Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying

A remarkable woman has written a book on a remarkable man who lived an extraordinary life. Tonight I went to hear Samantha Power speak at Politics and Prose on her new book Chasing the Flame: Sergio Vieira de Mello and the Fight to Save the World. Samantha Power, who is a senior advisor for Barack Obama, currently teaches at the Kennedy School of Government. She is the author of the Pulitzer Prize winning A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide. I am a big fan.

Sergio Vieira de Mello was the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights when he was sent to Iraq as the UN special representative in the aftermath of the American invasion in 2003. On August 19, 2003 he died after a truck bomb attack on the UN headquarters in Baghdad. With his death the world lost an extraordinary diplomat, a humanitarian and a man who spent over three decades working to resolve conflicts all around the world, from Bangladesh to Bosnia, from Sudan to Lebanon, from Kosovo to Iraq, and many other conflicts. Sergio began his career in Bangladesh, helping distribute food and resettle returning refugees as a new nation emerged from the ashes of a united Pakistan. He went on to become one of the most widely respected diplomats in world. At the time of his death he was on the short list to become the next UN Secretary General.

A biography of Sergio Vieira de Mello is also the story of the major world crises in the last three decades. Its a story of delicate peacemaking,  false steps, dealing with ethnic struggles, negotiating with dictators and bringing hope to refugees and those in need. I have been waiting for this book for a long time. I am thrilled that Samantha Power has brought the story of this fascinating life to a wider audience.

Today, October 4th 2007, over 5000 bloggers from around the world stand together in solidarity with the brave people of Burma. This blog stands with them.

"When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall - think of it, always." - Mahatma Gandhi

"Within a system which denies the existence of basic human rights, fear tends to be the order of the day. Fear of imprisonment, fear of torture, fear of death, fear of losing friends, family, property or means of livelihood, fear of poverty, fear of isolation, fear of failure. A most insidious form of fear is that which masquerades as common sense or even wisdom, condemning as foolish, reckless, insignificant or futile the small, daily acts of courage which help to preserve man’s self-respect and inherent human dignity. It is not easy for a people conditioned by fear under the iron rule of the principle that might is right to free themselves from the enervating miasma of fear. Yet even under the most crushing state machinery courage rises up again and again, for fear is not the natural state of civilized man." - Aung San Suu Kyi

On September 22 Buddhist monks marched to the house in Rangoon where Aung San Suu Kyi is kept under house arrest by Burma’s ruthless military regime. Burma’s legitimate prime minister stepped out to the gate of her house, and with tears in her eyes, prayed with her people. In the days since that moment of prayer the peaceful protests of the Burmese people have been crushed by brutal force. Monks have been killed and disappeared, people have been dragged out of their homes in the middle of the night, and Burmese by the thousands have been thrown into makeshift jails all around the country. Fear rules Burma today.

However, no matter how many of its own citizens the military kills to try to hold on to power, it will never be able to erase the indelible image of a frail and beautiful woman standing with hands clasped in prayer amidst saffron-clad monks.

There is power in that image that the Burmese military cannot buy with the billions it spends on weapons each year. The junta fears her and the people she represents. In their fear they have fled the capital and built a fortress in the jungle for themselves where they hide.

The news reports say that the Saffron Revolution has been crushed. Not so. There are not enough bullets in this world to deny a people their freedom. The Burmese have struggled long for their freedom and they have suffered much. Often they have struggled and suffered alone while the world neglected them. Today that is changing. The world has finally focused its gaze upon the inhumanity being visited upon the brave people of Burma.

Let us today stand with the Burmese people. Let us stand with the Burmese people in the days to follow. Let us stand with them in their courageous march to freedom.

Free Burma!

Join the growing list of international bloggers in a day of support for the brave people of Burma. Sign up here and just post one banner post on October 4, 2007 with the words "Free Burma!".

