by Richard Gowan | Jun 8, 2011 | Conflict and security, Europe and Central Asia, Global system, Middle East and North Africa
Today, Britain and France are tabling a Security Council resolution condemning the violence in Syria. While the French Foreign Minister has predicted in public that Russia will veto this draft, the British PM has claimed the moral high ground:
British Prime Minister David Cameron said the draft resolution before the Security Council focused on “condemning the repression and demanding accountability and humanitarian action”.
“If anyone votes against that resolution, or tries to veto it, that should be on their conscience,” he added.
There’s something inherently appealing about Cameron’s moral position. Having worked on power politics and human rights at the UN for some time, I suspect that the Franco-British drive will be thwarted. But, with the Syrian crisis escalating, it’s just possible that Russia and China could back down. Even if they don’t, highlighting their intransigence may boost the Western powers’ claim to be the Arabs’ best friends.
Nonetheless, I also worry about framing Security Council debates as matters of conscience. I have an article in the new edition of Pragati, an Indian policy review, arguing that this year’s UN debates over Libya were insufficiently realistic:
All the members of the Security Council, Western and non-Western alike, have had to face the reality that they did not have viable diplomatic strategies for the “long haul” in Libya. NATO’s members, including the United States, have looked increasingly nervous about sustaining the air campaign (let alone any sort of ground operation).
India and the other BRICS, meanwhile, have called repeatedly for a negotiated settlement in spite all evidence that Colonel Gaddafi is pathologically untrustworthy. There is nothing wrong with looking for a peaceful solution, and ultimately a pretty ugly deal may be required in Libya, but India and the other BRICS have not been able to point to mechanism for achieving this goal. South Africa did try to play an active part—President Jacob Zuma even went to Tripoli—but came up with a plan the rebels couldn’t accept.
There is something unreal about the postures of both sides in this debate. The United States, France and Britain unleashed the NATO air campaign insisting that it was not about regime change. Yet it was always clear that regime change was almost certainly the only way to end this war in a way that the West could accept. Conversely, the BRICS have been stout defenders of a diplomatic solution when it is clear that—without a significant change in the balance of forces—the conditions for a lasting deal do not exist.
Whatever one thinks about interventionism – in Libya or in general – pursuing non-viable options through the UN is not a good idea. It makes not only the Security Council but also the big powers look foolish. Whether your morals and political philosophy incline you towards interventionism or restraint, you should want your arguments to have basic strategic credibility. As I argued in a piece for World Politics Review earlier this year, a number of African countries have recently defied the Security Council by forcing it to withdraw peacekeepers. That’s hurt the Council. Let’s hope that Libya and Syria don’t exacerbate the damage too badly.
by Richard Gowan | Jun 6, 2011 | Economics and development, Global system, Off topic
While everyone is asking who will be the next boss of the IMF, another top international job is becoming vacant. The current Economist contains an ad for a new Director General of the International Dairy Federation, which has members in 56 countries accounting for “86% of current milk production worldwide.”
As you’d expect, the organization that publishes the annual World Dairy Situation is not looking for amateurs. “The successful candidate possesses several years experience in the dairy industry,” says the ad, “as well as experience in international affairs.” An ability to pun is also apparently requirement: this year the IDF is hosting a World Dairy Summit in Parma, Italy, which it is calling a “Summilk”.
This sounds like a wonderful job. If you’d like to apply, drop a line to Richard Doyle – the IDF’s president – at IDF-president@dfc-plca.ca by 21 July. But “only selected candidates will be contacted.” There’s no room for dreamers in milky multilateralism.
by Ryan Gawn | Jun 3, 2011 | Conflict and security, Global system, Middle East and North Africa
Yemen and Arab Spring watchers will be fascinated by the Al Jazeera New Media team’s Interactive Twitter Dashboard, illustrating what is being tweeted about and where. Tracking tweets on Syria, Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Bahrain, the recent Yemen spike (turquoise) is very telling following today’s attack on the presidential palace.
by Alex Evans | Jun 2, 2011 | Articles and Publications, Reports
Why sustainable development still isn’t a reality 20 years after the Earth Summit – and what Rio 2012 can do to turn the tide. CIC report by Alex Evans and David Steven. (June 2011)
Download Report
by Alex Evans | Jun 2, 2011 | Climate and resource scarcity, Cooperation and coherence, Economics and development, Global Dashboard, Global system, Influence and networks
One year from now, on 4 June 2012, the Rio summit on sustainable development will begin, at the same time marking the twentieth anniversary of the landmark 1992 Earth Summit in the same city. Preparations are well behind where they should be at this stage, and there is a real risk that it will be the latest in a series of damp squibs for the international sustainable development agenda.
David Steven and I have just completed a new paper (pdf) on the summit, which is the latest output from the NYU Center on International Cooperation’s resource scarcity program. In it, we explore the reasons why so little progress has been made on making development sustainable since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 – and set out some suggestions for how Rio 2012 could start to turn things around, not just within the environment policy silo, but also more broadly on renewing the international development agenda beyond 2015 and tackling the global risks that make up the ‘long crisis’ of globalisation that we have written about before for the Brookings Institution.
We argue that three overarching themes will be critical for making progress on these areas: greening growth, facing up to the issues of fair shares that arise in a world of limits, and building resilience to shocks and stresses, both internationally and within states (especially fragile ones). While Rio 2012 faces a tough political context, it could still – with a major push from key actors – make a tangible difference on all three fronts.
You can download the paper here.
