The International Community Still Failing to Protect After Srebrenica

There was slight justice and humanity on the 22nd of November 2017, when Ratko Mladić was sentenced to life in prison by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). If you are not sure who Mladić is, he was the Chief of Staff of the Bosnian Serb forces during the time of the 1995 Srebrenica massacre, where 8,000 Muslim men and boys were killed by Bosnian Serb troops, and the four year siege of the Bosnian capital, Sarajevo.

Mladić was indicted by the ICTY in 1996, but was only captured in 2011 and transferred to the Hague. After a long four year trial, he was found guilty of 10 out of 11 charges, including genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Along with the conviction of the former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadžić in 2016, who was sentenced to 40 years imprisonment, some form of justice for the victims families and the Bosnian nation has been found. It has been over 20 years since the Srebrenica massacre and the siege of Sarajevo, but these two verdicts placed on two of the most senior figures in the genocide will be welcomed, but the underlying effect of preventing future or halting present acts of genocide and crimes against humanity still seem beyond the international community.

The atrocities committed by all sides during the wars in the former Yugoslavia, along with the Rwandan genocide, just to mention a few, are still felt today, with genocide and crimes against humanity still occurring in the 21st century. In the years preceding the Bosnian war and the Rwandan genocide, the international community declared “never again.” Over two decades since these atrocities, genocide and crimes against humanity are still been committed in Syria, Myanmar and in many other countries.

Myanmar as a point in case, where thousands of Rohingya Muslims have been killed and hundreds of thousands fleeing to escape the bloody hands of the Myanmar military. The situation in Myanmar has been occurring for decades, with the international community basically sitting on its hands, unwilling to intervene and stop the ongoing ethnic cleansing. A fear that too much pressure on the Myanmar military or civilian government led by Aung San Suu Kyi, would be counter productive in democratising a former military ruled country. But allowing the military to conduct indiscriminate attacks on Rohingya Muslims may also be counter productive in bring peace and human rights to a country which has suffered decades of violence and abuse in the hands of the military.   

As for Syria, the ongoing conflict over the past six years has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, with millions fleeing the violence, and a nation in ruin. This civil conflict could have possibly been prevented from escalating, if not for a lack of consensus and individual national interests of major international and regional powers. All sides to the conflict have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, though Bashar Al Assad’s forces have committed some of the most horrific  atrocities, when deploying chemical weapons on his own people. It will be seen if Assad and others are ever brought to trial in the Hague. Somehow this seems unlikely.   

Holding perpetrators to account decades after such atrocities brings a sense of justice for the victims families and humanity in general, but there needs to be more emphases in finding greater political will and consensus, especially at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), to prevent and to intervene in cases of occurring genocide and other acts of atrocities.

U.S strikes against Assad's forces have only complicated the Syrian conflict

The unilateral strikes by the United States on a Syrian air base have only further complicated an already messy conflict, rather than offer any strategic outcome on the ground in Syria or chance for peace.   

                                               

The decision to take this course of action seemed to be based on domestic consideration — perhaps also  to show Russia and even China — that President Trump is willing to use unilateral action when required, and for America's national interests. It may have been a coincidence that China's President Xi Jinping was on a visit to America, at the same time as the strikes were occurring, but I thing this was not the case. I think Trump used the strikes against Assad's forces as a pretext to outline to President Xi, that America could take similar action against North Korea, if China does not begin resolving the nuclear arms issue. This is in light of Trumps earlier warning for China and North Korea.

Perhaps even domestic issue played into Trump's calculations. Conducting a military operation against Assad's forces  have turned focus away from Trumps decreasing popularity and Russia's links to the Trump campaign. Media attention have been on the administration's foreign policy, rather then Trump's problems at home.      


Since Tuesday’s chemical weapons attack in Khan Sheikhoun, the U.S and other western countries have blamed Assad’s forces where’s Russia had argued that Syrian jets had hit a rebel controlled chemical weapons facility located in the town. As we know, getting any viable facts out of Syria is extremely difficult, with all sides posting misinformation. Due to this lack of viable facts or information, an independent investigation should have been concluded before Trump ordered unilateral strikes on a Syrian airbase.

