Something About The Law

Referring twice to Dick Cheney as “Darth Vader,” ElBaradei told me in an interview that “U.S. policy consisted of two mantras — Iran should not have the knowledge and should not spin one single centrifuge. They kept saying, wait, Iran is not North Korea, it will buckle. That was absolutely a mistake.”

Roger Cohen, NYT

For over a decade, the man has strode the world of nuclear security and non-proliferation like a Colossus. Before his 12-year career as the IAEA’s honcho ends tomorrow, we take a look at his contributions in turbulent times.

Its easy to think that ElBaradei’s defining moments in the IAEA came in the aftermath of the American invasion of Iraq – while it is true that he was pushed into the limelight during the time, the Director-General has made his impact through a consistent policy of pragmatism in issues otherwise dictated by fear-mongering.

Nuclear non-proliferation, as a concept, has long been considered by the developing world (including India) to be a lop-sided turf,  favouring the ‘recognized’ nuclear powers. This attitude, exacerbated by irrational claims and drastic measures (read ‘NPT’) from the West, has often resulted in straining of relationships. More importantly, the debate surrounding nuclearization has been hijacked by the threat of use of arms, as opposed to utility in civilian energy purposes.

ElBaradei, during his tenure as the world’s top nuclear policeman, was able to differentiate between both circumstances. Consequently, he rooted for removal of sanctions against India after Pokhran-II (considered unthinkable by a US-influenced IAEA) and even encouraged the nuclear framework agreement between India and the United States. Conjunctively, he agreed that Pakistan had its energy requirements, but in the light of the A.Qadir network, he would not support an n-deal with Pak until its nuclear installations and security were confirmed.

Prior to the invasion of Iraq, ElBaradei and his predecessor Hans Blix, asserted that US claims of WMD in Saddam’s hands were misplaced, and that the evidence of uranium purchase was not authentic. He strongly condemned the use of force against Iraq, alongwith Kofi Annan, and claimed the subsequent US admission of ‘no WMD’ as a vindication of his own stand. His efforts in non-proliferation were recognized in 2005 when the IAEA was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

ElBaradei has had an excellent insight into the functioning of the so-called ‘rogue’ nuclear states, viz., Iran and N.Korea. On the boiling Iran front, he has always called for negotiations between belligerent parties, and if talks have even considered mooting a plan for uranium exchange, its largely due to his dogged persistence on dialogue. In recognizing the power fluctuation that fall consequent to nuclear capabilities-acquisition, and the dynamics of deterrence, ElBaradei has been a stalwart of the non-proliferation movement. At a crucial juncture in international affairs, his presence and abilities will be missed, when he steps down from the IAEA on 30 November 2009.

Today’s Hindu carries an interview with Mohammed Nasheed, president of the Maldives. I like the man; he has several innovative international law ideas:

There is a logjam mainly because the Kyoto Protocol is a list of things we shouldn’t do. It is asking India not to consume energy or not to produce energy. That is going to be very difficult for a dynamic fast developing country. We could change the thing to a more positive list to say India should be producing so much renewable energy to the extent that mathematics comes down to the same — 350 part per million and 1.5 degrees.

and he’s a sensible, law-abiding man:

We need to find mechanisms and procedures through which the executive — which is me — can relinquish power to independent institutions. That is the only manner to build a sustainable democracy. I am trying to find avenues through which I can relinquish the extraordinary powers I have. There can then be a balance of power between Parliament and the President.

(Interviewer: ) Could you give examples of that?

Well I can arrest even you (laughs)….

and he loves us:

We love Indian stories, we watch Indian films, we come here for treatment, so India and Maldives are very close.

The rest of the interview makes for good reading and contains Nasheed on topics from the Taliban to the recession, and of course, that sinkin’ feeling.

We have read in the papers that the report by Justice Richard Goldstone on the Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict was released a few days ago. The report has concluded that in the fighting that ensued in the months of November and December, both sides have killed numerous people and are accountable for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

As regards Israel, the report states,

“In its findings on Israel’s conduct, the report noted that the ruinous siege on Gaza, imposed long before the invasion, collectively punished its residents in violation of international law. During the attack, Israeli troops killed civilians without justification, wantonly destroyed civilian infrastructure and private homes, and used weapons illegally. Israeli troops targeted and destroyed Gaza’s last functioning flour mill. Israeli armored bulldozers razed the chicken farm that provided 10% of Gaza’s eggs, burying 31,000 chickens in rubble. Israeli gunners bombed a raw sewage lagoon, releasing 200,000 cubic meters of filth into neighboring farmland. Repeated pinpoint strikes on a water well complex destroyed all of its essential machinery.”

