Tag: Democracy and Rule of Law
Chemical weapons: how and who
The deployment of chemical weapons in Homs, Syria by the Assad regime in late 2012 ended a 20-year freeze on state employment of chemical weapons. Since then, the use of these weapons of mass destruction has exploded, with over 200 attacks reported in Syria alone, in addition to incidents in Iraq, Malaysia, and the United Kingdom.
One week before the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OCPW) meets to discuss multilateral methods to enforce accountability for users of chemical weapons, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) convened a group of chemical weapons experts to share their ideas for enforcing accountability for users of chemical weapons. Ahmet Üzümcü, Director-General of the OCPW, gave the keynote address before a panel moderated by Rebecca Hersman, Director of the Project on Nuclear Issues at CSIS, discussed the issue of chemical weapons proliferation. The panel included:
Yleem D.S. Poblete, Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance
Samantha Job, Counsellor for Foreign and Security Policy, British Embassy Washington
Nicolas Roche, Director of Strategic, Security and Disarmament Affairs, French Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Üzümcü detailed the successes of his tenure as OPCW Director-General, which included the elimination of 96 percent of declared chemical weapons stockpiles worldwide. He also delved into the challenges the OPCW faces in the coming years, emphasizing that increased chemical weapon attacks in Syria and elsewhere call for heightened international coordination to reinforce nonproliferation. However, Russia’s enabling attitude towards Syria’s chemical weapons use has actually eroded this norm. In recent years, Russia has vetoed UN Security Council resolutions to condemn Assad’s actions. Putin has also led a defamation campaign against the OPCW’s investigation methods. In the face of this challenge to the OPCW and its mission, the Director-General advocated for member states to give the organization the power to conduct investigations to identify the perpetrators of chemical weapons attacks.
Roche focused on France’s desire to combat chemical weapons use by strengthening multilateral institutions. He stressed the importance of international partnerships for information gathering and sharing, as well as the need for a stronger OPCW with the power to identify perpetrators of chemical weapons violence. In what could be seen as a slight to both the US and Russian behavior vis-a-vis international institutions over the last year, Roche emphasized that a multilateral regime for addressing the attribution gap in chemical weapons investigations is a greater good. France will move forward with multilateralism in combating the chemical weapons threat, regardless of who is on board.
Poblete agreed that multilateralism should be at the forefront of the fight against chemical weapons proliferation, but argued that bilateral negotiations between states should also play a role. International approaches fail when compromise becomes the enemy of the good. Poblete defended president Trump’s bilateral strategy with North Korea, repeating multiple times that the administration was well-informed going into the Kim summit. Trump’s failure to mention Kim’s chemical weapons program in the buildup or the aftermath of the meeting in no way indicated that dismantling North Korean stockpiles was off the table.
Job took the point about the need for multilateralism a step further, focusing on the critical role OPCW plays in strengthening the international norm against chemical weapons proliferation. Job emphasized the need to combat Russia’s attacks on the legitimacy of the Chemical Weapons Convention’s regulatory body, arguing that member countries should appoint permanent representatives to the OPCW to accomplish this goal. OPCW also needs increased funding to face the threat of chemical weapons attacks by non-state actors. Like Roche, Job also explicitly endorsed giving the OPCW the power to fill the attribution gap that currently exists in the prosecution of chemical weapons crimes.
Bottom Line: The international community is currently at a crossroads when it comes to dealing with the rejuvenated threat of chemical weapons attacks. Our European allies have already decided on the way forward: multilateralism. The United States is still welcome at the international negotiation table, but like with the JCPOA, France and other European powers will not capitulate to the US preference for bilateralism. The United States must present a united front with its allies on the chemical weapons issue, both for the sake of nonproliferation and for prevention of further erosion of American credibility in the current international framework.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Less heat, more light
@JonEHecht tweeted yesterday:
Kelly: We need to do it for security, but the kids will be fine, don’t worry.
Trump: We’re only doing this cause Democrats made us do it.
Sessions: The Bible told us to do it.
