Russia Accused of Shipping Arms to Sudan
Posted by Sean on May 10, 2007
Amnesty International has released a report charging Russia with illegally shipping arms to Sudan despite a UN embargo. In response the Russia Foreign Ministry issued a statement deny the charges. “No Russian weapons have been shipped to Darfur. . . Russia‘s military and technical cooperation with other countries is in line with international rules and norms. Russia has fully abided by the provisions of resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, which ban arms shipments to Darfur.” In addition to Russia, China, Iran, Belarus, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait have shipped heavy weapons, small arms, or other dual use and military support materials to Sudan. Russia and China are the most egregious in terms of dollar amount and the fact that both countries are members of the UN Security Council.
Amnesty says different. According to the report, “Sudan: arms continuing to fuel serious human rights violations in Darfur,” states that in 2005 the Russian Federation “exported to Sudan $21 million worth of aircraft and associated equipment including spare parts and $13.7 million of helicopters.” The helicopters, Russian Mi-24s, have been used for indiscriminately firing on Darfur civilians.
In my opinion, shipping arms to Sudan makes Russia party to genocide. As Article 16 of the U.N. International Law Commission’s Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts states:
A State which aids or assists another State in the commission of an internationally wrongful act by the latter is internationally responsible for doing so if:
(a) that State does so with knowledge of the circumstances of the internationally wrongful act; and
(b) the act would be internationally wrongful if committed by that State.
Sean, I do not doubt the possibility of weapons shipments to Sudan, in violation of the UN resolutions on the part of China and Russia, but finding proof will be very hard, and I do not think the facts that Amnesty International has at the moment are supportive enough to follow action against China and Russia.
Russia has been shipping helicopters and jet planes to Sudan in 2005 and 2004, maybe even earlier, when it was legal for those types of equipment to be present in Sudan. How has Amnesty discerned whether the military equipment is new or old is unclear.
Similar claims about Russia shipping arms to Hamas and Hezbollah have been surfacing for quite some time, but I do not recall seeing proof of these events and detailed investigations.It should also be noted that $21 million of sales to Sudan does not make the day for Russian export companies generating multi-billion dollar contracts from Venezuela, Iran, Syria, and Lybia. There is little logic of violating UN resolutions for extra cash on the side.
Russia has been shipping helicopters and jet planes to Sudan in 2005 and 2004, maybe even earlier, when it was legal for those types of equipment to be present in Sudan. How has Amnesty discerned whether the military equipment is new or old is unclear.
Good questions. According to the Amnesty report (which is all I have to go on), “The UN arms embargo on non-governmental groups in Darfur was imposed by the Security Council in resolution 1556 (July 2004).” And “Eventually on 29 March 2005, the UN Security Council extended the arms embargo to all parties to the conflict in Darfur, and subjected any government movement of military equipment and supplies to Darfur to the prior approval, upon request, of the UN Security Council Sanctions Committee on Sudan.”
As for Amnesty’s evidence for the use of M-24 helicopters, they cite eyewitness accounts that support a UN Panel of Experts on Sudan. For Russian arms shipments they cite United Nations COMTRADE trade data for the year 2005.
The Mi-24s could have come from anywhere – Belarus, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Croatia, Serbia or certain african states.
What would be interesting is where the spare parts are coming from,
who does the maintenance (though Mils are famous for being very easy to
maintain in harsh conditions) and pilots (of which there is a vibrant
market of mercernaries).
OTOH, the west has its own b*stards that it protects when it wants
to supply weapons to ‘the right people’ on a third party basis like
Viktor Bout who amongst others provided weapons to the balkans despite an ‘arms embargo’. He was originally on a UN list of arms traffikers to be
apprehended but was dropped after pressure was applied from … the united states.
If we are to talk of complicity to genocide, then I suppose the
Israelis should be up there for providing artillery shells to the
bosnian serbs…. But hey, genocide’s the big post-cold war fashion (at least for the media).
“In my opinion, shipping arms to Sudan makes Russia party to genocide.”
****
Not like when the US was arming Turkey between 1974-2000? How hard was AI on that? Specifically, the suppressing and mass killing of Kurds which was much greatyer and far less legitimate than Serb actions against Albanians in Kosovo.
The US remains the number one arms supplier in the world and I’m sure that one can find examples of the US doing what Sean accuses Russia of.
