem is that the Roberts Court is unremittingly hostile to the responsibility it has to serve the American public as it interprets the Constitution.  It has done so by adopting an indefensible conception of “speech” that the American public clearly rejects.  One can only hope that Congress is willing to challenge decisions like Citizen United, decisions that are deeply anti-pragmatist and chafe against the healthy, realistic conception of speech embedded in our Constitution and political traditions.

Related posts:

1. An Opportunity on Global Women’s Rights?

This is my last post for 2009 I thought I would write about Afghanistan but on second thought I will, no doubt, be doing that quite a lot during 2010. Thanks to the Obama Administration’s surge strategy Afghanistan will, from a blogging viewpoint, be the gift that keeps on giving.

So, as we contemplate whether 2010 will be better or worse let’s take a moment to consider 2009. In the spirit of Dave Barry’s classic annual year in review column let’s acknowledge, albeit with some poetic license commentary by moi, a few of the significant events that made, however briefly, the headlines.

Although it started on Dec. 28 2008 the month of January saw massive Israeli air strikes and a ground force invasion of the Gaza Strip. Heavy fighting took place in Gaza City between the Israeli forces and Hamas. At least 1300 Palestinians were killed. On Jan. 17 Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced a unilateral ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, declaring that Israel has achieved the goals it set when launching the military operation. On Jan. 21 Israel completes its troop withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.

Also that month President Barack Obama signed executive orders closing the US detention camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, within a year; closing the CIA’s secret prisons; requiring a review of military trials for terror suspects; and requiring all interrogations to follow the non-coercive methods specified in the Army Field Manual.

Of course, nobody knew back then that the camp would end up in Illinois. One can only hope that the inmates are not too acclimated to the Caribbean climate to adjust to a midwest winter.

On Jan 27 Hama declared that it previously was just kidding and broke the ceasefire by attacking an Israeli frontier patrol. Israel immediately responded that it lacks a sense of humor and renewed its air strikes on the Gaza Strip border with Egypt.

On Feb. 3 Iran launched its first domestically built satellite into orbit. Iran stated that the satellite is meant for research and telecommunications purposes, but Western states express concern that the technology could be used in the development of ballistic missiles. The U.S. intelligence community, estimating that Iran will show the same swift progress with its missiles that it did with its nuclear program, predicted the next flight will be in 2040.

On Feb. 6, renewing their classic rivalry, a British and a French nuclear submarine collided in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. Political leaders from both countries sighed in relief that it was merely submarines and not their respective football fans that collided.

On Feb. 17 President Barack Obama authorized the deployment of an additional 17,000 military personnel to Afghanistan. The troops will be deployed to ‘meet urgent security needs’ in southern Afghanistan.  Later in the year President Obama deploys 30,000 more troops to meet “super duper double urgent” security needs in Afghanistan.

On March 15 two US female journalists, together with their Chinese guide, are detained by North Korean soldiers at the China–North Korea border when reporting on North Korean refugees in northeastern China. In June the two women are sentenced to 12 years of hard labor. On 4 August the two are pardoned and released following mediation by former US President Bill Clinton, who stood in for the Rev. Jesse Jackson. Rev. Jackson subsequently mediated between Bill and Hillary Clinton.

On March 19 China and Viet Nam agree to set up a hotline between their foreign ministries, and to focus on negotiations to solve the outstanding maritime issues in order to maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea. Britain and France send representatives from their submarine branches to offer their expertise.

On March 24 French Defence Minister Hervé Morin announces that France will compensate those suffering health problems linked to radiation and resulting from the more than 200 nuclear weapon tests that France carried out from 1960 to 1996 in Algeria and Polynesia. Whether any radiation was the result of a French-British submarine collision remains unknown.

On March 27 US President Barack Obama presents the new US strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke is appointed the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Citizens of both countries, remembering Amb. Holbrooke’s splendid efforts in the Balkan wars of the 1990s, riot in the streets.

On April 1 the new Israeli Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, states that the Israeli Government is not bound by the commitments made by its predecessors, such as the 2007 Annapolis Agreement for a two-state solution of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Lieberman subsequently says April Fools.

On May 25 North Korea carries out an underground nuclear weapon test in Kilju, Hamgyong province. The U.S. National Rifle Association condemns the test as an attempt by godless communists to violate American’s god given second amendment rights.

Following the presidential election in Iran on 12 June, in which President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is reelected, hundreds of thousands of people take to the streets to protest against what they perceive as a fraudulent election. At least eight people are killed and several wounded by security forces in the largest demonstrations since the 1979 Iranian revolution. Senator Lieberman, saying you can’t make democracy without breaking a few eggs, says this shows why the U.S. needs to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities.

On June 14 Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announces that Israel is ready to endorse the creation of a Palestinian state as long as it is demilitarized and the Palestinians accept Israel as a Jewish state with Jerusalem as the capital. Foreign Minister Lieberman reminds people that this is not an April Fools joke.

On June 30 the withdrawal of US combat troops from cities and villages in Iraq is completed and the security duties are handed over to the new Iraqi forces. Approximately 131,000 US troops remain in Iraq. The remaining quarter million private military and security contractors working for the U.S., partying in the Green Zone, start crying in their beer.

On July 2 the US Army launches a major offensive against Taliban militants in southwestern Afghanistan, involving 4000 US soldiers and 650 Afghan troops. It is the first such operation under US President Barack Obama and differs from previous operations as the US forces will remain in the secured areas and build bases to provide security for the local population. Halliburton offers to help build the bases. Blackwater offer to help provide security. The residents of Helmand province start fleeing the country.

On July 16 British Prime Minister Gordon Brown issues a statement on nuclear non-proliferation together with the new British strategy, Road to 2010, outlining how the UK will play a leading role in tackling nuclear issues. Manchester United offers to tackle a British nuclear submarine to help promote nuclear disarmament.

On Sep. 25 US President Barack Obama, French President Nicholas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown accuse Iran of building a secret underground uranium enrichment facility. President Ahmadinejad denounces the accusation as a lie, saying he was spending all his free time cracking down on democracy protesters.

On September 28 the 2006 Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Convention on Small Arms, Light Weapons, Their Ammunition and Other Related Materials enters into force following Benin’s deposit of the ninth instrument of ratification. The NRA denounces convention as an attempt to take god-fearing American’s guns away.

On Oct. 16 the UN Human Rights Council endorses the recommendations made in Richard Goldstone’s report on the Israeli offensive in the Gaza Strip. The report accuses both Israel and Palestinian militants of war crimes and demands that the parties investigate the allegations, or the cases will be referred to the International Criminal Court (ICC). Sen. Lieberman calls for the bombing of the United Nations.

On Oct. 17 the Pakistani Army launches a massive air and ground offensive against al-Qaeda and Taliban rebels in South Waziristan. At least 20,000 people flee the region. Amb. Holbrooke announces that this is proof President Obama’s strategy for the region is working.

On October 30 the UN First Committee agrees to set a timetable for the negotiation of an arms trade treaty. A UN conference on an arms trade treaty will be held in 2012 to elaborate a legally binding instrument for the transfer of conventional arms. Lockheed Martin, Smith & Wesson, Colt Industries, and Glock file a complaint with the Human Right Commission, claiming that liberal pinkos are imperiling their economic livelihood. Bob Geldorf announces the will organize a concert for laid off weapons brokers and promises a special guest appearance by Viktor Bout, currently enjoying the hospitality of the Thai government.

No related posts.