The Occupy Wall St. protest movement is reminiscent of the social movements of the past. Beneath the headlines, however, there are deeper issues that deserve more thoughtful attention, including a consideration of the tension between distributive justice and the nature of capitalism. This tension, which is rarely, if ever, discussed, is at the core of the problem.
Distributive justice concerns how scarce resources are shared in a family, community, or society. Distributive justice has three components: equity, equality, and need.
Imagine we are in a clan 100,000 years ago. I go out one day and slay a woolly mammoth all by myself. I drag the carcass back to our encampment one hunk at a time. Around the fire that night, I get the first choice of wooly mammoth haunch. No one complains because I was the guy that brought home the bacon, so to speak.
This illustrates the first leg of the three-legged stool called distributive justice. It is about equity. Equity says that I should receive in proportion to what I contribute. If I contribute a lot, I should get a lot. If I do not contribute much, I should not get as much as the guy who contributed more.
Once I have my mammoth steak, all of the adults take their shares of the sizzling meat. We are all equal members of the clan and are entitled to equal shares of the meat. This illustrates the second leg of the distributive justice stool: Equality. Because we are equal members of the clan, we share equally. Being an equal member entitles me to an equal share of the group resources regardless of my contribution.
There is still some woolly mammoth meat cooking on the fire. Several of the adults cut off pieces and feed the children, the few who are sick, and the elders. This is the third leg of the stool: Need. In every group, there are members who cannot provide for themselves, but nevertheless have a claim on group resources. The young, the sick, and the elderly have a claim on the meat because of their need. Without the meat, they would starve. Because of their age or health, they cannot fend for themselves.
Distributive justice is therefore the delicate balance of equity, equality, and need. We each perceive that balance subjectively. Massive wars have been fought over perceived imbalances in equity, equality, and need. When someone claims unfairness around wealth, resources, or economic development, distributive justice is in play.
The Occupy Wall St. movement can be understood in the context of distributive justice as a massive feeling that the equation between equity, equality, and need is out of balance. The protesters feel that the corporate finance world has taken more than its fair share of resources, has set itself above the majority of society by garnering special tax breaks, bail outs, and de-regulation, and has failed to acknowledge and respond to the distributive justice demands of equality and need.
Capitalism and socialism are both mechanisms for attaining distributive justice. Capitalism emphasizes equity-you are rewarded based on your personal success. Socialism emphasizes equality and need-everyone gets a piece of the pie sufficient unto one’s self. Both mechanisms are deeply flawed if left unbalanced. Unrestrained capitalism leads to the kinds of distributive imbalances the Occupy Wall St. protesters are complaining about—the rich are getting richer while everyone else is suffering. Unrestrained socialism crushes the entrepreneurial behaviors needed to create wealth and leads to oppressive, repressive, and unproductive societies.
When conflicts arise over the distribution of resources, peacemakers ask the parties to explore the imbalances in the distributive justice equation. Solutions are found that help rebalance equity, equality, and need. In large social justice movements, however, this type of dialogue is impractical. Typically, the US government has had the responsibility to address large scale distributive inequity, inequality, and need through taxation, regulation, and redistribution policies. These policies have ebbed and flowed depending on economic conditions and demands of American society.
The problem today is that the US government is so polarized that it cannot act. This works to the advantage of the wealthy, who wish to see the status quo condition of distributive justice maintained. After all, it is the limited taxation and de-regulation of the financial industry that has brought about the huge aggregation of wealth on Wall St. Likewise, the wealthy would like to see re-distribution policies (Social Security and Medi-Care) deeply cut or eliminated.
Health care reform is a distributive justice policy designed to balance equality and need with the limited resources of the US health care system. Those who prefer equity argue vehemently against a national health care agenda. Those who are priced out of affordable health care argue just as vehemently for a system that treats people relatively equally and takes care of those in need. Both sides are right. The conflict is about what the balance should be.
Unfortunately, the political leadership in Washington, DC has no interest in finding compromise on basic distributive justice issues. As a result, a social protest movement has started and gained some momentum. If enough people find that the Occupy Wall St. movement resonates with their own sense of distributive injustice, the movement will translate into votes in 2012. Wise political leaders who value their positions should be taking note and not ignoring the demands to correct this fundamental sense of imbalance.
Douglas Noll, Lawyer Turned Peacemaker, is the author of Elusive Peace: How Modern Diplomatic Strategies Could Better Resolve World Conflicts (Prometheus Books 2011).
