Hoping for an Arab Summer: The Need for Democracy Building in North Africa

The world community applauded when popular uprisings throughout North Africa resulted in overthrows of long-standing dictators. As a consequence of the so-called Arab Spring, Tunisia, Egypt, and now Libya, managed to rid themselves of Ben Ali, Mubarak and Gaddafi and to position themselves for a transition to democracy. Alas, democracy seems to have bypassed this region of the world. In Tunisia, right wing political parties emerged and seem to be winning more and more popular ground (click here for the story: http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/28/opinion/adib-moghaddam-tunisia-islam-shift/index.html?iref=allsearch). It is questionable whether Islamist victory in Tunisian elections would be compatible with true democracy, allowing for freedom of speech and racial and gender equality. In Egypt, human rights activists who were instrumental in bringing down Mubarak now face detention and the threat of torture at the hands of the new government's authorities. Allegations surfaced that a prominent activist was recently tortured to death while in official state custody (click here for the story: http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/28/world/africa/egypt-detention-death/index.html), while another human rights crusader was recently detained at one of the most notorious Cairo prisons. By all accounts, the current Egyptian government consists of the same military leaders who supported Mubarak, and cynics have opined that the military took advantage of the Arab Spring to oust Mubarak and reclaim all the power for itself. Thus, any prospect of a true democracy seems far-fetched in Egypt today. In Libya, UN Security Council authorized a military intervention to protect civilians against Gaddafi's forces; such intervention resulted in the ousting, and ultimately, capture and death of Gaddafi. Now, rivalries rage among fighting regional militias, all vowing for a prominent position in the new Libyan government (click here for the story: http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/02/world/africa/libya-infighting/index.html). Once again, it is uncertain whether democracy will prevail.

Such unfortunate developments in North Africa highlight the need for further democracy building. The world powers cannot stop at military intervention; rather, they should invest brain power and resources in the rebuilding of democracy post-Arab Spring revolutions. As we all know, revolutions may result in the creation of new, even more troubling regimes, and Ben Ali, Mubarak and Gaddafi could be quickly replaced by rogue leaders of the same caliber and propensity toward dictatorship. In order to prevent this outcome and to foster stability in North Africa, world super powers should participate enthusiastically in the reshaping of a new democratic Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya. If world powers embrace this role, we may experience an Arab Summer: a prospering of democracy in these post-revolution societies.

The Iranian Murder Plot: A True Attempt or Fabrication?

