Umm, not the 1st of April yet...

 

(We are here. Infidels are here, here and here. Apostates over there. Good. Points? Questions?)

Those kray-zee Iranians.

Just when Christmas television looked like getting everyone down, up popped the comedy act that is North Korea* to entertain us with their choreographed grief (though believe me, if I were living in Pyongyang, I'd have cried and wailed with the best of them just in case someone decided that I had been insufficiently upset and felt that a little reeducation was in order.)

Not to be outdone by their former colleagues in the Axis-of-Evil, Iranian Admiral Habibollah Sayyari says it would be "very easy" for his navy to shut down the Strait of Hormuz (SoH) if the nasty west (and especially the nasty EU led by the confounded British, whose hand is behind everything bad in the Islamic Republic, I'm reliably informed) has the temerity to impose oil sanctions on Iran for its repeated violations of the NPT, which the IAEA noted in their 18 Nov 11 Resolution. And here's a nice piece from the good people at APM's Marketplace - they do a great daily podcast, too.

Excellent, certainly a move that's all about the spirit of the season, and likely to bring everyone together and allow us all to get along better and all of that. 

But is it feasible?

(Ah. Rather narrow then.)

The strait is about 34nm across at it's narrowest point, and more importantly, the commercial traffic goes through the two 2nm corridors marked on this helpful map. And given the major Iranian naval base at Bandar Abbas is nice and close, in principle Iran's two naval arms - IRIN and the IRGC(N) - could make a stab at "closing" the SoH if they so chose. However, this overlooks a couple of things.

First, legality. Such a blockade would be illegal (states have the right to peacefully sail through straits worldwide) - something established in customary international law and in the 1948 ICJ Judgement in the Corfu Channel case - unless it was an act of war. An Iranian declaration of war against the rest of the world seems somewhat unlikely, and so in the absence of a UNSCR allowing for Iran to close the SoH (inconceivable), then the Iranians would be acting illegally.

Second, actual capability. Does Iran really want to take on the US Navy and her allies in a shooting match in the SoH whether on the water or from shore based missile and artillery batteries (or both?)? I can't see it - the Iranians could get lucky and cause some damage to naval vessels escorting oil tankers or patrolling the Straits - but the risk of retaliation sinking the rest of your fleet (or worse, starting a broader war) is such that you'd have to be nuts to try it. And this blog (at least) doesn't think that the Iranian regime irrational - more than anything else, it is solidly focused on it's own survival.

So, nothing to see here - let's all get back to the Christmas specials on telly. But not a clever move by the Iranians, and I suspect, not one that they're going to enact, irrespective of their domestic posturing.

Finally, in the spirit of goodwill to all men, in the unlikely event that this does kick off, please don't ask the Royal Navy how many spare ships it has to send out to help out in the SoH. You may get an answer similar to asking the RAF how many maritime patrol aircraft they can quickly send. Seen from here, the choices made in SDSR 2010 are looking less clever by the month.

*As long as you don't live in it or near it, clearly.

Palestine joins UNESCO

 

So, after Palestine's formal application for UN Membership in September, UNESCO has voted to admit Palestine as a full member today. This vote (107-14-52), with 81 positive votes required, has no direct bearing on the UN membership application, though the US threat to withhold their UNESCO assessments (22% in line with the UN assessment scales) is problematic.

More soon.

Three-and-a-half down....

 

(No risk of running out of red paint.....)

Back in January, I put up a tongue-in-cheek post on the Arab world's dictators, taking the chance to laugh at the cults-of-personality that have blighted the governance of the region since decolonisation in the 1950s. All good clean fun, provided that you don't have to live in any of the more-or-less authoritarian states they ran (badly).