As per a recent post, the Bosnian Serbs were fighting a civil war against others who were receiving arms and killing civilians. The Clinton administration okayed Iran to send arms to the Bosnian Muslims via Croatia.
The US remains the number one arms supplier in the world and I’m sure that one can find examples of the US doing what Sean accuses Russia of.
Um, like, duh. It certainly wouldn’t be hard to find examples of the US party of genocide. After all the United States of America was founded on the genocide of natives and the slavery of Africans. And those were only the first salvos of death and destruction.
But the US is not at issue here and it doesn’t absolve Russia from Amnesty’s charges of complicity in Darfur. We certainly should be able to condemn Russia for human rights violations and even genocide without invoking the US and vice versa. Right?
For sure Sean.
However, there’re those who don’t note such US government actions.
Did you hear much of a fuss when the US was arming the Turks against the Kurds? Again, there’re other such examples of this kind of selective highlighting.
I just wanted to note this.
Sean, there’s a fairly big problem with the legal leap from an internationally wrongful act (a relatively toothless concept, as the ILC’s Articles are not binding as far as I know) or violation of an arms embargo (which may have some teeth, as far as an ability to impose sanctions, though of course Russia wouldn’t exactly vote in the Security Council to sanction itself) to complicity in genocide.
Problem #1 in this particular case is that the UN has already determined (controversially, of course) that there is no genocide taking place in Darfur. I encourage you to check out David Luban’s recent article decrying the UN report on Darfur and proposing a new legal definition of “genocide.” It is interesting, relatively short, and readable, and I think the full text is available for download on SSRN. I highly recommend it.
Another big problem would be establishing that the purveyor of the instruments of genocide knew they were going to be used to commit such acts, which would be required to establish an “aiding and abetting” or “facilitating genocide” type of charge. Knowledge of intent is actually a lower standard (used in the Rwanda and Yugoslavia tribunals) than the standard for abetting genocide in the statute of the International Criminal Court, which apparently requires that the seller of the weapons share the genocidal intent (although it’s not in the statute – see article 7 for the definition of genocide and article 25(3)(c) for aiding and abetting – apparently that’s the prevailing interpretation, to the extent that a barely used statute can have an interpretation at such an early stage). I guess that “complicity in genocide” might also apply, which is one of the listed violations under the much older 1948 Convention against Genocide – but what that Convention did was require parties (which the US didn’t become one of until the ’80s) to establish domestic laws criminalizing genocide and try those suspected of it in domestic courts, a different process from an international criminal proceeding.
But that somewhat confuses the issue, as the CAG is directed at individuals and the ICC also tries individuals (though it could in theory try the actual seller of the choppers if the standard above and other jurisdictional requirements could be met), and you’re talking about Russia’s state liability, which could only be determined in some other forum (most likely the ICJ, which recently explored the possibility of Serbia’s state liability for genocide). Sorry to ramble on about all of this legalese (which I may not even be getting entirely right), but if you actually want to put people in the pokey or punish them in other ways for these things, the law is where the rubber hits the road.
Nikolay:
It should also be noted that $21 million of sales to Sudan does not make the day for Russian export companies generating multi-billion dollar contracts from Venezuela, Iran, Syria, and Lybia. There is little logic of violating UN resolutions for extra cash on the side.
I certainly agree that the amount in question wouldn’t be more than a rounding error to Rosoboroneksport, but what about a mid-to-high-level officer or official acting semi-autonomously? Russia might still be “liable” (though again, as far as I know that would be toothless under the Articles of State Responsibility) for the actions of such a person, especially if they were employed by Rosoboronprom or -eksport or by the MoD.
Aleks:
[Victor Bout] was originally on a UN list of arms traffikers to be apprehended but was dropped after pressure was applied from … the united states.
Here’s what Wikipedia (granted, probably not the most authoritative source on the topic) has to say about this aspect of Bout’s interesting biography:
Constantly moving the locations of himself and his companies, not to mention frequent re-registering—often illegally—his aircraft has made it hard for US and Interpol authorities to build a case against him. When he was finally charged prior to 9/11, Bout was protected by high-ranking U.A.E. royalty and officials such as Sultan Hamad Said Nassir al Suwaidi, adviser to the ruler of Sharjah.
In 2002 both Belgium and Interpol issued warrants for his arrest. When the heat was turned up, Bout fled to Russia, where he remains protected by heroic officials and businessmen. The UN has banned Bout from international travel and frozen his foreign bank accounts.
