The protection of civilians is one of the most important tenets of international humanitarian law. In recent years, we have heard various rationalizations justifying the killing of civilians, whether accidental or intentional. These rationalizations need to be repudiated forcefully by the international community. The protection of civilians is what separates war from massacre. Massacres serve no political purpose.
The financial media is buzzing about a relatively new phenomenon in tax policy: inversion. The practice is relatively simple. US corporations find a smaller company in a non-US country with a more favorable corporate tax policy (Ireland is one such country, due to the policy of austerity imposed on it after the Great Recession of 2008-09). It “relocates” its head office to that country (not really–it is simply a sham head office) and therefore avoids paying the US corporate tax rate. It is a great way to lower the taxes paid, but, from a political point of view, it raises a critical question: do corporations have a national identity? If not, then should such corporations benefit from the infrastructural (transportation, education, communications) benefits of national policies? Or should they somehow be forced to pay for using the infrastructure paid for by the taxpayers?
With the world’s attention focused on the Gaza Strip and Ukraine, we have lost sight of the ongoing violence in Syria. In the last two days, over 700 Syrians have been killed as government forces loyal to President Assad have been fighting the rebels of the Islamic State for control of an important gas field near the city of Homs. The takeover of Syrian oil and gas fields has been an important source of revenue for the Islamic State, allowing it to buy weapons and the cooperation of corrupt officials. Thus, the fighting has been fierce.
Astronauts aboard the International Space Station have photographed the exchange of fire at night in the Gaza Strip. The flashes of light captured rocket trails and explosions. I cannot imagine what the aliens are thinking about the human race right now.
The United NationsHuman Rights Council (UNHRC) has voted to investigate possible war crimes in the recent fighting in the Gaza Strip. The resolution called for an independent commission of inquiry to investigate “all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip”. The vote was 29 states in favor, one against, and 17 abstentions. The US was the only state to vote against forming the independent commission. There have been earlier such commissions, notably the Goldstone commission after Israel’s Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza in 2008-09 in which 1,400 Palestinians died. Israel rejected the findings of the commission and refused to cooperate with the investigation.
The Ukrainian Parliament was debating the appropriate response to the downing of the Malaysian airliner within its airspace and sentiments in the Parliament ran amok. The far right Svoboda Party disagreed quite strongly with the sentiments expressed by the lawmakers from the eastern part of the state where Russian separatists are quite strong. The video is below:
The government of Israel has renewed its policy of punitive home demolitions in the West Bank. The government destroys the homes of people it deems are threats to Israel as a way of punishing individuals and to deter others from harming the state of Israel. The policy had been dropped years ago after the Israeli military determined that the policy was not effective. In the wake of the recent violence, the government of Israel has decided to reinstate the policy in order to separate Hamas supporters from the Fatah faction within the Palestinian community. It remains to be seen whether this iteration of the punishments will be at all effective. The ongoing conflict has begun to rattle the Arab population within Israel (about 20% of the total population of Israel).
It’s been such a wretched week. We all need a little comic relief. Here’s a video from China that makes serious fun of North Korean leader, Kim Jong Un. But it also ridicules other world leaders, such as Obama, Shinzo Abe, and Vladimir Putin. Have a good laugh.
To help explain the conflict in Gaza, I have chosen two articles that articulate the positions of both sides. The first, by Greg Shupak, gives the Palestinian point of view, particularly on the perception of Hamas toward the proposals for cease-fires that have been advanced. The second is by Michael Herzog from Foreign Policy which is titled “A War We Didn’t Want. Some of the points are responsive, but many of them pass like ships in the night. Some things are not noticed or never seen even though they are in plain view.
Not surprisingly, the Russian public is receiving a completely different understanding of the crash of the Malaysian airliner in Ukraine. Before one dismisses these explanations as fanciful (although, admittedly, some of them are), try a thought experiment. Is there any way for the people in the West to know whether or not the US and European explanations are equally spurious? After all, virtually all of the information about how the airliner was brought down is coming from Western intelligence sources.
The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced that the global temperature for June was the highest ever recorded for that month. It follows a record-setting month of May as well. The global June temperature was 16.2C (61.2F), which is 0.7C higher than the 20th-century average. It beat 2010’s record by one-twentieth of a degree. Not all regions of the world recorded such high temperatures, so people in some areas of the world did not experience the record.
Whenever there is a war, such as the one going on in the Gaza Strip, we are all tempted to choose one side or the other. The need to make a moral judgment in the face of killing is probably inevitable, but it ill serves our role as analysts. The killing is evil, but it is not explained by evil. Wars are fought largely because both sides have persuaded themselves that the “other” deserves to die. As analysts we need to figure out how “desert” is determined and try to address the underlying cause of that rationalization. The need to maintain that clinical perspective is necessary because the Israelis and Palestinians are now far beyond the point where they can view the conflict with clear eyes.