[Cross posted at E-Bangladesh, Taylor Marsh, Daily Kos and Never In Our Names]

Bangladesh has its own illegal immigration problem. The country plays host to approximately 200,000 refugees from the bordering country of Burma. The refugees belong to the Rohingya minority, a persecuted Muslim population who are being methodically ethnically cleansed by Burma’s ruling military junta. They live in Bangladesh under desperate conditions, battling for scarce jobs and resources in the already desperately poor south eastern region of Bangladesh. It is just one of the silent tragedies of the forgotten people of Burma.

Burma, or Myanmar as the ruling military junta would like to be called, is one of the most brutally repressed countries in the world. It has been under military rule since 1962. An impoverished country of 50 million people, Burma boasts an army of over 400,000 active personnel. It’s yearly military budget stands at an estimated 7 billion dollars and is greater than Pakistan, Iran and North Korea. Burma has the 12th largest standing military in the world and spends an astounding 19% of its annual gross domestic product on the military. While the junta leaders live in luxury the rest of the population lives on less than $1 a day. Burma is the most corrupt nation on Earth.

The Burmese military is at war with its own people. It is so fearful of its own people that it has moved the capital of the country. In 2005 the military junta built a new capital, Naypyidaw, about 320 kilometers north of the former capital, and Burma’s largest city, of Rangoon. Naypyidaw is secretive and under tight seal. Cell phone networks do not work there and the civil servants are housed in military built apartments while the junta live in luxury villas. Pictures of Naypyidaw are hard to come by.

On September 6th the military junta in Burma declared that General Maung Aye, second in command in Burma, was postponing his upcoming visit to Bangladesh where he was expected to expand on the new found common ground with the military rulers of Bangladesh. This was the first signal from the junta that they were anticipating the August protests over high fuel prices to get significantly worse. Ten days later, on September 16, thousands of revered Burmese monks joined the protesters on the streets of Buma’s cities. The monks led the protesters to the doorstep of Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi’s home, where she has been held under house arrest and solitary isolation on and off for nearly 2 decades. The legitimate prime minister of Burma, and the embodiment of hope for the Burmese people, came out briefly to pray with the monks and the protesters. It was the first time the Burmese people saw her in four years.

However, as always hope was short-lived for the brave people of Burma. Aung San Suu Kyi was whisked away to a notorious prison in the Burmese interior and the Burmese military began the slaughter. In 1988, after similar protests, the military slaughtered 3000 citizens. This time the military claims to have only killed 10 people. The actual numbers are likely to be much higher. In 1988 the military junta claimed that only a handful of protesters were killed.

Today the Burmese people are cut off from the rest of the world. The internet, the lifeline connecting the Burmese people to the world, has been severed by the junta. The streets of Rangoon have been cleared of protesters and the blood has been cleaned from the pavements - protesters have been "disappeared" and the monks have been locked away in their monasteries. Into this surreal quiet arrived Ibrahim Gambari, the UN special envoy for Burma. In a "surprise" move the junta allowed Mr. Gambari to visit with Aung San Suu Kyi for about an hour.

This is familiar ground for Mr. Gambari. Last year he visited Burma twice and was similarly allowed to meet the Nobel laureate. On his return from his first trip in May 2006 Mr. Gambari penned an op-ed in the International Herald Tribune entitled "A crack in the Burmese door":

For a number of years now, the military leaders of Myanmar, formerly called Burma, have seemed impervious to international calls for democratic reform. A special UN envoy for Myanmar, Rezali Ismail, was prohibited for more than two years from even stepping foot in the country.

Last month, something seemed to change. Myanmar’s locked door popped open a small crack.

…

It is premature after one brief mission to come to any conclusions about the extent and depth of Myanmar’s current opening. Sustained engagement may be the only way to arrive at a fuller assessment of the prospects for democratization, development and reconciliation.

It will, of course, be up to the Security Council to decide on a course of action. Myanmar is hardly alone as a country for which the international community, in trying to influence the course of events, finds itself debating the relative merits of diplomacy versus pressure,or a combination of both.