Miller: Hell yeah we’re doing it.
Nielsen: We’re not doing it! Fake news!
The Administration has dug a deep hole for itself since early spring by separating “unlawful” immigrant children from their parents. It appears to be doing this not only for people who cross the border illegally, but also for those who present themselves to border officials seeking asylum, claiming a well-founded fear of persecution if they return to their homelands. The above justifications, while not quotes, are reflections of what different Administration officials have said to justify a policy most of the US views as inhumane and unjustified, even if a Republican plurality supports it.
The underlying political purpose is all to clear: President Trump is using the separation and detention of children as leverage to get Congress to pass an immigration bill that is consonant with his priorities: funding for the border wall, an end to family reunification (he calls that “chain migration,” aka what his wife did to get her parents into the US), and replacement of the visa lottery (which ensures diverse immigrants) with a new system of “merit-based” (i.e. as white as possible) immigration. These changes are unlikely to pass before the November election, but if they don’t the Administration will use immigration issues to mobilize turnout of its increasingly loyal base.
There is room for lots of debate on immigration, which has always been a sensitive issue in the US and elsewhere. But it is important to distinguish between those who come illegally into the US and those who come seeking refuge, either as refugees or asylum-seekers. Neither are unlawful immigrants: they are people seeking to avail themselves of humanitarian provisions in US and international law. There are also remarkably few of them who make it to the US. This year we may not take in more than half the 45,000 refugees that the Administration has set as a ceiling. This is a small fraction of the about 1 million legal immigrants to US admits yearly.
I know a number of Syrian asylum seekers who have been here for years. While their cases have not yet been adjudicated, let there be no doubt: each of them would be at risk if forced to return to Bashar al Assad’s Syria. The defected diplomats and the leaders of early non-violent demonstrations for democracy in Syria would be obvious targets for persecution. The day may come when they can return, but only to a Syria where democracy and rule of law have replaced the brutality of a cruel and unforgiving personal dictatorship. There is no sign of that on the horizon.
In the meanwhile, my Syrian friends and many others who are admitted as refugees or seek asylum in the US are benefiting our country enormously: they help us all to understand what is going on abroad, they work hard to support their families once they get work permits, they pay their taxes, and they enrich our cultural and social life. They are people trying to survive a period of exile that will surely last longer than they would like, but that redounds to our benefit.
The bigger immigration issue concerns people who cross the border illegally, often for economic reasons. I understand people who worry about that, but the number of unauthorized people living in the US has declined since the beginning of the Obama Administration (which coincided with the depths of the financial-crisis induced recession). And they are not responsible for a disproportionate share of crimes, which are committed more often by those born in the US. To talk of them as “infesting” the US, as the President did today, is an effort to mobilize the Republican base, not an effort to encourage a reasonable approach to a difficult issue. Immigration needs less heat and more light.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
A bad day
The President had a bad day yesterday:
- The FBI Inspector General found fault with his nemesis, former Director James Comey, for things he did that hurt Hillary Clinton’s election prospects, but no partisan bias in its decisions, in particular against Trump or the Republicans.
- The New York State Attorney General charged Trump and his three older children with crimes associated with the persistent misuse of Trump Foundation funds.
- A video showing Trump saluting a North Korean general went viral:
I disagree with Barry McCaffrey: a competent White House would have avoided any situation in which the President needed to shake the hand of a North Korean general, not to mention preventing the President from lauding Kim for his violent takeover of power and repression of the North Korean people.
Each of these events casts doubt on Trump’s legitimacy. It is now clear that Comey inadvertently helped Trump get elected, by publicizing the investigation into Clinton’s emails, announcing that it had been concluded, and then reopening it, all contrary to FBI policy. Trump may not like Comey, who has criticized the President for inappropriate pressure on the Russia investigation, but he owes him the White House.
The Trump Foundation malfeasance occurred not only in the past but also during the campaign, when its spending was used to support Trump’s bid for the presidency. The amounts involved–single digit millions–seem risible in the grand scheme of things, but that is irrelevant. The use of Foundation funds for both campaign and personal purposes is criminal, whatever the amounts. The case has also been referred to the Internal Revenue Service, which will hopefully try to collect on any amounts spent to settle personal obligations.