The death toll in the Gaza war increased quite dramatically overnight. Thirteen Israeli soldiers were killed, and that is the highest number of soldiers killed in recent years. The Palestinian death toll stands at more than 425, with the vast majority of those dead civilians.
Roger Berkowitz has written an essay in The American Interest that is incredibly sobering. He thinks about the possibility that there is no solution to the crisis between the Israelis and the Palestinians. We are reluctant to think about conflicts that defy reconciliation–even the atrocity of apartheid ultimately disappeared. But Berkowitz’s rumination leads us to a different way of thinking about the nature of world politics: that the nature of the state, the bedrock of the international order since the 17th century, must be profoundly transformed. If the problem cannot be solved, perhaps it is time to redefine the problem.
Timothy Garton Ash is one of the most perceptive analysts of European affairs (as well as a gifted writer). He has written an op-ed piece for the New York Times on how to interpret the behavior of Russian President Putin. Perhaps the most chilling insight of the essay is the way Ash links the Nazi use of the word “volk” to Putin’s use of the phrase “russkiy mir” (Russian world). The link between ethnic identity and nationalism is a dangerous and volatile combination.
The BRICS countries (the Federative Republic of Brazil, the Russian Federation, the Republic of India, the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of South Africa) have begun to create an alternative economic system as an alternative to the US/European dominated Bretton Woods Institutions (the IMF, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization). The countries have announced as their first step the creation of a bank with an initial capitalization of $100 billion. The five countries comprise a significant economic bloc with great potential. The difficulty of creating a long-term viable alternative is extraordinary, however. The five countries are remarkably diverse and opposition to Western dominance is a powerful force, but not necessarily strong enough to overcome the differences.
Thousands of Parisians defied the government’s ban on pro-Palestinian demonstrations and marched through the streets of Paris protesting Israeli actions in the Gaza Strip. Despite the fears of a confrontation with the Jewish Defense League similar to the one last week at a synagogue, there were no such face-offs. There were also protests in Montreal and Toronto, in Kashmir, Bangladesh, Germany, Britain, and Turkey.
Today the world celebrated the first Nelson Mandela Day. It is a day to honor the man who endured much suffering to liberate his people. Much of the world celebrated the occasion by performing 67 minutes of community service to mark Mandela’s 67 years of dedication to South Africa. He was truly one of the greatest figures of the 20th century.
France has banned pro-Palestinian protests. The move was made because of fights last week between supporters of Israel and supporters of the Palestinians, and the state decided that it could not guarantee security. Large demonstrations had been planned by the pro-Palestinian groups, and we will have to see if the law is observed. Needless to say, the ban on free speech in France is a serious matter. Concerns about free speech on the Israel-Palestinian conflict have also been raised by the removal of two reporters, one by NBC and one by CNN, after comments were made that criticized the actions of Israel in Gaza.
In one bit of good news, the negotiations over the Iranian nuclear program, scheduled to end on 20 July, have been extended for another 4 months. The parties have not been able to agree how about how many centrifuges, necessary to enrich uranium, Iran will be allowed to keep out of its current 19,000. No new sanctions will be imposed on Iran during the 4 months, and previous sanctions that had been lifted for the last six months will not be reinstated. Overall, the terms suggest that the negotiations are very difficult, but not impossible to bring to fruition.
First, the US has confirmed that the Malaysian airliner was shot down by a surface to air missile while flying through Ukrainian airspace. Still unconfirmed is who fired the missile. The airplane was flying at 30,000 feet so that excludes the possibility that it was shot down by a shoulder-fired surface to air missile, the type that the Russian separatists in the eastern part of Ukraine have access to. Experts are working to figure out exactly from where the missile was launched. It may, however, be difficult for experts to access the wreckage since the plane’s remains are in territory controlled by the separatists. If it is true that the separatists were responsible for this atrocity, then it is likely that there will never be a full investigation into the matter: the separatists have no interest in having the truth come out.
The fear is that the missile used was a Russian, not a Ukrainian, missile. If it turns out that Russia had supplied the separatists with such sophisticated weaponry, it is highly likely that Western states will feel obliged to exert considerably more pressure on the Russian government. It is precisely events such as this one that bring wild cards to the situation and make it much more volatile.
The other bad news was that Israel had launched a ground attack on the Gaza Strip over night. After ten days of aerial bombardment, Israel has decided that the only effective way to address the rocket threat is to bring the fight directly to Hamas. It is doubtful that Hamas could muster an effective response to the invasion, but the prospect of long and drawn out ground activity would unquestionably raise the death toll significantly. Israel will fight it more difficult to distinguish combatants from non-combatants under these circumstances, and several human rights organizations, such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have already criticized Israel for violating this cardinal rule of international humanitarian law. B’Tselem, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, has also issued a report that severely criticizes the Israeli conduct thus far. The death toll in Gaza has reached 214, with 1585 injured. About 80% of the casualties have been civilians, according to the United Nations.