But it appears that Wikipedia is outdated and you are correct about Mr. Bout, at least according to both Le Monde and the Jamestown Foundation (and the fact that they agree means it must be true!).
I would mention, though, that the US does not somehow become responsible for Bout’s various earlier bad acts just because it used Bout’s services to fly stuff around in Iraq (I know for sure that Russian planes and crews were used, as a freelance air crew member I know in Moscow came back from one komandirovka in 2004 or so with a stash of Saddam-era Iraqi currency as a souvenir).
The US remains the number one arms supplier in the world.
This is true, but IMO misses a crucial point. Apologies, but I’m going to cut an paste from previous blog posts of mine to expand on this.
Firstly, I’ll quote this:
Since the end of the Second World War, tens of millions of people have been killed by conventional weapons, mostly small arms such as rifles, machine guns and rocket-propelled grenade launchers. Sales of advanced weaponry — fighter jets and high-tech electronics, sophisticated long-range artillery and warships, and “weapons of mass destruction” — tend to receive the most press coverage. But these costly, sophisticated weapons have not proved as deadly as ordinary guns and grenades that are easy to buy, easy to ship and easy to use.
Low-tech, handheld weapons and explosives do the vast majority of the killing today. There are more than 550 million small arms currently in circulation, many of them fueling bloody civil strife in countries from Sri Lanka to Sierra Leone.
Which is a point worth remembering. Next time you see pictures of a massacre in Africa or Asia, take note of what kind of weapons were used to carry out the killings. Any money you like it was small arms and mortars.
That they are the world’s largest supplier of arms by valuation is the charge that many opponents of the US like to hold up with glee whenever there is talk of arms sales into dodgy regimes. They may have a point that the US should not sell arms of any kind to dodgy regimes, but they might like to look at what sort of arms are being sold by whom, and which ones are doing most of the killings.
The US sales figures are largely made up of the high-tech equipment such as fighter jets mentioned in the excerpt above. You generally don’t see US-made rifles, mortars, and landmines scattered willy-nilly around warring African tribes.
What you do see is Russian made rifles, mortars, and landmines scattered amongst anyone anywhere who is willing to have a fight, and right behind them you see the Chinese knock-offs of the same.
It is the Russian and Chinese weaponery that is has caused and is still causing the deaths of tens of millions of people the world over, not the US high-tech kit.
“It is the Russian and Chinese weaponery that is has caused and is still causing the deaths of tens of millions of people the world over, not the US high-tech kit.”
****
“Tens of millions”?
Please confirm these numbers.
Past US miltary aid to Indonesia, Turkey, assorted Latin American dictatorships and US action in SouthEast Asia killed a good number of folks.
This doesn’t excuse what the USSR did.
In the present, US policies and military aid have killed a good number.
Tim,
I think for example the infamous AK-47 is licensed for production in many countries (I would have to confirm which ones, but I am sure at least ten make them on a massive scale). Sean’s post mostly dealt with the fact of Russia actually supplying arms directly to Sudan. Although licensing arms which could later be used for violence may be argued to be “unethical”, it is hard to shift the blame on the original gun manufacturer or designer.
The reason why Soviet designed guns, and weapons, are so spread out in rogue states is that they are dirt-cheap to manufacture and make. In the end we can all come to the conclusion that weapon-producing countries (the biggest ones) all contribute to violence in the world’s “hot spots”.
Please confirm these numbers.
It’s hard to put an exact figure on. Maybe tens of millions is too high.
The second civil war in Congo alone killed approximately 4m, and was fought almost exclusively with Soviet/Russian and Chinese arms.
Add to that the fact that that Russian and Chinese arms have been the primary weapon of choice for almost all of Africas civil wars, and have been on at least one side, often both, in all the major conflicts in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, the number will be pretty damned high, and a hell of a lot higher than those deaths caused by American weaponry.
Past US miltary aid to Indonesia, Turkey, assorted Latin American dictatorships…
Yes, that’s right: America has armed some pretty vicious warring parties in its time, nobody is denying that. But the US did not flood the world with cheap, nasty, and effective weaponry such as small arms, mines, and mortars which are the primary weapons in almost all the world’s deadliest conflicts in the past 30 years. Find me a picture of an African child soldier carrying an M16 and I will show you a twenty carrying AK-47s or their derivatives.