Though some may be tempted to lose patience with the diplomatic track, I believe we have no option but to persist.

Nothing changed. The world moved on and the Burmese people were left to contend with their oppressors on their own.

Unlike previous visits this time Mr. Gambari has been unable to meet with the leaders of the military junta, including Senior General Than Shwe. This may be significant. There are already unconfirmed but credible reports that some generals, including Than Shwe, have sent their families abroad. It may signal a coup within the junta or fear within the junta that the protests may lead to the regime’s collapse. However, in a country where the military controls everything the prospects of freedom for the Burmese people are dim. If freedom comes it is likely to come at the cost of significant Burmese blood.

Burma’s two main backers, India and China, continue to feed its oversized military in order to squeeze a few extra dollars from the already impoverished Burmese people. While China and India continue to back the junta, there is little hope of a bright future for the Burmese people. While the sight of saffron-clad monks has captivated the world’s attention for this week, if the junta’s crackdown is successful the world will forget and move on once again.

Mr. Gambari will likely go home empty handed, save a token visit with Aung San Suu Kyi. The endless UN visits will continue as the junta appeases the foreigners by returning to the status quo. Mr. Bush will cynically thump his chest about military oppression in Burma while he offers full support to the military regime next door. China and India will continue to profit from the subjugation of the Burmese people.

Nonetheless, we who care about the brave Burmese people will not forget their plight. Even as the world moves on.

 [Sign the MoveOn.org petition to add your name to supporters of the brave Burmese people.]

It has been a brutal night in Burma. Yesterday the Burmese military killed nine of its own citizens. Overnight the military attacked monks in their monasteries - many have been beaten and carried away. Aung San Suu Kyi, the embodiment of hope in Burma, has not been seen since the crackdown began.

There are reports coming out of Thailand that the family of General Than  Shwe, the leader of the military junta, has left Burma for Thailand. If the reports are true, then Than Shwe may consider his situation in Burma to be precarious. He may be overthrown by another military man or the regime may itself be in danger. However, in the past, the Burmese military has not hesitated to suppress protests by killing thousands. Dangerous days lay ahead for the Burmese people. Democracy in Burma is being earned today with the blood of brave monks and citizens.

Bangladesh’s neighbor Burma, long forgotten by the world, wakes today to another day of protest, danger, and hope.

After the army deployed across the country yesterday and moved Aung San Suu Kyi from her home to a notorious prison, the crackdown on pro-democracy protesters has begun in Burma:

Burmese police have used batons to beat back protesters including monks at the Rangoon pagoda used as a rallying-point for marchers, eyewitnesses say.

They baton-charged a crowd of civilians and monks outside the Shwedagon Pagoda as demonstrators readied for a ninth day of protest marches.

Police and troops have been ringing Buddhist monasteries in the city.

Analysts fear a repeat of the violence in 1988, when troops opened fire on unarmed protestors, killing thousands.

The military regime in Burma is a ruthless entity well capable of firing on its own citizens. Dark days may lay ahead for the Burmese people. I salute their bravery and pray for their safety.

Now that the warlords are back in control in Somalia, it is probably not surprising that the country is devolving into chaos again. After America’s Ethiopian allies drove the Islamic Courts Union out of power a few months ago, the brief period of stability Somalia experienced after years of bloodshed abruptly collapsed. Now, the situation on the ground is ripe for profit.

As African Union peacekeepers take up positions in Mogadishu, under fire, they are being supported by contractors hired by the United States. The company that is the beneficiary of the contract is DynCorp International:

The State Department has hired a major military contractor to help equip and provide logistical support to international peacekeepers in Somalia, giving the United States a significant role in the critical mission without assigning combat forces.

DynCorp International, which also has US contracts in Iraq, Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq, will be paid $10 million to help the first peacekeeping mission in Somalia in more than 10 years.

DynCorp International has a long and illustrious history in government waste and unseemly activities overseas.