Worse than the salute to a general no doubt in part responsible for maintaining a tight clamp on North Korea’s citizenry, was Trump’s justification for his adulation of Kim: lots of people do bad things. This is not his first use of that excuse, which represents a complete abandonment of the traditional US concern for human rights worldwide. America was founded on the principle that all people (at the time, men) are created equal with inalienable rights. Trump has shown clearly that he doesn’t agree with that either at home or abroad, most glaringly and recently in its decision to separate children of asylum-seekers from their parents in order to discourage victim of human rights abuse from trying to enter the US.
The White House is trying to lay on a meeting with Russian President Putin within the next few months. Trump will try for the kind of show he put on with Kim Jong-un: a substance-free engagement with lots of flags and allegedly good vibes, no complaints about human rights, unilateral concessions on sanctions, and claims his interlocutor has agreed to things he hasn’t really agreed to. Trump will try to squeeze this meeting in before the November election, during the September/October blackout of any action by the Special Counsel. The President really doesn’t hide his interest in Russian support, which raises the ultimate legitimacy question: is he the agent of a foreign power?
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Make America worthy
Memorial Day is never easy. It’s a holiday, but not a celebration. It commemorates the sacrifices of many generations, beginning arguably with the black community in Charleston even before the Civil War ended. It acknowledges the risks that have been run and those that we still face. It offers respect and dignity to those who have too often died without both.
Memorial Day merits particular attention this year. America has a president who has spent more than 16 months in office without visiting service members deployed in an active conflict zone. He lied Friday in a commencement address at the Naval Academy about military pay raises and the number of US Navy ships, subjects on which the cadets are presumably well-versed. They also know what to think of liars. Bone spurs gave Trump deferments during the Vietnam war, but they don’t appear to limit his golfing. He has visited a golf club on 22% of his days in office, but has found no time for the troops in Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria.
Our civilians who serve abroad get even less attention from this administration than those in uniform. It has sought to drastically cut the foreign affairs budget and limit US diplomatic and development commitments. Secretary Pompeo is sounding a lot friendlier to the Foreign Service than Trump or his predecessor, but it remains to be seen what he will actually do.
The most important diplomatic initiatives of this administration are disastrous: withdrawal from the Transpacific Partnership strengthened China, renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement is stalled, withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal threatens to splinter NATO and free Iran from its obligation to remain forever non-nuclear, and the much-vaunted Dotard/Rocket Man Summit is well on its way to being a case study in how not to conduct diplomacy.
So it is more important than ever that we distinguish our leadership from our institutions, the president from the flag. Trump and his campaign sought foreign assistance, contravening American law. His campaign also clearly received Russian help. The only question left unanswered now is whether he or his minions actively colluded with Moscow.
That is really of little interest to me. He has already demonstrated the kind of disloyalty I would regard as disqualifying for the presidency. That is why he is so determined to undermine the Mueller investigation: only by doing so can he distract attention from his own illegitimacy, which is not due only to the loss of the popular vote. It is also due to his consistent failure to be loyal to anything but his material personal and family interests.
All that stands against him is our institutions. They need our support. That means voting. It means speaking out to dissent and criticize. It means giving to causes that will insist on transparency and hold the government accountable. It means defending those whom Trump targets and targeting those who abuse power. It means broadening the tent of those who resist to include people with whom you don’t agree. It means standing up for ideals even when they seem hopelessly tattered.
Americans need to make America worthy of those whose graves we lay flowers on at Memorial Day.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
What to do about the Balkans
The European Union at the Thessaloniki Summit of 2003 affirmed its most powerful tool of democratization: enlargement. The Balkans had often been viewed until then as a ‘dark hole’ of Europe. The EU hoped that conditionality would pull the war-ravaged landscapes of the Western Balkans closer to the liberal democracies of its members states and ensure regional stability.
