The duet of British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy in Tripoli on Thursday was suitably short on triumphalism. Not one NATO serviceperson died and the regime that the mission aimed to change fell within six months. So the temptation to crow was high.
However, the two European leaders no doubt remember the rash boasts of former US president George W. Bush of mission accomplished in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their advisers must also have warned them that “liberation” can be a fragile concept with a short shelf-life.
There might have been less looting in post-Qaddafi Tripoli than in post-Saddam Baghdad, but there has been far more brutality meted out to former regime supporters. Cameron and Sarkozy concentrated on measures to secure loose weaponry and offered medical and other aid. On their return home, they should also think of more innovative ways to help the war’s victims.
On the same day as their visit, a new initiative was announced in London. Some three dozen non-governmental organizations launched the Charter for the Recognition of Every Casualty of Armed Violence. The brainchild of the Oxford Research Group, the charter calls on states to ensure that every casualty of armed violence, not just soldiers or “their own civilians,” should be properly recorded, correctly identified and publicly acknowledged.
Every casualty counts, but rarely is every casualty counted. That fact of war, particularly of the modern brand where civilian deaths far outnumber those of combatants, has slowly begun to be remedied. The Iraq Body Count made a start for the war that the US and Britain launched in 2003, carefully recording and cross-checking every reported victim and giving, wherever possible, the full name and date of death. The Research and Documentation Center in Sarajevo has been doing the same for the Bosnian war, regularly updating the Bosnian Book of the Dead, which now has 99,000 names.
The just-unveiled Kosovo Memory Book is an impressively impartial collaboration between Serbs and Albanians at the Humanitarian Law Centers in Belgrade and Pristina. Listing the 2,046 people who lost their lives in Kosovo in 1998 — a further volume on the larger number from 1999 is underway — the book includes short details for victims of all ethnicities. One aim is to try to end the battle of statistics in which different sides focus only on their own group.
Another remarkable aspect of the volume is that no distinction is made between civilians and combatants, so that thumb-nail biographies of Yugoslav army soldiers who died in Kosovo are set alongside those of Albanian women and children. In the “irregular wars” which are increasingly today’s norm, it is often hard to distinguish between combatants and civilians, especially when the “men with guns” may have been press-ganged into fighting or are child soldiers, or were illegally executed after being captured.
In Syria researchers for the human rights organization Insan have been risking their lives to register the names of victims. Between March and this month they total 3,004 including 92 boys and 56 girls, all shot in the upper part of the body.
The dignified naming ceremonies held in New York on the 10th anniversary of Sept. 11, 2001, were a model for how bereaved families can memorialize their loved ones. One day the same care should be shown for the tens of thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan who died because of US “payback.”
It is good if civil society in a particular country starts to record and keep alive the fate of victims, but the main duty must rest with governments. They are accustomed to keeping lists of dead soldiers and erecting war memorials. Do civilian victims deserve less?
More than any other recent Western military intervention, the Libyan campaign was explicitly based on the need to protect civilians. While the true purpose was regime change, the mission the UN Security Council approved cannot be passed over now that change has been achieved. Many of the civilians that NATO came to protect are dead, as are hundreds of combatants, some killed in detention.
An Amnesty report on Libya published last week shows that beside the atrocities committed by Qaddafi’s forces, scores of pro-Qaddafi supporters were rounded up and killed after the fall of Tripoli. Dozens of sub-Saharan Africans were wrongly accused by rebel forces of being mercenaries and then detained, tortured or murdered.
In Syria, the regime of President Bashar al-Assad has been doing everything to block information about its massacres, as Wissam Tarif, Insan’s director, said on Thursday. It has kidnapped researchers, cut telephone lines and interfered with Internet access. Britain and France should draw a contrast with these practices by funding a full accounting of the killings in Libya. A paragraph supporting this should be put in the new UN resolution they plan to bring forward. Making a record of every victim in Libya on the model of the Bosnian and Kosovo books of the dead can also help in the reconciliation the country urgently needs.
NATO should put its weight behind the every-casualty charter. A century after international humanitarian law was created, it is time states register the names and fates of the victims who die when those laws are broken.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers