BBC (February 1): UN urges Darfur war crimes trials

[Jack Rabbit]

From the BBC Online
Dated Tuesday February 1

UN urges Darfur war crimes trials

A United Nations report has called for those accused of carrying out war crimes in Sudan's Darfur region to be put on trial.
The report stopped short of calling the violence genocide, but said the government and its militia allies had killed, tortured and raped civilians.

A list of alleged war criminals was included in the report, but the names have not been made public.

The five-man team called for trials at the International Criminal Court (ICC).

But this is opposed by the United States, which does not recognise the ICC and favours the creation of a special court for Darfur instead.

Read more

[Jack Rabbit]

1. Human Rights Watch: U.S. Fiddles Over ICC While Darfur Burns

Press release from Human Rights Watch
Dateline New York, Monday January 31

U.S. Fiddles Over ICC While Darfur Burns
U.N. Security Council Should Reject U.S. Scheme for Ad Hoc Court

The Bush administration is creating a deadly delay for the people of Darfur by attempting to block the U.N. Security Council from referring Darfur atrocities to the International Criminal Court, Human Rights Watch said in a letter to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Last week, one day after the Sudanese military reportedly killed or wounded nearly 100 civilians in an air strike in southern Darfur, the United States put forth a time-consuming, costly alternative for justice to the already functioning International Criminal Court (ICC): that the Security Council set up a new ad hoc tribunal for Darfur and house it in Tanzania, using the facilities of the international court that is currently prosecuting perpetrators of Rwanda's 1994 genocide.

This week, the U.N. Security Council is expected to receive the findings of the commission of inquiry it established to investigate violations of international human rights and humanitarian law in Darfur. It was also charged with determining if acts of genocide have occurred, and identifying perpetrators with a view to ensuring accountability. While identifying several options, the commission is likely to recommend that the Security Council refer the Darfur situation to the ICC.

"The delay involved in setting up a new tribunal would only lead to the loss of more innocent lives in Darfur," said Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice Program at Human Rights Watch. "The Bush administration seems willing to sacrifice Darfur's victims to its ideological campaign against the court."

Of course, the security council and all people of goodwill should reject the neoconservative attempt to gut the ICC. It should be hoped that one day the neoconservatives, led by Mr. Bush, will answer for their crimes before the ICC.

[Jack Rabbit]

2. Paul Reynolds (BBC/February 1): Sudan atrocities strain US relations

From the BBC Online
Dated Tuesday February 1

Sudan atrocities strain US relations
By Paul Reynolds
BBC World Affairs correspondent, BBC News website

A recommendation that mass killings in the Darfur region of Sudan be referred to the International Criminal Court is threatening to become a new source of tension between the United States and some of its allies.

A five-person panel appointed by the UN decided there was enough evidence of atrocities to justify taking suspects to the court, which was set up in The Hague in 2002 as a permanent body to try war crimes.

However, it ruled that the actions of the Sudanese government did not amount to genocide.

The tension has arisen because the United States opposes the court in principle and in practice.

Read more.

[gottaB]

3. Support War Crimes Trials for Darfur (Jack Goldsmith oped for WP)

by Jack Goldsmith

....

In fact such a referral would be consistent with U.S. policy on the ICC. The United States has never opposed ICC prosecutions across the board. Rather, it has maintained that ICC prosecutions of non-treaty parties would be politically accountable and thus legitimate if they received the imprimatur of the Security Council. The Darfur case allows the United States to argue that Security Council referrals are the only valid route to ICC prosecutions and that countries that are not parties to the ICC (such as the United States) remain immune from ICC control in the absence of such a referral.

This course of action would signal U.S. support not only for the United Nations but for international human rights as well, at a time when Washington is perceived by some as opposing both. And it would give the United States leverage in seeking genuine sanctions against Sudan, especially with France, which for oil-related reasons has quietly resisted U.S. efforts on Darfur. France would have a hard time opposing a package of sanctions that included U.S. support for an ICC referral. Opposition by China and Russia would be harder to overcome but would at least make clear to the world that those two powerful nations are even more opposed to the ICC than the United States.

U.S. support for a Security Council referral might also point the way to a compromise with European nations that are anxious to secure U.S. backing for the international court but oppose state-to-state deals that overtly immunize U.S. citizens from ICC jurisdiction. Agreement on the need for Security Council approval for ICC prosecutions would provide a more principled way for Europe to alleviate U.S. concerns about rogue ICC prosecutions. Critics would decry this approach as a double standard for Security Council members, who can protect themselves by vetoing a referral. But this double standard is woven into the fabric of international politics and is the relatively small price the international system pays for the political accountability and support that only the big powers, acting through the Security Council, can provide.

