As you all know, the crisis in Burma is transforming from a natural disaster to a humanitarian catastrophe due to the xenophobia, incompetence, and malevolence of the Burmese government. With every day that passes, the situation of the up to tow million Burmese people affected by this crisis, almost three quarters of whom have reportedly not received any assistance, is becoming ever more precarious. It is clear that the time has come for bold international action.  My colleague, Brian Vogt, wrote an excellent piece detailing one strategy for getting aid through to those who need it earlier this week.  Brian is quite right to warn that we must not to allow our disgust for the Burmese junta lead us to political posturing rather than decisive action.

Although the Chinese government stated last week that they did not think it appropriate for the Burma crisis to be brought to the UN Security Council, it is becoming increasingly clear that stronger action by the UN and the international community will be required to break this deadly impasse. French Prime Minister Bernard Kouchner was among the first to call for aid drops in Burma, even against the wishes of the Burmese regime. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is now calling for a UN summit on aid to Burma. The United States must continue to take a lead in these efforts, and to build international consensus around a more aggressive assistance agenda with the greatest amount of international legitimacy possible. Clearly, food and aid drops will not be enough as water-borne diseases begin to take their toll over the coming days, particularly on the young and the elderly.  Specifically, the United States can actively support the provision of assistance under chapter 7 of the UN Charter, as was done for Somalia and other recent humanitarian crises.

Once the scourge of reflexive internationalism, the Bush administration is now dressing in multilateralist garb. The president’s latest concession is pushing the Law of the Sea Treaty, appropriately known as LOST.

The treaty declares all seabed resources to be the “common heritage of mankind,” hits Western mining companies and their sponsoring nations with fees and royalties, and creates a new global bureaucracy to divvy up the spoils. There are authorities, enterprises, committees, commissions, tribunals, and rules galore.

Unfortunately, decades ago the so-called Group of 77, the developing nations’ political lobby, appended this money-making scheme to [add] proposals to improve ocean resource exploitation, regularize petroleum exploration, improve environmental protection, and strengthen navigational freedom. Turn over the globe’s unowned resources to us, the Third World states offered, and we’ll recognize some of your rules–many of which already had been accepted as customary international law. (more…)

Chris Preble highlighted yesterday an op-ed by Ivo Daalder and Robert Kagan that appeared in Monday’s Washington Post.  I actually had somewhat of a different reaction to the piece.  Chris wrote that Kagan and Daalder, “celebrate the broad bipartisan consensus among the Washington policy elites and the major party candidates in favor of military intervention.”  When I read the piece I felt that the focus of the article was more on the importance of “international legitimacy” whenever the U.S. considers military action.  For many years polls have shown that Americans are much more comfortable with the use of force if it has broad international support, often in the form of UN Security Council resolutions.  The Bush administration recognized this and, even after UN rejection, hailed its “Coalition of the Willing” that had been, in many cases (with the exceptions Australia and Britain), basically strong armed and bribed into token participation.  

I agree with Daalder and Kagan that the US will undoubtedly find itself in situations in the future of deciding whether to use force.   I feel that if we can create a bipartisan consensus around the need for international legitimacy for military action, then indeed that is a good thing and a far cry from where we have been for the past 7 years.  Remember, even John Kerry defended himself against Republican attacks in the 2004 presidential elections, saying that he wouldn’t need a “UN permission slip” to act against threats.  If our leaders, both Democrats and Republicans, can actually admit publicly that international support matters and not portray this as a weakness, then we are headed in the right direction, I believe. 

Now for the issue of the “Concert of Democracies”.  I wrote on this back in September when the Princeton Project on National Security released its report, Forging a World of Liberty Under Law, US National Security in the 21st Century.  Like Daalder and Kagan the report proposed the formation of a “Concert of Democracies” that would play a legitimizing (or delegitimizing) role when the US or other democracies proposed using force.  Although I feel that the Concert of Democracies idea has merit, I felt that in this most recent op-ed, that Daalder and Kagan too quickly dismissed the UN.  They write, “The traditional answer, the U.N. Security Council, no longer suffices, if it ever did.”  Although it certainly has been difficult to get the P-5 to agee to take action, it has happened.  In the first Gulf War, for example, the Security Council did conclude the force should be used to remove Saddam Hussein from Kuwait.  Although, many would argue that it was the very fragility of the international consensus that prevented us from finishing the job, it seems that, considering our current debacle, limitations on the intervention certainly were warranted.  (more…)

The “Pottery Barn Principle” has tremedous informal influence in the on-going debate about what to do in Iraq. The quick summary is incredibly evocative: “you broke it, you bought it” applies in international affairs, just as it does at Pottery Barn and other stores. So the U.S. “owns” the Iraq problem and can’t leave until stability and happiness return to the land.

