View previous stories
	10 Conflicts to Watch in 2013 by Louise Arbour International Crisis Group   27 Dec 2012   Every year, around the world, old conflicts worsen, new ones emerge and, occasionally, some situations improve. There is no shortage of storm clouds looming over 2013: Once again, hotspots old and new will present a challenge to the security of people across the globe.   There is, of course, an arbitrariness to most lists -- and this list of crises to watch out for in 2013 is no different. One person"s priority might well be another"s sideshow, one analyst"s early warning cry is another"s fear-mongering. In some situations -- Central Asia, perhaps -- preventive action has genuine meaning: The collapse into chaos has yet to happen. More complicated is anticipating when it will happen, what will trigger it, and how bad it will be. In others -- Syria, obviously -- the catastrophe is already upon us, so the very notion of prevention can seem absurd. It has no meaning save in the sense of preventing the nightmare from worsening or spreading.   What follows, then, is a "top 10" list of crises that does not include the ongoing, drug-related violence in Mexico, the simmering tensions in the East China Sea, or the possibility of conflict on the Korean peninsula after a rocket launch by Pyongyang. As if this mix wasn"t combustible enough, there are new leaders in China, Japan, and on both sides of Korea"s de-militarized zone who may well feel pressured to burnish their nationalist credentials with aggressive action. Nor do I mention the forthcoming elections in Zimbabwe, the ongoing trauma in Somalia, or the talk of war in response to Iran"s nuclear program. Any of these could credibly make a top 10 crises list.   Focusing on countries also makes it more difficult to highlight some of the undercurrents and tensions percolating through the various crises we are likely to confront next year. So, before we begin our list, here are four examples, in brief.   Elections, we know, place enormous stresses on fragile polities: they"re a long-term good that can present short-term challenges. The 2011 presidential polls in the Democratic Republic of the Congo failed to meet this challenge, and the current violence in the DRC"s eastern provinces is at least in part driven by the bankruptcy of governance that the elections, if anything, exacerbated. Much attention in the coming year will be on how Kenya and Zimbabwe manage their forthcoming votes, and on how the region and the world respond.   A similar tension lies between the long-term benefits of justice -- promoting accountability and addressing an accumulation of grievances -- and the reality that it can often pose immediate risks. Whether in Yemen, Sudan, Syria, Libya, Kenya, or Colombia, the "justice or peace" debate is in need of fresh thinking.   The role of sanctions in preventing conflict also seems too often to involve a dialogue of the deaf. Did sanctions encourage the changes in Myanmar (also known as Burma) -- or simply punish the people, not the rulers, of that country? Have they become part of the problem in Zimbabwe rather than a driver of change? And most prominently, how will sanctions defuse the Iran nuclear crisis, when they appear to signal to Tehran that the goal is to change not the regime"s behavior but the regime itself? It might behoove the international community to avoid the temptation to impose sanctions as an automatic default response to a given situation; sanctions will only be effective as part of a coherent, overall strategy, not as a substitute for one.   And finally, a word on the rule of law. Too often, we see this well-worn phrase used in the sense of "rule by law": That is, autocratic rulers co-opt the language and trappings of democracy, using the law to harass rather than protect. Hence the use of law to harass rather than protect; hence the international community"s tendency to train and equip law enforcement units who, in the eyes of the civilians they are charged with protecting, likely don"t need to become more efficient in techniques of repression. The international community needs to be more vigilant toward this charade and more focused on the substance of the rule of law -- perhaps most importantly the notion of equality before the law -- than its form.   The laws of war may also need to adapt to the evolving nature of modern warfare. Asymmetric warfare and the language of the "war on terror" challenge the critical distinction between "combatants" and "civilians." Technology, too, presents new dilemmas. Despite claims of surgical accuracy, drone strikes produce collateral civilian damage that is difficult to measure, while exposing one side to no risk of combatant casualties. In some instances, drones also may be self-defeating: They terrorize and cause deep trauma to those communities affected, potentially increasing support for radical groups.   It"s difficult to convey all this in a list. But, with that said, here is the International Crisis Group"s "top 10" list of global threats for the coming year. It is non-prioritized, and seeks to include a mix of the obvious risks and those we believe are bubbling beneath the surface. And because we"re optimists at heart, it includes an addendum of three countries where recent developments suggest that the coming year could bring peace -- not torment. We certainly wish that for all. Visit the related web page
