Tamil demonstrators protest outside the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group meeting in London. Image via Sri Lanka Campaign

Not surprisingly, late last month, the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) failed to deal with Sri Lanka. As a result, it looks like the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) on the island nation will continue as planned this November.  United Kingdom (UK) Prime Minister David Cameron has recently announced that he will attend CHOGM. A spokesperson also mentioned that Mr. Cameron would be delivering a “tough message” to Mahinda Rajapaksa this November. (Some may be left wondering if it wouldn’t be more effective for Mr. Cameron to deliver his “tough message” from London while one of his subordinates attends CHOGM and does the same).

By virtually every standard – including media freedom, disappearances, the rule of law and land rights – governance in Sri Lanka has become an unmitigated, incontrovertible disaster. In addition to recent reports by Amnesty International, International Crisis Group and Human Rights Watch, recent articles by other groups show that the situation in Sri Lanka just keeps getting worse.

The truth is that the Commonwealth isn’t mostly about matters related to democracy, human rights or “shared values and principles.” The Commonwealth is mostly about rhetoric and bureaucracy. Given what has recently happened at CMAG, the Commonwealth can be viewed as, at best, an anachronism and, at worst, a highly irrelevant and unhelpful entity – one that actually works to undermine democratic values through its overt support of authoritarian regimes. The fact that Sri Lanka will soon be chairing the Commonwealth for two years is absurd.

Sri Lanka doesn’t deserve to host CHOGM, although – if the event does go ahead as planned – it is imperative that likeminded governments announce that they will be downgrading their level of representation. Or – as a minimum – it would be prudent for Heads of State to refrain from confirming their attendance, as Mr. Cameron has recently done.

Mr. Cameron is right to argue that tough messages should be conveyed to the regime during the Commonwealth summit. But – again – would it not be more effective for those messages to be delivered in Colombo by people other than Heads of State? That – in and of itself – would send a very clear message. In addition to consistent advocacy leading up to and during CHOGM, a more comprehensive downgrading of diplomatic representation would be an embarrassment for an insecure regime which is obsessed with prestige. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has taken the lead, but others should follow.

The Commonwealth is failing, but the UN’s Human Rights Council (HRC) doesn’t have to. Having already passed two resolutions on Sri Lanka and given the fact that the Rajapaksa regime shows no interest in changing its despotic ways, the stage is set for a real resolution – one with teeth – to be passed at the HRC’s 25th session. It’s been more than four years since the conclusion of war, but the regime still shows no interest in genuine reconciliation, a political solution or democratic governance. On the contrary, as long as this regime wields power; impunity will be the law of the land.

There are pressing humanitarian needs which still have not been met. Nonetheless, in the near to medium term – domestic political change and accountability don’t have to be mutually exclusive. They are both worthwhile initiatives which could and should be pursued simultaneously.  From firsthand testimonies and documentaries to United Nations reports, there’s a considerable amount of evidence which simply cannot be swept aside.

Though not necessarily commensurate with what transpired during the Central American nation’s bloodiest days, Guatemala has shown that a semblance of accountability via domestic institutions is possible. However, it’s unrealistic to expect a similar outcome in Sri Lanka – certainly not now and possibly not for decades.

The next steps are clear; all that’s missing is political will. The international community has an opportunity to take more meaningful action and confront the Rajapaksa autocracy. Only time will tell if diplomatic rhetoric can be matched with consequential diplomatic action.

Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Moscow

The Arab Spring that prompted the ouster of authoritarian regimes in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya also led to the rise of Islamists who are bent on creating Islamic states that adhere to Shariah law — and that fate could await Syria after dictator Bashar Assad falls.  The democratically elected governments of Tunisia, Egypt and Libya are either led or beset by Islamists.

Libyan President Mohammed Magerief, leader of the General National Congress, is at risk of being overthrown by the Islamist extremists.  Tunisian President Moncef Marzouki faces a similar challenge from radical Salafists — members of a fundamentalist Islamic sect.  Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood is pressing to create an Islamic state ruled under Shariah law.

Long outlawed in Syria, the Brotherhood’s fundamentalist movement now has established an organized presence in the Mideast country.

Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi had warned the world that Libya risked becoming a base for al Qaeda if he were ousted. After he was captured and killed by Islamist militants, most of the Warfalla tribal clan, living in Sirte, also were butchered.

In Syria, Mr. Assad’s Alawite tribal clan has similar fears of being butchered if he is ousted. In the aftermath of the raging civil war, many innocent people will be killed just for belonging to the wrong tribe. Additional casualties will include Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds all fighting for their “piece of the turf.”

Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, Ansar al-Sharia, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and Jabhat al Nusra Islamist are among the militants fighting in Syria. The U.S. has designated all of those groups as terrorist organizations.

The Syrian opposition groups say they wanted change, which we interpret as our form of democracy — a cliche in that part of the world.

Mr. Assad’s ouster will not bring the democratic outcome the U.S. envisions — and the Arabian Peninsula will not become more peaceful. Bloodshed will continue in Syria, since achieving democracy in a tribal society will be very difficult.

However, a diplomatic solution may have a chance of succeeding, if all the tribal and religious factions can be brought to the negotiating table. If not, the fear is the fighting will continue to escalate, with disparate ethnic factions wanting to partition the country — a last resort to satisfy their quest for independence.

Unifying Syria under one leader, amid such a diverse religious, ethnic and cultural mix, will be a challenge.  Russia and the United States have agreed to convene an international conference — in accordance with the Geneva Communique approved by the U.N. Security Council — aimed at ending the civil war in Syria.

The two superpowers want to seek a political solution to Syria’s conflict, establish an interim government to include members of the current regime and “acceptable” opposition members. Such a transition would lead to elections to replace the Assad regime.

Secretary of State John F. Kerry has cautioned: “The alternative is that Syria heads closer to the abyss, if not over the abyss and into chaos [with] even more violence.”  The proposed inclusive peace conference may be the best alternative to an escalating conflict — even with an imperfect outcome — and repeating the chaotic situation in Libya.

A version of this article was previously published in The Washington Times.

President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey participate in a working dinner in the Red Room of the White House, May 16, 2013. Pete Souza/White House

The international system is in a rut and the archaic Westphalian global system of nation-to-nation dialogue is eroding. Short-term self-interest, sporadic technology attempts, and neo-realism appear to have divided the world. Country’s use diplomacy sparingly or in heavy handed ways. Cooperation is seen as a lost cause without hope. Militarism is on the rise and wars loom on the horizon.

Diplomats used to have face-to-face meetings with their counterparts in an embassy setting; replete with wood paneled meeting rooms. Today, diplomats enter a virtual world of international relations using avatars from thousands of miles away.  Prior to any agreements, dignitaries and envoys review their options together with open simulations, ensuring themselves the most peaceful outcomes and stable relations. Rival nations compete through the use of war games with their own strategists and military attachés as national players.