The fears of "legitimizing" the ICC are overstated. It's too late to kill the International Criminal Court. The Security Council (including the United States) presupposed the ICC's authority when it voted in 2002 and 2003 to immunize U.N. peacekeepers from ICC prosecutions. And the institution is now up and running, preparing for cases already referred to it. For better or worse, the ICC is not going away anytime soon.

Support War Crimes Trials for Darfur....

[Jack Rabbit]

5. The United States has never opposed ICC prosecutions across the board.

That seems to be changing.

It is possible that the neoconservatives fear that the ICC as a diplomatic weapon against them as they plan their next preventive war (which they will call "preemptive"). It will start as soon as they manufacture the intelligence to support it.

Obviously, the ICC should be used as a diplomatic weapon against the neoconservatives. They have embraced colonialism, wars of aggression, rigged elections and torture; they will tell any lie to justify their actions. It is time for the world to take action against them, as their actions endanger all humanity.

Consequently, they have gone from a position of not opposing ICC prosecutions across the board to opposing anything that would give the ICC legitimacy and credibility.

[gottaB]

6. yeah, it's almost as if they're a bunch of extremist kooks

If I were feeling truly cynical, I'd say that they don't want the UN to be able to accomplish anything in this matter because they want to make a case for removing Annan.

But I give them the benefit of the doubt. It may be that they're just a bunch of extremist kooks.

[Jack Rabbit]

8. There are other ways of dealing with the Bushies

From Agence France Presse via CommonDreams
Dated Wednesday February 2

Rumsfeld Mulls German Visit Amid Concern Over Possible War Crimes Prosecution

WASHINGTON --Concern that US leaders and military personnel risk prosecution in Germany for alleged war crimes has become a factor in deciding whether US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld will attend an international security conference in Munich, a Pentagon spokesman said.

US defense secretaries have rarely missed the Munich conference, an annual gathering of the world's top defense and national security officials and experts for two days of frank debate on major issues of war and peace.

But Rumsfeld has announced no plans to attend this year's meeting February 11-13 even though he will be attending a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Nice, France just before it.

Pentagon spokesman Lawrence DiRita said it remains to be determined whether Rumsfeld will attend the Munich meeting. The meeting's organizer, Horst Teltschik, said last month Rumsfeld was not going.


Read more.

[gottaB]

4. For the Triumph of Evil (WP Editorial)

NEXT WEEK the U.N. Security Council will consider whether to refer the genocide in the Sudanese region of Darfur to international prosecutors. Many U.N. members would like to bring in the International Criminal Court (ICC), a fledgling institution whose authority they are keen to bolster. The Bush administration would prefer to create a new, ad hoc court, believing that the ICC is an unaccountable posse of lawyers who may one day seek to indict American service members. Neither side should let the dispute over the choice of court get in the way of the objective that both profess to share: holding Sudan's war criminals accountable. But it's even more important that the prosecution of war crimes should not be mistaken for an adequate policy on Darfur.

The best way to resolve the court dispute is for the Bush administration to accept the European position. We share the administration's misgivings about the ICC's ability to bring indictments without first getting a green light from the U.N. Security Council or some other political authority. Unrestrained prosecutors may one day decide, as some human rights groups claimed after the Kosovo war in 1999, that a U.S. humanitarian intervention involves war crimes. But, in the case of Darfur, this worry is irrelevant. Because Sudan is not a signatory to the ICC and the crimes have taken place on Sudanese territory, a Security Council resolution is required before the ICC can get involved. The Bush administration can support such a resolution without thereby legitimizing the ICC prosecutions in cases in which there's no U.N. authorization.

U.S. support for an ICC referral might not achieve much. China might well veto a referral, perhaps with the support of Russia. But even if the ICC was given the authority to get involved in Darfur, the effect on Sudanese behavior would be uncertain. Indictments might even weaken the incentive for Sudanese leaders to improve their behavior, if they believe there's no hope of leniency in any case. The main benefit in terms of deterring genocide would be realized only in the distant future. If the world establishes a track record of holding war criminals accountable, potential criminals in future conflicts may hesitate.

If prosecution isn't going to stop Sudan's genocide, the United States and its allies must pull other levers. The small African Union monitoring force must be expanded and its mandate strengthened; the force must be allowed to confront, rather than just monitor, killers. Anybody who doubts that this is necessary need only consider the recent outbreak of violence. Government troops and their allies in the Janjaweed militia have recently destroyed as many as 25 ethnic African villages, and Sudan's government has reportedly prevented African Union monitors from compiling reports on what happened. But according to news reports, more than 100 civilians were killed in an attack on the village of Hamada in mid-January, and most of the victims were women and children. On Wednesday, a similar number of civilians were murdered in the village of Rahad Kabolong.

For the Triumph of Evil....

[rfkrfk]

7. what are these people waiting for?

start arresting the criminals.
These ICC folks don't work for the shrub.
I suppose it would be nice if every sentient
organism in the universe supported the ICC,
but that is not going to happen.
Lazy bums.