	Potential nuclear attack ‘devastating and catastrophic’, say UN humanitarian officials by Rashid Khalikov UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Norway   Senior humanitarian aid workers, United Nations organizations and civil society members met in Norway to discuss what the international humanitarian community could realistically do to prepare for and to respond to the humanitarian impact of a nuclear weapon detonation.   “The humanitarian consequences of a nuclear attack or an accidental nuclear blast are potentially devastating and catastrophic,” the Director of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in Geneva, Rashid Khalikov, told the press on the margins of the International Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons in Oslo, Norway.   “We need to collectively consider the extent to which we can – as a humanitarian system – effectively respond to such a crisis,” Mr. Khalikov said.   The two-day conference included presentations by experts and discussions with practitioners from the fields of health services, development, environment, finance, and emergency preparedness and response.   According to the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the conference focus is on identifying a nuclear weapon detonation and learning from historical experiences about its medical impacts. Participants will also discuss the wider economic, developmental and environmental consequences of a nuclear weapon detonation. The groups will then discuss what governments, international organizations, civil society and the general public can do to prepare for a potential nuclear catastrophe.   OCHA is attending the conference within its role to support Member States with preparedness and coordination of international response to disaster and emergencies.   “We support humanitarian agencies in saving lives, mitigating human suffering and providing urgent assistance,” Mr. Khalikov told the journalists.   He added that if the humanitarian community cannot respond effectively, as the initial assessment shows, “then it underlines our common responsibility to do everything we can to prevent the use of these weapons.”   Nuclear Weapons must be Eradicated for all Our Sakes, by Desmond Tutu.   Until we accept that nuclear weapons are abhorrent and a grave danger no matter who possesses them, that threatening a city with radioactive incineration is intolerable no matter the nationality or religion of its inhabitants – we are unlikely to make meaningful progress in halting the spread of these monstrous devices, let alone banishing them from national arsenals.   Why, for instance, would a proliferating state pay heed to the exhortations of the US and Russia, which retain thousands of their nuclear warheads on high alert? How can Britain, France and China expect a hearing on non-proliferation while they squander billions modernising their nuclear forces? What standing has Israel to urge Iran not to acquire the bomb when it harbours its own atomic arsenal?   Nuclear weapons do not discriminate; nor should our leaders. The nuclear powers must apply the same standard to themselves as to others: zero nuclear weapons. Whereas the international community has imposed blanket bans on other weapons with horrendous effects – from biological and chemical agents to landmines and cluster munitions – it has not yet done so for the very worst weapons of all. Nuclear weapons are still seen as legitimate in the hands of some. This must change.   Around 130 governments, various UN agencies, the Red Cross and the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons are gathering in Oslo this week to examine the catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons and the inability of relief agencies to provide an effective response in the event of a nuclear attack. For too long, debates about nuclear arms have been divorced from such realities, focusing instead on geopolitics and narrow concepts of national security.   With enough public pressure, I believe that governments can move beyond the hypocrisy that has stymied multilateral disarmament discussions for decades, and be inspired and persuaded to embark on negotiations for a treaty to outlaw and eradicate these ultimate weapons of terror. Achieving such a ban would require somewhat of a revolution in our thinking, but it is not out of the question. Entrenched systems can be turned on their head almost overnight if there"s the will.   Let us not forget that it was only a few years ago when those who spoke about green energy and climate change were considered peculiar. Now it is widely accepted that an environmental disaster is upon us. There was once a time when people bought and sold other human beings as if they were mere chattels, things. But people eventually came to their senses. So it will be the case for nuclear arms, sooner or later.   Indeed, 184 nations have already made a legal undertaking never to obtain nuclear weapons, and three in four support a universal ban. In the early 1990s, with the collapse of apartheid nigh, South Africa voluntarily dismantled its nuclear stockpile, becoming the first nation to do so. This was an essential part of its transition from a pariah state to an accepted member of the family of nations. Around the same time, Kazakhstan, Belarus and Ukraine also relinquished their Soviet-era atomic arsenals.   But today nine nations still consider it their prerogative to possess these ghastly bombs, each capable of obliterating many thousands of innocent civilians, including children, in a flash. They appear to think that nuclear weapons afford them prestige in the international arena. But nothing could be further from the truth. Any nuclear-armed state, big or small, whatever its stripes, ought to be condemned in the strongest terms for possessing these indiscriminate, immoral weapons.   * Archbishop Desmond Tutu is a winner of the Nobel Prize for Peace. International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons: http://www.icanw.org/
	View more stories