The strikes against Assad’s forces will not change the situation on the ground or Assad’s overall aims. As there is no independent evidence of the true perpetrator(s) of Tuesday’s chemical attack, Assad will unlikely change tact and halt his forces from continuing their combat operations against opposition forces. This action by the U.S could just embolden Assad to step up conventional attacks on rebel and civilian positions. As the former British ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford, has said, Assad has no military advantage from using chemical weapons, and that we can not rule out that the attack was staged by opposition forces. Until we have clear independent proof of who conducted the chemical attack, we can not accuse the Assad regime or opposition forces.

Trumps decision to order the strikes could well further strain relations with Russia, and drag America and it’s allies deeper into the conflict. The Russian President, Putin, and other officials have condemned the unilateral strikes. They have so far refrained from offering any plans for retaliation, which is understandable, as they will not want to escalate the situation further.

The question now is what happens next? The likely answer will be no major change on the ground in the short term, though in the long term, this unilateral action could well damage future peace efforts, and any cooperation between the U.S and Russia. The only way that this strike will have any purpose is if America changes policy toward Assad and militarily and politically begin regime change in Syria. This seems unlikely as there is no wider support within America or it's western allies. 

As for Assad, he could reconsider his regime position concerning peace talks with opposition groups. He may decide not to participate in future talks, especially if Russia and Iran steadfastly remain in support, which will likely be the case. Russia and Iran could well increase its military and/or economic support.    

A Trump Win Shocks the World

It’s a shock to the world that Donald Trump has just won the Presidential election. The polls had predicted that Hillary Clinton would be on the winning podium outlining her Presidency and thanking her supporters, but Trump has managed to use his divisive policies and political campaigning to effect.

By Ali Shaker/VOA 

What this result has shown, and is some what similar to the Brexit vote in the UK, and the rise of support for far right parties in Europe, is that large sections of the population in these countries feel  they have been failed by the established political and social institutions, even neoliberalism itself. The old political and social base has been argued as not brought prosperity to all people, especially those living in areas with high unemployment due to the closure of factories over the last few decades. So on this note, past policies by former administrations, not just President Obama have reorientated from manufacturing to a services based economy, without offering more higher education training towards this new economic structure. Although past policies can not fully take the blame, people in these areas also need to take responsibility in gaining a higher education.  

In the U.S, many of the states where majority voted for Trump, the economic issues seemed to have influenced their decisions on who to vote for. With this, during economic downturn, although the worst of the global economic crisis is past us, immigration becomes a leading contentious issue, which have galvanised anti-immigration rhetoric by Trump and others in both the U.S and around the globe. The easiest way to blame an economic downturn is on claiming that immigrants have taken away jobs, but in reality ineffective  policies and old societal thinking have made the present.

Furthermore, on the issue of immigration, fear has creeped into the rhetoric in both the U.S and around the world. By taking a tougher anti-immigration line, especially against Muslims, Trump has been able to influence voters fears of Islamic terrorism invading the streets of America, galvanising the minds of voters. All this fear and division, even racism was just a campaign ploy to gain voters trust. I am not saying that racism played no part in the results, as clearly a anti-foreigner stance was impliced in some voters decision making and views, although I think that most people voted on economic and anti-establishment issues, which have been more decisive in the results in both the U.S and in the rising support for far right parties around the globe.   

As Trump campaigned on fear, division, racism, sexism and exclusion, he has a tough job to unite all Americans, although influenced by his rhetoric, a large minority still do not support his views or policies. I think that much of his stated policy announcements over the last couple of years will not transpire, as he will need the support of the establishment of both the Democrats and Republicans, which in reality still hold the real power and, pulls the economic strings on Capital Hill.   

High Court Ruling Requires Parliamentary Approval To Trigger Article 50

Some breaking news: The triggering of Article 50 by the UK government could be delayed or halted by . The High Court has put down a verdict stating that Parliament has to agree to beginning the process of leaving the European Union, not the government of the day.

The Conservative government under the leadership of Prime Minister Theresa May have argued since the June referendum that the government will not seek Parliamentary  approval for when the UK will trigger Article 50. Though a campaign lead by Investment manager Gina Miller had taken the case to the High Court, arguing that Parliament only has the power to invoke Article 50, not the government. The government has announced  that they will appeal the verdict in the Supreme Court.