News spread over the last few days that members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps- Quds Forces plotted to assassin the Saudi ambassador in Washington, D.C. (click here for one of the news stories: http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/12/justice/iran-saudi-plot/?hpt=hp_t1). If true, this allegation would be more than serious for Iran: it could face diplomatic and economic sanctions, as well as a possible military strike by the United States. Carrying out murder on foreign soil is a serious affair and a violation of sovereignty of the country where the murder is carried out. If this murder plot were true, then a retaliatory strike by the United States against Iran could be justified under international law.
World leaders around the globe seemed to accept the truthfulness of the plotted murder story. U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, called for accountability for Iran, and stated that Iran's actions were reckless and would undermine international norms. David Cameron, the British Prime Minister, stood by the United States' allegations and proclaims Britain's support of its long-standing ally. The French Foreign Ministry called the plot "an outrageous violation of international law." And the Saudi prince, Turki al-Faisal, an important member of the Saudi royal family, vowed that "someone in Iran" would "pay the price" for this kind of behavior.
However, the alleged Iranian murder plot reads more like a mystery novel than the work of a serious governmental security force. First, there seems to be no apparent motivation for the attempted murder. Although Iran is a predominantly Shi'a state, whereas the Saudis are mostly Sunni Arabs, this fact alone does not justify the attempted murder of a Saudi ambassador. Moreover, the ambassador was not a very prominent member of the Saudi ruling regime, and it is doubtful that Iran would achieve anything significant by eliminating this lone, mid-level Saudi diplomat. Second, even if Iran had wanted to eliminate the Saudi ambassador, it would be ludicrous to plan the attack in the United States, let alone in Washington D.C. Iran could have carried out the attack in any other third country that the ambassador was visiting, such as Jordan or Syria or Yemen - a country which would not have the political and military cache of a super power, like the United States. Third, it is incredulous that the Iranian Quds Forces would attempt to contact a Mexican drug cartel to execute the murder. Quds forces certainly have the necessary training and capability to execute any type of murder, which casts doubt on their willingness to involve Mexican organized crime in this affair. Moreover, Mexican drug cartels are profitable businesses, not interested in entering into risky ventures on American soil, such as the execution of a Saudi ambassador. It is extremely likely that Iranian Quds Forces would have known this about the Mexican drug cartels, as Iranians themselves have faced drug-related problems coming from Afghanistan. Thus, it is more than likely that Quds Forces would have never thought of involving the Mexicans in an attempted murder of a foreign diplomat in Washington D.C. Finally, even if Quds Forces truly had wanted to contract out the execution to a Mexican drug cartel, one would have to wonder about the sloppiness of the alleged operation. Numerous international telephone conversations were taped, where the parties were allegedly conspiring about the murder; moreover, money that was to be paid for the execution was internationally wired. Anyone of the Quds Forces' savvyness would know not to discuss murder plans over international phone lines, and not to wire money into the United States, as these actions would necessarily trigger FBI scrutiny.
In light of the above observations, I have to wonder about the truthfulness of the allegations against Iran in the attempted murder plot. Is this just an American tactic, fabricated in order to increase tension between the United States and Iran, in order to deflect public attention from the ongoing financial and economic crisis within America? Is this similar to the weapons of mass destruction story in Iraq - an allegation fabricated in order to increase public support of an attack on Iraq, in order to oust Saddam Hussein? Hillary Clinton in her remarks was careful to indicate that the American response against Iran would be purely diplomatic and economic (sanctions), and that no military response would be attempted as of now. It is almost as if she did not believe the story herself. Other commentators have pointed out that Iran could very well be the culprit here. Quds Forces have certainly carried out other murders on foreign soil, and this kind of an attack would fit perfectly within the current Iranian regime's provocative tactics. Furthermore, there seems to be some solid proof against the persons involved in the alleged scheme - enough to warrant a federal indictment and the global announcement about the murder plot.
More news and a further investigation into the story are certainly warranted. As of today, I remain skeptical about the veracity of the attempted murder plot, as I curiously await more information.