At this early stage in the 2012 presidential election cycle, foreign policy is not high on the list of hot topics. However, there are explosive issues brewing around the world that will fall straight into the lap of the next president. Thinking about how he or she might respond to these issues is therefore an important exercise in choice.
Kenya is a case in point. After the 2007 presidential election in Kenya, violence erupted as evidence of rampant electoral corruption erupted. Former UN Secretary General Kofi Anan was called upon to mediate the dispute between the two political factions. Although he ostensibly orchestrated a power-sharing agreement that ended the violence, his mediation efforts, while well-intended, utterly failed to address the structural issues that caused the violence in the first place. In fact, his mediation efforts likely created the foundation for a Kenyan genocide in 2012 (http://elusivepeace.com/chap8.html).The Sentinel Project, in a recent report, states that Kenya faces a very real possibility of genocide arising in the next election cycle in 2012. (http://thesentinelproject.org/situations-of-concern-2/kenya/). There are reports of tribal militias engaged in an arms race in advance of the December 2012 elections, which creates the potential for mass inter-tribal violence at a level not seen since the Rwandan genocide in 1993. There are unresolved structural problems around land ownership, distibution of wealth, corruption, tribal rivalries, and access to patronage that are simmering within the country. In the northeast province, over 500,000 Somalis have gathered as refugees from the Somali drought, famine, and violence. This humanitarian disaster is adding stress to a country torn by political, economic, ethnic, and tribal conflicts.Normally, most Americans don't think much about Kenya's problems, if they think about Kenya at all. Maybe the closest one comes to Kenya is looking at the Starbucks coffee packages that advertise fair traded coffee from Kenyan farmers. Kenya does not pose much of a national security risk either. It is not a resource-rich country and certainly is not an oil-exporter. To most Americans, it is just another impoverished, corrupt African country struggling with the legacies of post-colonialism, AIDS, and deep internal conflict (http://elusivepeace.com/chap11.html).However, the potential for genocide is real. Genocide is a diplomatic, public relations, and domestic political nightmare for an American president. One need only look at the studied indifference of the Clinton administration to the unfolding events in Rwanda to see that genocide is a dirty word in American political circles. In fact, Clinton administraton lawyers argued that the term "genocide" should not be used to described the massive horrors in Rwanda because that would implicate certain international obligations that the US would prefer to avoid.This aversion to genocide is precisely why examining how a prospective president might deal with it is so valuable. It helps measure the integrity, intellect, and moral strength of the candidate.Predicting how the current Republican candidates might respond to the imminent threat of a Kenyan genocide is, of course, impossible to predict. However, the public statements and speeches provide some insight into what could be a range of expected responses.Rick PerryRIck Perry has been characterized as a hawk internationalist His approach to foreign policy and national security appear to be a natural extension of his personality: aggressive, unapologetic, and instinctive. His evangelical religious faith seems more Old Testament than New, which suggests a streak of vengeance, a preference for power as a means of solving problems, and a notable lack of compassion He has presided over 234 executions in Texas, a modern record. Despite evidence suggesting innocence, Governor Perry has refused to commute death sentences. In his book, he described himself in as "the kind of guy who goes jogging in the morning packing a Ruger .380 with laser sights, loaded with hollow-point bullets, and shoots a coyote that is threatening his daughter's dog." He attended Texas A&M when it was still a military academy. During the mid-1960s when most college students were protesting the Vietnam War, supporting civil rights, and generally heaving over old social structures, Perry spent his time with his hair cropped short, pants creased, and back straight. He was part of a minority of college students supportive of the Vietnam war and the military during his formative college years as he joined the Air Force in 1972 after graduating with a degree in animal science. How would a president Perry respond to genocide in Kenya? The best guess is that he would not be inclined to intervene because US national security interests would not be at stake. The obligations of international law to prevent genocide would be legal technicalities that would probably escape him. His apparent proclivity towards impulsive violence (e.g., the coyote incident) would not extend to helping people in a far off land find peace. He would speak platitudinously, but would not commit US resources to preventing mass violence.Mitt Romney MItt Romney is the son of former presidential candidate George Romney, former Republican governor of Massachusetts, founder and CEO of the venture capital firm Bain Capital, and president of the organizing committee for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City, Utah. Romney ran for president in 2008, dropping out of the race on February 7, 2008. In April 1965, Romney registered with the Selective Service, the government agency in charge of the military draft during the Vietnam War. He was not considered readily available for military service