I just returned from the 2011 National Model United Nations Conference in Washington, DC. These conferences are a great exercise in public speaking and diplomacy, but sadly they also show the weaknesses that exist in the world of international politics. Every time I return from a Model UN conference I wonder how useful the international system actually is in solving issues that matter to us. By no means is the UN a useless organization, but the flaws that exist when member-states are still not willing to cede some sovereignty to an organization promoting global governance cannot be ignored. Consensus voting as it is practiced by the General Assembly will never bring humanity to adhere to greater standards, simply because we always agree on the lowest common denominator when it comes to issues like poverty, famine, and human rights. What am I trying to say? Member-states of the UN should grant the organization more powers so that issues that plague humanity can be solved by the parliament that governs humanity.
Given the great weekend I had in DC, please do not expect this post to be intellectually stimulating in any kind of way. I am extremely exhausted, but wish to publish this post right now so that you don’t have to wait an extra day for your weekly post. This week I am going to focus on the circumstances of Gaddafi’s death and I am going to discuss the situation and future of Somalia. As always check the end of the post for articles I consider important as well.
The King is Dead! Long Live the Republic!
As I am sure you have already heard Colonel Gaddafi, the King of Kings of Africa, has finally met his end. After 42 years of rule, Gaddafi was supposedly shot in the head by one of the soldiers that led the attack on the autocrat’s convoy as he tried to escape his birthplace of Sirte. A bullet hole on the left side of his head marks the entrance point of the bullet that ended the longest rule of any man in all of Africa. His body is now on display in a storage freezer in the city of Misrata which had seen the fiercest fighting during the eight month long revolution.
What is wrong with all of this? Well seen from the point of view of the average Libyan, the Colonel probably got what he had coming in a more timely fashion without the delay of a justice system. The death of Gaddafi was brought about by a soldier who in the Battle of Sirte could have been carried away by the bloodlust and emotion that comes with being exposed to such gruesome scenes. The people of Libya wanted justice, and it was delivered by the pistol of a soldier instead of the gavel of a judge in The Hague. Seen in the broader picture though, the way Gaddafi was killed and the way he is on display to the masses now has some very serious implications in terms of international politics. The extrajudicial killing of the former leader of Libya means that the new Libyan Republic will be born out of blood with a stained human rights record. With the increased emphasis of the importance of human rights by developed states, it is crucial for states like Libya to have a spotless human rights record in order to start off on good terms with strong economic powers in the area (i.e. the member-states of the EU). The killing of Gaddafi also takes away from the legitimacy of the new government which can now be hardly seen as a regime that treats all equal, even bigger than life leaders. The display of Gaddafi’s body is furthermore against Islamic burial tradition which calls upon the burial of a deceased Muslim to take place as soon as possible. The new regime might very well take criticism for exposing the dead body of a Muslim for such a long time from fellow Arab states. Regardless, the people of Libya are celebrating that after eight months they have finally gained their complete independence.
Negotiating with the Bad Guys
I was reading through last week’s Economist today and came across an article that reminded my of a paper I wrote for my Terrorism in the Modern World class last year. The article I read dealt with the fact that it might be in the interest for Western powers to negotiate with dominant powers in this Eastern African country, even if those dominant powers have fundamentalist tendencies like the terrorist group Al-Shabaab. I figured I would publish my paper so you can get a better idea of how Al-Shabaab became to be and why I agree so much with the Economist’s point of view. A link to the paper is added at the end of this post. Please excuse the formatting. I am still trying to find a website with which I can upload and display my papers properly (so please let me know if you know one!) Here is also a link that gives you a little visual on how things are looking on the ground in Mogadishu, the capital of Somalia.
Other Links
1 comment:
Time to get some debate going.
Even if Gaddafi had survived (and there was pretty much no way that would have happened), the only justice would have come from a Libyan trial. Look at the ICC's abysmal record and tell me his cushy digs, medical treatment, decent food and 24/7 protection while his countrymen toil in poverty would have been "just." Hell, how's Charles Taylor doing? Also bear in mind that there's plenty of circumstantial evidence linking Libya to international terrorism but not much, if anything, concrete. Gaddafi didn't even acknowledge involvement in Lockerbie until he needed to strike a deal with the West as his nuclear program proved to be going nowhere.
It's a big double standard to insist that Libya maintain a spotless human rights record to get along with developed states- look at the laundry list of targeted killings the US has conducted. This isn't to say the US shouldn't go after terrorists but to drive home the point that sometimes you need to realize the bad guy won't change his mind and you need to make him go away. It sucks but the bigger crime is letting these people continue to plan violent acts against your citizens' and allies' lives and property.
I also have to disagree with the notion that killing Gaddafi undermines the budding regime's legitimacy. Imagine how legitimate it would look if its leaders captured Gaddafi and turned him over to the Hague. The new guys showed judgment and initiative, as well as independence from the Western powers that assisted the revolution. Even in our culture, violence can create legitimacy and I imagine it would be especially true somewhere like Libya, where the capacity for violence has been the only proof of legitimacy for 42 years.
As for the body being on display, that seems excessive but then again, I haven't been oppressed by a brutal dictator for a generation. From an American standpoint, it might actually be a good thing that the leaders of what will probably be an Islamist government are responsible for a decidedly un-Islamic act. It might force them to watch the rhetoric if more extreme factions try to de-legitimize religious moderates.
Re: the solutions you propose in your paper, the only way to bring al Shabaab to the table is to scare them toward it. They have all the leverage they need right now since we're only half-assing our efforts to fight them, mostly through Kenya and Ethiopia. If we kill their leaders, their new leaders might be willing to talk. But they are kind of like Occupy Wall Street in that they are largely young poor people with no unified message other than "Resist the imperialists," in this case wrapped in a religious extremist justification. Though they have one name, they are more amorphous than it would suggest, and far less centralized. They also have very little control outside Puntland and have virtually no shot at governing the country. And that's just fine by them, because the rule of law means regulation and accountability, and both of those make it very difficult to get rich off of piracy. So when you acknowledge that al-Shabaab is a) disorganized/un-unified, b) resistant to centralized government, c) inexperienced in politics and government, and d) too powerful, drugged up and unthreatened to want to change the status quo, you need to conclude that the only diplomacy with any shot at ending the violence is gunboat diplomacy (plus some arm-twisting from OIS and Arab League member-states).
And one last point, don't forget that working with theocratic and semi-theocratic states is not new for the US. Look at sharia in Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Gulf states like Qatar and Bahrain.
Looking forward to the next post.
Post a Comment