I certainly never expected to be recording the final defeat of Gaddaffi's forces in Sirte at the same time as Tunisia is preparing for its first-ever democratic elections - with an astonishing and inspiring 11,000 candidates running for 218 seats - this Sunday. Hence, we are witnessing a zone of democratic opportunity running from Tunisia to Egypt - absolutely excellent news. Moreover, given the UN vote due today, it seems impossible that Ali Abdullah Saleh will be able to revert to running Yemen in the same manner as he has since 1978, bringing the winds of change to Yemen. And Syria? Well, I'd be a seller of shares in Asad Inc., were they publicly traded.

The legal bit
But the process of revolutions matters, and in Libya there was clearly an International Armed Conflict (IAC) between NATO and Gaddaffi's forces, sanctioned by UNSCR 1973, and a Non-International Armed Conflict (NIAC) between the National Transitional Council and the Gaddaffi regime; the ruling law was clearly some flavour of LOAC in places where conflict was actually taking place.

(Gaddaffi's last redoubt)

In the last 24 hours, it has also become clear that Gaddaffi was alive - though injured - at the time of his capture, and that he was subsequently shot dead, apparently in cold blood. Let's be clear - killing Gaddaffi was the execution of a presumptive PoW (presumptive in that Gaddaffi would have had PoW rights until an a GC III Article 5 Tribunal - which doesn't appear to have been held - decided that he did or didn't qualify), which itself is a War Crime contrary to Article 8(2)(b)(vi) of the International Criminal Court's Rome Statute.

As Elham Saudi of Lawyers for Justice in Libya (LFJL) pointed out on the UK's Channel Four news last night, it would have been much better for him to have faced trial, both from notions of justice and for the victims to have their day in court. What is interesting now is how the new Libyan authorities choose to deal with these important legal issues - as the Rome Statute makes clear, crimes committed by both sides of an armed conflict need addressing.

Gareth Evans on R2P: Is Syria next?

(Gareth Evans QC AO)

Back at the beginning of the Libyan revolution, I asked "Am I my brother's keeper" in reference to the Responsibility to Protect, or R2P. So it was with some annoyance that I missed the lecture by Gareth Evans, the former Australian Foreign Minister, and later head of the International Crisis Group at Chatham House's International Law Programme on 6 Oct 11. Evans has been a major proponent of R2P in recent years, and under R2P, the international community undertakes to ensure that the failures of the 1990s in Rwanda, Srebenica and Kosovo are not repeated - a position that made it into Paragraph 139 of the 2005 World Summit Conclusions. Para 139 states in part:

"The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity."

As this blog has previous pointed out, Para 139 is a real drafting hodgepodge, betraying the lack of unanimity in the international community. Crucially, should R2P - and especially the use of force - be allowed outside the direct consent of the UNSC acting under Chapter VII's Article 42? 

The relationship between R2P and Chapter VII is critical, because at one end of the spectrum, R2P is no more than a rhetorical device, as the UNSC continues to control the use of force, even in time of humanitarian emergencies; if so, it is pointless. At the other end of the scale, R2P could be construed as bolstering (the pre-existing) right of humanitarian intervention outside of the UNSC in cases where the UNSC is unable or unwilling to act.  

(Them again....)

It is therefore with great interest that I read the transcript of Gareth Evans' 6 October speech. What's particularly striking is that Evans repeatedly ties R2P very narrowly to the UNSC rather than an expansive understanding tied to humanitarian intervention, and he then sets out a five criteria test for what he takes great care to describe as 

"... legitimacy - not the criteria of legality, that's clear; Security Council support - criteria of legitimacy"

These criteria are below; though lengthy, I think it is worth quoting Evans' five-fold test in full:

The first test is seriousness of risk. Is the threatened harm of such a kind, such a scale, as to at least prima facie justify the use of military force?
 
The second test is whether the primary purpose of the proposed military action is actually to halt or avert the threat in question, as distinct from being about oil or bananas or whatever. They can be secondary or tertiary considerations and they could be quite relevant in helping to mobilize otherwise sceptical domestic constituencies but the intention test has to be what’s the primary motivation genuinely – is it to help or avert harm?

The third test is last resort. Has every non-military option been, if not applied in practise because that can be possibly time consuming in some cases, but has it at least been explored and found wanting and unlikely to serve the purpose.
 