It will be interesting to see what happens next over Brexit, as this verdict could leave problems in the PM’s plans to invoke the leaving process by the end of March next year. If the appeal fails, Parliament will decide when or if to trigger Article 50, and even perhaps how the process will proceed. The government thought that they could decide the moment when to begin the two year process of leaving the EU and future negotiations with the other 27 member states, on their terms, but this seems unlikely now.  

So what now? Either the government is able to just get a yes or no vote in Parliament, meaning MPs decide within a single sitting of the House of Commons (substantive motion), or legislation will have to be passed by Parliament, meaning that it will likely take months and months before the government gains approval to trigger Article 50. If there is requirement for legislation, then MPs could place conditions on the process, leading to further delays. Also, if legislation in required, both houses will vote, and as it currently stands the government does not have majority of seats in the House of Lords. And as we know most Lords are against leaving the EU. So if the House of Lords votes against the wishes of the people this could make the process even more problematic.

As majority of the people voted to leave the EU, most MPs will likely vote in favour of invoking Article 50, as not to go against their electorate's wishes. Although after the decrease in the pound over the last few months and the slight shock to the economy, some voters might decide to call for their MP to vote against invoking Article 50. We will just have to see what transpires after the Supreme Court appeal and the judgement of Parliament of when and how the UK leaves the EU.

I thing this judgement by the High Court was a great win for parliamentary democracy, as it gives the power back to the legislative and thus the people. I was not in favour of the government having sole authority to decide when to trigger Article 50, and how the process of negotiations with the EU will proceed. I voted to remain in the EU, but I support the democratic decision of the majority of the people. Though, I do not support any hard Brexit that will effect the economy and the future of the UK. As I have stated in earlier posts on this issue, the UK will still need access to the single market, even if that requires signing up to the 'freedom of movement.' So I hope that this ruling by the High Court will allow for a more substantive debate and a more democratic outcome in future negotiations between the UK and the other 27 EU member states, rather then one decided by the Conservative government.

Another Failed Ceasefire in Syria

It seems that another ceasefire in Syria is crumbling even before it could get off the ground.

At the start of the cessation of hostilities on the 12th August, hopes that this attempt at peace, even just for a short period could at least last for the seven days, as was its intention, but this has not been the case. In the last few days, tragic incidents of violations by all parties to the conflict has meant that the ceasefire has failed in its stated goals. The most recent violation – been the targeting of aid convoys on their way to delivering urgent supplies to civilians in Aleppo – has all but destroyed any chance of a ceasefire renewal.  

The aim of months of negotiations between the United States and Russia, was for a cessation of hostilities between Syrian armed forces and opposition groups – excluding so called Islamic-State and Jabhat Fateh al-Sham – for seven days. As part of the agreement, humanitarian aid was to  be allowed to be sent to ease the suffering of civilians in the besieged city of Aleppo, and other areas of Syria. If the violence ceased for seven days, and there was access for humanitarian aid, both the U.S and Russia agreed to coordinate joint strikes against ISIS and Jabhat Fateh al-Sham.

When the agreement was announced, I was a little sceptical on the purpose of such a narrow and limited negotiated terms. Firstly, there seemed to be no plan for what would happen after the seven days, even if they were successful in their stated goals. I would assume that the U.S and Russia may both honour their agreed joint cooperation in targeting ISIS and other extremist groups – but what about Assad's siege of Aleppo – and his forces deliberately targeting civilians? Secondly, let's say humanitarian aid was sent to Aleppo, and other parts of Syria – but how long would lets say 20-30 trucks of food, water and medical supplies last – especially as Assad’s forces begin bombing again?  

As safe passage of humanitarian aid has not occurred and there has been violations of the ceasefire, the conflict looks likely to intensify over the next few days. I don’t think that the ceasefire will be renewed by either Assad or any of the opposition groups, especially as all sides have put blame on each other for its failure.