In January the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction reported on DynCorp’s activities in Iraq as part of a larger investigation into waste and fraud:

One of the reports released on Wednesday found that an American company, DynCorp, appeared to act almost independently of its contracting officers at the Department of State at times, billing the United States for millions of dollars of work that was never authorized and starting other jobs before they were requested.

The findings of misconduct against the company, on a $188 million job order to build living quarters and purchase weapons and equipment for the Iraqi police as part of a training program, were serious enough that the inspector general’s office began a fraud inquiry.

 The Washington Post provides more detail on DynCorp’s contracts in Iraq:

In its review of work under DynCorp’s $1.8 billion State Department contract, the special inspector general found that the department’s lax oversight led it to pay $43.8 million for a residential camp for DynCorp trainers that has never been used.

…

The State Department ordered work on the project stopped in September 2004, shortly after issuing the contract, because of concerns that the location was too dangerous for DynCorp’s trainers. DynCorp initially told the department that the camp had already been completed, but more than a year later said it wasn’t.

…

In 2005, a State Department official became concerned about "potential fraud" regarding DynCorp’s billing for 500 trailers that may have never been built. Yesterday’s report said the investigation is ongoing.

The department also can’t account for $36.4 million of weapons and equipment, including armored vehicles and body armor, because DynCorp’s invoices were vague, the report said. "DynCorp invoices were frequently ambiguous and lacked the level of detail necessary to identify what was procured," the report said.

With all this waste I can see how DynCorp’s contract to train Iraqi police might not have gone so well.

DynCorp has also spread good cheer in Afghanistan in a blow to Karen Hughes’ ill-fated public diplomacy mission. DynCorp’s heavy-handed mercenaries that protect Afghan president Hamid Karzai have managed to upset not only the Afghans but also America’s NATO allies. DynCorp’s behavior in Afghanistan earned a rebuke from the State Department:

The US State Department has rebuked a private security firm over the "aggressive behaviour" of guards hired to protect Afghan leader Hamid Karzai.

US State Department’s Richard Boucher said the issue was raised with DynCorp, the company that supplied the guards.

There have been several reported cases of apparently over-zealous and insensitive conduct on the part of Mr Karzai’s private security contractors.

A BBC correspondent recently saw one of the guards slap an Afghan minister.

Crispin Thorold reported seeing the Afghan transport minister receive a slap from one of Mr Karzai’s security guards on a visit to the northern city of Mazar-e-Sharif.

 To complete the waste and public diplomacy picture, DynCorp adds child prostitution:

DynCorp is the same company whose employees hired child prostitutes while working in Bosnia a few years ago, until some people started complaining. Rather than face local justice or courts-martial, the perpetrators were simply sent home.

One of the whistleblowers, a DynCorp employee named Ben Johnston, lost his job for speaking out. He later told Congress, ‘’DynCorp is the worst diplomat our country could ever want overseas.'’

Texas-based DynCorp’s parent, CSC, declined to comment on any of these incidents, saying that it is ‘’constrained'’ from doing so by its contracts with the State Department.

With a resume as illustrious as this, DynCorp appears poised to carry on the tradition of lawlessness into the already lawless Horn of Africa.

As the United States turns more and more to private contractors to support post-conflict operations, it must also extend the realm of accountability to include these contractors. As the story of DynCorp demonstrates, that much needed accountability is lacking. What exists today is government (tax payer) financed lawlessness that only serves to undermine any goodwill America hopes to engender in conflict regions such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia. The fact that firms like DynCorp are constantly rewarded with new contracts, in the face of their bad behavior, fits a pattern of behavior for the Bush Administration - where bad behavior is rewarded and calls for accountability are often punished harshly. It is up to the long comatose Congress to protect the funds we, the tax payers, have entrusted with the government - they must ensure accountability by punishing bad behavior. It is also up to the Congress to ensure that if the United States is going to outsource war fighting and post-conflict operations to mercenaries, these mercenaries must follow the same code of conduct that we expect of our soldiers.