Of course, the principle is rarely enforced at stores like Pottery Barn. Nice stores understand in advance that they have fragile displays, with glasses stacked in precarious poses to make them look nice for potential customers. So the owners and managers expect some glasses to break from time to time. And the stores focus on making the unfortunate customer who accidentally bumps into the wine glass display while backing away to get a different perspective on the beautiful $800 console table feel comfortable enough to come back to the store — or perhaps even to buy the console table that very day. Other customers don’t turn and stare and clap and otherwise humiliate the unfortunate, clumsy person, as they would do in a high school cafeteria. Nice stores are much more grown up and understanding.

Yet the analogy still holds strange power in the foreign policy debate. Many Americans really have a deep streak of responsibility. The U.S. “owes” something to Cambodia, to Guatemala, to the Philippines. As a country, we don’t always act on our guilt, but sometimes we do, and there’s a deep reservoir of support that prioritizes efforts to improve the lives of people that the U.S. had something to do with harming over efforts simply to help people. Many Americans want to do good in the world, and that matters; the impulse to do good tinged with the guilt of having done ill in the past matters even more.

But how much sense does that make? Even in the moral framework, I think it’s tough to make the case for the pottery barn principle. (more…)

New leaders are soon to take over Congress and the Pentagon, a new course is urged for US policy in Iraq, and the President will soon select a new ambassador to the United Nations.  How will this all work as the US faces a new UN Secretary General?

The current SG Kofi Annan has served for ten years at the helm of the UN – and what a ride it has been for him and the world.  What do we know of Annan’s decade, and what does that suggest for what lies ahead?

A new book gives us an intimate view of those years.  James Traub, a contributor to The New York Times Magazine, has written a highly-readable history of the Secretary-General’s era, The Best Intentions: Kofi Annan and the UN in the Era of American Power. My colleagues Rick Barton and Karin von Hippel at CSIS, with Peter Gantz of Refugees International, hosted Traub this week, which included a lively discussion with many of us.

The book combines skepticism about the UN as an organization with vigorous reporting about the individuals who bring the institution and its ideals to life.  Some US names are familiar – Richard Holbrooke figures prominently, as do Senator Jesse Helms and Ambassador John Bolton. But he also profiles key personalities within the UN and those, both famous and not, who have worked to halt genocide, to argue for change, and to push for modernization of its creaky ways.   (more…)

I read the news this morning of John Bolton’s departure from the U.N. with a great sense of relief. After a failed strategy toward Iraq, Iran, North Korea and a wide range of other security issues, the U.S. is finally learning that it needs to take a more diplomatic and collaborative approach to solving global security challenges. Slowly, even the Bush administration appears moving (i.e. being dragged) in this direction and may even come to the table to talk with Iran and Syria. Amidst all this, President Bush has continued singing the praises of John Bolton, who was accurately called by Senator Voinovich “the poster child of what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be.” Bush seemed either not to realize or to willfully ignore that American bullying and unilateralism at the U.N. would continue to undermine the America’s new emphasis on diplomacy in other contexts like Iraq.

Hopefully, Bolton’s departure can open a real conversation in this country about how we harness our unparalleled influence through coalitions to protect our security, rather than the Bolton-style unilateralism that has characterized our foreign policy for the last six years. The Stanley Foundation is holding a conference on precisely this topic in Washington this week to examine how the United States can best leverage its strength to develop a compelling vision for 21st-century leadership. (Click here to learn more about the Stanley Foundation conference.) Let’s hope this conference can create a vision that the next U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. can use to rebuild our image and strength in the world.

I’ve been quite encouraged by the discussion on the UN and foreign interventions that has developed on the blog during the past several weeks.  Chip Andreae did a particularly good job of laying out many of the issues in his recent post.  I thought that I would take the opportunity today to reference a particularly nasty response that was written up right after PSA released its UN statement as a New York Times advertisement on June 23rd.  This scathing critique (subscription required) was by Martin Peretz, the Editor in Chief of the New Republic. 

Peretz writes:

“Then there is the Partnership for a Secure America which ran a full-page ad in Friday’s Times. (How much did that cost? My estimate: something just short of $150,000.) Half the page was devoted to a photograph of a smiling refugee child of no obvious national origin but probably in Africa where the United Nations has been especially callous. Of course, no refugee child would not, in all likelihood, benefit from the increased funding to the United Nations demanded by the “bipartisan leaders” whose names are appended at the bottom of the page. Any student of the institution knows that the money will be sent to Turtle Bay in New York, and it will allow the Secretariat, the Third Committee of the Assembly, the Fourth Committee of the Assembly, and various other talkfests, which constitute the bulk of the United Nations, to continue their jabber and have it translated into five languages and distribute the documents all around the world. An old friend of mine who works for a European country’s mission to the United Nations confided to me with a smile that, as soon as these official transcripts and reports arrive at his office, they are thrown directly into the waste heap. Not even by way of the shredder. Maybe the lumber industry should pay for administration of the United Nations.”

