Look out Eritrea! US threatens new WOT front

Even though the US involvement in Iraq still hasn't ended, published reports suggest that the Obama Administration may be looking to open yet another front in the War on Terror, this time in the East African nation of Eritrea.

First a little background - the Muslim region of Eritrea fought a bloody 30-year war for independence against largely Christian Ethiopia. When Eritrea won its independence in 1993 it took Ethiopia’s entire coastline along the Red Sea with it. And while Eritrean independence should have been the end of the fighting, it really wasn't. The two nations have skirmished over an ill-defined border; Eritrea has maintained an army of 300,000 soldiers, huge for a nation of only four million people, just in case large-scale fighting breaks out again.

So far though, the two sides have seemed happy to fight a proxy war in Somalia. In 2006 Ethiopian troops backed a push by the Transitional National Government (TNG) of Somalia - which up to that time had been 'ruling' Somalia from a suite of hotel rooms in Kenya - to reestablished their government in Mogadishu (the Somali capital city). Eritrea backed the Union of Islamic Courts (ICU), which had taken Mogadishu back from a collection of warlords and set up their own version of a Somali government. When the ICU was driven back, Eritrea shifted their support to another Islamic group al-Shabaab ("The Youth"), who took up the fight against the TNG.

And that's where the US comes in. The United States thinks that al-Shabaab is al-Qaeda's franchise in the Horn of Africa. With US attention, for the time being, focused on the Horn of Africa because of the Somali pirate problem, the Obama Administration is apparently warning Eritrea to drop its support of al-Shabaab, or risk facing the same fate as Afghanistan. Eritrea, meanwhile, wants al-Shabaab to have a seat at any negotiations on forming a new Somali government.

Eritrea's President Isaias Afewerki isn't helping his country's cause with the world community. He promises democratic reforms, but continues to postpone presidential and parliamentary elections. Critics say a mandatory national service program instituted by Afewerki has turned the entire country into a "giant prison"; there are credible reports that his government subjects its political opponents to slavery and torture (including a version of crucifixion). And Eritrea was the first nation to host a visit from Sudan's president, Omar al-Bashir after his indictment by the International Criminal Court on crimes against humanity.

All of which makes Eritrea a great candidate for the "rogue nations" list. But does it really make sense to threaten, even behind the scenes, Eritrea with the 'Afghanistan treatment' when the US is already bogged down on two fronts in the 'War on Terror' and, the US Navy's rescue of Capt. Phillips of the Maersk Alabama aside, when the US, and a coalition of the world's militaries, seem to be having a devil of a time even stopping motley collections of pirates off the Somali coast?

The Obama Administration should think seriously about wrapping up Iraq and Afghanistan before looking for new fights.

The US, International Criminal Court, and Cheney war crimes?

The United States should reengage with the International Criminal Court, that’s the opinion of former Clinton and Bush administration official David Kaye.

Just to recap, the International Criminal Court is the international body empowered to charge and try individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity and other such atrocities committed anywhere in the world. In the past international tribunals have been convened to deal with war crimes associated with conflicts in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, but these tribunals sat for limited periods of time and only had jurisdiction over one specific region. The ICC is a permanent body that can try individuals charged with war crimes, etc., committed anywhere in the world. They made news last week by indicting Sudan’s President Bashir over atrocities committed in Darfur.

Pres. Clinton was a strong supporter of the ICC idea and helped to get the ball rolling on its creation. But Clinton also knew it would be a nearly impossible sell to Congress, who would eventually have to ratify any agreement he signed on behalf of the United States. Before leaving office, Clinton did sign a measure to keep the US ‘engaged’ with the actions of the court.

Once in office Pres. Bush ‘unsigned’ the statement, leaving the US with no official connection to the ICC. His argument, and the argument of some in Congress, was that the Court infringed on US sovereignty. It’s the argument usually trotted out by our government anytime it is faced with some international agreement it doesn’t like (of course you could argue the free trade agreements Bush signed also infringe on US sovereignty, but he didn't seem to have a problem with those).

Kaye argues that now the United States has no way of influencing the further development of the court, and that it only makes sense to at least go back to the Clinton-era level of engagement. It would also be a way for the Obama administration to again signal their desire to be a global leader in human rights and international relations.

Of course if the allegations put forward by journalist Seymour Hersh are true, the first American to face charges at the ICC could be former VP Dick Cheney. At an event at the Univ. of Minnesota on Tuesday night, Hersh talked about a covert military operation, the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), which reported directly to VP Cheney. Their mission, according to Hersh, was to carry out secret assassinations around the world. Hersh explained the JSOC would fly into a country, without the knowledge of US officials like the ambassador to the country, or the CIA, carry out execution(s) and leave, reporting, apparently only to Dick Cheney. The JSOC was apparently causing so much ‘collateral damage’ (a.k.a. killing innocent civilians) in that the officer in charge, Admiral William McRaven, ordered a halt to JSOC operations.

Hersh later said that he was working on a book about the Bush administration on topics including the JSOC and didn't want go into further detail right now. Hersh though has a good reputation for accuracy, especially in the military and intelligence circles.

Secret hit squads carrying out covert assassinations around the world? Sounds like the kind of thing we use to accuse Saddam Hussein of doing. It also sounds like the type of crime the ICC would be very interested in.

Sudan leader charged with war crimes over Darfur

Striking a blow for human rights around the world, the International Criminal Court handed down an indictment against Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Darfur region of his country. Since 2003 the Arab-led government of Sudan has allowed a civil war to rage in the western region of Darfur, which is populated largely by non-Arab, non-Muslim Africans. Brutal militias known as the jinjaweed have killed 300,000, mostly civilians in Darfur and driven roughly 3 million others from their homes. Rape, torture and mutilations are commonplace. In their decision, the Court found that Bashir was responsible for the terror campaign in Darfur.

The ICC’s indictment of Bashir is the first ever handed down by the court against a sitting head of state – previously there was a general principle that heads of state enjoyed legal immunity so long as they were in power. And while the decision is being hailed by human rights groups around the world, it isn’t going over so well in Africa, where other government heads fear that the arrest of Bashir could destabilize the entire region and bring an end to a fragile peace between Sudan’s government and rebels in South Sudan, where another civil war recently ended.

The Chinese also condemned the ICC ruling. While China is quick to tout the fact that they have 350 peacekeepers currently serving in Darfur, they have also blocked all serious attempts at economic sanctions against Sudan for the past several years. Why? Because Sudan exports oil, and about two-thirds of it wind up in China. Resource-hungry China doesn’t want to cut off a supplier, so they have squashed attempts by the United Nations and others at economic sanctions. Of course you could argue that this led to the indictment of Bashir, since if real sanctions had gone into place, Sudan likely would have had to change their behavior in Darfur, which would have taken away the reason the ICC indicted Bashir in the first place (though I don’t think China will agree with me on that one).

One more note – the atrocities in Darfur have been well-publicized, with many Hollywood stars and other celebrities speaking out against the rape, torture and genocide going on there, and that’s great that they would do that. But at the same time ten times as many people have died in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in situations just as brutal, yet that civil war has raged with little notice from the Western world. Its basically the same thing in Tibet, where many have spoken out about China’s attempts to crush the local culture and religion, yet nothing is said about Xinjiang where China is pursuing the same policies against the Uighur ethnic minority.

So I’m all for raising public awareness about these atrocities and I tip my hat to the people who speak up for those who are suffering. I wish though that rather than focusing on a couple of high-profile locations (Darfur, Tibet), the focus was on stopping the behavior no matter where it’s occurring.