However, a quick look at DynCorp’s donor list suggests that the bad behavior will continue, with government sanction. The hearts and minds will have to be won after the money runs out and the feeding trough is empty.

On April 16, 1993 the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 819. In it the Security Council demanded:

…that all parties and others concerned treat Srebrenica and its surroundings as a safe area which should be free from any armed attack or any other hostile act

A safe area was created around Srebrenica, in the newly formed Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, to protect the Bosnian Muslims from the heavily armed Bosnian Serbs that surrounded it. United Nations peacekeepers were deployed to the safe area to protect the unarmed Bosnian Muslims that had taken refuge there.

On July 6, 1995 Bosnian Serb forces under the leadership of Ratko Mladic laid siege to the town of Srebrenica. As the Serb forces began shelling the town, the residents of Srebrenica took refuge with the 600 lightly armed Dutch UN peacekeepers. The Dutch peacekeepers threatened to call in NATO air strikes against the Serb forces - however, after the Serb forces threatened to kill 30 Dutch soldiers they had taken hostage, the airstrikes were called off.

On July 11, 1995 Ratko Mladic and the Serb forces entered the town of Srebrenica. That evening Ratko Mladic and the Dutch commander, Colonel Ton Kerremans, shared a drink together.

The next day the Serb forces separated the women and children from the men. All men from the age of 12 to 77 were held for "interrogations". The women and children, all 23,000 of them, were bussed out of Srebrenica.

On July 13, 1995 the Dutch peacekeepers handed over 5000 Bosnian Muslim men for 14 Dutch soldiers that were captured by the Serb forces. On that same day the killings began. By the time the Dutch were allowed to leave Srebrenica, the Bosnian Serb forces had massacred over 7000 unarmed men.

The Srebrenica massacre was the most prominent of many war crimes committed by the Army of Republica Srpska (the Bosnian Serb forces) during the Bosnian War. It was the worst act of genocide in Europe since World War II. It was genocide that occurred as the United Nations and the so-called international community literally stood idle by.

The Bosnian Serbs were supported, equipped and funded by the government of Serbia during the Bosnian War. It is widely accepted that the Bosnian Serb forces were a proxy army for Serbia and Serbia’s leader Slobodan Milosevic. In fact, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), in its indictment of Slobodan Milosevic, called the Serbia-Bosnian Serb nexus a "joint criminal enterprise":

6. Slobodan MILOSEVIC participated in the joint criminal enterprise as set out below. The purpose of this joint criminal enterprise was the forcible and permanent removal of the majority of non-Serbs, principally Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats, from large areas of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (hereinafter referred to as "Bosnia and Herzegovina" ), through the commission of crimes which are in violation of Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Statute of the Tribunal.

7. The joint criminal enterprise was in existence by 1 August 1991 and continued until at least 31 December 1995. The individuals participating in this joint criminal enterprise included Slobodan MILOSEVIC, Radovan KARADZIC, Momcilo KRAJISNIK, Biljana PLAVSIC, General Ratko MLADIC, Borisav JOVIC, Branko KOSTIC, Veljko KADIJEVIC, Blagoje ADZIC, Milan MARTIC, Jovica STANISIC, Franko SIMATOVIC, also known as "Frenki," Radovan STOJICIC, also known as "Badza," Vojislav SESELJ, Zeljko RAZNATOVIC, also known as "Arkan," and other known and unknown participants.

