IJCentral: International Justice Central

Much hay has been made since the ICC announced the arrest warrants for Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, about the fact that the warrants were issued for crimes against humanity (5 counts) and war crimes (2) but not for genocide, the third category of crime that Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo had included in his request for the warrants on July 14, 2008.  Many people that I respect in the international justice field have seized on this decision by the ICC judges as if it represents some kind of a failure for the Prosecutor because they thought he should not have accused al-Bashir with genocide in the first place, or because they thought it was too controversial, or are disappointed that the judges decided against issuing a warrant for genocide.  Aren’t these critics satisfied with crimes against humanity and war crimes?  Here’s the definition of crimes against humanity from the Rome Statue, the founding document of the ICC:

“Particularly odious offences in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. Murder, extermination, torture, rape, political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of falling into the category of crimes under discussion.”

Whatever the reasons, it really feels like splitting hairs, or finding the negative in what I see as huge positive step forward for humankind.  We finally have a Court that is capable of issuing arrest warrants for a sitting head of state - that’s amazing.  As former ICC Senior Trial Attorney says in the film “The Reckoning: The Battle for the International Criminal Court”, the Sudan/Darfur case is the kind of case the Court was made for, to hold leaders of countries to account when they commit war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.  As the Prosecutor said at the press conference last week announcing the warrants, the judges considered his requests and decided not to issue the warrant for genocide - this shows a well functioning and independent court, where the judges don’t simply rubber stamp what the Prosecutor gives them.  One of the judges had a dissenting opinion, but the other two decided against - the Prosecutor said he would review their arguments against and perhaps file an appeal.  So let’s focus on the positive aspects of what the ICC is doing, and provide constructive criticism when appropriate.

A genocide charge may not be hanging over al-Bashir’s head at the moment, but crimes against humanity and war crimes are, and let’s focus on that.

I am troubled by a persistent current of thought regarding ICC Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo’s call for the arrest of the President of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir, on charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.  Judges at the ICC are currently considering whether to issue the warrants, and based on leaked information that was published in the Washington Post (now taken down from their website after the ICC Public Information Office denied that warrants had been issued), I suspect that the judges will issue warrants charging al-Bashir with war crimes and crimes against humanity, but not genocide.  In any case, those who say that the warrants for al-Bashir should be suspended or retracted if they are issued are putting forth the worn-out argument that the international community is treading on thin ice and may provoke a violent backlash from al-Bashir, thereby derailing the peace process in Sudan (What peace process? Can they be serious?).  A good example of this is an article from the Guardian UK by Paul Adrian Raymond, quoting Alex De Waal of course, saying that al-Bashir will lash out, that Africa will retreat from international justice and become a “universal jurisdiction free zone”.  These arguments claiming that justice is an idealistic folly of human rights advocates are on the wrong side of history.  I was raised in Latin America in a time when dictators ruled and they were considered untouchable.  But civil society persevered, often mocked for their “futile efforts”, and now 30 years later, lo and behold, generals went to prison, dictators were put on trial, and Latin America is practically a dictator-free zone.  Justice played a crucial role in this transformation, and the establishment of the rule of law has become a given in most Latin American societies - witness the ongoing trial of ex-President Alberto Fujimori of Peru, now in the dock facing charges of human rights violations in his own country.  I think that eventually the rule of law will prevail in Africa as well, and if the ICC helps it get there, it will be fulfilling its justice mandate.  I don’t buy the Alex De Waal argument - I think that the majority of Africans want the rule of law to prevail, regardless of what their leaders may say.  Power doesn’t like limits, and the ICC is a threat to those who would prefer to operate with impunity, but I think that the impunity gap will be closed.  And as ICC Deputy Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda says, “Africa is at the vanguard of international justice”.  Africa is the continent with the highest number of countries that are members of the ICC, and it’s good to remember that Prosecutor Moreno Ocampo did not initiate the ICC cases in Africa - Uganda, the DR Congo and the Central African Republic are all ICC member states, and they referred themselves to the ICC, and the Sudan/Darfur case was referred to the ICC by the UN Security Council.  So these charges that the Prosecutor has targeted Africa have no foundation - these conflicts in Africa are real, and accountability must be pursued or there will never be peace.

