Arms Trade Treaty: Update

Ten months ago, this blog questioned whether the world needed an Arms Trade Treaty.  This week, the second effort at producing a treaty wraps up in New York.  The conference got off to a rocky start last week, with strong disagreements about how the text should proceed.  The conference's president put out a new draft text of the treaty last Friday, which has produced a new round of chaos this week.

As noted by Ted Bromund at Heritage, who has written extensively about (and mostly in opposition to) the treaty, many countries believe the new treaty is too watered-down.  This sentiment is shared by human rights group Oxfam, a coalition of NGOs that has strongly pushed for an arms trade treaty; Oxfam's statement on Monday said that the new text unacceptably fails to control the sale of ammunition and that its requirement for assessing the risk that arms will ultimately be used to commit is currently too lenient.  Concerns by major arms exporters have included the U.S. opposing the inclusion of ammunition, which it believes is too difficult to monitor, and China opposing restrictions on arms "gifts," which it makes to allies without any monetary exchange.

As noted in our previous post, the U.S. already a very rigorous arms control regime and transparently publishes statistics about the amounts and receiving states of its arms sales.  Countries like Russia and China do not, and although the treaty first called for transparent reporting, it now calls for closed-door reporting to U.N. officials.  This is problematic, as countries like Russia and China can continue to mis-report or not report at all their arms deals, and there will be no public record to expose their claims.  Rather, such a closed-door reporting system could possibly allow such countries (and many others) to publicly claim transparency and compliance while continuing to secretly arm dictators and other human rights abusers.

Musharraf Returns to Fragmented Country

Perez Musharraf returned to Pakistan this past weekend, hoping to participate in the upcoming elections this May.  Of course, he faces a slew of problems ranging from death threats, pending legal charges that include treason for his 1999 coup, and a general lack of excitement about his return.

Although not particularly popular in Pakistan, Musharraf benefits from a highly fragmented political field that includes the Pakistan Peoples Party, the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz, headed by former Prime Minister and bitter Musharraf rival Nawaz Sharif (i.e. the guy who was PM when Musharraf staged his coup), and former cricket star-turned-politician Imran Khan.  Khan enjoys popularity due to a disillusioned populace receptive to his anti-two party message.  If anything, the highly fragmented field with a disgraced former leader facing criminal charges and popular non-politician figure resembles another country where recent elections raised more questions than answers.

In any event, the world will increasingly begin to follow political developments in Pakistan as hopefully free and fair elections draw near and the country continues to struggle with its own identity as well as its relationships with neighbors and the world at large.

Natural Gas in America: Views from Space

Any idea what's going on up there in North Dakota?...oh, that's just the Bakken Formation and the shale gas operations going on up there...read more at Daily Mail. Food for thought.

Overlooked Story of the Week: PKK Calls for Dialogue

In one of the more important yet overlooked stories this past week, the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) called for dialogue with the government through its imprisoned leader, Abdullah Ocalan. If Turkey can achieve peace and resolve the Kurdish rebellion in its eastern hinterlands, it could change the dynamics of a huge swath of the Middle East.

Sri Lanka: Sending the Wrong Message

Lost in the euphoria of ending the brutal 26-year Sri Lankan Civil War is the civilian cost. In countries around the world, the civilian cost is not measured by opportunity costs, economic downturns, or political bickering - it's measured in casualties and lives. Perhaps the cost was not lost then in Sri Lanka. Just... ignored.

Even at the time of its conclusion, information indicated that the end was both bloody and ruthless. Given the treatment of Tamil civilians, particularly those living in LTTE-controlled areas, throughout the civil war, it comes as no surprise that they were simply a pawn in the endgame. Revised estimated suggest upwards of 40,000 were killed in the months leading up to May 2009. Since then, numerous organizations have worked tirelessly to compile evidence of the failure of the international community to act and protect. The claim of war crimes committed by government forces is not new (Amnesty International again, two years later). Although claims now focus largely on government action, it stands to mention that LTTE forces were culpable all the same.

It is a shame that the international community turned away then because an insurgency was being put down; because a terrorist group was, in a rare instance, being wholly destroyed. If the United Nations wishes to investigate war crimes, then it should do so. However, the watered down resolution endorsed by the United Nations Human Rights Council has turned this event into nothing short of embarrassment today. Four years have passed; it is high time to make clear that actions that occurred in 2009, and some since, do not represent the protocols of the international community.

