The Week in Multilateralism
Friday, February 12, 2021
Last Friday, a panel of International Criminal Court judges confirmed that the prosecutor has jurisdiction to investigate alleged crimes in Palestine (including by Israeli nationals). The majority found that “the Court's territorial jurisdiction in the Situation in Palestine extends to the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, namely Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.”
Reverberations from that decision continued throughout the week. Palestinian officials welcomed the ruling as a “historic day.” Meanwhile, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the decision a “perversion of justice.” And Axios reported that the Israeli government is seeking to generate diplomatic pressure on the prosecutor to delay an actual investigation.
In the wake of the ruling, several important court members, including Germany, Canada, and Australia reiterated their position that the court lacks jurisdiction in Palestine. The U.S. State Department criticized the ICC decision as well:
We have serious concerns about the ICC’s attempts to exercise its jurisdiction over Israeli personnel. The United States has always taken the position that the court’s jurisdiction should be reserved for countries that consent to it, or that are referred by the UN Security Council.
The judicial determination presents a complicated challenge for the prosecutor’s office. Fatou Bensouda is wrapping up her nine-year term as prosecutor, and the process of selecting a successor is in its final stages. It seems likely that Bensouda will hold off on major decisions about the shape of an investigation, but the new prosecutor will immediately confront questions about what resources to devote to the probe and what categories of cases to pursue (if any). Of the several categories of potential crimes that the prosecutor has identified, Israeli settlement activity is the most politically explosive.
The World Health Organization’s investigative mission to China has continued, and WHO officials made news this week by downplaying the idea that the coronavirus emerged from a Chinese virology lab located in Wuhan. That assertion amplified skepticism in many quarters about the organization’s ability to effectively investigate the pandemic’s origins, given tight Chinese government control domestically and the country’s influence at the WHO. The New York Times cast the WHO mission, which took months to negotiate, primarily as a public relations coup for Beijing:
[I]nstead of scorn, the W.H.O. experts on Tuesday delivered praise for Chinese officials and endorsed critical parts of their narrative, including some that have been contentious.
The W.H.O. team opened the door to a theory embraced by Chinese officials, saying it was possible the virus might have spread to humans through shipments of frozen food, an idea that has gained little traction with scientists outside China. And the experts pledged to investigate reports that the virus might have been present outside China months before the outbreak in Wuhan in late 2019, a longstanding demand of Chinese officials.
Nature offered a more cautious assessment of the WHO’s investigative work:
Some researchers say that the group, which included 17 researchers from China and 17 international scientists, asked relevant questions and accessed large amounts of data. “It seems the WHO team and their Chinese collaborators are taking a measured approach, weighing the available data appropriately and talking to the right people,” says David Robertson, a virologist at the University of Glasgow, UK. He hopes finer details will be published in the investigation report, which is expected soon.
Controversy is swirling within the European Union after a perceived humiliation of the EU’s foreign policy chief, Josep Borrell, during his recent visit to Moscow. A former Spanish foreign minister, Borrell was accused of being outmaneuvered by veteran Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov during the trip. The Guardian reported that the Moscow sojourn has even spurred calls for his replacement:
More than 70 MEPs have signed a letter demanding Borrell’s resignation. Dacian Cioloș, a Romanian MEP and leader of the centrist Renew group, said the visit had “sadly had a negative impact on the credibility of the EU in the diplomatic sector”.
Borrell fired back at his critics, pointing out that many EU member states had undertaken their own diplomatic missions to Russia. As the controversy over the quality of EU diplomacy played out, the Russian government indicated it would contemplate breaking relations with the EU if the bloc chooses to impose sanctions:
Asked if Russia is heading toward a split with the European Union, [Russian foreign minster Sergey] Lavrov replied, “We proceed from the assumption that we are ready for that.”
He emphasized the importance of economic ties with the 27 EU nations, adding that Russia would continue engaging in mutually beneficial cooperation. At the same time, Lavrov said, Russia must prepare for the worst and increasingly rely on its own resources.
The International Court of Justice has a new president—U.S. judge Joan E. Donoghue. She has served as an ICJ judge since 2010 and had an extensive career before that in the U.S. State Department’s Legal Adviser’s office. She is the first U.S. judge to serve as ICJ president since Stephen Schwebel did so in the late 1990s. The court’s president has largely administrative and diplomatic duties but also serves as the tie-breaking vote in any cases when the court is evenly divided.
As Donoghue was selected as president, Russian judge Kirill Gevorgian got the nod for vice-president. Gevorgian is a former Russian ambassador to the Netherlands and foreign ministry official.
The Pacific Island Forum (PIF), a grouping of eighteen Pacific countries, appears to be splintering. As Deutsche Welle reports, the turmoil within the grouping has strong geopolitical overtones:
The Pacific Islands Forum – the region's most influential body that is long supported by Japan, the United States, Australia and New Zealand – is on the brink of collapsing after five of the 18 member states announced their withdrawal in a dispute over the leadership of the organization.
The resignations of the Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, the Marshall Islands, Nauru and Kiribati have triggered concern in allied countries as the breakup of the regional bloc could leave some states vulnerable to approaches from Beijing and deepen geopolitical and economic rivalries that are already emerging.
The Diplomat reported that the crisis came over disagreement about informal norms for leadership of the bloc:
The rupture this week was caused by the vote for the position of secretary general of the PIF. There had been a “gentlemen’s agreement” that the three regions rotated through the secretary general role, and this was to be Micronesia’s turn. Last September, the five Micronesian countries put forward a single candidate, the well-qualified Marshall Islands Ambassador to the United States Gerald Zackios. In the process the Micronesian countries made it clear they felt their region was disregarded in the PIF, and they considered honoring the “agreement” essential for PIF unity.
The G7 finance ministers have met to discuss economic and financial policy, including a possible new allocation of International Monetary Fund “special drawing rights” (SDRs). Reuters explains how the IMF’s reserve currency operates and who would benefit most from a new allocation. The size of any new allocation appears to be a matter of debate:
Official sources have told Reuters the United States has signalled it is open to a new issuance of $500 billion - a clear shift in position under the administration of new U.S. President Joe Biden. Germany and Italy also back a $500 billion issuance, the sources say.
Some reports, however, have suggested a larger SDR allocation of as much as $1 trillion in two tranches, one in 2021 and another in 2022.
Any new allocation would have to be approved through the IMF’s formal processes, but the G7 has often acted as an informal steering committee for key IMF decisions. Together, the G7 countries account for nearly 45 percent of the organization’s voting shares.
A French submarine conducted operations in the South China Sea, adding to the multinational pool of operational challenges to Chinese maritime claims in the area. French defense minister Florence Parly publicized the submarine’s journey through her Twitter account, asserting that it “affirm[ed] that international law is the only rule that is valid, whatever the sea where we sail.”
Briefly noted:
The African Union is coordinating vaccine purchases for its member states.
The UN Security Council is divided again over Syria.
There are reports that the Quad may be moving toward a meeting at the head-of-state level.
The race for a new leader of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development is down to the final four.