The North African Revolutions: The End of an Era

The start of 2011 has been revolutionary in North Africa. Civil unrest exploded first in Tunisia, when demonstrators managed to oust long-time ruler, Ben Ali, after days of protests threatening to transform into a civil war. The people of Egypt followed. Following two weeks of clashes between thousands of civilian protesters in Cairo and elsewhere, and the Egyptian police and army forces, the Egyptian president, Mubarak, announced that he was stepping down. Libya followed: thousands of protesters invaded the streets of Tripoli and other major cities, demanding the abdication of power by Colonel Gaddafi, who has ruled Libya with an iron fist for 41 years. However, unlike in Tunisia and Egypt where police and army forces were unwilling to inflict serious damage on civilian protesters, eyewitness reports indicate that Gaddafi employed ruthless mercenaries to fire and shoot civilians. As of today, Gaddafi remains officially in power, although it appears that parts of eastern Libya have already fallen under the protesters' control.
The West has been cautiously supportive of these revolutions. All three of these rulers, Ben Ali, Mubarak and Gaddafi, had been supported by the West for various reasons, such as their renouncement of the Soviet philosophy during the Cold War, their willingness to trade in oil and other important commodities, their commitment to abide by nuclear non-proliferation regimes, and their importance in the geo-political equilibrium of the North African region. Thus, it was somewhat embarrassing for the Great Powers of the West to witness these revolutions, all rooted upon democratic principles which the western democracies embrace. The Great Powers were forced to applaud the revolutions, but remained cautious to abandon the dictators right away, fearing what such quick cutting of support might do to the regional stability. President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton urged Mubarak to step down, if his people no longer wished to have him as their leader. Similarly, they implored Qaddafi to leave peacefully - to no avail.
On March 1, the United Nations Security council voted unanimously to refer the Libyan situation to the International Criminal Court (ICC). In fact, the ICC, according to the referral, should investigate violations of international law by the Libyan security forces in their treatment of the civilian protesters. It is somewhat unsurprising that the Security Council so swiftly condemned Gaddafi. Qaddafi has been openly critical of the ICC, and was vocal in condemning the court's decision to issue an arrest warrant for the Sudanese president, Al-Bashir. Libya is not a member of the ICC, and has not been cooperating with the tribunal. Moreover, historically, Qaddafi has offended the west many times. He was the main culprit in the Lockerbie bombings, and sanctions that had been imposed on Libya were lifted only relatively recently, when Gaddafi accepted to cooperate in a nuclear non-proliferation program. Thus, it is hardly a surprise that western leaders would not support Qaddafi today, and that they would refer his alleged crimes to the ICC. We can only hope that Gaddafi will step down before inflicting more needless violence upon the Libyan population.
The three revolutions in North Africa are not isolated in the world. Unrest has recently been plaguing Bahrain, as well as Gabon. Other non-democratically ruled nations may follow. Similar to the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1990, now, 20 years later, we are witnessing another wave of revolutions against oppressive dictatorships and toward the idea of governance through democratic principles. Democracy has been prevailing and may turn out to be the only legitimate form of government in the 21st century.

The Southern Sudan to Vote on Secession: A Precedent-Setter or Sui Generis?

The people of Southern Sudan recently voted in a public referendum on whether they want to separate (secede) from the state of Sudan (click here for the full story: http://www.cleveland.com/world/index.ssf/2011/01/voters_in_southern_sudan_head.html). Sudan has been plagued by a bloody civil war for the last decade. The vote in a week-long referendum is the last step in a United States-backed peace plan. However, tensions and uncertainty remain. For one, the vote itself has been accompanied by reports of violence (click here for the full story: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2011/01/10/sudan-referendum-day2.html). More importantly, it is unclear how the Sudanese president, Omar al-Bashir, will react to the results of the referendum. Full results are not expected before February, and although al-Bashir has promised to allow the south to secede if the results of the referendum pointed toward that direction, it is unclear whetheral-Bashir will respect his word. After all, he has been indicted in the International Criminal Court (ICC) and has been accused of sponsoring violence in the southern region of Darfur, which has claimed the lives of thousands of Sudanese over the last several years. The south contains most of the country's oil reserves, and is an important natural resource to the Khartoum government. The civil war in Sudan has opposed the mostly Muslim Arab north and the Christian and animist south, with the north attempting to retain its control over the oil-rich south. Thus, despite al-Bashir's assurances to the contrary, it is uncertain that the northern government will respect its promise and allow the south to secede peacefully. According to the 2005 peace plan, if the south were to vote yes on the issue of secession, then the actual secession wouldn't take place until July 2011, and further negotiations may be needed to hash out issues like border lines, water rights, and the Sudanese overwhelming debt.
The Sudanese secession triggers important issues in international law and politics. Secession, although allowed under international law, remains frowned upon in practice. Examples of successful secession have been rare, excluding possibly the most recent example of Kosovo. In that case, the International Court of Justice even went as far as to proclaim that the Kosovar unilateral declaration of independence, leading to its secession from Serbia, was legal. Yet, the United States State Department, as well as several other governments, although supportive of Kosovo, have called its case sui generis, probably for fear of precedent-setting for future separatist groups. In fact, such groups in places as South Ossetia and Abkhazia have already relied upon the Kosovo precedent to claim secession rights. Significantly, countries which haven't recognized Kosovo as a new state virtually all have important separatist movements functioning within their borders and are too afraid to support even a sui generis Kosovo. Thus, what will the recent example of southern Sudan do for international law and the right to secession therein? Is Sudan sui generis like Kosovo, or is it a precedent for the idea that if a people's rights are abused by its mother state, it accrues the right to so-called external self-determination, leading toward remedial secession. If the people of southern Sudan deserve independence, should Tibetans, South Ossetians, and Abkhazians also get their own states? Should courts, scholars and politicians fully endorse the right to remedial secession in all such instances? Or, will the world witness a bunch of sui generis Kosovos and southern Sudans in the future, without any significant changes brought thereby to the international law of secession? I fear the latter, but as an academic support the former. And hope for a peaceful and precedent-setting secession of southern Sudan.