Nations evaluate the results of virtual diplomacy and virtual war with a sophisticated team of experts and artificial intelligence arbiters. Peace is achieved. The winners gain fame in annual competitions, prize money or real territory is exchanged—no human beings needlessly lose their lives in the process of international relations.

Such a future diplomatic model would be the new international norm among modern states in settling global level disputes. It also provides for greater transparency to the public and access to an official virtual portal that allows the constant contact with the nation’s opposite number.

Of course, modern states will still be prepared to fight real wars too, or offer humanitarian aid and assist in stability operations. The key difference is the constant virtual arena in which to vet out human error before it occurs and to encourage cooperation wherever possible.

Diplomacy gaming may never reach the fully perfected model presented above but it may just be worth trying.

From Here to There

Psychological and sociological research conclusively shows that the more one cooperates with others, the easier cooperation becomes and the more likely it is to continue. A virtual diplomacy exchange and gaming platform offers the greatest potential in revolutionary diplomatic affairs. The possibility of constant, open-ended collaboration between states, non-government experts and civilians in all facets of life shows a world coming together and not flying apart. The more humans presently interact in benign ways, the more they will do so in the future.

Current attempts at virtual diplomacy have little government backing and are limited in scope. They are directed mainly at public diplomacy (PD), not official state-to-state channels. Some governments have attempted to change diplomatic conditions through virtual PD campaigns and the use of social media. But, crucially, the public does not decide to go to war, even in a democracy. Few countries have a public referendum on war-making. The power in most cases rests with a nation’s leaders and a few top aides and there is no direct way to bypass them.

PD efforts are a step in the right direction, if handled properly, but the infrastructure is not in place to maximize its potential. Today, despite decades of rapid technological advancement and remarkably sophisticated communications equipment, governments must continue to speak and cooperate with each other through face-to-face interactions under a neglected and outdated exchange framework.

These in-person interactions are bound to change as technology advances. Nation’s will also have the option to employ a greater use of science and diplomacy in both their leisure and their profession.

Strategic ludology will not replace personal networking or PD but it can enhance it. The classic strategy board game “Diplomacy” was reputedly a favorite of Henry Kissinger and President Richard Nixon. It may well have shaped their thinking and the analysis that led to opening ties with China.

President Richard Nixon with Chinese Premier Chou En-lai on Feb 25, 1972

More serious efforts in digital formats offer an even greater advantage to decision makers and strategists. “PeaceMaker,” is such a game built around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, focuses on ending long-term conflicts through a pre-set optimum outcome for both parties. The thinking behind these games is hardly fanciful—strategic thinking is real no matter what the situation, and major developments in international relations have come from much humbler beginnings.

“PeaceMaker” is hardly alone. “Statecraft” is a bold scholastic simulation with fictional scenarios offering students a taste of the complexities of international relations. The purpose is to pursue goals in a world with limited resources using real-world methods and available options.

These sorts of games provide venues for simplified but often realistic decision-making about diplomacy and governmental management. They could well be the start of a global virtual diplomacy. If nation’s can justify spending so much money on militaries and war gaming, why not on diplomacy and diplomacy gaming for the active professionals?

The next generation of civil government simulations will almost certainly provide a more comprehensive experience that includes modeling beyond basic international relations theories. Players will experience the value of mutually beneficial governing systems on their own, without any built-in assumptions, and develop cooperative practices not merely because the game wants them to, but because they are genuinely the most effective.

There have already been a few digital efforts to move beyond today’s Westphalian model of embassy exchange. One of them, “Diplomacy Island,” makes good use of avatars and the virtual physical world. Unfortunately, it lacks a true sophistication of diplomacy gaming—foregoing realistic features such as military attaches and NGOs—and only attracts the interest of a few small countries.

“Statecraft” is a fantastic concept but is geared toward students and limited as a model for practical use. The real world needs a simulated environment in which to play out real time, as well as the long-term, hypothetical environment. Under such conditions, every decision and every strategy could be tested for best results with a multitude of experts and high computational power. Nations would use professionals and artificial intelligence engines to assess possibilities and make clear decisions. They would, in short, practice a new science of diplomacy and statecraft based on active models rather than a reliance on patchwork information, probabilities or real-time trial and error approaches.

To accomplish this next step, governments need to run their own virtual portals in addition to any overarching international frameworks that will emerge in the private sector. Powerful states have yet to pursue this kind of enhanced interaction on a massive global scale. But the potential is there for a revolutionary leap.

Key Components to a Solid 21st Century Diplomacy Foundation

A major revolution in diplomatic affairs is needed to channel belligerence and disputes from reality into cyberspace. Once there, those disputes can be analyzed electronically without bloodshed, giving the actors time to pursue collaboration and consensus. The most productive, least harmful decisions would then be translated into real-world policy.

It is critical to start a global diplomacy movement powerful enough that includes: simulated team-building activities, diplomacy crowd-sourcing (using the public to help identify best options through simulations), cooperation drills, virtual military competitions, and greater governmental transparency.

Most basic exercises would include collaborative gaming international norms. Strategic games will offer newer, more professional, adaptations of modern benign diplomatic models. They will incorporate the best of what gaming, networking, diplomacy, sociology, history and political science have to offer.

In the most optimistic scenario, highly serious, realistic, games would be played by diplomats who would learn greater respect for other nations and for global political integrity. They would find shorter routes to understanding and cooperation among nations and peoples because as this virtual world of diplomacy grows and develops, each nation learns to see more clearly from a multinational and an international perspective beyond their borders.

A powerful group of states would design and finance the system at first until others join. One tier would be developed for the highest level leadership exchange; one layer for civilian diplomats; one for military attachés, and one for civilian populations and NGOs of countries around the world. These layers would be like digital reality conventions much to the appreciation of technologists and sci-fi fans—and much to the benefit and the efficiency of foreign relations.

Eventually, digital human avatars could walk the virtual worlds, with diplomats using brain-computer interfaces to connect them with other leaders in common quests or even switching states and running the other’s virtual country for a while.

Augmented reality and heads-up glasses displays will allow people to maintain a continued presence in both worlds or whenever desirable, anywhere in the world. Diplomacy gaming would act as the catalyst and standard that brings nation-states together and the therapeutic framework would set in place the new norms of transplanting the troubles of life into cyber life.

Culture exchange and increased understanding would result. A digital diplomacy revolution would allow host nations to teach and share new gaming and simulations with guest countries, for example. A host state would invite a guest state into a digital diplomacy gaming session and the two would work through a number of issues that the host state has designed. One scenario is a natural disaster taking place in real time of the host nation. The guest country must decide how best to help the host using real-time satellite imagery, city cameras, and other means—much of the real world data would be shared and downloaded into the simulation and the leaders and guest officials would then decide how best to utilize resources, what is requested, where to place them and coordinate with their respective cities and units and so forth.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton works from a desk inside a C-17 military plane bound for Tripoli, Libya, Tuesday Oct.18, 2011. Kevin Lamarque/AP Photo

Moreover, digital diplomacy and problem-solving need not be restricted to crises or to government officials. NGOs, universities, students and other youth might participate in problem-solving to aid their governments and publish their findings in solving disputes through these methods—which would be taken more seriously then they are now—and open international events in the virtual diplomatic world might prove innovative and enlightening among both researchers and practitioners in the field.