until December 1970 because of military deferments granted on the basis of his religion. When he became eligible for military service in 1970, he drew a high number in the annual draft lottery. At that time, no one drawing higher than 195 was drafted.Romney's foreign policy positions were not well-defined in his 2008 campaign and are not well-developed as of yet in the 2012 campaign. His campaign website urges the use of "soft power," which suggests a different philosophy towards genocide than that of Perry. Romney advocates streamlining a fractured and bureaucratic foreign policy establishment through the use of regional envoys.How would a president Romney respond to genocide in Kenya? The best guess is that he would seek a coalition of willing partners to provide some type of intervention under the direction of a regional envoy in charge of African affairs. He appears to be inclined towards international collaboration with allies in solving problems, and seems to understand the importance of relationships. Romney would probably support, but not overly-fund, a UN, NATO, or African Union sponsored peace effort in Kenya. He does not appear to have an interest in developing world peace when US national interests are not directly at stake. Still, he seems sufficiently experienced and motivated to prevent genocide within reasonable limits.Michelle BachmanMichele Bachman, a former tax litigation attorney with the IRS, is a member of the House of Representatives and serves on the House Intelligence Committee. According to Wikipedia , Bachmann was a member of the first class of the O. W. Coburn School of Law, then a part of Oral Roberts University. While there, Bachmann studied with John Eidsmoe, whom she described in 2011 as "one of the professors who had a great influence on me." Bachmann worked as a research assistant on Eidsmoe's 1987 book "Christianity and the Constitution", which argued that the United States was founded as a Christian theocracy, and should become one again. She received an L.L.M. in tax law from William and Mary University and worked for the Internal Revenue Service until leaving to raise her family.Bachmann states she was called by God to run for the seat, and that she and her husband fasted for three days on the decision. She was elected to Congress in 2006 and is the founder of the House Tea Party Caucus.Mother Jones reports that Bachman has been advised on foreign policy matters by Frank Gaffney.Gaffney is a former Ronald Reagan Pentagon official who has become one of the leaders of the right-wing anti-Islam crusade. Team B II was an ad hoc group formed by his Center for Security Policy which last year produced a report, "Shariah: The Threat to America," on the existential threat posed by radical jihadis in the United States government. How would a president Bachman respond to a genocide in Kenya? She has outlined the following criteria for US interventions overseas: "My view of foreign policy is that we need to be careful and circumspect about United States intervention in any foreign nation. Number one, does that nation pose a threat to the United States? Number two, have they attacked the United States? Number three, are there vital American national interests at stake? Number four: the security of the American people." (http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/15/michele-bachmanns-foreign-policy/)From all of the available information, it appears that Bachman would not be interested in preventing a humanitarian disaster arising from genocide unless it directly affected her perception of US interests. In all likelihood, she would defer to regional organizations such as the African Union to intervene in a purely African crisis. She does not see the US as a force for world peace.Jon HuntsmanAlthough not a front runner in the Republican primary contest, Jon Huntsman has far and away the most foreign policy experience. The former ambassador and heir to a massive chemical conglomerate fortune is one of the most globally minded candidates within the Republican party. Huntsman attended the University of Utah, performed a brief stint in Washington, DC as a intern for Utah senator Orrin Hatch and as a staff assistant to Ronald Reagan. He returned to Utah to work in his father's company, Huntsman Corporation. He eventually graduated from the University of Pennsylvania with a degree in international politics. In the meantime, the Huntsman Corporation became an international conglomerate. Huntsman began his political career in the George H.W. Bush adminisration and was eventually named US ambassador to Singapore. He was the youngest head of a US diplomatic mission in over a century.After his public service, Hunt returned to Utah to take on the position of vice-chairman of the board of Huntsman Corporation.He was named US Trade Ambassador by George W. Bush in 2001. In 2004, he was elected governor of Utah. In 2009, he was appointed by President Obama as Ambassador to China and resigned in 2011 to take up his campaign for president.Huntsman's foreign policy team includes former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, Council of Foreign Relations head Richard Haass and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, all foreign policy realists who served President George H.W. Bush (Bush I) How would a president Huntsman respond to a genocide in Kenya?This guy would probably act responsibly and maturely to the imminent threat of genocide. He has been tutored by deep international experience and would understand the political, social, cultural, and economic nuances of any US intervention to prevent or stop a genocide. He would work with regional organizations such as the African Union, but at the end of the day, if an intervention were called