I’d like to take this opportunity to respond to some of Peretz’s attacks.  First of all, I question Peretz’s allegations of the United Nations being “especially callous” in Africa.  I admit that one can find examples of bad policy choices and improper conduct by the United Nations in Africa and in many other places.  However, when examined as a whole, the United Nations presence in Africa has generally been positive.  The UN like any large institution has much to criticize.  The PSA statement, in fact, acknowledged this and emphasized the continued need for reforms.  (more…)

On Friday, June 23, Partnership for a Secure America ran an ad in the New York Times declaring its position that the US should not withdraw funding from the United Nations, while simultaneously supporting the US call for reform within the organization.  As the world is nearing a nuclear-active Iran, and witnessing a provocative North Korea, the UN could be an effective tool for the US as we negotiate with those countries.  As a body, the United Nations clearly falls short of its potential due to lack of budgetary discipline and ethical oversight, but it is still better off with total US support than without.  And, more importantly, so are we.

I understand that withdrawing funds is not exactly tantamount to withdrawing support.  But the distinction is one of degree, not one of type.  Withdrawing funds will lead to a schism between the US and other members of the Security Council, perhaps with the exception of the UK.  Countries who would be our diplomatic allies increasingly see us as a hypocritical state that expects everyone to play by the rules, except when we don’t want to.  While this isn’t a totally fair perception, it isn’t exactly unfair either.  Withdrawing funds, as opposed to working with the Secretary General and other delegates to effectuate change, would only exacerbate this view and further isolate the US.   (more…)

I’d like to go back to the lively discussion here about the Responsibility to Protect, and the ideas launched by Christopher Preble and Jordan Tama as a spin-off from the debate over UN reform, genocide and preventive intervention. 

Christopher is cautious about the idea of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), seeing its potential to undermine sovereignty by enabling bands of nations to circumvent the UN Security Council and eroding (further) its effectiveness in dampening down bad actors. He argues that this could encourage new nations to reassert their sovereignty by unfettered development of nuclear weapons. Sounds bad, and he raises a good point.  Jordan argues strongly that the benefits of the R2P norm are worth this risk of impinging on sovereignty, especially if it translates into a real means to stop bad actors from genocide and offers a route to deal with the Darfur-type situations more effectively. He suggests that legitimacy of action should be the test, a thoughtful approach.

Despite their differences, I’d guess that they both oppose misguided preventive wars and genocide.  Ok, so what is a way forward? There is no perfect answer, but two points may help. 

First, let’s recognize that military forces are already deployed today to protect civilians in horrific conflicts and that we’d better figure out what their jobs really are. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, four million reportedly have lost their lives since 1998, according to the International Rescue Committee. About 18,000 UN peacekeepers are now deployed there, some highly skilled with combat experience (and, of course, others not) and operating in regions such as Ituri in the East, where violence is especially high.  Their UN mandate, approved by the Security Council since 2000, directs them to use “all necessary means” and to “ensure the protection of civilians under imminent threat.” They do not have an R2P banner, perhaps, but they have a huge job on their hands to protect civilians in the face of a failed sovereign.  (more…)

In his most recent post Christopher Preble expresses concern about the advancement of the “responsibility to protect” norm, which grants the international community the right to intervene militarily when massive human rights violations are being perpetrated on a population whose government is responsible for those violations or is unable to stop them.  In my view, the benefits to the United States and the world of promoting the norm outweigh the risks. 

The responsibility to protect norm clearly goes beyond the UN Charter’s prescriptions, which only authorize the use of force in self-defense or when approved by the UN Security Council “to protect international peace and security.”  But the Charter, like the U.S. Constitution, must be treated as a living document subject to evolving interpretation and amendment over time.  When the Charter was written, intervention to protect human rights was not on the international agenda and was not a priority of any major power.  Today it is on the global agenda and is sometimes — though too sporadically — a priority of the United States, Britain, France, and other democratic nations.  International rules on the use of force will become irrelevant if they do not evolve to reflect this change in world politics.

The September 2005 UN summit declaration called on the international community to intervene when necessary through the Security Council to protect a population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, or crimes against humanity.  This was a significant advance for advocates of international action to protect human rights, marking the first time the world’s nations endorsed a version of the responsibility to protect norm.  But the promise of the declaration might turn out to be hollow because it leaves the Council with a legal monopoly over use of force decisions.  If just one of the Council’s permanent members objects to a military intervention, governments seeking to protect a population will be left with no legal way to do so.  Given the general opposition of Russia and China to protective interventions, the norm will rarely be put into practice if this legal monopoly is upheld.  Consider the ongoing atrocities taking place in Darfur and then decide whether the Council should possess this monopoly. (more…)