Military attachés would likely need their own exclusive virtual world and these networks would need to be able to access diplomatic networks when necessary. Military strategy and national war gaming will, for the foreseeable future, be done within the confines of each respective nation. Limited joint war games and crowd-sourcing, however, is already growing. The defense establishment is also becoming a diplomatic face for nations and they are much better at gaming than the civil diplomatic corps.

Nevertheless, this new framework will open up the chance for military experts to engage in scenarios with their foreign counterparts and allies in new ways not available at the present. This will improve their understanding of foreign thinking, morale, tactics, etc.

A key purpose of such simulations would be to dissuade rogue actors from pursuing aggressive military policies as a digital deterrence. Virtual war-game demonstrations could easily become an international first response to any military build-up or aggression. With the proper development, it could replace provocation, sanctions, containment and coercive diplomacy as the standard first response.

Each side would battle it out with zero casualties and learn to play on different teams. If successful, diplomacy gaming and cooperative war gaming might one day detour large-scale state belligerence through constant close contact with hostiles and continual virtual engagement.

Eventually, the goal would be to get militaries to hold digital, simulated war competitions every year in some international or regional exercise that would draw them closer to friendship and work the angles within a diplomatic context.

An artificial intelligence framework would connect all of the games and parties together. The AI could be an unbiased arbiter that offers various options at many stages throughout these games. Best decisions and best practices would be learned within days or months of intensive participation, rather than the years or decades they often require—and at far greater cost—in a real-world environment. The AI’s add an extra layer of analysis in addition to the experts of each state.

The publics would eventually be allowed to observe many of the diplomacy gaming activities and open sessions. Public participation would be educational and provide a positive way for societies to interact. The public might eventually have their own world integrated into the international structure of governments as societies become more and more integrated through trade, sports, and common interests.

An ever-evolving public opinion in each nation would also be listed in real time, as would the “global citizen” aggregate views of what the observers prefer to happen in on-going conflicts.

Bilateral and multilateral tournaments for entertainment would also be modeled on the World Cup or the Olympics. Each nation would send the best gamers of their state to represent them in competitions. Unlike in international sports competitions, this digital convention would not always be one nation’s team against another’s but there would be mix-ups and varied unexpected scenarios where nations would have to join forces, set up alliances and task forces, or operate in a virtual UN.

The science and art of diplomacy would be fully incorporated and calculated into 21st century international relations. This maximizes political consensus and harmony without the use of threats and violence. It permits the maximum range of optimal outcomes. Nations would “learn” to be more cooperative, just as they would also “learn” which options are best.

A goal among states would be that over time societies would become more educated into making mutually beneficial choices as a result of an on-going science, art and series of cooperation gaming practices. Ethics, research and best practices would all be shared in a virtual library among nations and eventually generate new agreed upon norms, treaties and laws.

Challenges and Benefits

There is no doubt that international actors would attempt to cheat and abuse the new system. Cheating, when it is discovered, would be handled as it is in the Olympics, through disqualification and disgrace. Most nations would be inclined to play fair, if only out of concern for a loss of international legitimacy. This would apply to military attachés and popular public digital contests.

The purpose is not the series of games itself, but the psychology of positive interactions and the redirection of anger from the real world directed into the virtual world. This is done over time through various trials of a serious cooperative diplomacy gaming and the new cyber world. Most gaming would be fundamentally not state-to-state competitive, which would eliminate the incentive to cheat against each other.

Abuses are sure to arise. Resistance to the idea is the biggest obstacle in the beginning. Such reactions to such an international framework would be expected and anticipated. However, if the most powerful states establish this global design, it will be difficult for other international actors to not desire a say in the new power dimension. Surely they will jump on the official bandwagon when they see it as an operational benefit, and realize the cheaper costs and greater efficiency than the old diplomacy system.

Nations will seek to gain the greatest advantage from new trends in international political behavior. Any breaches in mutual benefits through the subtle or unsubtle detriment of their allies would be overcome by preventive measures within the developing infrastructure and ever-closer digital contact over time. In other words, the success of the new diplomacy system deployment depends on the time, money, and innovation that is dedicated to it by the most powerful players and the open global audience and not the few rebels that are not able to see past zero sum nationalistic gains.

States from Europe, Canada, the US, Australia, Brazil, India and South Africa are likely to be over-enthusiasts if the system was not dominated or controlled but allowed to function as an optimizer of international relations. Others like Russia and China are likely to be late converts but they might be included initially as well.

Cyber Terrorism and Digital Reality

Individual cyber-terrorists, anarchists, and state-sponsored cyber-attackers pose an increasing threat to real life critical infrastructure. Rebels will defy this new diplomatic system as much as they do today’s system. Cybersecurity will take the place of physical security as many nations’ top military priority.

The threat of digital attacks may undermine many governments’ willingness to establish this massive virtual diplomacy network. But if nations can trust their monetary systems in cyberspace, why not their diplomacy?

Aggressive hacking of the global diplomatic network might actually bring states closer together as it becomes more imperative to cooperate and solve problems jointly. Remember, not every obstacle has to be a negative one. Gamming diplomacy is also a philosophical mind-set and a larger outlook perspective, incorporating all potential obstacles to diplomacy cooperation as opportunities.

Who should run the Virtual Diplomatic Games between Nations?

As more embassies close down and more military bases spring up, a better question might be: Who is running any diplomacy in the “real world”?

The U.S., the European Union or the G8 could maintain an international forum for virtual diplomacy—or a new group could do so. There are many states that if combined in willpower have the collective power potential to provide a permanent digital environment and virtual representatives.

The Current State of Diplomacy

Diplomacy is in a state of crisis. Embassy closures and a lack of diplomatic will and imagination are threatening a fragile international order. Funding and innovation are lacking. Leaders rely more on the use of force than on the use of dialogue. When diplomacy is pursued, it is often coercive and unconstructive.

When one factors in the profits to be made in design, maintenance, and advertisements by businesses, or the charitable connections and contributions connecting people to crises—human rights and public empowerment—diplomats making fake war or finding new friends in key leadership positions of other nations—there literally is another world to waiting to be created and shaped. The alternative is letting the pieces fall where they may and to continue playing the usual game of “Risk” until it becomes the game of “Sorry.”

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrives to announce the deaths of the Americans in Benghazi

Always unarmed, ambassadors often are protected only by the goodwill of the countries in which they serve. But when hostilities arise, when governments fall, when their very lives are threatened, ambassadors and their staffs can rely only on the will and the strength of their homeland to ensure their security.