for and no other choices remained, he probably the right thing and commit US diplomatic and military forces to stop a catastrophe.Barack ObamaPresident Obama has not been dealt an easy hand as president. He inherited two wars and a collapsed economy that rivals the Great Depression in severity, economic dislocation, and political unrest. He has been insulted by the prime minister of Israel, the foreign minister of China (at the COP 15 Climate Change meeting in Copehagen) has had difficulty articulating a response to the Arab Spring, and has not articulated a clear foreign policy strategy to guide decision making in the 21st century. He has not demonstrated any creativity or leadership in foreign affairs, despite the early promise implicit in his Nobel Peace Prize. This is in part due to circumstances beyond his control and in part due to his relative inexperience in foreign affairs before taking office. However, he takes the problem of genocide seriously. He has directed an interagency review aimed at creating an intragovernmental Atrocities Prevention Board. This board will be charged with warning the president of impending atrocities and recommending ways to prevent them using diplomatic and military. How would President Obama respond to a genocide in Kenya?President Obama's instinct would be to build a coaltion of the willing to address the problem. However, to the degree that dissension within his administration grew around a response, he may deliberate too long and eventually accept a compromise solution that would prove to be too little, too late. If there was unanimity among his advisors, he might act more decisively. However, he has shown a proclivity for putting off tough decisions and then, when the crisis is upon him, engaging in a flurry of activity. The current fiasco over the Palestinian admission to membership in the UN is an example of how careful forethought could have prevented the last minute attempts to avoid a showdown in the Security Council. However, President Obama appears to have the moral courage to do the right thing. In a second term, with a legacy to worry about, he could very well live up to the mantle of the Peace Prize by a swift, well-thought out intervention to prevent or stop a genocide.Asking how candidates might respond to horrific events like genocides may be a venture in speculation. However, the exercise can help every American make a more informed decision about who she or he chooses as the next president. Hopefully, the Kenyans will not slide into genocide. It will take moral courage for the next president to help prevent the Kenyans from doing themselves in.Douglas Noll, Lawyer Turned Peacemaker, is the author of Elusive Peace: How Modern Diplomatic Strategies Could Better Resolve World Conflicts (Prometheus Books 2011).
The assassination of Burhanuddin Rabbani, who was spearheading the reconciliation process with the Taliban in Afghanistan, has changed the dynamics of peace in Aghanistan. The Afghan government has evidence that the assassination, carried out by the Quetta Shura Taliban headed by Mullah Omar and based in Pakistan, was supported, encouraged, and perhaps financed by the ISI, the Pakistani Intelligence Service. The Pakistanis vehemently deny this charge. However, it would seem that Pakistani influence in Afghanistan is on a severe decline.
As a response to the assassination and the evidence linking it to the Pakistani intelligence service, the Afghanistan government has turned to India, seeking stronger ties and a reliable peace partner. This is infuriating and probably frightening the Pakistani military and intelligence service. The whole point of the Afghanistan adventure, from their perspective, was to de-stabilize the country, keep it in a low level of insurrection and civil war, and control the insurgents from Pakistan. They could thereby assure themselves that Afghanistan would not pose an existential threat on their western border. However, the continued duplicity that Pakistan has used as its chief strategy now seems to be backfiring. The US is tired of the lies, double-dealing, and outright deceptions carried out by the Pakistani military and intelligence service. This became apparent after Osama bin Laden was discovered living 750 yards from the Pakistani military academy and was assassinated by Seal Team 6. Now the Afghanistan government has turned against Pakistan as a direct result of Pakistan's involvement in the Rabbani assassination. Obviously, Pakistan is not a willing partner in the creation of a stable, neutral Pakistan and is beening ostracized from the process. What might this mean for a peace process?
First, any legitimate peace process will have to start inside of Afghanistan. No matter what any other country may wish, the Afghan people have to decide that they want peace, not war. This will by necessity be an internal process and therefore cannot be constrained by traditional 18th century diplomatic negotiations favored by the international foreign policy establishment. In other words, at the outset, there will be no high level peace talks between diplomats, envoys, and heads of state.
Instead, if any peace process is to be effective and enduring, it must be organized and implemented from within Afghanistan. The stakeholders must include tribal leaders, village and regional councils (both shuras and jirgas), urban civil society leaders, women's rights leaders, government ministers, Pashtun, Tajik, Hazzari, and Uzbek ethnic representatives, and rule of law advocate, among others. The process must be carefully designed, fully funded, and organized by a mediation and facilitation team dedicated to a very long, arduous process. Lasting peace in Afghanistan will take 10-15 years to accomplish, not 6 months.