…and US action in SouthEast Asia killed a good number of folks.
Yes, and the Chinese and Russian actions killed probably far more in South East Asia, particularly in the Korean war.
This doesn’t excuse what the USSR did.
Nor does it excuse what Russia continues to do.
In the present, US policies and military aid have killed a good number.
Yes, but unfortunately a number which is overshadowed by those deaths resulting from the Russian and Chinese policies of supplying arms to any conflict, anywhere, without question.
I’m betting a sweep of the area in Dafur would turn up countless Soviet, Russian, and Chinese weaponry but precious few American guns.
The reason why Soviet designed guns, and weapons, are so spread out in rogue states is that they are dirt-cheap to manufacture and make.
This is no doubt true, but another reason is that the Soviets and Chinese happily flooded any country with weaponry which happened to pay lip service to communism for a while. The Western arms producing countries have few scruples, and they surely flogged weapons to more than they should, but they stopped short of dishing out mines and assault rifles to African tribes whose sole intent was to kick off a civil war.
In the end we can all come to the conclusion that weapon-producing countries (the biggest ones) all contribute to violence in the world’s “hot spots”.
We can. But in my opinion the contribution of the USSR/Russia and China is far greater, and many times more deadly.
Okay.
Now, Nikolay noted the knockoffs. As for the originals, they’re at times acquired via sources other than Russia.
The recent bust of Albanian Islamic terrorists in the US is an example of blowback (Anglo-American mass media have gone out of their way deemphasizing the Kosovo Albanian background of the arrested).
The USSR in Afghanistan was compounded by the American psychological need to “get even” for Vietnam. The pro-Soviet Afghans weren’t worse than the Taliban. The former species would’ve likely been of a Karimov type in the present. Imperfect, but not aggressive. The killing in Afghanistan didn’t end when the USSR left. 911 was another tragic blowback.
Africa? Jonas Savimbi’s UNITA had the support of folks like Jesse Helms. Who armed RENAMO in Mozambique? We know about the support for the racist regimes in South Africa and Rhodesia.
The Korean war involved Koreans and others besides Soviets and Chinese. Chinese and US actions played more of a role in Cambodia’s genocide when compared to Vietnam and the USSR.
Just want to make sure that the box score is complete.
Sean, at the top of your post, you note Russia denying these shipments. Towards the end, you seem to take AI’s view.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
I credit you for noting how you’ve biases. Without knowing the details of this matter, my own biases are to wait and see a bit on this. I’ve seen my share of reports that proved to be untrue or never proven.
Thanks for the links Lyndon (I forgot to look in the most obvious place!).
I do agree that the US is not necessarily responsible for Bout’s earlier escapades but they are guilty of the deepest hypocrisy in OTOH taking the moral high ground by voting for arms embargoes and OTOH suppling arms in other conflicts.
This is nowhere more true than in the former Yugoslavia where the US flew direct resupply flights to Tuzla (as noted by a NORBAT observer) and turned a blind eye to shipments of weapons from Iran to Croatia and onwards etc. etc… (though I should add that large parts of the east german army material also made it there, not to mention second line (obsolete) british equipment)
http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/files/portal/spotlight/brokering/brok.html :
“The United Nations and Illicit Brokering
At the United Nations level, the question of unregulated arms brokering and its critical role in the transfer of weapons – including small arms and light weapons – to conflict zones and/or illicit recipients goes back at least a decade. From 1995 – when the issue first surfaced in connection with investigations on violations of UN-mandated arms embargoes…”
Tim, the US has been very resistant to an global agreement on the export of small arms.
From 2001:
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2001_09/stohlsept01.asp
“…In his remarks, Bolton laid out the U.S. position with stark clarity, emphasizing that the conference should tackle only the illicit transfer of military-style weapons and should not discuss firearms and non-military rifles—the very weapons that are responsible for the most death and devastation caused each year by small arms.
Bolton further outlined “redline” issues that Washington viewed as unacceptable for inclusion in the conference’s program of action. These included restricting civilian ownership of weapons, limiting the legal trade and manufacture of small arms, restricting small arms sales to nongovernmental entities, committing to begin discussions on legally binding agreements, holding a mandatory review conference, and promoting international advocacy by nongovernmental and international organizations.”