Before taking their assignments, U.S. ambassadors are given a presidential Letter of Instruction stating that the secretary of state “has responsibility for the coordination and supervision of all U.S. government activities and operations abroad” and “must protect all United States Government personnel on official duty.”  Congressional investigations into the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, have shown that the State Department failed to do just that, breaking its covenant with its diplomatic corps.

As a former U.S. ambassador who had received the Letter of Instruction, I was appalled when then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, testifying before Congress in January, tried to minimize the deaths of U.S. personnel in Benghazi by saying, “What difference at this point does it make?”  It makes a big difference. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, State Department officer Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were killed when heavily armed extremists overran the U.S. diplomatic compound and, several hours later, assaulted a nearby CIA annex.

Ambassadors know the risks of serving in hot spots, but with the ongoing jihad against the United States, the State Department should have been better prepared to protect our overseas missions.

In the wake of the 1983 U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut, a State Department advisory panel led by retired Navy Adm. Bobby Ray Inman issued a report recommending security measures such as upgrading diplomatic facilities and building more-secure missions in high risk areas.  The Inman Report also called for the formation of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security to oversee security at our overseas operations. The bureau assigns a regional security officer as the principal security adviser at each embassy. This person oversees the mission’s security staffs, including hiring local guards, setting up surveillance detection teams, and working with police and military authorities.  The regional security officer reports directly to the deputy chief of mission, the second-in-command at the embassy.

In January 2012, the State Department created the Bureau of Counterterrorism to further strengthen the department’s “effort on counterterrorism abroad and to secure the United States against foreign terrorist threats [and] disrupt and defeat the networks that support terrorism.”

In October, Deputy Assistant Secretary Charlene Lamb, who oversaw Bureau of Diplomatic Security operations at the time of the Benghazi attacks, testified that she opposed keeping an embassy security team in Tripoli after they were ordered to leave in August, saying “it would not have made any difference in Benghazi.” Additionally, Ms. Lamb told the embassy’s regional security officer “not to bother asking for additional help when the military team was sent home.”

Last Wednesday, Gregory H. Hicks, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli at the time of the Sept. 11 attacks; Eric Nordstrom, the regional security officer, and Mark Thompson, the acting deputy assistant secretary of state for counterterrorism, testified at a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee about the State Department’s failure to protect its staff.  Many of the members of Congressional did not want to listen to the facts about the attacks, calling the hearing a political stunt. They had never served in a hot spot or had their lives under siege. They had a myopic view of Libya and the consequences of the international military incursion in March 2011 that has led to the instability across North Africa and the Sahel.

My experience of working with deputy chief of missions is that they are very competent and highly trained career diplomats — as are regional security officers and counterterrorism officers. I placed my full trust in these dedicated people, who would do everything in their power to protect the ambassador.  A debriefing of these Foreign Service officers immediately after the Benghazi attacks would have pointed to Islamist insurgents.

Secretaries of State Colin L. Powell and Condoleezza Rice were both hands-on leaders. At the top of their list of instructions was security at overseas missions. I doubt whether either would have said “What difference does it make?” if a mission were overrun by jihadists and an ambassador killed.

With the security support we received under their leadership, terrorists did not kill any U.S. diplomats. Mr. Powell and Miss Rice communicated directly with ambassadors about threat situations. Classified cables received timely responses asking ambassadors to take action to protect U.S. interests, embassy personnel and American citizens.

I believe the State Department did not have emergency measures in place to protect the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi and to ensure that military support was readily available in the event of terrorist attacks.  The Arab Spring uprising saw numerous Islamist militant groups infiltrating the region. Ambassador Stevens knew the risks he faced and had sent classified cables regarding his concern of terrorist attacks. Such information would have instantaneously reached the secretary of state’s office.

Elements of the Feb. 17 Martyrs Brigade militia, which had ties to al Qaeda, were hired to protect the U.S. mission. Reportedly, brigade members had been warned of possible attacks against the mission in early August. Security measures should have been heightened in Benghazi, knowing the weak Libyan government could not control the well-armed militias.

U.S. leaders watched in real time as the events of the U.S. Consulate attacks unfolded. Disguising the disastrous ending — by not referring to the attacks as undertaken by Islamist extremists — was a political decision. It can only be seen as gross negligence and incompetence by those involved in making that unfortunate conclusion.

A version of this article was previously published in The Washington Times.

Israel’s Heron TP Eitan drone

The world is witnessing a chasm that will set American war technology far above the rest of the world. Whereas drones were once used for land surveillance, now they are being equipped with bombs and are being used for targeted assassinations. There are limited political restraints on the legality and morality of a drone strike. Drones are a dirtier and asymmetrical type of warfare, the inevitability of mass casualties, which begs the question of morality, as well as the prospect of vulnerable robotic systems.

Manned air warfare has been used for over a hundred years. However, with the development of Unarmed Air Vehicles (UAVs), the need for human pilots has been eliminated. During the First World War the U.S. Navy used “air torpedoes”, unmanned Curtis biplanes, with attached TNT, designed to nosedive at a target and explode. However, the planes never gained enough interest before the end of the war in 1918. After many other failed attempts to develop a useable drone, the project remained stagnant for years. Then in the 1950s the U.S. Military created a “proto-drone” known as the Cruise Missile, and with that design, engineers were able to tinker with the mechanics to create the “modern drone” in the early 1990s. During this time drones have been used specifically for surveillance and it wasn’t until the late 1990s that the U.S. Air Force started attaching missiles to their unarmed aircrafts. America started flying drones over the Middle East in 2000 and the first non-military supported drone strike was on February 4th, 2002.

Many other countries besides the United States use drones; Israel being one of the leading exporters of drones in the world. They created their first functional drone in the 1970s and have one of the most technologically advanced drones of the modern era, the Heron TP Eitan. To this day more than 50 different countries, political and even religious groups, use drones.

There are many arguments surrounding the use of drone warfare beginning with the question, should the world allow drones to penetrate modern day warfare? Most of the politics surrounding these machines are based on the safety, capability, and even the morality of drones. Proponents argue that drones are a “smart bombing” system and therefore more exact and less prone to human error. However, countless civilians have been killed in drone strikes usually as the result of collateral damage.

It is emotionally appealing to consider drone warfare. Since the military is not sending soldiers out on missions, there are no casualties if the plane is shot down or malfunctions. However, the danger behind this is that we no longer have an emotional pause causing us to think about sending planes with bombs on missions.  As with any technological system, there is always the possibility of a glitch. Human have not yet created a perfect robot. If an armed drone were to malfunction then there could be a whole slew of untold disasters.

The art of war is constantly changing to compensate for the advances in technology. However, with the creation of drones, there is an underlying fear of mass destruction. Drones are an initiation for unfair fights, the breach of humane warfare, and the setup for technological disasters. Unarmed Air Vehicles equipped with bombs should be banned from warfare, in order to spare the world from inevitable disasters.