Hamas is also guilty of violating the laws of war by launching unguided missiles into populated areas. Fortunately, there has only been one recorded death in Israel attributed to the missiles.
The protection of civilians in wartime is a principal objective of the laws of war. In the recent Gaza violence, Israel has fired warning shots and used telephones to warn Palestinians that a house was going to be bombed. The high rate of civilian casualties, however, suggest that, while admirable, these tactics are not always effective. Some claim that the casualties are due to a deliberate strategy of Hamas to use civilian as “human” shields: “Hamas, in other words, has exploited a rising global interest in civilian protection by encouraging innocent Palestinians to remain in the line of fire.” Others claim that there is no place for the Palestinians to find shelter in the densely populated area of the Gaza. The issue is a non-trivial one, but very difficult to ascertain given the limited access the outside media have to the Gaza. The rhetoric of war needs to be questioned rigorously.
In 1995, Serbian forces overran the UN-protected enclave in the town of Srbenica in Bosnia. Subsequently, almost 8,000 Bosnian Muslims, who had sought refuge in the enclave, were slaughtered. Peacekeepers from the Netherlands were supposed to protect the civilians, but were unable to do so because of the very strict rules of engagement laid down by the UN Security Council. A Dutch court ruled today that the Dutch state had failed in its responsibility to protect the civilians and was therefore liable for 300 of those deaths. The ruling is very controversial and will undoubtedly have a negative effect on the willingness of states to contribute troops to future peacekeeping operations. It was, on the other hand, a victory for those who believe that the UN must take its peacekeeping role more seriously.
The current conflict in the Gaza Strip raises an interesting question in international law: is Israel justified by the doctrine of “self-defense” to launch attacks in the Gaza Strip? The right of self-defense is clearly protected by Article 51 of the UN Charter, and there is little question that the rockets launched from the Gaza Strip by Hamas do constitute an armed attack on the state of Israel. So it seems to most observers that Israel has the right to respond to the attacks.
But the status of the Gaza Strip is ambiguous. The United Nations and virtually every country in the world considers the Gaza Strip to be Occupied Territory which is governed by International Humanitarian Law. The International Committee of the Red Cross spells out the laws on Occupied Territory:
The duties of the occupying power are spelled out primarily in the 1907 Hague Regulations (arts 42-56) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV, art. 27-34 and 47-78), as well as in certain provisions of Additional Protocol I and customary international humanitarian law.
Agreements concluded between the occupying power and the local authorities cannot deprive the population of occupied territory of the protection afforded by international humanitarian law (GC IV, art. 47) and protected persons themselves can in no circumstances renounce their rights (GC IV, art. 8).
The main rules o f the law applicable in case of occupation state that
The occupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory
Occupation is only a temporary situation, and the rights of the occupant are limited to the extent of that period.
The occupying power must respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the international law of occupation.
The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.
To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the occupying power must ensure sufficient hygiene and public health standards, as well as the provision of food and medical care to the population under occupation.
The population in occupied territory cannot be forced to enlist in the occupier’s armed forces.
Collective or individual forcible transfers of population from and within the occupied territory are prohibited.
Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited.
Collective punishment is prohibited.
The taking of hostages is prohibited.
Reprisals against protected persons or their property are prohibited.
The confiscation of private property by the occupant is prohibited.
The destruction or seizure of enemy property is prohibited, unless absolutely required by military necessity during the conduct of hostilities.
Cultural property must be respected.
People accused of criminal offences shall be provided with proceedings respecting internationally recognized judicial guarantees (for example, they must be informed of the reason for their arrest, charged with a specific offence and given a fair trial as quickly as possible).
Personnel of the International Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement must be allowed to carry out their humanitarian activities. The ICRC, in particular, must be given access to all protected persons, wherever they are, whether or not they are deprived of their liberty.
The Gaza’s status as Occupied Territory does something strange to the idea of self-defense. It is not a “foreign power” but rather a territory that is controlled by Israel. Israel does not recognize the Gaza Strip as Occupied Territory. It argues that it disengaged from the Gaza in 2005 and that the control of the territory was handed over to the Palestinian Authority (and, subsequently, due to the split in the PA, to Hamas).
However, Israel does control Gaza Strip’s airspace, territorial waters and controls the movement of people or goods in or out of Gaza by air or sea. After the two armed conflicts with Hamas, Israel has also controlled the flow of food, fuel, medicine, and water into the area. Moreover, the Palestinian Authority is barred from raising a military for the defense of the territory.
Thus, the Gaza Strip is not a sovereign state, and one could make the argument that it is a territory subordinated to the control of the Israeli government. Does Hamas meet the criteria of a sovereign state? Not by any traditional metric. It more accurately fits the traditional definition of a colony.
Does the right of self-defense extend to attacks from a colony? Or are the Palestinians merely freedom fighters whose cause has traditionally been recognize by the international community within the realm of self-determination? There is no clear answer to that question.
World Politics News 