Voice

Is Ivory Coast getting real justice?

Writing in the World Policy Journal, Robbie Corey-Boulet argues that post-conflict prosecutions in Ivory Coast, as pursued domestically and by the International Criminal Court, have a strong whiff of victor's justice:

Instead of receiving constructive transitional justice, Ivorians have so far received a form of justice that only legitimizes the new Ouattara regime. This raises the question of just what kind of behavior such “victor’s justice” might enable. The ongoing abuses in the west—arbitrary abductions, beatings, and killings—are the early answers. Here, after all, were military forces suspected of involvement in atrocities committed during the post-election violence, and instead of being prosecuted, they have been given free rein to commit new outrages while ostensibly combating threats against the state.

At the moment, former Ivory Coast president Laurent Gbagbo is the sole individual being prosecuted by the ICC as part of its investigation of violence in that country. Corey-Boulet believes that will change eventually, but worries that official cooperation may end as soon as the court shifts focus:

Though all indictments and potential indictments at The Hague so far are on Gbagbo’s side, there is little doubt that ICC prosecutors intend to indict Ouattara loyalists eventually. The big question is whether Ouattara’s government will cooperate and foster a process of balanced justice at home so that the courts are seen as even-handed at every level.

The Multilateralist

India and the Non-Aligned Movement

I have a piece on the FP mainpage arguing that the steady accretion of global influence by key Non-Aligned Movement players poses a long-term challenge for the movement. How long will coming powers like India and Indonesia find the NAM identity useful?  This post at the Wall Street Journal's IndiaRealTime blog makes clear that the Tehran summit has created some headaches for Indian diplomats:

The Prime Minister’s trip has placed New Delhi’s ties with Tehran under fresh scrutiny. On Wednesday, Mr. Singh is set to meet the Islamic Republic’s top rulers, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – the first meetings of this level since 2001.

Mr. Singh is expected to try to advance India’s energy and security interests by developing closer ties, but doing so without making the U.S. uncomfortable will be a challenge.

“India is not going to abandon Iran just because the U.S. wants it to,” says C. Raja Mohan, a fellow at New Delhi’s Observer Research Foundation. “But it doesn’t mean it will pick a fight with the U.S. either.”

Former Indian foreign secretary Kanwal Sibal argues here that, on balance, the NAM still serves Indian interests:

While extracting whatever is possible from it, India should treat its NAM membership as merely one component of its international positioning. While being clear sighted about NAM's limitations, for India it is nonetheless diplomatically useful to mobilise the movement to counter onesided, inequitable western prescriptions on key issues of trade, development, intellectual property rights, technology, environment, climate change, energy etc, and build pressure for consensus solutions.