Efraín Ríos Montt was convicted by a Guatemalan court for his participation in crimes against the Mayans from 1982 and 1983. Image via abc.es

It has been hailed as the first conviction for genocide of a former head of state in his own country, and certainly the first of a former Latin American strongman. Former Guatemalan dictator Efraín Ríos Montt was convicted by a Guatemalan court on Friday for his participation in crimes against the Mayans during his rule in 1982 and 1983. Montt’s sentences were steep: 50 years for genocide and 30 for crimes against humanity.

As ever with genocide, evidence of an intentioned plan to destroy a race had to be shown. The three-judge panel led by Yassmin Barrios was satisfied that the definition had been made out, finding that there had been a clear and systematic plan to exterminate the Ixil people. Prosecutors allege that up to 1,700 of the Ixil Maya were killed, in addition to torture, rape and the destruction of villages. The acts had occurred as part of a policy of clearing the countryside of Marxist guerrillas and sympathisers.

The heart of the defence by Ríos Montt was that, as a political leader, Montt could not be held accountable for military matters conducted in a rural province some few hours northwest of the Guatemalan capital. “I never authorised it, I never signed, I never proposed, I never ordered that race, ethnicity or religion to be attacked. I never did it!” In this, Montt was echoing the sentiments of the Japanese General Tomoyuki Yamashita, who was found constructively guilty for having not stopped the massacres that took place in the Philippines.

Yamashita did have a point, and one picked up by the dissenting judges of the U.S. Supreme Court. To hold such a figure to account in circumstances of military emergency, when contact lines were severed, and the army was fighting for its survival, was a tall order. There was little evidence that those troops had acted under his orders. But Ríos Montt could hardly claim to have been Yamashita and, according to the judges, “was aware of everything that was happening, and did not stop it, despite having the power to stop it.”

The trial proved a thorough affair, featuring extensive use of forensics, the examination of mass graves and the DNA of skeletons therein. It was grim but important work, and constituted but a small part of what was a civil war of mass murder. Between 1960 and 1996, Guatemala saw conflict that claimed the lives of more than 200,000 people. Prior to that, a U.S.-sponsored overthrow of the democratically elected Jacobo Arbenz Guzman ensured that the country would be doomed to decades of bloody instability.

It is often argued that trials do not provide a means of genuine restorative healing to parties or societies. Ríos Montt will not be seen as a criminal by conservatives who feel he performed a sterling job in ensuring that the country did not fall into the clutches of left wing revolutionaries. The Cold War subtext here was that he was, if anything, heroic in holding the fort.

Besides, the current Guatemalan president, Otto Pérez Molina, refuses to accept that genocide ever took place. This may not be surprising given that Molina’s name came up in trial testimony, in which a former soldier claimed he had ordered executions while serving in the military of the Ríos Montt regime. “When I say that Guatemala has seen no genocide, I repeat it now after this ruling. Today’s ruling is not final…the decision will not be final until the moment they run out of appeals.”

There will also be consternation that the atrocities of the government, rather than those of the rebels, have featured prominently. That the former feature, however, is due to the sheer disproportionate role played by the rulers and paramilitary allies. The 1999 report by the country’s truth and reconciliation commission claimed that the government’s role in the atrocities, along with its allies, was a hefty 93 per cent.

The soiled hands of this incident are many. They did not start or stop with Ríos Montt. Will the individuals who also cast money and material the way of such regimes be held to account? A case against the higher-ups, and those complicit beyond the borders of the country may well be in the offing, though that will take time. The edifice of accountability is gradually being built. International law, as ever, takes steps not so much in strides as in awkward stumbles, but when it does reach important junctions, effects are felt. What happens with the appeal will be telling.

President Obama has all but ruled out the use of US ground forces to stop the Syrian civil war. Image via Reuters

“We have been very clear to the Assad regime…that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus.”

– President Barack Obama, August 20, 2012

There is mounting evidence that Bashar al-Assad’s regime has deployed a limited amount of chemical agents against the rebels who are trying to depose the beleaguered Syrian president. Israel, the UK and now the U.S. intelligence community have asserted that Assad has used chemical weapons against Syrian insurgents.

In a letter to U.S. lawmakers, the White House notes, “Our intelligence community does assess with varying degrees of confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria, specifically the chemical agent sarin.” Hawkish US lawmakers jumped at the White House’s statement that Obama’s “red line” had indeed been crossed and that a more robust policy must be implemented. The inherent dilemma faced by conservative lawmakers is that public support for U.S. involvement hovers around 20 percent, so they have been noticeably vague about what that involvement entails.

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI), the chair of the House Intelligence Committee said on ABC’s “This Week” that “some action needs to be taken” against Assad’s government for its alleged deployment of chemical weapons. Rogers emphasized, the Obama administration’s red line “can’t be a dotted line.”

What complicates the US position and might force action are the recent Israeli airstrikes in Syria. According to Israeli officials, Israel struck suspected weapons sites believed to hold Iranian Fateh-110 missiles bound for Hezbollah in Lebanon. Whether the Israeli strikes prompt a new battlefront with Israel remains to be seen. Israeli defense officials are seemingly weighing the calculation that Assad neither has the means nor the will to do so. Even so, following the strikes, Israel deployed two of its Iron Dome missile batteries to Israel’s north in what has been described by Israeli officials as “ongoing situational assessments.”

America’s decision to intervene would show the region, particularly Iran, that Washington’s warnings should not be taken lightly. Moreover, there is a possibility that any US wavering on mobilizing more aid in order to bring an end to the expanding humanitarian crisis would provide Assad’s supporters the belief that the regime will not fall, while disillusioning the opposition.

As the conflict continues and conditions become increasingly dire for the Syrian people, there is a growing concern that radicalization will spread throughout the population. It has become apparent that extremists have entered into the conflict on both sides and the situation is expected to worsen.

This concern is the reason for Senator John McCain’s (R-AZ) recent call “to arm the rebels”. This declaration to provide lethal aid is undermined by many opposition forces pledging their allegiance to al-Qaeda. Support for the opposition, in any form, could easily increase support for enemies of the West.

So what if any options are available for the Obama administration? First, the most likely scenario is to avoid boots on the ground by arming the Syrian rebels with shoulder-fired missiles to provide them some advantage against Assad’s air power. Second, the administration could use airstrikes to hit strategic targets, like chemical weapons stockpiles and some of Assad’s ground forces. Lastly, the option being advocated by Senator McCain and others, is to establish safe-zones to protect civilians, in concert with a no-fly zone.

If the administration pursues any policy beyond arming the rebels, the administration would need to give Congress notice and certainly explain any decision to intervene to a war-weary American public. In a news conference on Friday in Costa Rica during his tour of several Latin American states Obama all but ruled out the use of US ground forces. “As a general matter, I don’t rule things out as commander-in-chief because circumstances change.” Adding, “I do not foresee a scenario in which boots on the ground in Syria — American boots on the ground in Syria — would not only be good for America but also would be good for Syria.”

While upwards of 70,000 or more have been killed in Syria since 2011, Obama has been prudent and cautious, inevitably influenced by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US has supplied non-lethal aid to the rebels but has stopped short of offering munitions. The Syrian people and opposition have been greatly supported by this foreign assistance, but much more will be needed in order to tip the balance of power.

