That Corrupt United Nations

If anyone still thinks that "the United Nations" calls the shots on anything without the consent of member states, note that against his wishes, Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has just agreed to retain Rwandan Maj Gen Emmanuel Karake Karenzi as the second highest-ranking commander for its Sudan peacekeeping force, despite the fact that Karenzi has been indicted by a Spanish court on war crimes charges for his slaughter of Hutu civilians in 1994, as the Rwandan Patriotic Front put an end to the genocide against Tutsis.

Ban Ki-Moon had insisted on Karenzi's resignation, but changed his mind when Rwanda, the biggest troop contributor to the Darfur mission, threatened to pull out its entire contingent if Karenzi's contract were not renewed. And, presumably, no other members states were willing to step in and provide the troop replacements that would have enabled the UN Secretariat to call Rwanda's bluff. Indeed, the US just shrugged its shoulders, saying, there is " no conclusive evidence that Maj Gen Karenzi had engaged in human rights abuses." Right. That evidence would have to come out, if at all, in the trial that he's not going to have anytime soon now.

High Crimes

A great leap forward in international criminal law: Omar Bashir, President of Sudan, has become the first sitting head of state to be indicted by the International Criminal Court.

At the Jurist, law professor Michael Kelly explains why this step constitutes one more helpful chink in the armor of sovereign immunity... but he also explains why Bashir is unlikely to be apprehended anytime soon.

In other words, a great leap forward for international law (as a set of rules) does not necessarily translate into a political or legal victory in practical terms. Quite the contrary, in some cases.

For this reason, the Wall Street Journal joins China in opposing the action - but for different reasons. China seeks to protect the sovereign right of governments to do as they damn well please. The WSJ bloggers recall how international judicial mechanisms served as a substitute, during the breakup of the former Yugoslavia, for military action which could have stopped the bloodshed.

But a non-state actor (this time not a corporation but rather the human rights organization Avaaz) has an idea:

"Al Bashir knows that he will be caught only if other governments, especially Arab and African governments, agree to help the International Criminal Court. To make sure this happens, Avaaz is launching a large regional ad campaign, urging the leaders of these nations to save Darfur by helping the ICC."

Click here to donate.

Unsurprisingly, so far African nations are looking askance at the move. Will an ad campaign change their minds? Stay tuned.

Learning from the past

Came across this old Dr. Seuss cartoon from the 30s. Maybe what the Save Darfur coalition needs is some cartoonists.

Kristof on China's "Genocide Olympics"

Nicholas Kristof's latest rant in the New York Times excoriates China's continuing sale of A-5 Fantans, helicopter gunships, and light weapons to the Sudanese government - what Musa Hilal, the former janajweed leader recently appointed by Khartoum to a senior government post has gratefully called "the necessary weapons and ammunition to exterminate the African tribes in Darfur."

Kristof writes: "China is crucial. If Beijing were to suspend all transfers of arms and spare parts to Sudan until a peace deal is reached in Darfur, then that would change the dynamic.

Without his Chinese shield, Mr. Bashir would be more likely to make concessions to Darfur rebels and negotiate seriously with them, and he would no longer have political cover to resume war against South Sudan. That would make long-term peace more likely in Darfur and also in South Sudan."

Kristof hopes that the "Genocide Olympics" campaign, global civil society's response, will exert a moderating effect on Beijing sooner rather than later. But without a genuine boycott, what are the chances?

It's Realpolitik, Stupid

Warren Hoge offered a grim assessment in Sunday's New York Timesof the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine, popularized in UN circles:

"Three years after the United Nations adopted a groundbreaking resolution to help it intervene to stop genocide, even longtime supporters of the rule acknowledge that it has not helped the organization end the violence in Darfur.

The General Assembly resolution, approved in 2005, held nations responsible for shielding their citizens from mass atrocities and established the right of international forces to step in if nations did not fulfill this new "responsibility to protect."

The United Nations has tried to take the lead in Darfur, the crisis-ridden region in western Sudan. But it has been stymied by the failure of major member states to fulfill promises to support action and by the intransigence of the Sudanese government.

In addition, countries with advanced militaries have not come forward to answer United Nations appeals for the sophisticated aviation and logistics assistance that the force needs.

Darfur, in short, has shown that there is a great difference between gaining acceptance for a working theory and making the theory work."

Well, duh. No one who lobbied for the R2P thought that simply having the norm codified would lead to its non-selective implementation. New rules aren't simply magic bullets. Historically, genocides have been stopped where a powerful state with the means and motive (usually ulterior) stepped in.

But to say the R2P doctrine hasn't ended the slaughter in Darfur is to mischaracterize what was gained in 2005. R2P was never meant to end genocide itself. It was meant to legitimize such efforts when and where they happened to occur. It was meant as a response to China and Russia in Security Council deliberations, who have historically argued against any right of intervention in the internal affairs of states.

Judging by the fact that these countries now routinely abstain, rather than block, resolutions to try to 'do something' in places like Darfur, I'd say R2P is having an effect. That more isn't being done isn't for lack of international legitimacy. It is for lack of true political will.