ICC to Investigate North Korea: A Step Toward International Justice

The prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Luis Moreno-Ocampo, just announced that the court would investigate possible crimes committed by North Korea in its recent attacks on South Korea (click here to read the story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101206/ap_on_re_eu/war_crimes_korea). The prosecutor's office is looking into the November 23 shelling of Yeonpyeong Island, as well as into the sinking of the South Korean warship, the Cheonan, in March of this year. Several people have died in both of these incidents, and the ICC is investigating possible war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by North Korea during these excursions against South Korea.
The ICC is the only permanent international criminal court in the world. It has jurisdiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide (the crime of aggression may be added to the court's jurisdiction starting in 2017). Cases may be initiated at the ICC though a United Nations Security Council referral, through a member state referral, or sua sponte, by the prosecutor's office. The court can look at a case if either of two conditions is met: if the alleged crimes were committed on the territory of a member state, or if the accused is a national of a member state. The case against North Korea satisfies all the conditions of the court's jurisdiction: the alleged crimes fall within two of the three categories of crimes that the ICC can look into (war crimes and crimes against humanity); the case was initiated by Mr. Moreno-Ocampo's office; and the alleged crimes were committed in South Korea, a party to the ICC statute.
It is uncertain whether the court will proceed with this investigation. The ICC faces numerous political roadblocks and at times the ill will of one of the world's super powers, the United States. The initiation of a possible investigation into North Korea is a positive step for the court nonetheless. It demonstrates a willingness on behalf of the prosecutor's office to launch independent investigations, free of any Security Council influence and unaffected by any individual member state's referral. It signals to the world community the availability of this forum for prosecutions of international crimes, such as war crimes and crimes against humanity. Moreover, it sends a deterrent message to rogue countries and leaders that the ICC means business. This is a welcome development in the world of international criminal law - the world criminal court is accomplishing its mission and actively working toward its goals of world justice.