Counts 1 and 2 of the indictment against Milosevic were "Genocide" and "Complicity in Genocide" for crimes against Bosnian Muslims and Croats during the Bosnian War, specifically including the massacre in Srebrenica:

32. From on or about 1 March 1992 until 31 December 1995, Slobodan MILOSEVIC, acting alone or in concert with other members of the joint criminal enterprise, planned, instigated, ordered, committed or otherwise aided and abetted the planning, preparation and execution of the destruction, in whole or in part, of the Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat national, ethnical, racial or religious groups, as such, in territories within Bosnia and Herzegovina, including: Bijeljina; Bosanski Novi; Bosanski Samac; Bratunac; Brcko; Doboj; Foca; Sarajevo (Ilijas); Kljuc; Kotor Varos; Sarajevo (Novi Grad); Prijedor; Rogatica; Sanski Most; Srebrenica; Visegrad; Vlasenica and Zvornik. The destruction of these groups was effected by:

a) The widespread killing of thousands of Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats, during and after the take-over of territories within Bosnia and Herzegovina, including those listed above, as specified in Schedule A to this indictment. In many of the territories, educated and leading members of these groups were specifically targeted for execution, often in accordance with pre-prepared lists. After the fall of Srebrenica in July 1995, almost all captured Bosnian Muslim men and boys, altogether several thousands, were executed at the places where they had been captured or at sites to which they had been transported for execution.  [Emphasis in last sentence added by me.]

However, on February 26, 2007, in a stunning decision, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) declared that the Srebrenica massacre was genocide but the state of Serbia was not responsible:

In a 171-page ruling, the International Court of Justice said the massacre of thousands of Muslims by Bosnian Serb forces at the U.N.-protected Srebrenica enclave was an act of genocide.

But the 15-judge panel rejected Bosnia’s claim that the Serbian state was responsible for the killing, saying it did not have effective control over the Bosnian Serb forces it had helped arm and finance. Instead, the judges ruled that Serbia stood by and allowed the massacre to happen.

In the first test of the Genocide Convention (Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide) since its inception, the international community failed to hold a state party accountable for the actions of its proxy force. The Convention, enacted in the aftermath of the Holocaust, was designed to prevent or punish precisely the kind of crimes that took place in Srebrenica. By failing to find Serbia guilty of genocide, the verdict has effectively sanctioned genocide by proxy.

The ICJ judgment sets a very high bar for state responsibility for genocide. The judgment states:

 -     The test of responsibility

          In order to ascertain whether the international responsibility of the Respondent can have been incurred, on whatever basis, in connection with the massacres committed in the Srebrenica area during the period in question, the Court must consider three questions in turn.  First, it needs to be determined whether the acts of genocide could be attributed to the Respondent on the basis that those acts where committed by its organs or persons whose acts are attributable to it under customary rules of State Responsibility.  Second, the Court needs to ascertain whether acts of the kind referred to in Article III, paragraphs (b) to (e), of the Convention, other than genocide itself, were committed by persons or organs whose conduct is attributable to the Respondent.  Finally, it will be for the Court to rule on the issue as to whether the Respondent complied with its twofold obligation deriving from Article I of the Convention to prevent and punish genocide. 

-     The question of attribution of the Srebrenica genocide to the Respondent on the basis of the conduct of its organs

The first of these two questions relates to the well-established rule, one of the cornerstones of the law of State responsibility, that the conduct of any State organ is to be considered an act of the State under international law, and therefore gives rise to the responsibility of the State if it constitutes a breach of an international obligation of the State.

          When applied to the present case, this rule first calls for a determination whether the acts of genocide committed in Srebrenica were perpetrated by “persons or entities” having the status of organs of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (as the Respondent was known at the time) under its internal law, as then in force.  According to the Court, it must be said that there is nothing which could justify an affirmative response to this question.  It has not been shown that the FRY army took part in the massacres, nor that the political leaders of the FRY had a hand in preparing, planning or in any way carrying out the massacres.  It is true that there is much evidence of direct or indirect participation by the official army of the FRY, along with the Bosnian Serb armed forces, in military operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the years prior to the events at Srebrenica. 

That participation was repeatedly condemned by the political organs of the United Nations, which demanded that the FRY put an end to it.  It has however not been shown that there was any such participation in relation to the massacres committed at Srebrenica.  Further, neither the Republika Srpska, nor the VRS were de jure organs of the FRY, since none of them had the status of organ of that State under its internal law.