It seems that every time the international community says "we didn't know" and "never again," but it happens over and over again. If nothing else, the war mentality of Sri Lankan forces is most clear in the unnecessary and blatantly illegal assassination of LTTE leader Prabhakaran's underage son in February of 2013 - nearly four years after the war ended, per the government (he would have been approximately 8 when his father died in 2009).

The time for government inquiries has passed. What evidence exists needs to be passed on to authorities beyond Sri Lanka, and those responsible prosecuted to the extent available. Otherwise, the wrong message is being sent - do what you want, so long as it's against "the terrorists."

Raise Your Hand if You Saw Chemical Weapons

President Obama's visit to Israel this week would be an excellent opportunity for some serious, evenhanded discussion on what's going on in Syria. In fact, the President should pull in  his national security team and ask Benjamin Netanyahu to do the same. Frankly, the testy relationship between the two leaders is reflected in the countries' differing statements on Syria's use of chemical weapons.

See, the Israelis are affirming reports that Syria has begun to use chemical weapons. The Syrians, of course, blame it on the rebels. As does Russia. The United States, however, is not so sure and is not jumping to any conclusions so quickly. In fact, the United States is "deeply skeptical," which of course sits none too well with Russia and Syria, who are demanding an investigation.

What seems likely is that someone used a chemical (or biological) agent of some sort. Given the levels of frustration and the severity of factions in rebel forces, it is impossible to rule out rebel use, perhaps even to attempt to trigger larger retaliation. President Obama's line in the sand will perhaps turn out to be a moving target. Does it truly mean only if government forces use them? Do dirty agents count, or only official ones? All these questions gloss over the point - the line in the sand is meant to protect the people. If anyone uses chemical agents to any extent, the line has been crossed. Moreover, continuous retreat is seen as a sign of weakness in the region (as well as elsewhere). One must hold their ground if resolution is truly a desired result. Lastly, the relationship between the United States and Israel could further be strained if they are unable to agree on the events and repercussions of those events in Syria, much like how the relationship has been strained over Iran.

Therefore, the time for action, on some level, is on the horizon. Even nominal air support, with drones perhaps, would indicate that the United States' position is firm and the line in the sand doesn't move with the wind. Such action will, in time, bring Syria closer to resolution, as well as likely continue to repair the relationship with Israel. It is not the time to let technicalities get in the way.

Italian Marines Case: Rainbow Warrior Redux?

Last year, Italian marines on board a ship were involved in a shooting that resulted in the deaths of two Indian fisherman in international waters off the coast of India.  Two of the Italians were ultimately charged and, recently, the Indian Supreme Court ruled that India had jurisdiction to try the two soldiers despite the incident having taken place in international waters.  That jurisdiction, which Italy had challenged, is relatively uncomplicated with respect to general principles of international law; according to the passive nationality principle, a state has jurisdiction over a matter in which its citizens are harmed by a crime.

What's making headlines this week is that the two Italians who have been charged, permitted by Indian authorities to return to Italy for the recent elections, might not be coming back.  The Indian Supreme Court declared yesterday that the Italian ambassador, Daniele Mancini, is not permitted to leave the country without its permission.  India's Union Home Ministry upped the ante by alerting all airports to not permit the ambassador to leave.  In addition to being a blatant breach of diplomatic principles enshrined by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Article 9 specifies the procedures for a state refusing to accept the protected diplomatic status of a diplomat; in short, the "receiving state" (India) must give the other state an opportunity to recall the diplomat to the home state), the activity is sure to heighten tensions between the two countries.

Just as a final note: the sub-headline of this article was "Rainbow Warrior Redux?" because of some similarites to an international incident, the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior ship and subsequent international incident over the trial of French spies who were able to largely circumvent their sentences.

*Update: The issue of competing jurisdictional claims by Italy and India is an interesting one.  Italy could certainly prosecute the marines on the nationality principle.  India could claim either passive nationality principle or the territorial doctrine based on the fact that the effects were felt on the Indian ship (an extension of India's territorial sovereignty).  While we pointed out the similarity of recent events to the Rainbow Warrior affair, the underlying principles of competing sovereignty invoke another famous international law incident -- the S.S. Lotus and subsequent 1927 decision in the Permanent Court of International Justice.  The basic rule of international law is that either party may exercise jurisdiction; having the marines around obviously makes it easier to hold a trial and execute any sentence.  An excellent analysis of the jurisdictional claims pursuant to Lotus and subsequent treaties may be found over at Opinio Juris.