One of the interesting sub-themes of the Council vote is the apparent inability of Brazil and Turkey to swing the nonpermanent Council members against the sanctions, if indeed they tried to do so.  (Lebanon was always going to be skeptical, and apparently agonized up to the last minute.)  The Council diplomacy recently has had overtones of the established powers (the permanent five) against the rising powers (Brazil and Turkey). In that context, the vote was clearly a victory for the establishment.

There’s an interesting parallel here to the months preceding the first Gulf War. Then, violence flared on the Temple Mount as the U.S. was struggling to keep together its fragile coalition against Iraq. To placate key Arab allies, the first Bush administration ended up agreeing to criticism of Israel that it normally would have vetoed. Even so, the negotiation of the precise wording was drawn out and laborious.

How Council diplomacy plays out this time will in large part depend on the attitude of Council members such as Turkey and Lebanon. If they try to force a tough resolution to a vote, they could push Washington into a difficult corner: The Obama administration needs goodwill from Council members, but it also would like to repair frayed relations with Israel.

NATO supplies held up in Central Asia.

The EU and NATO talk Turkey.

A primer on the coming G20 debate about a global bank tax.

The World Bank plays hardball with Pakistan on anti-poverty funds.

South Korea moves closer to full participation in the U.S.-led Proliferation Security Initiative.

Iran formally presents the nuclear swap deal with Turkey to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The IMF releases report after its review of Spain’s economy: “the challenges are severe…”

Russia’s Medvedev on his country’s bid to join the WTO: “we have had enough of waiting on the doorstep.”

Get ready for the annual meeting of the UN Alliance of Civilizations! And remember–this is the official year of the Rapprochement of Cultures.

The issue generates some interesting fault lines. The United States and several other major powers would rather the ICC stay away from the issue altogether or, at the very least, take its lead from the UN Security Council. This is not surprising. Countries in the habit of using military force do not want an independent international prosecutor sniffing around their reasons for doing so. The conflicts in Kosovo and Iraq, for example, were launched without Security Council approval–does that make them aggression? Under some definitions, the answer would be yes. 

Other divides on the issue are more unexpected. The advocacy group Human Rights Watch, a major supporter of the court, is not keen on defining aggression, which it fears will distract attention from the core issue of how combatants behave during conflicts. This puts HRW at odds with many in the advocacy community, who are pushing for a broad definition and who see tackling aggression as a key component of the Nuremberg legacy. Expect all these views to get a full airing in the next couple of weeks.

Treasury Secretary Geithner talks Europe with China. He’s scheduled to leave Beijing shortly for meetings in London, Berlin, and Frankfurt.

Martin Walker broods: “Either the eurozone now integrates and becomes a federal state like the United States and under German economic management, or it collapses…”

Iran warns that the Brazil and Turkey-brokered fuel deal is off if the Security Council imposes new sanctions.

Germany’s ban on short-selling could violate WTO rules.

Did China suppress an IMF staff report on manipulation of the yuan?