Fifteen years later and $20 billion from the European Union and $4 billion from the United States (excluding military aid), the post-Yugoslav countries of the Balkans have arguably created legal frameworks that resemble the liberal democracies, and there has been no war. Yet the region remains a space where endemic corruption and stagnation rule.
May 17 another EU-Western Balkans Summit took place in Sofia, Bulgaria, bringing together heads of state or government from EU member states and leaders from the 6 Western Balkans partners: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Serbia, Montenegro, and Macedonia. President of the European Council Donald Tusk announced that
the European Union is and will remain the most reliable partner of the entire Western Balkans. And in very concrete terms we discussed how to improve connections with and within the Western Balkans region.
Tusk underlined the EU’s “connectivity agenda” for the region and clarified that this is “
neither an alternative, nor substitute for enlargement. It is a way to use the time between today and tomorrow more effectively than before, so that our citizens and businesses are not waiting for the benefits of EU integration. Because I don’t see any other future for the Western Balkans other than the EU. There is no other alternative, there is no Plan B.
This reiteration calmed fears among local population and politicians that the EU was backtracking on its enlargement commitment.
On the same day, the Foreign Policy Institute of Johns Hopkins’ School of Advanced International Studies hosted a discussion titled “The Transatlantic Alliance and the Western Balkans: Regional Challenges and Options for a Common EU-US Response.” The panel included:
- Lord Paddy Ashdown, Member of the House of Lord and former High Representative and EU Special Representative to Bosnia and Herzegovina
- Marsaili Fraser, Former Head of the Political Department of the EU Special Representative to Bosnia and Herzegovina
- James O’Brien, Vice Chair of Albright Stronebridge Group (ASG) and Former Special Presidential Envoy for the Balkans
- Majda Ruge, Fellow at the Foreign Policy Institute of Johns Hopkins SAIS
The panelists discussed the current state of play in the Western Balkans and offered recommendations for a common EU and US response.
Ruge reiterated the challenges currently haunting the region arising from the tension between the EU agenda and political realities on the ground. The socio-political landscape in the Balkans 15 years after the Thessaloniki summit includes unresolved conflicts and bilateral issues, complex and muddled jurisdictions (as seen in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Northern Kosovo), irredentism (recent flirtations with the idea of changing borders and secession in Bosnia), and backsliding on crucial democratic institutions and norms.
Ruge stressed as well the effects of Middle East instability on the Balkans and the EU. In 2015, the flow of refugees reached unprecedented levels since WWII, with 764,038 border crossings through the Balkans route into the EU.
There are also successes in the region. Ruge cited the new government in Macedonia as building bridges rather than relying on divisive rhetoric, as well as Albania’s commitment to enhance the rule of law in line with EU standards by setting up internationally-supervised vetting procedures for the appointment of judges and prosecutors.
Ashdown stated that despite the transatlantic engagement in the region manifested through billions of dollars in aid and expertise, the Western Balkan states cannot operate at a level of functionality that would make them welcome EU members. Nor can they deliver to their citizens the benefits that justify loyalty to the state. The EU and the US have failed. Corruption remains endemic in the region, “as deeply embedded as when I went there in 2002 and not much has changed.”
Among the few successes, Ashdown listed the absence of war, and in some cases states that have shuffled a bit closer to the standards that would allow them to be members of EU. But overall, the Balkans pretend to reform, and the international community pretends to believe them.
Ashdown reminded his audience that you cannot save the maiden if you are not prepared to kill the dragon. The dragon we keep on failing to identify and slay is the dysfunctionality of the states. Brussels and Washington should sync their efforts and always act in a united fashion and employ muscular conditionality. The EU and the US should have a regional policy (and not different enlargement packages for each country) as a way to exploit regional linkages.
O’Brien spoke on US engagement in the region, emphasizing that Washington has a short-term focus on bigger wins, for example over the last year the Macedonia name issue and the Kosovo-Serbia dialogue. These are efforts to put out fires and achieve outcomes within the 1-2 year lifespan of a deputy assistant secretary. O’Brien would prefer the US focus on institutions that allow for political competition and rotation of power as well as reach out to parts of society that do not feel represented.
