27 May 2012

This week was a rather light one in terms of official meetings at the UN. In fact it was the first meeting since the end of break for New Years and Christmas in which the Security Council held no official meetings. This is not without reason though. This past week, the Security Council conducted an official visit to West Africa, visiting Liberia, Côte d'Ivoire, and Sierra Leone. While all fifteen members of the Council sent representatives on the trip, Vitaly Churkin and Li Baodong, the permanent representatives of Russia and China respectively, were notably absent from the Council's delegation. I can only speculate that this due to some objection to the peacekeeping missions in the the three countries on the itinerary or to the Council's response to the recent coups d'états in Mali and Guinea-Bissau. 

In the first leg of the trip, Council members visited Liberia to evaluate both the sanctions against that country and the peacekeeping mission deployed there. Liberia, it has to be said, is one of the few political success stories in Africa. In the decade following the end of the most recent civil war, the country transitioned quickly to not only a fragile peace, but a developing democracy. The 2005 elections saw the election of Ellen Johnson Sirleaf to the presidency. Johnson Sirleaf is not only the first woman to lead an African country, but is regarded internationally as a committed democrat. Last year she was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Given these developments, there are some both in Liberia and internationally who have began to question the need for sanctions and for the United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL). In his most recent report on the matter, Ban Ki-moon recommended a three-withdrawal of UNMIL. What concerns me, however, is what will happen in 2017 when President Johnson Sirleaf is constitutionally required to step down. I can only hope that some portion of UNMIL remains on the ground at least until then and that, if should matters escalate, the mission is able to fulfil its mandate and keep the peace.

 

The second leg, while in Côte d'Ivoire, again to inspect the peacekeeping mission, and to discuss the issue of refugees on the border with Liberia. At present, there are a significant number of Ivorian refugees in Liberia, and Liberian refugees in Côte d'Ivoire, with both groups claiming it is less safe in the other country. One of the stranger things to come out of these meetings is that the Ivorian refugees seem to be claiming their country has been overrun by Burkinabé. The people they are referring to are in fact Ivorians who supporter President Alassane Outtara whose citizenship has been called into question. Best I can tell, the claim that Outtara is in fact a citizen of Burkina Faso is a complete fabrication. I would guess that it was an attempt by his predecessor, Laurent Gbagbo, to discredit him during last year's election and ensuing violence.

Also on this portion of the trip, Council members met with representatives of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), as Côte d'Ivoire currently serves as chair of the ECOWAS Commission. Main topics on the agenda being the recent coups in West Africa, in which ECOWAS has served as a mediator in an attempt to ensure stability and keep matters from escalating.

In the final leg, in Sierra Leone, Council members met with ranking members of Sierra Leonean government, and with leaders of the peacekeeping and civilian missions in that country. Relations between the UN and Sierra Leone are somewhat strained at the moment, after the government expelled Michael von der Schulenburg, Executive Representative of the Secretary-General to Sierra Leone, fearing that his continued presence would pose threat to their reelection in November. Admittedly, they may have a point that Count von der Schulenburg overstepped his authority and “interfered in the internal affairs of Sierra Leone”. Unfortunately there is very little impartial information available on the subject.

The other major development at the UN this week was the reappointment of Navi Pillay as High Commissioner for Human Rights. Prior to her appointment to the post in 2008, Mrs. Pillay served five years as a judge on the International Criminal Court, and eight years as a judge on the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, including four as the Tribunal's president. Much to the surprise of exactly no one, Syria objected to her reappointment. Syria accused her of lacking objectivity in her analysis of the Syrian and of not respecting Syria's sovereignty. Perhaps more disturbing is the way in which her office has been used, in particular by Russia and China, as a means of justifying inaction deteriorating human rights and security situations. Until about a month ago, when the Security Council began taking action on Syria, Russia and China continued to insist that the matter be studied by the High Commissioner, and be handled exclusively by the General Assembly 3^rd Committee.

On a final note, I would briefly like to address this morning's attacks in Syria. At the time of writing this, the UN has not yet made a concrete response the attack. I will undoubtedly be covering the matter in much more detail next week.