The fourth test is one of proportionality, of a scale, the duration, the intensity of a proposed military action and the minimum necessary to meet the threat in question.

And the final and often the toughest legitimacy test is balance of consequences. Will those at risk be better or worse off as a result of such military action being taken?
 

(Decent shooting in Bab al Azizya, with photo credit to Elham at LFJL)

In Evans' view the 2011 Libyan intervention met all five criteria, though in his view they may have gone too far in prosecuting the conflict - in that it went further than the abstaining States were probably expecting when they allowed the passage of UNSCR 1973 (it passed 10-0-5, with Brazil, China, Germany, India and Russia abstaining), which probably contributed to the Chinese and Russian vetoes of draft UNSCR S/2011/612 of 4 Oct 2011. S/2011/612 was defeated 9-2-4 (China and Russia vetoing, with Brazil, India, Lebanon and South Africa abstaining); in other words, if China and Russia had abstained, there was the bare minimum of 9 votes required for passage. 

So with the death toll in anti-Assad protests reportedly reaching 3,000, what is the position of R2P after a (very benign) draft UNSCR on Syria was vetoed by the UNSC? (And let's be very clear - the vetoed text is a million miles from authorising the use of force - and had been deliberately watered down to overcome Chinese and Russian objections, which suggests that sponsors were expecting that the concessions would be sufficient get this through, and as a result it isn't likely to do much for P5 relations on the UNSC.) 

I presumed that R2P had to add something to the existing framework, by explicitly recognising a right to intervene when circumstances on the ground demanded it. Simply, without it, R2P is meaningless, and there's no point in having it at all - so why put it in Para 139 of the 2005 World Summit text? It is this element that is so confusing (and potentially disturbing) about Gareth Evans' speech - it is when the UNSC is deadlocked, and crimes are occurring on the ground that the R2P buttress to humanitarian intervention doctrine comes into its' own, and intervention to protect the civilian population should be initiated. 

(Closer to the action than Gioia was to Libya. Beer is better, too.)

This is one that will run and run, but I'd prefer to see the UK and allied aircraft that handed Benghazi's airspace back to Libyan control yesterday moved to RAF Akrotiri, Cyprus to bring a little force to bear on the Syrian regime. Akrotiri is less than 220nm from Damascus - under 25 mins flying time. But for Evans, presumably the no-go from the UNSC would mean that R2P can't be applied - and it is this result with which I have the most trouble.

So, President Obama, Prime Minister Cameron and President Sarkozy: prove that Gareth Evans is too cautious and give R2P some legs with an NFZ over Syria - it's legal, and it woulg give the Arab Spring the opportunity to bloom in Damascus, Aleppo and Homs as well. 

More on Israeli Settlements

(Map of the West Bank in June 2011 from B'tselem)

Further to the recent posts on the (il)legality of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, (shown above in the latest map from B'tselem) and the threat of a US veto of a Palestinian UN membership application, I was interested in looking more closely at what current US policy is on the issue of Israeli settlements.  Israel, remember, claims that settlements themselves are legal as the Fourth Geneva Convention doesn't apply in the Occupied Territories, though it accepts that there are some settlements that are illegal under Israeli domestic law, e.g. Migron. This analysis is wrong as a matter of international law, as the Geneva Conventions have customary - and therefore binding - status on all States, a fact underscored by UNSCR 827 in 1993, itself binding on all UN Members as it was adopted under Chapter VII.


In particular, I was curious about whether US policy was as lock-step behind the current Israeli Likud administration on the question of legality? It is certainly true that America's detractors and opponents would like the rest of the world to believe that the Obama Administration is in the pocket of the Likudniks, and that therefore the US was fundamentally flawed as an interlocutor in the Middle East.

(To their detractors, puppet and puppeteer. If true, which is which?)

Digging through the record, it's clear that this isn't the case, despite the visuals. 