Second, the focus of the international community, especially the US, should be on supporting this internal process and protecting it from outside interference (e.g. from the Pakistanis and their Taliban proxies). Pakistan may be the major spoiler because peace is the last thing it wants to see in Afghanistan, unless it is in total control of the government. Pakistan and its Taliban proxies must be isolated and persuaded to stay out of the internal peace process.
Third, to the extent feasible, the NGOs and diplomats working in Afghanistan should be offering peace-related resources to the stakeholder groups. This could include referrals to mediation and facilitation experts, training in negotiation and mediation, training in effective group decision-making, and the myriad other skills needed in any difficult peace process. Building a systemic capacity for peace processes, negotiations, facilitated conversations, and restorative processes will be as important as the actual peace work itself. The US could divert a small percentage of its military spending in Afghanistan, which would be enough to support a robust peace process for the generation that the process will probably take.
Finally, the international community should stay out of the way except to provide support and expert advice when asked. It should shelter the process, provide security as necessary in support of the process, and keep Pakistan at bay. Only when the Afghanistan people are speaking with one voice under a leadership regime that all trust to speak for their interests should the circle widen to include regional states.
This view of peace is very different from the usual trajectory of international peace efforts. It requires those who have power or think they have power to step back and allow for Afghanistan self-determination. At the same time, those who have power and are truly interested in peace can use their power to protect the process from outside spoilers. It means becoming a servant to peace instead of a master of war. It means putting the interests of the Afghanistan people ahead of national economic or security interests. It's unlikely that this dedication to peace exists in the international community. However, peace in Afghanistan is unlikely without it.
Douglas E. Noll is a professional mediator, author, and speaker. His latest book is Elusive Peace: How Modern Diplomatic Strategies Could Better Resolve World Conflicts.
Americans could lose a lot if the US exercises its planned veto in the Security Council vote on the Palestinian application for admission to the United Nations. The question that is not being discussed is whether the loss is worth it.
The first thing to know is that the issue is not about Palestinian statehood. The media essentially has it wrong when it describes the UN vote as one creating a Palestinian state. The UN does not have the power to create a state. The issue is whether the Palestinian Authority will be admitted as a member to the UN. There are non-states who are members of the UN, such as the Vatican, and there are states that are not members of the UN, such as Taiwan and Kosovo. Being a member of the UN is not the same as being a state. Thus, the US is really opposing a membershp application, not a referendum on statehood.Second, to gain admittance to the UN, the Palestinian Authority would have to accept the tenets of the UN Charter. Among other things, this would require a recognition of Israel's right to exist and a rejection of violence. Since Hamas rejects Israel's right to exist, the Palestinian Authority will be placed in a difficult dilemma. It can join the UN and accept Israel's right to exist, or it can reject membership and continue to oppose Israel's right to exist. The unintended consequences of the Palestinian Authority admission to the UN might actually work to the benefit of the US and Israel.The media doesn't talk much about this important issue either. Third, a US veto against a symbolic membership application that does not have the force of law and may actually advance US and Israeli interests will be very, very costly. A veto will dispel any notion of the US's impartiality as a mediator in the Middle East peace process. A veto will be seen as an implicit endorsement of continued settlement construction in the West Bank. A veto will be seen as implicit endorsement of the non-peace regime of Benjamin Netanyahu. A veto will be viewed as inconsistent with the professed American values of freedom, self-dtermination, and democracy. Thus, a veto may cause important moderate elements the Arab world to turn away from the US as a model of peace, democracy, and protector of human rights. A veto will be used by radical political Islamists to incite further violence against the US, particularly the US military. A veto will harm US efforts to find peaceful solutions in Iraq and Afghanistan. A veto, in short, will make foreign policy initiatives in the Islamic world much more difficult. The cost to ordinary Americans will be reflected in continued unpopular military expenditures and a possible decline in national security, at least overseas.The pro-Israel lobby and American Jews supporting Israel would say that all of this does not matter. What is important is the survival of Israel. However, they do not explain how the Palestinian membership in the UN threatens Israel's survival. This is a classic example of reactive devaluation: If it's good for the Palestinians, it must be bad for Israel. Israel's supporters are automatically and emotionally rejecting anything that could concievably benefit the Palestinians. Since they see the conflict in purely distributive terms--one side's gain must mean the other side's loss--any Palestinian gain must cause harm to Israel. However, a reasoned examination of the effects and implications of admission to the UN fails to uncover a cost to Israel. How, exactly, is