The Hague Briefing

International Court Hears Submissions on Kosovo’s Independence

The US and Russia are dueling again. Both countries have taken opposing views on Kosovo’s declaration of independence from Serbia in February 2008 as the UN’s International Court of Justice in The Hague has begun hearing submissions on the subject. While the United States has argued that Pristina’s declaration of independence has brought stability to the Balkans; Russia, traditionally a staunch ally of Serbia, has stated that recognising Kosovo’s statehood would send the wrong signal to militant separatists around the world.
Kosovo has a rather unique recent history. Even though it was a province of Serbia, it had many of the attributes of a republic. These included an assembly, a government and a seat on Yugoslavia’s rotating presidency. After the Kosovo war, which culminated in NATO’s 11-week bombing of Serbia in 1999, the Serbian administration in Kosovo was replaced by a UN body which gradually gave way to Kosovo’s own elected institutions.
To date, 63 countries have recognised Kosovo, including America and 22 of the 27 EU states. But China, Russia and Spain (which currently holds the EU’s presidency) have not. As well as Serbia and Kosovo, 29 countries will give their views in court in what promises to be a protracted hearing.
Even today, international law on self-determination is unclear. Countries themselves are ambiguous on the secession stands they take. Most Western countries recognise Kosovo but not Abkhazia or South Ossetia which have broken away from Georgia. Russia and Venezuela, on the other hand, have recognised the two breakaway regions. Opposition from Russia and China ensures that Kosovo will never be allowed to join the UN. Even if the court finds in favour of Serbia, it is unlikely to make much difference to the political scheme of things as Serbia could never rule Kosovo again. Unfortunately, there is no deadline for the court to issue a ruling. The judges are, however, expected to issue their non-binding opinions sometime during 2010.   

Copenhagen Briefing
World Leaders Lay on the Rhetoric

Rhetoric occupied centre stage at the UN climate summit in Copenhagen. “Nature does not negotiate with us,” stated U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. “We have a chance — a real chance, here and now — to change the course of our history.”
“Climate change has a human face, and that face is represented in part by the most vulnerable and poorest people in the world,” was the message from John Holmes, the U.N. undersecretary-general for humanitarian affairs.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that while Washington was ready to do its part to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, other countries must play their part as well. “Nearly all of the growth in emissions in the next 20 years will come from the developing world,” Clinton wrote in an opinion piece for the International Herald Tribune.  Archbishop Desmond Tutu also added his voice to the media medley stating, “If we don’t get it right we are all done for. This is not crying wolf. This is the only world we have. If this world disappears, whether you are rich are poor, whether you are free or oppressed the fate is the same for all of us.”
But it was billionaire investor George Soros who won the greatest mileage with his proposal that developed countries lend the money they received in Special Drawing Rights (SDR) from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) back to the Fund so it can be distributed to projects in the developing world. “The developed world received over $150 billion and they really have no use for it at all,” he said to roars of approval and approbation.
For the thousands of protesters who took to the streets and the hundreds who were detained as they demanded a climate-change agreement it was all, of course, too little too late. European leaders have, however, agreed to pay 7.2bn euros over the next three years to a fund to help developing nations adapt to climate change. The contribution will come from all 27 EU member nations and the money being sought is for a “fast start” contribution to help the world’s poorest nations tackle rising sea levels, deforestation, water shortages and other consequences of climate change.

Pakistan Briefing
Supreme Court Waives Amnesty for Politicians

Pakistan’s Supreme Court may not be a toothless tiger after all. It recently declared that an amnesty, that had protected politicians from corruption and criminal charges, was unconstitutional. The 17-judge court invalidated the National Reconciliation Order, saying in its ruling that the amnesty “seems to be against the national interest” and “violates various provisions of the Constitution”. The order, that was passed in October 2007 under then-President Pervez Musharraf and protected thousands of bureaucrats and politicians, expired last month. The Supreme Court said its ruling revived all cases that had been suspended or withdrawn under the amnesty.
As president, of course, Asif Zardari is above the law, and will continue to enjoy immunity from prosecution. Although he was never convicted, Zardari has spent 11 years in jail on corruption allegations. His wife, Benazir Bhutto had also faced corruption charges in at least five cases, but was not convicted. Before her return to Pakistan to take part in the elections in 2007, she had been in self-imposed exile for eight years after being convicted of money laundering. When Bhutto was prime minister, frequent accusations of corruption against Zadari surfaced. His alleged stealing from government coffers and accepting of kickbacks, prompted many Pakistanis to derisively label him “Mr. 10 Percent”. His wife’s assassination during a campaign rally in December 2007, of course, proved that a family tragedy can turn anyone into a hero. Zardari became the head of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and President of Pakistan eight months later. The PPP had tried in October to extend the amnesty ahead of its deadline, but faced strong protest from opposition parties in parliament.