 

All that has seemed to occurred, is that mistrust between the U.S and Russia has deepened, especially since U.S-led forces accidentally bombed and killed 62 Syrian soldiers on Friday. This agreement was the first time in this conflict that both countries were planning to cooperate in joint action against jihadist groups in Syria. Although it would not resolve the main issue of ending the fighting between Assad and opposition parties, but at least it was a first step, that could lead to negotiations on the future governance of Syria.

Also, what the last week has signalled, is that  both these countries may not have as much influence over their respective groups they support, as we once thought. Russia has been unable to persuade Assad to allow access for humanitarian aid, a major point in the agreement. And as for the U.S, trying to make the more moderate opposition groups distance themselves from jihadist, seems difficult.

The question now is how can a new path towards peace be found in a conflict with so many complexities? The recent failed attempt towards peace, has only antagonised more mistrust between the U.S and Russia, and this will affect any future negotiations. What is required now is for both countries to renegotiate a new plan towards cooperation to jointly fight ISIS and other Jihadist groups, without unrealistic conditions. If U.S and Russian forces can fight together against ISIS – at least one element of the conflict could be resolved – perhaps leading towards a political solution in Syria. The main problem or sticking point in the conflict has been the jihadist fighters amongst more moderate groups, which has become a major concern for a lack of peace. Perhaps if extremist forces could be defeated or weakened, Assad might be willing, with persuasion from Russia, to reconsider his role in the future governance of Syria.   

The Race to the United Nations Hotseat

As we are gripped by the Presidential election campaign between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, another less newsworthy contest is taking place in another part of the United States, that been in the United Nations Headquarters in New York.

In the past 5 months, the International organisation has been in the process of deciding who will take over from  Ban-Ki Moon, as the next Secretary-General of the UN. All up 11 candidates have put their names in the hat to become the next chief diplomat and administrator of the UN. Six men and five women are contesting for the role–coming from different regions and backgrounds–some have formerly held elected office in their perspective countries or head of UN departments or other international organisations.

The process of choosing the next SG has changed slightly, with each candidate having the opportunity to be interviewed by members of the General Assembly (GA), and hold a live debate. This is the first time that such events have happened within the process of choosing a SG. Some might think that a candidate is elected by all UN members, but that is far from the truth, only the 15 members of the Security Council (UNSC), in behind closed door meetings decide in a number of rounds of what's called  ‘straw polling,’ on who they would present to the GA as their preferred candidate, who then technically rubber stamp the least objectionable person of the Permanent five UNSC members (P5: U.S, UK, France, Russia and China). So in reality the P5, especially the U.S and Russia come to some agreement on which candidate will best suit their own interests, rather than someone who can best manage the UN and deal with current and future crisis or events crippling the world.

Many UN analysts, commentators and the media predicted at the beginning of the process, that Irina Bokova of Bulgaria, the current head of UNESCO would likely become the next UNSG-but the former Portuguese Prime Minister and UN high commissioner for refugees António Guterre is leading the contest, with the most support among the UNSC members, after the first few straw poll meetings. Ms Bokova was seen as favourite, as there seems to be an unwritten rule that regions take turns to have a UNSG, and as a Eastern European has not held this position in the past, that it was time for a candidate from this region, for which Russia has supported this notion. Furthermore, there has also been support for a women Secretary-General.

Although Ms Bokova is well qualified and experienced, along with all the other candidates, but it seems the U.S and other member states are more inclined towards Mr Guterre, as the new UNSG. We must assume that the U.S own national interests lay with Mr Guterre, as a safe bet, rather than obliging to the calls for choosing  a women, and from a Eastern European state, by not considering Ms Bokova. Unless Russia begins to voice an outright rejection of Mr Guterre, and fully commit to having a Eastern European take the position, we will likely Mr Guterre or another male candidate as the next Secretary-General. If Russia does outright reject Mr Guterre, another candidate, Miroslav Lajcak, the Slovak foreign minister, has raced up to second position, and could become the preferred choice, if both the U.S and Russia are still at loggerheads.  

It is a shame that a women candidate could not be in serious consideration for the position, as it is about time that gender not be an issue when choosing the next head of the UN. Ms Bokova is as qualified and experienced as Mr Guterre, but due to past cold war animosities and the current international system, the U.S was always inclined not to proffer a candidate from an Eastern European state, especially Ms Bokova who has irritated the U.S in the past.  