Israel injured by the Palestinian admission to the UN? The media isn't asking this question either.Finally, President Obama has precious little negotiation leverage over Netanyahu. To remedy the lack of leverage, he should withdraw the US threat of a veto. The more strategic approach might be to say, "The US has not decided on its position on the application of the Palestinian Authority for UN membership. Whether the US votes in favor, opposes, or abstains will depend largely on the willingness demonsrated by the Israelis and the Palestinians to progress towards a durable peace. The US is committed to peace in the region and will support those who aspire for it through their concrete actions. It will not support those who merely talk peace, but are unwilling to compromise." From this position, the US may leverage the parties to the peace table. Netanyahu has to know that the US may not oppose the Palestinian bid for membership in the UN. If he backs off of his hawkish, aggressive positions and compromises with the Palestinian Authority, great. If he remains opposed to compromise, including cessation of settlement construction, he bears the consequences in the Security Council vote. The same is true for the Palestinians.That kind of sophisticated negotiation strategy seems unlikely because the domestic political costs at the beginning of a presidential electiion cycle will be too high. However, the cost of not alienating the pro-Israel special interests will extract a higher cost for world peace. Ultimately, American taxpayers will have to foot the bill for that price.Douglas Noll, Lawyer Turned Peacemaker, is the author of Elusive Peace: How Modern Diplomatic Strategies Could Better Resolve World Conflicts (Prometheus Books 2011).The media will be paying close attention to the Palestinian bid for statehood because that bid sets up a classic human conflict of little guy against Big Guy, of justice vs. injustice, of self-determination and self-rule against opression and autocracy. Moreover, the US, which will oppose the Palestinian bid in the Security Council will be made to look as a power-mongering hypocrite. The media loves this because it sells newspapers and magazines.
However, the legal technicalities will probably escape media attention, and those technicalities are important.They are not that difficult to understand so here's a primer on the process.
First, there is a difference between statehood and membership in the UN. They are not the same thing. For instance, Taiwan is not a member of the UN, but it is a state. The Vatican is considered a state but it is not a member of the UN. Kosovo is considered a state by major powers, including the US and the EU, but it is not a member of the UN. Switzerland only joined the UN in 2002, but it was a state long before then. During the Cold War, many states had their application for membership at the UN vetoed (such as Ireland, Jordan, and some Soviet republics) but this did not mean that they were not states. So the Palestinians may be granted membership in the UN, but that does not confer statehood upon them.
This is complicated by the fact that international legal scholars do not agree on what "statehood" means. Neither the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) or the Montevideo Convention (1936) define the process of the creation of a nation-state. There are two terms used to described the formation of a nation-state: constitutitve and declarative. Constitutive means that a nation-state is recognized as such by other nation-states. Looks like a duck, walks, like a duck, quacks like a duck, must therefore be a duck. Declarative means that in addition to recognition, the nation-state must demonstrate independence from other authority, have defined geographical borders, a defined population, and control over the internal affairs within the borders and with the population. The declarative standard would be difficult for the Palestinians to establish.
All of this makes for good law review writing, but is politically meaningless. The reality is that an international consensus has to form around recognition of a nation-state. When the consensus has formed, there are legal procedures in place to codify the consensus into a legal reality. Without consensus, forming a new nation-state, e.g., Palestine, is impossible.
I should probably mention that consensus, in this context, means that all of the major military/economic powers agree generally on statehood. This is not a majority-rule situation, which is key to understanding the legal and political dynamics of the Palestinian situation. If one major power says no, there is no consensus, and nothing that is legally effective is likely to happen. And having said that, in the 21st century, wielding that kind of veto power may be politically very, very costly if the veto is against the sentiment of the rest of the world.
The process of seeking admission to the UN as a member starts with a formal letter from the leaders of the region seeking recognition as a nation-state to the UN secretary-general asking for acceptance as a full member to the United Nations. (See Rules 134-138) The letter has to include a declaration that the nation-state accepts the principles of the UN Charter. I've search the Internet to see if I could find a copy of any letter. So far, I have been unsuccessful. I don't think the letter has been delivered yet, which is interesting in its own right. Is this whole thing a negotiation ploy by the Palestinians? As a side note, one wonders how President Abbas can speak for Hamas in accepting the UN Charter on behalf of all Palestinians. Since Hamas is dedicated to the destruction of Israel, which would seem to be a violation of the UN Charter, its hard for me to see how the letter can legally be received as a good faith declaration of intent of all Palestinians. But that is a side issue.