Fraser believes that the prospect of membership is still necessary (although it may not be sufficient) to stabilize the region. Enlargement remains the EU’s most effective foreign policy tool. However, the enlargement process that happened in the countries of Eastern Europe should not be copy-pasted to the Balkans. The EU should be mindful that political elites were crucial to the process and were conforming to EU standards before being asked to do so.
In the Balkans, the most glaring problem is lack of political will. Political elites are reluctant to undertake difficult reforms that undermine their own interests. Nonetheless, enlargement can still drive progress in the region. The EU should get better at selling the benefits of membership not only to political elites but also to the general population of the Balkans. Furthermore, the EU should get better at naming-and-shaming politicians who are not implementing EU reform policies.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Croatian Assembly of Bosnia says I’m wrong
Josip Merdžo, Secretary General of the Croatian National Assembly BiH, writes:
In your article ‘Bosnia’s teapot tempest’ released at peacefare.net, May, 2nd, 2018, several inaccurate facts were made regarding the decision of the Constitutional Court of BiH U-23/14 related to the request made by Mr. Ljubic for reviewing the constitutionality of the Election Law. Obviously, you did not read this request because in your article you said that „… Ljubić asked the Court to forbid the Croats from Sarajevo, Tuzla and Bihać from becoming members of the House of Peoples of Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina“, which is not true, and you can check it by reviewing the Constitutional Court’s decision U-23/14.
You also claim „He argued that Croat candidates should be elected only out of the majority Croat cantons, thus ensuring that only Croats vote for Croat delegates“,obviously not knowing the provisions of the Constitution FBiH and Election Law which precisely foresee that each constituent people within their own club in cantonal assemblies elect delegates for The House of Peoples.
Mr. Serwer, this is not about politics, it is just about legal arguments. The elections are conducted in accordance with the Election Law. Currently, the Election Law lacks a part that the Constitutional Court has abolished and there is no possibility to form the House of Peoples of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina or the House of Peoples at the state level.
Yes, this provision remains in the Entity Constitution of FBiH, but if I am not mistaken, the Constitution of BiH and the decision of the BiH Constitutional Court are above the Entity Constitution. So there is no legal ability to carry out what you are writing about.
You mention the situation after the 2010 elections when the OHR suspended the CEC decision when the session of the House of Peoples was annulled because the President of the Federation was elected in an improper manner. If you had tried to be better informed, you would never use this shameful move by the OHR and international community as a positive example.
According to the Election Law, the mandate of the legislative bodies lasts four years. It is unclear how you make the conclusion that this mandate can be extended after the expiry of this deadline. An example is found in the OHR standpoint on the City Council of Mostar. After the end of the mandate, the City Council no longer exists although the elections were not held for reasons because no amendment to the Election Law was made.
How little do you know about the things you are writing about is demonstrated once again in the fact that you are looking for the OHR and the international institutions not to apply the 2013 census but 1991 census! The BiH Constitution does not mention any census regarding electoral issues at all. The Entity Constitution of the FBiH in Amendment 52 Article 11a, states that the public institutions apply a 1991 census, namely: “Ministries in the Government of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Cantonal Governments, Municipal Authorities, Cantonal and Municipal Courts in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina . “, So the 1991 census does not apply to the legislative bodies.
If you look at the valid provisions of the Election Law of BiH, you could also find that the “last census” is mentioned as a benchmark on a number of occasions, and the latest census is 2013. Also, Constitutional Court decisions U-23/14 and U-3/17 refer exclusively to the application of the 2013 census.
Dear Mr. Serwer, I do not intend to comment on your dealing with the HDZ, third entity, separatist tendencies, etc., which are commonly found in the performances of extreme Bosniak elements. That just proves that you are dominantly trying to enforce political interpretations instead of legal ones, and here we are talking about the implementation of the Constitutional Court’s decision.
RSS - Posts