As long ago as 1979, the UN Security Council has held that Israeli settlements constructed on land captured by Israel in 1967 are illegal through the passage of Resolution 446 on 22 March 79. UNSCR 446 was adopted 12-0-3, with Norway, UK and USA abstaining - meaning that the US allowed passage.

On 18 Feb this year, the UNSC sat for its' 6484th meeting, and considered a draft UNSCR which was proposed by 100 states in the UNGA*. The draft UNSCR's Operational Paragraphs stated:

1. Reaffirms that the Israeli settlements established in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, are illegal and constitute a major obstacle to the achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace;

2. Reiterates its demand that Israel, the occupying Power, immediately and completely ceases all settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and that it fully respect all of its legal obligations in this regard;

3. Calls upon both parties to act on the basis of international law and their previous agreements and obligations, including under the Roadmap, aimed, inter alia, at improving the situation on the ground, building confidence and creating the conditions necessary for promoting the peace process;

4. Calls upon all parties to continue, in the interest of the promotion of peace and security, with their negotiations on the final status issues in the Middle East peace process according to its agreed terms of reference and within the time frame specified by the Quartet in its statement of 21 September 2010;

5. Urges in this regard the intensification of international and regional diplomatic efforts to support and invigorate the peace process towards the achievement of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

6. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

For the UN, this is strong stuff; and it was duly defeated by a US veto, 14-1-0.

So far, so normal for the US's critics who assert that the US is simply a nebbish covering up for Israel's illegal excesses.

(The estimable US UN Ambassador Dr. Susan Rice).

After each Security Council vote, the UNSC members may choose to speak explaining what just happened. These speeches are known, (with a stunning lack of diplomatic originality) as "Explanation of Vote", or EOVs. Here's what Ambassador Rice had to say after the US vetoed the draft in the face of unanimity on the rest of the Security Council and against the wishes of 100 UN member states:

"The United States has been deeply committed to pursuing a comprehensive and lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians. In that context, we have been focused on taking steps that advance the goal of two States living side by side in peace and security, rather than complicating that goal. That includes a commitment to work in good faith with all parties to underscore our opposition to continued settlements.

Our opposition to the resolution before this Council today should therefore not be misunderstood to mean we support settlement activity. On the contrary, we reject in the strongest terms the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity. For more than four decades Israeli settlement activity in territories occupied in 1967 has undermined Israel’s security and corroded hopes for peace and stability in the region. Continued settlement activity violates Israel’s international commitments, devastates trust between the parties and threatens the prospects for peace.
 

The United States and our fellow Council members are also in full agreement about the urgent need to resolve the conflict between the Israel and the Palestinians on the basis of the two-State solution and an agreement that establishes a viable, independent and contiguous State of Palestine once and for all. We have invested a tremendous amount of effort and resources in pursuit of that shared goal, and we will continue to do so. But the only way to reach that common goal is through direct negotiations between the parties, with the active and sustained support of the United State and the international community. It is the Israelis’ and Palestinians’ conflict, and even the best-intentioned outsiders cannot resolve it for them."

The language is direct, and strikingly similar to that used by President Obama in threatening a veto on the Palestinian application for UN membership: if nothing else, the US was being entirely consistent. It is also heartening to hear that the US "reject[s] in the strongest terms the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity", by which I presume were are suppose to understand that the US considers them illegal under international law, though they don't actually want to say so.

What is missing, of course, is successful economic or political pressure from the US to force the Israelis to freeze the settlements as a prelude to negotiations. But that is a political, not a legal matter. 

(*For the record, the co-sponsors of the draft Resolution were: Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, the Plurinational State of Bolivia, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, Comoros, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Finland, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Iceland, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Namibia, Nicaragua, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Peru, the Philippines, Qatar, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Slovenia, Somalia, the Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, the United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen and Zimbabwe.) 

Palestinian UN Membership Application

Update: Looks like PA President Mahmoud Abbas will file the paperwork on Friday, after speaking at the UN General Assembly. A fun week in store!