Omar Khadr Pleads Guilty: A Sad Day for Justice

Omar Khadr, the youngest detainee at Guantanamo Bay, has just plead guilty to murder, material support of terrorism, and other charges, bringing an end to his trial before the military commissions (click here to read the story: http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/26/khadr.statement/index.html). According to his guilty plea, Khadr, who was just 15 at the time, voluntarily and intentionally threw a grenade that killed a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan in 2002. Moreover, Khadr admitted to meeting Bin Laden, to training with other Al Qaeda operatives, and to engaging in terrorist acts against the United States. Of course, all of this is "true" only if we believe Khadr. And there are plenty of reasons not to.
Khadr was a child when arrested. Upon his arrest, he was held without charges and subjected to harsh treatment and endless interrogations. His statements, produced through such abusive interrogations, were admitted into evidence during Khadr's trial in the military commissions. Such statements, of course, would not be admissible in any civil or criminal trial in the United States, or in any other industrialized country using a "western" justice system. Such statements, on the contrary, are admissible in trials before the military commissions, under the infamous Military Commissions Act. Before the military commissions, Khadr faced an uncertain future, a long sentence and event the possibility of endless imprisonment (many detainees cleared of all charges before the commissions have been held indefinitely, under the United States government's argument that war prisoners can be held ad infinitum, or at least until the end of hostilities, or, in this case,the war on terror). Thus, when prosecutors presented him with a chance to plead guilty in exchange for a lenient sentence (most likely about 8 years) as well as a possibility to serve most of it in his home country of Canada, Khadr had no other alternative but to accept. He is 24 now; in 8 years, he will still have a chance for a normal life. And most likely, he cannot wait for a chance to leave the United States.
Who can blame him? Even if he did throw the grenade at American soldiers, which is dubious at best, under international law of armed conflict he should have been treated as a child soldier. Child soldiers do not face the same repercussions as adult soldiers, if caught by opposing forces. All international law authorities agree that child soldiers should be treated as victims of war, not as warriors. The United States government clearly missed this lesson of international law, when it chose to disregard all relevant rules, treat Khadr as an adult terrorist, and subject him to harsh treatment. Khard's Canadian lawyer, when interviewed by NPR journalists, expressed his sentiment that justice had not been served, and that the day of Khard's guilty plea was a sad one for justice. I could not agree any more. The imprisonment and trial of Omar Khadr did nothing but embarrass the United States and undermine our vision of justice before the rest of the world. The United States should fight terrorism, but it should do so within the bounds of international law and our own domestic legal system. It is time that Guantanamo be closed, detainees formally charged, if evidence permits it, and our federal courts used to prosecute those who threaten our country. Others, like Omar Khadr, who do not qualify for such prosecutions should be released. The desire to protect our country should never trump the interests of international justice and human rights.

The World Court's Decision in the Kosovo Case: Some Regrettable Ommissions

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) recently ruled that the unilateral declaration of independence by the government of Kosovo was in accordance with international law. The world court held that the declaration was not prohibited by general international law, or by any other specific sources of international law. Regrettably, the world court chose not to address the issue of remedial self-determination or secession under international law, an area of law in which guidance by the most supreme international judicial organ would have been of much value.
By way of background, the Kosovar government issued a declaration of independence on February 17, 2008. In fact, since the Rambouillet Accords of 1999, ending a three-month bombing campaign by NATO countries on the territory of the Former Republic of Yugoslavia, Kosovo had been governed by a United Nations Mission, and its security guarded by a NATO-led defense force. Negotiations between Kosovo and Serbia over the former's final status failed to produce a result, and in the beginning of 2008, the Kosovar government took matters into its own hands and proclaimed the province independent. Many states immediately recognized Kosovo as a new state, whereas many others refused to do so. On October 8, 2006, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution to request the world court's advisory opinion on the issue.
It is laudable that the world court accepted jurisdiction on this difficult legal issue. In fact, the Kosovar government and its supporters had urged the court not to accept jurisdiction at all, as the request for an advisory opinion was political rather than legal, and as the Security Council had already been seized with other issues relating to Kosovo. The ICJ properly answered by accepting jurisdiction, and by rejecting these arguments.
However, it is regrettable that the ICJ refused to address the most relevant issue: when and under what circumstances do minority groups, or peoples, have the right to external self-determination, leading toward remedial secession? In particular, the world court could have taken up the opportunity to address, in the Kosovar context, whether the Kosovar declaration of independence serves the values and interests of the United Nations system, as well as those of the existing international legal order. Instead of answering these difficult questions, the ICJ suggests in this opinion that we live in a lawless world when it comes to declarations of independence, and that anything in this domain is permitted unless expressly prohibited by the Security Council. The rule of law and the elaboration of specific legal rules - even when none already exist- is the province of courts and judges, and the world court should not have shied away from its responsibilities in the international community. Possibly, the world court's willingness to accept jurisdiction in this instance signifies a shift whereby the world jurisdiction will in the future accept other similar cases on self-determination and secession. Possibly, the world court judges will decide to elaborate on legal standards governing these difficult issues.