When the UN secretary-general receives the letter, he is required to forward it to the current president of the Security Council, which in this case, is Germany. The president must convene a committee to study the request and submit a report to the UN Security Council.
The UN Security Council, upon receipt of the request and the report, debates the issue and votes to approve it or not. In this case, the US, bowing to Israeli political pressure, will veto the request.
If, by some miracle, the Security Council approved the request, the matter would be referred to the General Assembly where the request must be approved by a two-thirds vote. As of early September 2011, that vote would seem assured as 135 out of 196 members have indicated approval of membership for the Palestinians.
If the Security Council does not approve the request, the UN Assembly may pass a resolution approving the request, but the resolution has no force of law.
In essence, the Palestinian application for membership into the UN is a legally futile act. Politically, however, it may require the US to exercise veto power against the will of the vast majority of the members of the General Assembly in favor of Israel. One must wonder about the wisdom of that strategy from both the Israeli and the Palestinian perspective. The US, which is the largest, most significant financial supporter of both regimes, will be the biggest loser.
In summary, if the Palestinians apply for membership in the UN, they will fail. The process will polarize the US Congress in an election year. It will alienate Israel. It will leave the Obama Administration with yet another foreign policy mess. And, it will do nothing to change the status in the region. This looks like another dollar auction situation being played out by President Abbas against the advice of his senior advisors. (See my September 5, 2011 post Libya Needs a New Diplomacy for a description of The Dollar Auction.)
One last interesting point that has escaped the media's attention: If the Palestinians were admitted to membership in the UN, they would have access to the International Criminal Court. Cables released by Wikileaks seem to indicate that Israel considers this possibility, indictment of senior Israeli officials for crimes against humanity, a significant security threat such that Palestinian pursuit of an indictment would "constitute an act of war" against Israel. The existential and primal fear implied by this statement suggests that peace is a distant prospect in the region.
http://onlywire.com/r/50908116 Vermont professor has it right about Libya
Libya needs a new diplomacy; not the tired, ineffective efforts of the modern diplomatic establishment. Here's why.
First, Gaddaffi is exhibiting the classic signs of the third phase of The Dollar Auction Game, a phenomenon well-known to conflict resolution theorists and practitioners, but absent from the lexicon of diplomats.Speaking from his hiding place, believed to be in southern Libya, he said on Thursday Libya's "armed tribes" were still loyal to him and would fight on and expel the "colonisers"."We will not surrender," he said. "We are not women and we are going to keep on fighting."If they want a long battle, let it be long. If Libya burns, who can govern it? So let it burn." (The Telegraph, September 1, 2011)The Dollar Auction Game was invented by some theorists at the RAND Corporation back in the 1950s. Essentially, the game goes like this: The auctioneer offers up a $5 bill for sale. The rule is simple. The highest bidder wins the $5 for the highest bid and the second highest bidder, the loser, has to pay whatever his or her bid was to the auctioneer. I have conducted this game dozens of times with predictable results. The most memorable example was at a bankers' convention. The two hundred or so people in the room were all lenders responsible for loans ranging from $10 million to $50 million.