The world order has sprung into action with each country having an opinion on the report. Israel and the United States (obviously siding Israel) have called the report biased and stated that it overwhelmingly focused on Israel’s actions. Even hamas say so. However, the neutralists say that the report seems to bring out the true picture of the situation in Palestine.

The implications of the Report may be graver than they seem at present. There is a possibility that the conflict goes beyond two nations itself and enters a new realm of international law; in this case I am speaking of the International Criminal Court. Even though Israel is not a member to the Rome Statue, the ICC may have jurisdiction if the United Nations refers the matter to the prosecutor. In fact, the Goldstone report recommended that if Israel did not within six months launch fully independent investigations into the “serious violations” of international law it alleges, then the country should face International Criminal Court proceedings.

Be it noted that a case can also be independently investigated by the Prosecutor when using their proprio motu powers under Article 15 (only for a state party though).  The Goldstone report would likely be used as supporting material as part of any investigation initiated under this section,

“The Prosecutor shall analyse the seriousness of the information received. For this purpose, he or she may seek additional information from States, organs of the United Nations, intergovernmental or non-governmental organizations, or other reliable sources that he or she deems appropriate, and may receive written or oral testimony at the seat of the Court.”

However, ICC Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo is not ruling out options to prosecute Israel or Israeli authorities. Investigations have begun on behalf of the ICC. In an interview here she said that that since one of the Israeli legal advisers involved in the alleged conflict and commission of war crimes was South African, the ICC could gain jurisdiction through that route as well.  South Africa ratified the Rome Statute on Nov. 27, 2000.

The British Council is co-ordinating a series of lectures to commemorate its 75th anniversary (entitled 75 years of Cultural Relations) and Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu will deliver the inaugural address on February 19,2009. The lecture series, named Talking without Borders, is aimed at providing a bird’s eye-view of the most pressing needs in today’s global village.

Quite interestingly, Desmond Tutu has written a superlative article for the BBC, in a moving piece titled Viewpoint: A Word of Caution for Obama. Refreshingly analytical, the article aims to debunk the myth of ‘anti-Americanism’, emphasizing on the tectonic shifts in perceptions during the nascent stages of the Obama regime. The article, cogently articulated in style and substance, may be viewed here.

Because the Bush years have been disastrous for other parts of the world in many ways, Obama’s victory dramatises the self-correcting mechanism that epitomises American democracy. Elsewhere, oppressors, tyrants and their lapdogs can say what they like and, for the most part, they stay put.

But ordinary citizens living in undemocratic societies are not fools; they may not always agree with US foreign policy, but they can see and register the difference between the United States – where people can kick an unpopular political party out – and their own countries………

………….And here I want to end with what seems so utterly obvious about what we learned from our particular situation in South Africa. Peace does not come from the barrel of a gun but is achieved when cultural differences are respected and the fundamental rights of all are recognised and upheld.

Thursday night saw an incensed debate over Israel’s attack on the Gaza strip with Israeli PM Shimon Peres defending his nation’s actions. The video for the same may be viewed below,

(Youtube videos may not be accessible to NALSAR students )

This open session involved UN Sec General Ban Ki Moon, Arab League Sec General Amr Moussa, Mr. Shimon Peres and Turkish PM Erdogan in what has been termed a very lively discussion. Peres came out strongly on Israel’s right to self defence and brought out the threats that the hamas posed to the jewish nation. He was however alone in his defence as the remaining leaders were vehement in their opposition to the offensive and Israel’s treatment of civilians during the attack of which Mr. Peres offered no apologies or explanation.

The Israeli president unleashed a harsh, unyielding rant that was full of strange statements, truncated arguments and meandering rhetoric. Clearly, he is feeling the effects of his age as his remarks bordered on the incoherent at times. But what was most evident was the choleric tone.

Here are a few of the stranger statements: he claimed that Israel could not accept the Saudi 2002 initiative because “there was a small problem of Iran” which wishes to rule the Middle East. Peres also claimed that Hamas did not win a democratic election. Rather Mahmoud Abbas DID win an election as president of the Palestinians. Peres also claimed there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza; that Israel supplies all the water, fuel and electricity that Gaza needs; and that if there is a problem he would personally intervene to correct it.

Also, during the debate the Turkish PM was not given a chance to reply to Mr. Peres by the Moderator at which he got up and walked out of the room. News items here.

The Webcast of the whole session may be seen here.