From 2006:
http://www.amnestyusa.org/Control_Arms_Campaign/UN_Review_Conference_on_Small_Arms/page.do?id=1101463&n1=3&n2=24&n3=25
“Q: Which proposals did the United States block?
A: The United States was one of a very few, if not the only country, to oppose more than six initiatives most governments supported, which significantly contributed to why governments failed to adopt an agreement in the end. The United States opposed any references to development, ammunition, a ban on sales of weapons to non-state actors, civilian possession, gender, future UN studies, and future UN meetings. Governments were most dismayed by U.S. opposition to any future UN meetings to review the implementation of the original agreement in 2001…”
List of countries that have ratified the UN Firearms Protocol:
http://www.iansa.org/un/firearms-protocol.htm
Krasniqi from the KLA and others boast about how they just went and bought weapons over the counter in the US (for example Barratt sniper rifles) and took them over…
Many ex-soviet states were left with huge stockpiles of weapons that their slimmed down militaries could never use or in the case of PFP, had to be dumped. The US has and does support the destruction of small weapons & ammunition, but a lot of the stuff is sold off illegally from notorious black holes such as Bulgaria, Ukraine and Moldova.
Just because the weapons are not american doesn’t necessarily mean that the governement hasn’t actively helped, ‘assisted’ or turned a blind eye. The CIA used/s a number of front companies (remember the famous Air America?) and ‘allies’ to supply weapons.
What better way for ‘hands clean’ than to help peddle ex-soviet equipment, after all most of it has probably been through dozens of different hands and is untraceable. The US is of course not alone in doing this.
As for russian small arms, the kalashnikov is renoun for working under all conditions and being extremely tough, unlike some of the more expensive and sophisticated competition…
Maybe I should point out that the EU has its flaws too. In 1991 when the algerian military annuled elections because the FIS would win, the EU placed and arms embargo on the country…and then promptly stayed silent whilst France supplied the algerian military with all the spare parts and arms it needed (and many in the EU still solely blame the US for all this terrorism!!!!).
…the US has been very resistant to an global agreement on the export of small arms.
Unfortunately (for our standing as a world leader, at least in my opinion – although reasonable people differ on this), the US has been resistant to global agreements on just about anything you can think of (Kyoto, the Int’l Criminal Court, more obscure but important things like the Law of the Sea Convention, even – as noted above – the Convention Against Genocide, which we did eventually sign). Getting the public behind such agreements is necessary for Senate ratification, and presidents often have other, domestic agenda items which are a higher priority.
There are a number of other reasons for the US’s general avoidance of international agreements. One of them – in the case of the larger global agreements – is that the US is still able to influence the drafting of such documents and participate in the process, and can choose to abide by the agreement (as is the case with most portions of the Law of the Sea Convention) without being bound by it. And the situation with Kyoto and the ICC may simply reflect the current administration’s hypersensitivity to anything that is perceived to infringe on US sovereignty.
Another very important reason that the US has not jumped into some of these regimes is that it is not always possible to get support for them in the Senate, although in some cases that lack of support is used as a negotiating tactic or an excuse. But on the ICC, for example, Clinton signed it, but it’s not clear if he ever thought it would be ratified, since I don’t think Clinton had the votes in the Senate to get it ratified.
The US has and does support the destruction of small weapons & ammunition…
Not only small arms & ammo, but also bigger items – recall the purchase of the MiGs from Moldova and of highly enriched uranium from Kazakhstan in the ’90s. This kind of involvement in the post-Soviet space was unpopular with many in the Russian military, for understandable reasons.
…but a lot of the stuff is sold off illegally from notorious black holes such as Bulgaria, Ukraine and Moldova.
The latter two are places where Russian influence is still strong, and the arms/ammo dump in Colbasna – under the control of Russians for the past 15 years, as it’s in Transnistria – has been a major source for the weapons from Moldova (and perhaps Ukraine as well, since the Transnistrians used the Odessa port for illicit shipments until a couple of years ago). One small anecdote that has stuck in my mind – seeing footage from the war in Abkhazia and pausing the tape to read the shoulder patch on the uniform of one of the guys fighting on the Abkhazian side: “Dubossary.”