          With regard to the particular situation of General Mladić, the Court notes first that no evidence has been presented that either General Mladić or any of the other officers whose affairs were handled by the 30th Personnel Centre in Belgrade were, according to the internal law of the Respondent, officers of the army of the Respondent - a de jure organ of the Respondent.  Nor has it been conclusively established that General Mladić was one of those officers;  and even on the basis that he might have been, the Court does not consider that he would, for that reason alone, have to be treated as an organ of the FRY for the purposes of the application of the rules of State responsibility.  There is no doubt that the FRY was providing substantial support, inter alia, financial support, to the Republika Srpska, and that one of the forms that support took was payment of salaries and other benefits to some officers of the VRS, but the Court considers that this did not automatically make them organs of the FRY.  The particular situation of General Mladić, or of any other VRS officer present at Srebrenica who may have been being “administered” from Belgrade, is not such as to lead the Court to modify the conclusion reached in the previous paragraph. [Emphasis added by me.]

According to the judgment, even though the Bosnian Serb forces were financed by Serbia, to the point where their salaries were paid by Belgrade, they cannot be considered to be an organ of the Serbian state. Furthermore, even though it can be shown that the Serbian army has participated directly and indirectly in military operations in Bosnia, since they did not participate in the massacre at Srebrenica, Serbia cannot be held responsible.

The legacy of the ICJ verdict is that as long as a government can maintain plausible deniability, it cannot be held liable for genocide committed by proxy local forces that are on its payroll. Many governments who have been accused of genocide because their proxies carried out mass killings will no doubt breathe a sigh of relief. From the genocide in Bangladesh in 1971 by local collaborators of the Pakistani army to the Sabra and Shatila massacre carried out by Israel’s proxy force in Lebanon to the Darfur genocide carried out by the Sudanese government-backed Janjaweed militia, the search for justice just became exceedingly difficult.

The impact on future conflicts also promises to be great. In an age where conventional wars are being replaced by proxy confrontations, the international community’s ability to hold accountable the ultimate lords of war has now been compromised.

The law is the last recourse of the powerless. This week international law failed the victims of Bosnia and all powerless victims of the evils of state sponsored genocide and terror.

In his often brilliant, and sometimes misguided, analysis of the international system, The Inequality of Nations, Robert W. Tucker wrote:

"The history of the international system is a history of inequality par excellence."

It is the inequality between nation-states, divided roughly along a North-South geographical axis, that underpins the current international system. The world is divided between haves and have-nots. Nation-states that have and nation-states that have-not have engaged in a grand bargain since World War II in order to bring stability to the world order. One of the pillars of this grand bargain has been the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The Bush Administration’s nuclear dance with North Korea and Iran have caused serious damage to the NPT and the grand bargain.

Earlier this week the United States and North Korea agreed to ratchet down the heat in their nuclear standoff:

The United States and four other nations reached a tentative agreement to provide North Korea with roughly $400 million in fuel oil and aid, in return for the North’s starting to disable its nuclear facilities and allowing nuclear inspectors back into the country, according to American officials who have reviewed the proposed text.

While the accord sets a 60-day deadline for North Korea to accomplish those first steps toward disarmament, it leaves until an undefined moment in the future — and to another negotiation — the actual removal of North Korea’s nuclear weapons and the fuel that it has manufactured to produce them.

The deal that George W Bush ultimately got from Kim Jong Il is at best the same deal that was available to the United States when the Bush Administration took the reigns of power in 2001. The significant difference between 2001 and 2007 is that North Korea now has detonated a nuclear device and has perhaps a half a dozen nuclear weapons (which North Korea may get to keep).

The Yosemite Sam of international relations, the anti-diplomat John Bolton, lashed out at the Bush Administration when news of the North Korean deal broke:

John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, blasted the new deal Monday in an interview with CNN, saying it would only encourage other countries trying to secure nuclear weapons.