It’s high time to make a concerted and sustained international military intervention to capture Joseph Kony and bring the nightmare of his crazed militia group, the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) to an end.  Today’s story in the New York Times, describing the atrocities inflicted on the peaceful rural people of the remote northeastern corner of the Congo, in and around Garamba National Park, is truly a horror story of innocent civilians being hacked to death and babies’ heads being torn off.  I hope no one is still talking about lifting the ICC warrants for the arrest of Kony and his top leaders.  It’s good that the US military has chosen to contribute tactical advice and information, as reported in the NY Times story, to help the Ugandan forces in their effort to rout and apprehend Kony, but the hapless Ugandan army will need more than advice and information to get the job done.  Even the “Kaibiles”, Guatemalan special forces sent after the LRA by the UN a couple of years ago, were decimated by Kony’s forces - let’s stop underestimating the LRA and send out some serious troop numbers, like the UN peacekeeping force sent into East Timor in 1999, to end his reign of terror once and for all, restore peace and stability, and put Kony on trial for war crimes at the ICC.

Senegal’s President Abdoulaye Wade says that he wants to hand over former President of Chad Hissene Habre over to the the African Union (AU) to face trial for crimes against humanity.  Habre is accused of killing 40,000 and torturing 200,000 during his 8-year reign, which would definitely make him an International Criminal Court (ICC) case, but for the fact that his alleged crimes were committed before the temporal jurisdiction of the ICC went into effect in July 2002 (Habre fled to Senegal after his regime collapsed in 1990).  Of course, as Reed Brody of Human Rights Watch says, the AU is not a state and has no capacity to try Habre.  Senegal’s President Wade says he doesn’t have the resources to create a special court and put Habre on trial, and doesn’t want to hand him over to Belgium where a court has sought his arrest based on universal jurisdiction, because he doesn’t want to see an African leader tried outside of Africa.  This whole jurisdictional mess points out the value of having a permanent ICC in place.  If Habre had committed his crimes after 2002, he would be in the sights of the ICC, as President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan is now.  Because of the circumstances, a universal jurisdiction case from a domestic national court such as the one opened in Belgium against Habre seems to be the only option, but the world of international justice will have a lot more clarity when all countries have ratified the ICC and it has universal jurisdiction based on the consensus of an international treaty, the Rome Statute.

An excellent blog post by Raj Purohit and Amjad Atallah in the PSA blog, titled “International Justice Systems and the Muslim World: Why Bashir is Wrong” points out the absurdity of the argument saying that Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir should not be indicted by the ICC because it is acting as a tool of the west in its fight against the Muslim world.  Let’s not overlook the fact that the people targeted in Darfur by the al-Bashir regime are Muslims, so this argument doesn’t hold much water.  To the argument that if Israel is not charged with war crimes because they are protected by major powers, then Sudan shouldn’t be charged either, the authors say,“There is an obvious absurdity to the argument that as long as anyone can commit a war-crime, everyone should be allowed to commit a war-crime.” 

The problem of Israel’s conduct raises the issue of UN Security Council reform, because as long as the major powers can exercise veto power over resolutions, it is highly unlikely that a resolution will be passed asking the ICC to investigate Israel for committing war crimes.  And Middle Eastern countries should follow Jordan’s lead and join the ICC, because if Lebanon were a member state of the ICC in 2006, for example, it would have allowed the ICC to open a case against Israel.  As pointed out by the Costa Rican representative at a recent meeting of the UN Security Council regarding the Sudan/al-Bashir case, Costa Rica joined the ICC to gain some measure of protection from aggression by larger states with firepower, reasoning that the rule of law could be their shield.

If the evidence gathered by the ICC holds up, then al-Bashir, as well as Sudanese Minister for Humanitarian Affairs Ahmad Haroun and Janjaweed militia leader Ali Kushayb, both indicted by the ICC, they will someday be convicted of orchestrating a genocidal campaign to drive the people of Darfur from their land and into extinction.  Unlike the temporary ad-hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the ICC is a permanent court and will still be here after leaders like al-Bashir fall from power.  I’m convinced they will face their day at the Court.