While the New York Times reports that the administration is considering changing course, it is not at all clear whether, at this point in the conflict, this will help the rebels significantly. While the continued bloodshed is disturbing, it remains a matter of contention whether the onus should fall on the United States to intervene. It is expected by many in the region that the conflict will get worse without Western involvement. Despite the opposition’s growing strength and its ability to take hold of strategic government strongholds, Assad remains firmly in power.

It is expected that any effort to gin up support for a no-fly zone by the UN Security Council will likely be blocked by Russia and China. Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated that Russia and China’s stance on blocking Syrian intervention is based upon “the need to strictly adhere to the norms of international law and the principles contained in the UN Charter, and not to allow their violations”. To circumvent the “sovereignty caucus” the US would have to pursue unilateral action in concert with a limited number of allies.

Much is made of the Libyan intervention as being a case study in how to successfully intervene in Syria. Undoubtedly the most important reason why Western intervention in Libya succeeded is that it was launched so soon int0 the conflict. Qaddafi’s forces were identified early on and subsequently destroyed by US and allied warplanes. Syria is a much smaller state with no major core group making up the opposition. Further, any weapons that could flow into Syria could, once the conflict ends, spread throughout the region causing further chaos, similar to what occurred in North Africa once Qaddafi fell. Niger, Algeria, and the Western Sahel are currently witnessing the unintended consequences of the US coalition intervention.

Moving forward, any decision to intervene solely rests with Obama, who, again, by all outward signs seems hesitant to commit to another entanglement in the Middle East. A number of moral arguments can be given for intervention, but in calculating whether to intervene: should moral arguments trump decisions on whether it’s in America’s interest to, ostensibly, commit to another regime change?

Syrian activist Ammar Abdulhamid argues, “Ultimately, Western powers have no choice but to intervene. Until outside forces compel them to stop, the Assads will continue their murderous rampage with utter impunity…As Syrian activists are broadcasting on YouTube for all the world to see, the massacres continue unabated. President Obama has described the indiscriminate bombardment of the city of Homs as ‘outrageous bloodshed,’ but it is much more. The Assads are carrying out a virtual genocide there.”

The costs of intervening in Syria outweigh the benefits. More than likely the US would get bogged down in a sectarian conflict like in Iraq. The civilian death toll in Syria is horrific, but, while morality should certainly be calculated in foreign policy decisions, the question remains whether US’ intervention will lead to a series of unforeseen circumstances, which may be beyond the control of Washington.

Ethnic Tuareg in Northern Mali. Image via Foreign Policy

In 2011, the actions of a young street vendor in Tunisia initiated a movement that reverberated throughout the Arab world. Bouazizi’s startling act of self-immolation highlighted the subdued political dissatisfaction brewing within the modern Arab state. Within weeks, the leadership of Tunisia had fallen to dissident forces, and one by one other nations followed suit. Hundreds of people were left dead in what many considered political martyrdom while US policymakers struggled to react to the sudden change in this Arab state.

As the Center for Strategic and International Studies observed, “the fact that no one had even appeared to entertain the possibility of events unfolding in the way they did raises troubling questions about the assumptions made about countries and the strength of the contingency plans put in place to deal with unexpected events.”

With Africa’s increasingly potent ties to the Middle East under the southern spread of Islam, the extension of Arab Spring’s effects into its sub-continental region could threaten US influence in what has historically been a region of Westernized colonialism, a growing example of globalization, and a testimony to the effects of aid on influence. Should the events of Arab Spring cause a significant impact on Sub-Saharan Africa, the US would be faced with either setting a precedent for other Western nations, or remaining silent in what could be a massive allegiance sector for the Middle East.

At the conclusion of the Second World War, the United States cemented its role as a superpower in international politics and a new era in democracy was ushered in. Since that time, democratic uprisings have occurred across the world from Portugal to South Korea and Taiwan. The collapse of the Soviet satellites in the Balkans and the gradual democratization of Western Europe’s massive African empire officially signaled an end to international colonialism and the global shift towards democratic principles.

As a region highly vulnerable to outside interference and stunted by the arbitrary divisions of its land, the continent of Africa has struggled to adjust to the novel ideology of this new democratic era. Despite the intended purpose of democratic imposition, the economic and developmental shortcomings of these nations resulted in a series of unstable or transitional semi-dictatorship democracies. The causes 0f the Arab Spring; underdevelopment, frequent human rights violations, political suspicions and minority oppression are undisputed indicators that were evident before the catalyst occurred, which point towards increasing possibilities of another wave of democratic uprisings against non-functional democratic dictatorships in the near future.

According to the BBC, roughly 98 percent of Africa’s fifty-seven nations are currently “partly free” or “not free” at all, highlighting the difficulty of discerning true democracy in a region where votes are easily bought or coerced by those in power. Frequent internal conflicts and civil wars further complicate the task of attributing authority to a single entity within each nation, such as the case in Cote d’Ivoire, the Congo and Somalia. The prevalence of internal conflict as well as the modern African state’s notoriety for its semi-monarchial tendencies indicate a substantial and fundamental issue with their progress towards a democratic status, one unlikely to be resolved without significant changes in political and social infrastructure.

Underdevelopment and a lack of clean water will prove an impediment to growth. Photo by Bobby Neptune

In 2011, Gambia’s president, Yahya Jammeh, told the BBC that “I will deliver to the Gambian people and if I have to rule this country for one billion years, I will, if Allah says so,” also declaring that “critics who accused him of winning last month’s elections through intimidation and fraud could ‘go to hell.’” President Jammeh took the presidency in a coup four elections ago, and has retained office despite numerous accounts of journalist murder, rigged elections, and voter bribery, as is similar in other African states. These situations leave citizens vulnerable to the enticements of political subversion and easy manipulation by their leaders.

As corruption and civil unrest manifest itself in current African politics, a political rendition of Newton’s third law reflects a corresponding increase in protests and demonstrations across the continent as well. Massive police raids, arson, protests, and riots have erupted in nearly twelve African states in 2011 alone. Some discount the likelihood of an “African Spring,” attributing the recent increase in political protests in Sub-Saharan Africa as an indication of their freedom to protest. These assertions fail to consider the lack of progress such protests seem to hold. When coup d’états become the norm for political articulation, more and more citizens are pushed towards drastic means of securing their best interests in the face of a stagnant and non-functional, if not oppressive, government.

Just as in Tunisia, Africa’s economy is poised to be a major contributing factor to the conflict. In the Arab Spring, the issue was as much about “bad governance as it was about the economy.” The United States’ intervention in helping Africa past its economic barriers to development have caused a significant increase in economic growth as well as education. Changes in education during a nation’s transitioning period often precede increased participation (and subsequent dissent) in politics, as many of those who fuel such movements tend to be the nation’s youth.