"It sends exactly the wrong signal to would-be proliferators around the world: If you hold out long enough and wear down the State Department negotiators, eventually you get rewarded," said Bolton, who was also involved with North Korea earlier as the State Department’s undersecretary for arms control.

"It makes the [Bush] administration look very weak at a time in Iraq and dealing with Iran it needs to look strong," he said.

Mr. Bolton is right on the conclusion, but is, characteristically, wrong on the reasoning.

The Bush Administration should be commended for choosing diplomacy over confrontation in seeking to engage North Korea. However, Mr. Bush’s newfound push for diplomacy comes at the tail end of six years of belligerence. Those six years of belligerence have led to the weakness that Mr. Bolton complains about - those six years of belligerence resulted from the active participation of the anti-diplomat John Bolton. By resorting to diplomacy when threats of regime change and military confrontation failed, the Bush Administration has shown its weakness. Mr. Bush had the option of practicing diplomacy from a position of strength from the outset - he chose not to - and instead steadily lost leverage to North Korea and China.

The rub in the North Korea deal is the timing, not the deal. The previous six years have caused much damage to the international system. Mr. Bush’s freedom agenda, the pursuit of "peace" by sacrificing stability, has been a primary driving force behind the failures that have led to a nuclear North Korea. Threats of regime change and phrases such as the "axis of evil" have poisoned the international system.

The "freedom agenda" has struck at the very heart of treaties such as the NPT. The grand bargain of the NPT is between the nuclear-weapon states (the haves) and the non-nuclear-weapon states (the have-nots). The bargain is as follows: the have-nots agree to not acquire nuclear weapons in exchange for assurances from the haves that the have-nots will not be attacked by the haves. Further, the haves agree to not proliferate nuclear weapons to the have-nots and also agree to work toward nuclear disarmament. The Bush Administration policies of the last six years, most notably the attack on Iraq, have given the have-nots reason to fear the haves and reason to acquire nuclear weapons. The delicate balance of the NPT has been upset. It should be noted that since the NPT came into effect no non-nuclear-weapon signatory other than North Korea has ever left the NPT or has ever acquired nuclear weapons. It is also noteworthy that North Korea left the NPT and became a nuclear weapons state under the Bush Administration’s watch.

The lessons of the North Korean experience are clear to the non-nuclear states. First, the acquisition of nuclear weapons is a necessary deterrent in a world dominated by a belligerent nuclear superpower. Second, nuclear weapons status is an essential bargaining chip against a belligerent superpower. Third, the NPT is no longer the governing principle in this new world order.

Robert W. Tucker, in concluding his thesis, laid out the challenge to the international order posed by the disparity between the haves and have-nots:

"Will the present beneficiaries of the international system prove able to control the power aspirations of those who will sooner or later seek no more, though no less, than what others have sought before them?… For those who are able to pursue it, the logic of the challenge to inequality is ultimately the logic of nuclear proliferation. In turn, the logic of nuclear proliferation is one of decreasing control over the international system by those who are its present guardians."

Fundamentally, as a guardian of the international system the Bush Administration has failed in its responsibilities. It has failed in the challenge to control the power aspirations of the have-nots by casting aside the grand bargain that was struck in the post World War II era. North Korea is but one symptom of the Bush Administration’s failure - Iran waits at the threshold with many more to follow.

It is ironic that the most warmongering and belligerent administration in American history has failed or is failing in the two wars that it has undertaken - Afghanistan and Iraq. The only real "success" it has seen on the international arena has been achieved not through war, but through diplomacy. Yet, that belated diplomacy has come at a heavy, and avoidable, price to the stability of the world.

Maybe I am easily amused, but a little nugget I discovered via Americablog has just made my day (and my daughter loves it too).

Meet Matt Harding, who literally dances his way around the world.

Enjoy the video and the wonderful song that accompanies it:

It truly is a beautiful planet. We should spend more time dancing and exploring it.