In 2003 violence erupted in Sudan’s western region of Darfur, after African rebel groups attacked government targets in Khartoum. African tribes charged the government in Khartoum with trampling the rights of African ethnic groups while favoring the mostly nomadic Arab tribes concerning land and grazing rights. Since 2003, the United Nations estimates that over 300,000 people have died and more than 2.7 million have been displaced. The ongoing conflict in Darfur has attracted attention from the international community, and been a major focus for many humanitarian groups and advocacy communities, but the violence persists.
Omar al-Bashir has largely been condemned by the international community and is accused of lending support to the Janjaweed Militia, an Arab rebel group responsible for much of the much of the violence. Andrew Natsios, former U.S. Envoy to Sudan, has called it a “horrific campaign of ethnic cleansing.”
In a break from the past, the Obama administration has signaled its willingness to engage the International Criminal Court (ICC) by participating in a conference with members of the ICC. The US has not changed its policy on joining the court and still has major concerns over international prosecutors potentially trying US officials and the US military. The suggestion that an unaccountable prosecutor, independent from the Security Council and the rest of the UN system, remains a point of contention. From the Washington Post:
Although U.S. officials have come to support prosecutions of specific cases, such as in Darfur, they have long worried that an international criminal court might seek to constrain U.S. military action around the globe by carrying out politically motivated prosecutions of American soldiers. “There remain concerns about the possibility that the United States . . . and its service members might be subject to politically inspired prosecutions,” [Stephen J. Rapp, the U.S. ambassador at large for war crimes] told reporters in Nairobi.
The ICC was established in 2001 to prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Its chief prosecutor is pursuing war crimes cases in Congo, Uganda, the Central African Republic and the Darfur region of Sudan. It has become one of the key actors on the world stage to bring justice and affect the peace process in situations of ongoing conflict. The struggle for the US is about what America’s relationship should and could be with the ICC.
What is the future path for the court and the critical benchmarks going forward? John Bellinger, former Legal Adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Leslie Vinjamuri, Assistant Professor of Politics at the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London discuss whether cooperation between the US and the ICC is possible and if the ICC it has the clout and international buy-in to extend its de-facto jurisdiction beyond Africa.
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
A Reuters report out of New York this morning says Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the Chief Prosecutor at the Netherlands-based International Criminal Court, is in the early stages of opening an investigation into possible war crimes in Afghanistan. Under the Court’s scrutiny are said to be possible crimes committed by both the Taliban and NATO forces, including US troops.
ICC investigations are years in the making, and may end with no charges being brought. But the very specter of an international body prosecuting US soldiers is enough to raise domestic hackles. As heard on America Abroad’s Judging the International Criminal Court, these internal political pressures make it extremely unlikely that the US will become party to the Rome Statute – the Court’s founding document – anytime soon. This, in spite of the fact that the likelihood of a member of the US armed forces sitting trial in The Hague, is close to zero. As John Bellinger, former legal advisor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, put it in our broadcast:
…it’s highly unlikely we would see U.S. officials or U.S. military people brought before the ICC because the Rome Statute was intended to compliment U.S. domestic law.
That means the United States’ own procedures for investigating any possible misconduct takes precedent over international law.
Alberto Fujimori, Peru’s former president was indicted last week for crimes against the state. He was sentenced to 25 years in prison. This ruling was the first time a Latin American leader was convicted of crimes against humanity in his own country. This has been seen as a landmark case where most despot leaders around the world seldom see the rule of law applied to them. On WNYC, Erna Paris, author of several books including Long Shadows and the new book, The Sun Climbs Slow, talks about America’s relationship with the international criminal justice system.
A task force from the American Society of International Law examined the US connection and what the role should be with the International Criminal Court. It has come out and said that the kinds of concerns that were announced by the Bush administration.. simply do not hold water and that [in] their view, the court does not conflict with the US Constitution. In fact, it compliments America values of accountability, truth-telling, pursuit of justice and the protection of fundamental human rights.
A special court, jointly established by UN and Sierra Leone government, sentenced former rebel leaders to a total of 117 years in prison for crimes against humanity. All three were senior leaders in the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) and were convicted of overseeing atrocities during Sierra Leone’s civil war. It is the last case to be held in the capital, Freetown, at the UN-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone. UPI reports:
The crimes “were committed upon a massive scale across several districts of Sierra Leone” and had an “enormous” impact on the country’s society, the statement said. “The Chamber concluded that the inherent gravity of the criminal acts for which Sesay, Kallon and Gbao have been convicted is exceptionally high.”
AAM Radio has published its latest program, Judging the International Criminal Court. The ICC has indicted Ugandan rebel leader Joseph Kony on war crimes charges. He is still at-large, hiding somewhere in the jungles of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Matt Ozug, AAM Senior Producer, went to Northern Uganda and met with displaced persons from the crisis as they wait for a safe time to go home. Watch Matt’s slideshow >>
A prominent member of Cambodia’s murderous Khmer Rouge regime has apologized for his role in his country’s brutal civil war. Kaing Guek Eav is being tried by a hybrid Cambodian/international court. The Financial Times reports:
“I am responsible for the crimes committed at S-21, especially the torture and execution of the people there,” Mr Eav, who is better known by his nom de guerre Duch, told a packed court on Tuesday.
The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia has been set up to try the leaders or those deemed most responsible for the crimes of the regime of Pol Pot. A question that has come up in the trials is can the perpetrators of the worst Khmer Rouge atrocities also claim to be victims of the regime?
Alex Hinton, author of Why Did They Kill? Cambodia in the Shadow of Genocide, quoted in The Phnom Penh Post:
“But in every trial dealing with war crimes.. the biggest ethical question is: how do you distinguish between good and evil in an ideology so extreme that it was kill or be killed?”
A new book recently reviewed by The New York Times, Madame Prosecutor, Confrontations With Humanity’s Worst Criminals and the Culture of Impunity: A Memoir by Carla Del Ponte with Chuck Sudetic, details this former prosecutor’s challenges as she brought perpetrators to justice in the Rwanda and Yugoslavia tribunals.
Next week, AAM tackles the challenges surrounding the International Criminal Court (ICC) by visiting Uganda where rebel leader Joseph Kony is wanted for war crimes against the Ugandan people.
Ugandan women listen to the the ICC outreach team to hear about the court. Photo by Matt Ozug.
Earlier this month, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued its first warrant for the arrest of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir for alleged war crimes committed in Darfur. The International Criminal Court (ICC), is the first permanent, treaty based, international criminal court established to help end impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community. The Sudanese government has vowed to resist the court and has stated that the president will continue his international travel.
Today, al-Bashir made his first trip abroad to Eritrea since the warrant was issued. Voice of America reports:
“Eritrea is not a state party to the [ICC] Rome Statute,” said Issaka Souaré. “There is nothing binding in the Rome Statute on non-signatories to apprehend someone against whom there is an arrest warrant. Given that he was officially invited by the president of Eritrea and given that Eritrea is not a state party, one could argue that there is no risk at all on President al-Bashir.”
Next month America Abroad Radio tackles this issues facing the International Criminal Court and whether the ICC can bring war criminals to justice.
In 2003 violence erupted in Sudan’s western region of Darfur, after African rebel groups attacked government targets in Khartoum. African tribes charged the government in Khartoum with trampling the rights of African ethnic groups while favoring the mostly nomadic Arab tribes concerning land and grazing rights. Since 2003, the United Nations estimates that over 300,000 people have died and more than 2.7 million have been displaced. The ongoing conflict in Darfur has attracted attention from the international community, and been a major focus for many humanitarian groups and advocacy communities, but the violence persists.