Talking about proliferation to Yugoslavia, there was a versiia in the ’90s that one of the reasons for the first Chechen War was to provide the military an excuse to write off armored personnel carriers and other equipment that had actually been sold to factions in the various fmr Yugoslav conflicts. And of course journalist Dmitry Kholodov lost his life for investigating what happened to the materiel from the Western Group of Forces. What is scary about the way this happened in 1990′s Russia is that it was not under the control of the government. Say what you will about American involvement in arms proliferation, at least you usually know who to blame – even in relatively minor instances like the Contras – because of the tenacity of reporters who get to the bottom of things.
Anyway, as far as the supposed violation of the arms embargo on Sudan, one might ask whether the helicopters were actually outfitted with military kit when exported or whether the civilian version is what was officially exported (and the mountable guns perhaps procured separately). I don’t know much about weapons systems, but it seems that would be a fairly easy way to get around an embargo.
[Aleks:] …but a lot of the stuff is sold off illegally from notorious black holes such as Bulgaria, Ukraine and Moldova.
[Me:] The latter two are places where Russian influence is still strong…
Though to be fair, upon reflection I’m pretty sure that the alleged (or was it proven?) proliferation of the Kolchuga system to Iraq was done by Kuchma in a purely independent and self-interested fashion and not because of any Russian influence.
Tim, the US has been very resistant to an global agreement on the export of small arms.
From 2001:
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2001_09/stohlsept01.asp
“…In his remarks, Bolton laid out the U.S. position with stark clarity, emphasizing that the conference should tackle only the illicit transfer of military-style weapons and should not discuss firearms and non-military rifles—the very weapons that are responsible for the most death and devastation caused each year by small arms.
So the US did not support a UN ban on non-military weapons? This is hardly surprising. US citizens take their right to bear arms rather seriously. And I find it rather hard to believe that non-military weapons are more responsible for deaths and destruction than military weapons.
Note that the US did not object to the transfer of military weapons, just non-military weapons. To the cynical observer, this is trpical UN bullshit. Propose a resolution it knows the US will reject, then point the finger at the US for rejecting it. Could the UN not amend the resolution such that it only applied to military weapons? Of course not.
The United States opposed any references to development, ammunition, a ban on sales of weapons to non-state actors, civilian possession, gender, future UN studies, and future UN meetings.
Yes, as I already said: the US takes gun ownership seriously and does not see that the UN has any right to dictate the rules regarding civilian gun ownership. This is a fine demonstration of the cynicism and emptiness of the UN.
Sean, at the top of your post, you note Russia denying these shipments. Towards the end, you seem to take AI’s view.
I do take AI’s view because I don’t doubt that the Russians, Chinese, and others are shipping arms. My assertion that this makes Russia party to genocide is a result of my own frustration that the mass death occurring in Sudan is continuously buried under the legalism that Lyndon points out. So the international effort to deal with Sudan focuses on finding the right legal definition to categorize Sudan rather than stopping the killing.
But I will step away from ascribing blame and responsibility because as Lyndon says there must be rules, even if those rules have a selective application. Plus while I may be able to make a moral argument about Russia being party to genocide, I can’t make a legal one. And as we know morals mean nothing without the force of law behind them. What fascinates me from this discussion are two larger issues:
1) What I see as the further abandonment of the Enlightenment notion of unalienable rights of man for one where human rights are defined by the law. Therefore humans are humans only in so far as the law defines them. True this has always been the case, but it seems to me that the legal categories of “human” and therefore “human rights” are becoming tighter, while the categories of almost human are expanding.
2) The question of nation state sovereignty versus international law. There has been a long running tension between nation state sovereignty and international law. How despite moves to encode international law, it seems that they nation state continues to be the defining factor. Many people have argued that the sovereignty of the nation state has weakened because of globalization. I think we are in a period where the nation state is making a comeback. The continued weakness of the UN is further exposed.
Now granted I know very little about the concrete facts and issues on these two things. They are just some budding interests I have, especially in the case of law and the definition of “human.”
Lyndon, since you are the resident legal guy, I’m currently rereading Agamben’s Homo Sacer. I would be interested in your thoughts on it if you’ve read it.
Btw I want to say that I think the quality of discussion has vastly improved in the last 48 hours. I thank all of you for that. The substantive comments are giving me an important education about things I know little about.
Lyndon,
The UN has its own Mi-24s!
http://www.foxbat.ru/musor/mi24un.htm
http://www.answers.com/topic/unmil-forces-in-monrovia-jpg
Sean,
considering your frustations about the lack of ability to act due to the nation/sovereign state and the limitations they embue, you may not have to wait so long.
