Self-Fulfilling Prophecy - Christina Larson in The New Republic: A Journal of Politics and the Arts

Obama meets the Lobby - Stephen M. Walt in Foreign Policy  (Walt returns to the subject of his bitterly controversial book, “The Lobby”)

On Versions of Goodness - Bagehot in The Economist

The New Scramble for Africa - Mark Weston in EMEA Finance

Someone give the FT a dose of valium, please - Daniel W. Drezner in Foreign Policy

Reports that the Americans have agreed to send emergency military aid to the Somali government are confirmation that the military situation there is deteriorating fast. In fact, without the world paying much attention, Somalia is in danger of being effectively taken over by Islamists supported by foreign jihadists. It would then look rather like Afghanistan in the years before 9/11.

The FT reported a few days ago that “several hundred foreign jihadists linked to al-Qaeda are reported to have joined al-Shabaab’s efforts to topple the government”. According to our report, the national government now controls just a few blocks of the capital, Mogadishu.

The only real foreign military assistance the Somali government is getting comes from just 4,300 African Union troops. The Ethiopians have made it clear that they are not going back in. The Americans have their own bad memories of Somalia. Perhaps the new US military aid will do the trick - or perhaps it won’t.

Human-rights groups will be cheering the arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court for President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan. And why not? There have been appalling crimes committed in Darfur - since 2003 some 300,000 people have been killed and over 2m displaced.

This is certainly an active time for the cause of international justice. On Sunday a special tribunal opened in the Hague to investigate the assassination of Rafiq al-Harari, the former Lebanese prime minister. Charles Taylor, the former Liberian dictator, is already on trial in the Hague before a special tribunal on war crimes in Sierra Leone. The case against Thomas Lubanga, a Congolese warlord, is also underway at the ICC. And last month a hybrid UN-Cambodian court began the prosecution of “Duch”, a former Khmer Rouge commander.

But the arrest warrant for al-Bashir is the big one.

Not everybody, however, is convinced that it will serve the cause of either peace or justice. Alex de Waal, an very knowledgable Darfur watcher, has posted a devestating indictment of the ICC case on the “Making Sense of Darfur” blog. Continue reading "Is the Bashir arrest warrant a good thing?"

So - as predicted - the International Criminal Court has charged Omar al-Bashir, the president of Sudan, with genocide.

But is this a good idea, or a bad idea? There is a very good debate taking place on the Making Sense of Darfur blog. I would particularly recommend reading the first three entries by Phil Clark, Andrew Natsios and Alex de Waal. Continue reading "The Darfur indictment"

Last Friday was a big day at the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Jean-Pierre Bemba, former vice-president of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, was charged with multiple counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Resplendent in a grey suit and red tie, Mr Bemba looked like a respectable statesman. But he is charged with grave crimes, including the use of mass rape as an instrument of war.

It was the sort of moment that advocates of the ICC always dreamt of. But, as it celebrates its 10th anniversary, the ICC is facing its own indictment. Its critics charge that its work is often counter-productive, politicised and plain incompetent. The dream of universal, international justice is in danger of turning into a nightmare.

In theory, the ICC can serve two vital purposes. It provides justice for victims. It may also deter future atrocities. Angelina Jolie, an actress, summed up these hopes when she wrote last year in The Economist that: “Only through justice will we achieve peace.”

The remainder of this column can be read here. Please post comments below.

Tragedy is traditionally meant to provoke pity and fear. But the world is in danger of reacting to the Zimbabwean tragedy with different emotions: resignation and relativism.

The resignation stems from the idea that nothing short of invasion is going to dislodge a brutal and ruthless dictator such as Robert Mugabe. Nobody wants to invade Zimbabwe, goes the argument, so there is nothing to be done. The relativists chip in by pointing out that there are plenty of other tragedies in Africa: Congo, Somalia, Darfur. Why make a particular fuss about Zimbabwe?

But the resignation is not justified – and so neither is the relativism. Zimbabwe can still be saved from economic and political destruction. It is not just another African tragedy. But it is urgent that action is taken now – while the political situation is still in flux.

The remainder of this column can be read here. Please post comments below.

One of the disadvantages of having my e-mail address printed in the paper is that I get a lot of weird people communicating with me. (I am not referring to the honoured readers of this blog.)

Most of the offers of cheap Viagra are caught in the FT’s capacious spam-filter. But I seem to get an awful lot of people trying to interest me in dubious-sounding business propositions. Most of them I delete without a second thought. But I think this particular communication has an unusual panache to it.

EMERALDS, FOSSILS AND RUBIES: YOUR VERY BEST ACQUISITION AGAINST ECONOMICAL CRISIS
 
GOOD DAY ULTRA-AFFLUENT PARTNER, DEAREST BROTHER:
 

Continue reading "Dubious business propositions"

In some ways I can sympathise with Thabo Mbeki’s reluctance to throw South Africa’s weight behind a campaign to shove Robert Mugabe out of power in Zimbabwe. The South Africans sometimes complain that the world should understand that Zimbabwe is not a colony of South Africa - which is true enough. Its also true - unfortunately - that there is considerable sympathy for Mugabe among black South Africans. Any South African politician has to take that into account.

But the South Africans should realise that they have a lot at stake in Zimbabwe - and I’m not just talking about the threat of refugee flows and chaos on their borders. Gordon Brown was probably too polite to put it this way when he met President Mbeki, but many people wonder whether - when they look at Zimbabwe - they are looking at a vision of South Africa in 30 years time. Zimbabwe looks like a vindication of every white racist prediction made at the time of independence, that African self-government would end in disaster. It is urgently in South Africa’s interests to help turn the country round.

That is all the more the case when South Africa’s own problems look like they are mounting. The prospect of President Jacob Zuma is not going down well overseas. Crime is still terrible. White flight continues. And now there are daily electricity cuts. One government source has even suggested that foreign investors delay investing for a few years, since the country could not handle the extra power demand new investment would create. As a frustrated South African puts it: “That is shooting a gift horse in the head.”

If Mbeki could help to get Mugabe out, he would be doing his country a favour in more ways than one.