So as it currently stands, a women candidate may have to wait till next time, as either the front runner Mr Guterre, or second placed Mr Lajcak are likely to become the next UNSG, unless no agreement is found over these two candidates, meaning we might get a surprise chose. The announcement of who takes over from Ban Ki-Moon should be made in November, and until then it will be interesting to see how far the U.S and Russia will go to block each others preferred  candidates. But at some stage over the next two-three months a compromise  will have to be made. Watch this space.  

The Forgotten Conflict in Eastern Ukraine

The forgotten crisis in Ukraine has not been fully resolved, even recent events have not been covered or mention in the main stream media.Though the Syrian conflict still makes the headlines, especially when major events occur, but for Ukraine, the two year conflict does not seem to appeal to our western concerns.

Yes, the fighting and death toll has decreased dramatically since the middle of last year, especially since the German/French brokered Minsk Protocol was agreed to by Ukraine, Russia and the separatist in February 2015. The Minsk agreement has set out a path to peace and stability in the eastern part of Ukraine in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions (collectively known as the Donbass). It called for a full ceasefire, local elections,withdrawal of heavy weapons and release of prisoners, etc. As stated earlier, reports suggest that until June this year, the fighting had subsided with just a few daily skirmishes between Ukraine and separatist forces. Though in the last two months, the fighting has become more tense and reports of casualties has increased, leading to the UN Human Rights chief condemning both sides, for 69  civilian casualties in June and 73 in July.

The situation on the ground seems volatile and could spark renewed heavy fighting by both sides, especially since further steps have not been put in place to meet the requirements of the Minsk Protocol. What should have happened already was for a plan to hold local elections, but the Ukrainian government have not been able to past legislation in Parliament, and the ceasing of fighting, including the withdrawal of heavy weapons and for foreign soldiers or mercenaries to leave Ukrainian territory, though there has not been enough progress on any of these issues.

On the issue of foreign soldiers and mercenaries fighting mainly on behalf of the  separatist forces, but also Ukraine, is a contentious point in the conflict, with Moscow denying that any Russian soldiers were officially fighting alongside separatist forces, until end last year, when President Putin announced that some specialist military intelligence personnel have been present in Eastern Ukraine. Although Putin has stated limited military support for rebel forces, evidence suggest that regular Russian military personnel have been fighting along with Pro-Russian forces in Eastern Ukraine.

The presents of Russian armed forces or other military support will not allow for a situation of stability, it will rather add more fuel to the fire. This also goes for NATO’s military support for Ukraine. The best thing that Russia and NATO members could undertake is to assist in bringing peace and stability in Ukraine, by agree to a reduction or even a full withdrawal of support to either side of the conflict. Though in reality, such actions will unlikely transpire, as the conflict in Ukraine goes beyond the situation on the ground. The battle is more like Russian sign of  dominance in the region, and western counter action, rather than events in the Donbass and the Crimean Peninsula.     

As the representative of the separatist, Denis Pushilin, has announced in recent days, that unless Ukrainian forces withdraw from the ‘contact line,’ there could be a resumption of the fighting. The Ukrainian government have also claimed various violations by Russian backed rebels. So as it currently stands, progress towards future stability and long term peace in Eastern Ukraine seems to be in jeopardy, unless all the measures of the Minsk Protocol are met. What needs to happen now is for both sides to withdraw their forces, especially heavy weapons from the ‘contact line,’ and cease the targeting of civilians.

As for the Ukrainian government, constitutional reforms and planned local elections in the Donbass needs to be put in place, giving some autonomy to the region. Though, as the current situation stands, many politicians in Kiev are unwilling to agree to these constitutional reforms, which is just fuelling renewed fighting in the region. Without an agreement in the Ukrainian Parliament, the long term future stability of Eastern Ukraine will just spark continued civil conflict between pro-Russian and Ukrainian sections of the population.

To end the two year crisis, firstly, full implementation of the Minsk agreement must occur and be respected by both sides, and secondly,  outside influence must change tact from power rivalry to assisting towards a solution of stability and peace in Ukraine.