It can be argued that exactly the opposite to your view is going on, i.e. that the nation/sovereign state is under attack. Kosovo being the most obvious example here, independence would set a precedent. Regardless of what ‘we’ (the big powers) say, it is really what the people with guns who have the will to use them think.
Then, look at the EU which already enroaches somewhat on ‘sovereignty’ (ooh, that’s a can of worms if there ever is one)…
The UN has its own Mi-24s!
True. Russian birds (Mi-8s or Mi-24s) were also used by the now defunct OSCE border monitoring mission in Georgia. In Sudan, wasn’t there an issue with the government forces painting their aircraft in UN colors? That, I believe, is actually a “war crime.” And of course the killing etc. is an international crime, just not (apparently) “genocide.”
Sean, I haven’t read that book – it is interesting to note and perhaps unfortunate to have to admit, but we don’t read too many deep foundational works of philosophy and the like in law school.
By the way, I have just successfully procrastinated for a couple more hours by writing a post on a different issue of international criminal law.
Sean, for point #2, I’d recommend a book like “The Shield of Achilles” (Philipp Bobbitt, I think, but it was a while ago). It’s about the history of (1) European state formation (and the violence therein) and (2) the international system of states. I’m not sure if the way you describe the tension between sovereignty and international law gets it right (although I’m no IR scholar), since sovereignty itself is a principle of I-law. Of course, international law has changed/developed since the peace of Westphalia (what most IR scholars look to – correctly or incorrectly — as the moment when sovereignty was enshrined and set the basis of the modern international system of states. Since the middle of the 20th century, one important aspect of sovereignty, namely, the principle of non-intervention by one state in the affairs of another, has been challenged by things like the Genocide Convention and the ICC.
Let us not forget that when Paul Bremner fired the Iraqi army (on orders from Donny R I believe), said soldiers were allowed…to keep their arms….no doubt as bearing arms was also an iraqi way of life…
No doubt because any effort to disarm them would have been labor-intensive, would likely have created unrest, and, uh, would have led to the formation of an insurgency. Whoops. Probably seemed like a good idea at the time.
There has been a long running tension between nation state sovereignty and international law. How despite moves to encode international law, it seems that they nation state continues to be the defining factor.
The blogger Oliver Kamm, who I should say is not a lawyer, makes a good point regarding this issue which I find myself in agreement with:
International law is important but it is not like domestic law, where there is a settled body of precedent and governance. The international order is anarchic: there is no supranational body that exercises sovereignty (and there are many reasons that liberals could adduce for being apprehensive of such a body should one ever emerge). The UN depends on the powers of enforcement of national governments. The problem with an international legal body is that, by contrast, it isn’t accountable to anyone. Accordingly, international justice must be rooted, at least as much as if not more than domestic law, in tradition and consent. If it isn’t, then it will lack legitimacy, and if it lacks legitimacy then it will be at best ineffective, and possibly destructive.
Regarding the earlier mentioned Krasniqui: there were at least two high profile features on him. One by CBS’ 60 Minutes and the other from PBS’ POV (Point of View). In both instances, he confidently detailed how he violated American law to smuggle arms to Kosovo. I don’t recall any questioning on whether he was charged for such action. He actually had the gall to say that he illegally smuggled arms for a good cause, but was concerned that others were illegally smuggling arms for wrong causes.
Nebojsa Malic has a May 10, article related to this:
Jihad in New Jersey
http://www.antiwar.com
I’ve just come up with a tidbit about Viktor ‘?????????’ Bout from an Asia Times article (http://atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/IE25Cb05.html) that argues fairly reasonably that the West’s Bleating about ‘genocide’ is not entirely kosher:
“Much of the arms that have fueled the killing in Darfur and the south have been brought in via murky, protected private “merchants of death” such as the notorious former KGB operative, now with offices in the US, Victor Bout, who has been cited repeatedly in recent years for selling weapons across Africa. US government officials strangely leave his operations in Texas and Florida untouched despite the fact he is on the Interpol wanted list for money laundering.”
It is rather quite a genius wheeze as if not enough genocide is found after intervention and regime ‘change’, it can always be argued that genocide was prevented…
I do openly admit that I’ve not really tried to dig up what Mr. Viktor has been doing recently, but taking a wild-assed guess and the way his name has disappeared…I’m expecting my membership of the fully paid up membership of the conspiracists union to arrive by post any day now.