Coincidentally, Africa’s rise in political dissidents coincides with its steadily increasing educations rates, as is shown in UN reports. In addition to this, US-based NGO involvement aiding Africa’s climbing education rates as well as American media’s arrival through attempts at sub-continental technological development have shown their influence in African politics. Many African countries have adopted the same electoral systems, democratic-republican natures and bicameral legislatures inherent to Western political ideals.

This growing attraction to Western society is reflected in the mass emigration of sub-continental Africans to Europe and the United States. Increasing amounts of the African elites migrate to the West every year to receive an education. This foreign perspective leads to an increased awareness among the youth of their personal rights, triggering a wave of internal dissatisfaction when they return to their native countries. Further conflict is caused by the friction between the inherited tribal aristocracies within African nations and the educated self-made youth who often return to their homes bearing unconventional ideas on interest articulation, political freedom, and the importance of the common man. As such, African civil wars are often waged between the older and more established ethno-political dominant tribes, and the impressionable youth who seek to rise above the confines of a preset aristocracy.

North African nations have seen the culmination of this in the Arab Spring movement, whereas in Sub-Saharan nations frequent political dissatisfaction has often led to a permanent gridlock of ethno-political civil war. These trends point towards a gradually developing resentment towards political authority in Sub-Saharan Africa, likely to boil over with increased influence from their Arab counterparts. Given the gradual spread of Islam from Northern Africa to the Sub-Sahara Africa, it is not surprising that such new religious affiliation bears implications within the sphere of politics. Islamic principles of charity, unity, and humility are what make it a prime cultivator for democratic uprising. As a largely democratic and egalitarian faith, autocratic or corrupt governments are more than ever subject to the scrutiny of the common man. Considering Africa’s steady conversion, social instability, and increasing education rates, it is not improbable to suspect an impending revolution in the near future.

As past evidence has shown, the United States is significantly rooted in the cause of Africa enough to require significant thought concerning future revolutions in the region. Not only would further political unrest threaten the lives of numerous American NGO workers (several have been the subject of kidnappings throughout the continent), but America’s efforts at resuscitating Africa’s ailing economy has proved successful in making Africa an important investment especially with respect to oil. Although African citizens may not be experiencing the benefits, according to the International Monetary Fund, Africa is experiencing high growth levels which make it the third-fastest growing economy reflect prominent returns in the future. As the United States seeks to loosen its dependence on Middle East oil, developing closer ties with Africa would inherently aid both its economic and political prospects concerning the Middle East.

In light of such statistics, it is evident that a neutral stance in the political development of Africa is not an option. Irrespective of policymakers’ intentions, any US actions concerning the region, be it silence or transparent, will have far-reaching effects in their consequences and the precedence they set for other Western nations.

As former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in relation to the Arab Spring, “We recognize that these transitions are not America’s to manage, and certainly not ours to win or lose. But we have to stand with those who are working every day to strengthen democratic institutions, defend universal rights, and drive inclusive economic growth. That will produce more capable partners and more durable security over the long term.”

A MQ-9 Reaper unmanned drone comes into land at Kandahar Airbase in Helmand, Afghanistan. Source: UK Ministry of Defence

To what extent should a country preserve the rights of its citizens abroad who plan attacks against it? This question led some to protest the targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki in 2011, an American citizen and high-ranking al-Qaida member. Writing in the Daily News in 2011, Ron Paul, former Texas congressman and former presidential candidate, argued shortly after a drone strike killed the al-Qaeda leader, “Awlaki was a U.S. citizen. Under our Constitution, American citizens, even those living abroad, must be charged with a crime before being sentenced. As President, I would have arrested Awlaki, brought him to the U.S., tried him and pushed for the stiffest punishment allowed by law. Treason has historically been judged to be the worst of crimes, deserving of the harshest sentencing. But what I would not do as President is what Obama has done and continues to do in spectacular fashion: circumvent the rule of law.”

In dealing with terrorists linked to the September 11 attacks or involved in planning future attacks like al-Awlaki, the United States relies heavily on the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), a joint resolution passed by the U.S. Congress in 2001 following the September 11 attacks. Although the document addresses the country’s position regarding foreigners involved in terrorism, it lacks the procedure for dealing with Americans engaged in terrorism abroad. As a result, it is unclear whether the United States has an obligation to uphold certain guaranteed rights, specifically due process.

Small numbers of Americans have engaged in terrorism abroad, and as America confronts nonstate actors, small numbers of Americans will continue to engage in activities that target the United States. The United States will continue to face a lack of protocol. As a result, it is necessary that Congress enact legislation that specifically addresses targeting Americans abroad.

It is important to note that targeted killings are often performed using drones to lower the risk to U.S. service personal. Therefore, much of the controversy over drones is relevant when analyzing targeted killings. James Jay Carafano, former executive editor of the Defense Department’s Joint Force Quarterly believes the controversy regarding the use of drones to target Americans abroad is “just a side show…for those who really have had it with the president’s drone strikes, the oversight issue is just a stand-in for their bigger complaint…they want new rules…but the rules are based on well-established ethical principles known as the Just War Doctrine.” Carafano is correct in emphasizing that current policies are based on Just War Doctrine and those arguments against drones stem from opponents seeking a new set of rules.

However, the Doctrine fails to address particular concerns that opponents have when it comes to actions against Americans while overseas. The Doctrine states that the “weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians.”

While a distinction must be made between combatants and non-combatants in terms of terrorist attacks and planning, what constitutes a combatant? Terrorism blurs the lines between combatants and non-combatants, and it is this ambiguity that must be clarified.

Some claim that targeting American citizens abroad denies them their constitutional due process. Richard N. Haass of the Council on Foreign Affairs argues “it can and has been argued that a citizen who joins a terrorist organization abroad at war with this country forfeits his right to due process.” Citizenship can be revoked by “entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state.” While not recognized by foreign nations as sovereign, terrorist groups could be considered a hostile foreign army, in which case the U.S. government could revoke the citizenship of their members. With this however, it would be helpful to have legislation specifically stating that joining a terrorist organization abroad provides the legal grounds to revoke citizenship.

In dealing with nonstate actors, the United States relies primarily on the AUMF, which states “the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.” AUMF addresses terrorists involved with the September 11 attacks, but fails to give the president the authority to act against terrorist groups unrelated to the September 11 attacks.

As John B. Bellinger III, former Legal Advisor to the National Security Council argues, “As U.S. forces continue to target terrorist leaders outside Afghanistan, it is increasingly unclear whether these terrorists, even if they are planning attacks against U.S. targets, are the same individuals, or even part of the same organization behind the 9/11 attacks…moreover, no law, including this act, contains specific provisions for killing terrorists who are U.S. citizens.”