The auction began at 50 cents, and various bankers began bidding. At first, the attitude was "Hey, this is cheap. Maybe I can make a quick profit." Of course, everyone else in the room is thinking the same thing, and the price drives upwards. At around $3, the attitude changes from "This is a good deal" to "I want to win." The auction is now a game to be won or lost. Eventually, as is almost always the case, the auction came down to two bidders. One was at $4.95, the other was at $4.99. The lower bidder went to $5. The game just changed again. Now, it was no longer a competition, it was "I know I am going down, and I am taking you with me." In that auction, I stopped the bidding at $20. I have of other auctions going into the thousands of dollars.The Dollar Auction Game points out how emotions drive conflicts. Diplomacy is based on the assumption of rationality. However, rationality is the first thing to go out the window when people get into conflicts. Diplomats generally have no clue how to deal with the deep, intractable emotions in difficult conflicts, and therefore ascribe emotional conflict behaviors to "irrationalism." At that point, they wring their hands and call in the military. In this case, the world diplomats are talking about a UN military presence in Libya to deal with Gaddaffi's dollar auction situation. What they are not doing is thinking about Gaddaffi's psychology and developing processes for engaging him at a level that will de-escalate rather than inflame violence.Second, while fighting has died down in Tripoli, life there remains very difficult. The Tripoli Post reported on Wednesday that much of the capital is without electricity and water. The pumps used to pump water from the man-made river to the reservoirs were not working because of the lack of electricity and the reservoirs were empty.Though a cleaning campaign has started, some streets in Tripoli are strewn with torched cars and stinking garbage because trash had not been collected for months. Stores are closed, bombed planes sit on the Tripoli's airport's tarmac, and corpses crowd abandoned hospitals, though mass burials have been started.To make matters worse, fuel prices have skyrocketed with the cost for a gallon fetching 28 times the normal price before fighting broke out. (The Tripoli Post, Friday, August 28, 2011) As I have pointed in earlier blogs, the first priority of the National Transitional Council must be to get basic services back into the cities, including clean water, electricity, sewage, and sanitation. It recognizes this need and is asking for patience from the Libyan people. This is good.At the same time, representatives of some 60 nations gathered in Paris Thursday at a Friends of Libya conference, aimed at helping the new Libyan authorities restore stability and a functioning economy to a country ravaged by rebellion and 42 years of dictatorship. Libya was represented by the two leaders of the rebels’ Transitional National Council — its chairman, Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, and its prime minister, Mahmoud Jibril — who laid out the new government’s need for reconstruction aid and technical assistance. This was the classic, how-to-do-it diplomatic gathering. Speeches were given and sort of listened to. There was very little in the way of decision-making, and the likelihood of a rapid diplomatic response to the Libyan situation seems slim, next to zero. Even Secretary of State Clinton, who was present, offered nothing more than broad platitudes of support by the US.(New York Times, September 1, 2011) What is happening is classic diplomatic failure. The international community supported an external military intervention in support of the rebels. For the 7 months of the campaign, no one apparently gave much strategic thought to what will be needed once Gaddaffi is tossed out. No one began the serious, difficult tactical planning for food, fuel, expertise, and logistical support necessary to get Libyans back to a semblance of normality while the National Transitional Council focuses on creating a new Libyan constitution and representative form of governance. Instead, at the end of the major offensive effort, they gather in Paris, not Tripoli, to debate, not act. They wish to avoid the debacle of Iraq, but lack the initiative of bold action to support the Libyan people.What would a new diplomacy look like? First, the assumptions of rationality around human decision making would be given proper weight. Which is to say, not much. Second, before anyone fired a cruise missile in February, a planning task force would have been convened to plan for the logistics of a post-Gaddaffi regime. Right now, there should be tankers and freighters off the coast of Tripoli filled with fuel, supplies, and support personnel to help the Libyans reconstruct their country. Because of the attitudes of the old diplomacy, it may be weeks or months before this happens. In the meantime, Libya will hang on the cusp of transformation or anarchy. Is this any way to run a modern world? The lesson here is that the old ways are not working. While the international community wants to avoid another Iraq, its behaviors, attitudes, and inaction virtually guarantee further turmoil and humanitarian disaster for the long-suffering Libyans.Douglas E. Noll, Lawyer Turned Peacemaker, is author of Elusive Peace: How Modern Diplomatic Strategies Could Better Resolve World Conflicts (Prometheus Books, 2011).http://onlywire.com/r/50814808 Good article on Elusive Peace came out today in San Diego paper
http://www.elusivepeace.com Fresno, Ca………………………….Douglas E. Noll’s book Elusive Peace-How Modern Diplomatic Strategies Could Better Resolve World Conflicts (Prometheus 2011) is now available as an E Book http://www.amazon.com/Elusive-Peace-Diplomatic-Strategies-ebook/dp/B0051P276Y....
Trial Lawyer turned Peacemaker and International Peace Consultant Douglas E. Noll outlines the necessary skills and specialization needed to resolve world conflicts through his book. “From years as a trial lawyer, I began to realize there was a better way to resolve conflict. Becoming a professional mediator and studying the dynamics of mediating emotionally charged individuals and groups led me to realize that U.S. peace negotiations fail because peace strategies are outdated. Writing Elusive Peace was a way to help de-mystify the process of negotiating peace, and teach basic human interaction dynamics that lead to stalemates and ongoing conflicts,” Noll explains.
Everyone wants world peac