The United States addressed this issue in the “Department of Justice White Paper” when, due to a lack of legislation, they were forced to create a document justifying the killing of a senior operational leader of a terrorist group. It addresses the protocol for dealing with U.S. citizens who are the head of al-Qaida or associates of al-Qaida, but explicitly fails to address Americans in leadership positions in terrorist organizations. Without adequate legislation, time is spent deliberating how to deal with each individual terrorist, giving enemies of the state more time to plan and execute their attacks. To address this problem, the U.S. Congress must pass appropriate legislation to address how the United States deals with American terrorists abroad.

In the shift to address the threat posed by nonstate actors, the AUMF was enacted to provide authorization to confront threats to the United States. While the AUMF authorizes the president to take action against those related or involved in the September 11 attacks, it does not give him the power to act against new or unrelated organizations, nor the power to act against Americans. Proper legislation must be enacted to address problems of current laws concerning the targeted killings of American citizens abroad. These laws make the processes for dealing with American terrorists less subjective and clear to both citizens and to foreign nations.

Kilinochchi, Sri Lanka

Even though the protracted internal armed conflict has ended, community members have been unable to return to their day-to-day lives. Under the administration of Mahinda Rajapaksa, Sri Lanka’s militarization has continued unabated. The Sri Lanka Army (SLA) has established numerous checkpoints and camps near peoples’ homes. Military personnel frequently patrol these areas – day and night. Sadly, the military’s intrusion into practically all aspects of civilian affairs remains a way of life in the conflict-affected North and East.

At the entrance to Kanthi Kiramam (Kilinochchi), there is a small army camp. Members of the 7th Battalion of the Sri Lanka National Guard (7SLNG) reside there.  A checkpoint is located on the other side of the camp, adjacent to a bus stop. At least three members of the military are actually living at that checkpoint. A brief history of this checkpoint may be of interest to both domestic and international observers.

Checkpoint Installation: Sequence of Events and Dubious Reasoning

Community members opposed the establishment of this checkpoint. Many community members said that such a checkpoint would frighten people while waiting for the bus.

To be clear, this is an important location; community members in Kanthi Kiramam and Konavil East use this bus stop. People sometimes have to wait for the bus for extended periods of time, so a range of topics are consistently discussed at this key area. Moreover, such a space is crucial given the restriction on the right to assemble in both private and public spheres. Students, young girls and community leaders gather there on a regular basis as a form political engagement, to discuss all kinds of topics, ranging from the trivial to the political (such as the upcoming provincial council elections).

In January 2013, military personnel started building the checkpoint. The following month, during the first week of February, community members went to the 7SLNG camp and requested that the military stop building. Nonetheless, by the end of the first week of February, the checkpoint was in place.

This has disrupted peoples’ daily lives, as people are now reluctant and afraid to use this bus stop. Moreover, a playground was also located in this area, but now fewer young people and children are playing there.

The significant encroachment on peoples’ lives through checkpoints has institutionalized the government’s capacity to surveil and control the (targeted) ethnic Tamil population.

People are afraid of the military.

In terms of location and surveillance, this is a strategically important area. From this recently installed checkpoint, the military is able to monitor both Kanthi Kiramam and Konavil East at the same time.

As a justification, military personnel told community members that such a checkpoint is necessary in order to curb the illegal excavation of sand.

Evidently, military personnel were not interested in what community members thought.

More than 185 families are living in Kanthi Kiramam.  These houses are located in an area which is approximately 400 meters north of Skandapuram Road (outside of Kilinochchi town). There is a community hall and a Grama Sevaka office near these homes.

The military maintains a strong presence in this densely populated area. In the evenings, military personnel frequently loiter near the community hall for extended periods of time.

A Return of Mystery Men?

On March 14 and March 15, 2013, unidentified people went to Kanthi Kiramam and threatened community members. More specific information is recounted below.

On March 14, 2013 at 10pm, two unidentified persons wearing black clothing approached a community member’s house and called out to him in broken Tamil. When the man came out of his house, the intruders told him to “go back inside.” As a result, the community member went back inside his house.

Later, in another house about 500 meters from where the first incident occurred – while everyone was asleep – one of those very same persons went and grabbed the neck of a twelve-year-old girl. The assailant told family members, “If you shout, we will cut her.” The assailants continued to threaten family members and used the child as a human shield.

Once the girl’s brother discovered what was happening, he started shouting. At that time everyone in the house woke up and started to scream. The mysterious people subsequently ran away.

After about thirty minutes, the assailants returned. They lit up the area with a torch light and called upon the husband to come out of the house. When the man came out, one of the assailants picked up an axe, which had been left just outside the house. The assailants ordered the man to have his wife come outside, but the man did not comply. When the wife became aware of what was happening, she began shouting.

Once the neighbors heard the wife shouting, they rushed to the house. Then the assailants fled the scene again. The second time the perpetrators came, they covered their faces with black cloth. Community members heard them speak in broken Tamil.

After this incident, the affected community members went to the army camp nearby and lodged a complaint. Consequently, in the evenings some army personnel have been stationed along Skandapuram Road and several bylanes throughout the village.

The following day, an unusually high number of military personnel were patrolling the area.

Nevertheless, on March 15, 2013 at 10.45pm two mysterious people approached a Female-Headed Household in the area.  The assailants opened a temporary door and tried to enter the home. Once those who were inside the house heard people trying to enter, they started to scream. Then the assailants fled the scene.

The following day, the affected woman, along with community leaders, members of the Rural Development Society (RDS) and the Women’s Rural Development Society (WRDS) went to the army camp and lodged a complaint.

Map of Kilinochchi

More Impunity

Since these incidents occurred, state security personnel have made virtually no effort to find the assailants; no one has been arrested for these crimes. Many community members believe that army personnel are responsible for these criminal acts.

Since there are army installations on both ends of the village, the fact that mysterious people are still allowed to roam freely has created a palpable sense of anxiety throughout the community. Further, army personnel have clearly stated that if community members ever have visitors, then that information should be reported directly to the military. Yet, when unknown assailants come and bother people at night, army personnel appear to be either unable or unwilling to take resolute action.

Conclusion

It is TSA’s contention that the recent problems in Kanthi Kiramam are directly related to the fact that community members raised concerns about the building of the checkpoint. Community members complained, but – perhaps more importantly – they did not believe that the government really cares about cracking down on illegal business activities.

Does the government of Sri Lanka really want to monitor illegal sand excavation? Or do they want to make sure that community members don’t forget that the military is watching? Or that the conclusion of war has resulted in de facto military occupation throughout the Northern Province?

Whether these recent developments portend a new era of mystery men – a return of the Grease Yaka – remains to be seen. Nevertheless, it looks like these acts of violence are now being used to justify the checkpoint, as the military now seems to be citing security concerns as justification for continued state surveillance.

The final report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) calls upon the Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) to reduce the army’s presence in the North and the East. Such a measure would allow people to move freely and help them to regain some semblance of normalcy post-war. Some people wonder if the government intends to place even more members of the army in this area – using the abovementioned incidents as a pretext for a heightened military presence. Were that to happen, such actions should be met with skepticism because this is a regime that simply cannot be trusted.

A version of this article was previously posted on Sri Lanka Campaign.