My Open Letter to the Executive Director of Human Rights Watch
[i-Bush and Annan toasting]
Under the title "Sudan/United Nations: Do Not Meet With Officials Wanted for War Crimes", Kenneth Roth - the Executive Director of Human Rights Watch - published a letter to the UN Secretary General.
He questioned the sanity of UN officials attending the inauguration of Omar al-Bashir, the Sudanese president, who is indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity in the country's western Darfur region.
I have mixed feelings about this stand, and decided to write an open letter to Mr. Kenneth Roth myself. Here are both letters:
Letter to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon
May 24, 2010
Dear Secretary-General:
I was dismayed to learn of your spokesperson's recent announcement that UN representatives Haile Menkerios and Ibrahim Gambari plan to attend the May 27 presidential inauguration of Omar al-Bashir in Khartoum. I urge you to reconsider this decision because it is both wrong and contrary to United Nations (UN) guidelines on this very issue.
UN guidelines limit UN interaction with individuals indicted by international criminal courts such as President al-Bashir to "what is strictly required for carrying out UN mandated activities." Attendance at the inauguration cannot be justified as "strictly required." To the contrary, the UN guidelines state that "[t]he presence of UN representatives in any ceremonial or similar occasion with [persons indicted by international criminal courts] should be avoided." In addition, I understand that further UN guidance specifically concerning President al-Bashir bearing your initials states that "interactions of a ceremonial nature with President Al-Bashir should be avoided, including courtesy calls, receptions, photo opportunities, attendance at national day celebrations and so on."
These guidelines are right. Disregarding them will significantly damage the UN's credibility. Attending the inauguration of an individual subject to an International Criminal Court (ICC) warrant for serious atrocity crimes would send a terrible message to victims of such crimes in Darfur and around the world that their suffering is not reason enough to dispense with ceremonial support for their alleged abuser. Attendance also risks signaling that the United Nations is not committed to the ICC's success-a signal that would be particularly unfortunate to send in the week before the first review conference of the ICC's Rome Statute, which takes place in neighboring Kampala, Uganda from May 31 to June 11, 2010. The review conference will be a moment of significant attention to the court's work and an important time to showcase dedication to the cause of international justice. Any short-sighted breach of the UN's own principles will be doing neither the court nor you any favors.
For all of these reasons, I hope you will reconsider the plans for UN officials at any level to attend the al-Bashir inauguration. Should you wish to discuss this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Kenneth Roth
Executive Director
Human Rights Watch
My answer reads:
Letter to Kenneth Roth, Executive Director, Human Rights Watch
May 27th 2010
Dear Mr. Roth,
While I applaud the tenacity in which your organisation pursues injustice and attempts to protect the weak and oppressed, I call upon you for a better balance in your actions, rather than pushing for issues "that suit The West".
You are correctly insisting the UN should be consequent in its actions towards Mr.al-Bashir. However, so should your organisation.
As an example: Back in 2003, George H.W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Norman Schwarzkopf and Tommy Franks were indicted in a Belgian court for crimes against humanity, under the principle of universal jurisdiction. Under the pressure of the US, the Belgian law was changed. Apart from my amazement on the hypocrisy of the Belgian politicians, I would still like to point out that your organisation was one of the six human rights groups calling the loss of the universal jurisdiction component "a step backwards in the global fight against the worst atrocities."
Now I wonder, if you stood that firmly on the principle of universal jurisprudence, and indeed supported the indictment of the Bush gang, did you also write a letter to the UN Secretary General insisting on avoiding any official contact with the Bush administration?
I understand both cases are unsimilar. Bush was unfortunately not indicted by the ICC - even though he should have been. However, I call upon you, to stand by your universal principles. Bashing Mr.al-Bashir is singing a tune very popular in the West. Bashing Bush would not have been. Or was that goal too high? Too ambitious? Too costly for your organisation's supporters? Funders?
For all of these reasons, I hope you will admit the error at that time of the Bush administration. I encourage your organisation to pursue objective measures, and not only those suiting The West, or to those popular by demand, and easy hits in Western media.
Should you wish to discuss this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Peter Casier
World Citizen
Let's see what he says.
Picture courtesy AP Photo/Gerald Herbert
What if a genocide indictment would lead to another genocide?
[i-darfur refugee]
The Sudanese president Al-Bashir got indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity in the country's western Darfur region. By now, everyone knows.
The international community, and the aid organisations working inside Sudan were weary of upcoming indictment since months.
Now the Sword of Damocles has fallen, they are dealing with the consequences: Sudan accused aid agencies of passing on information to the ICC and first expelled 10 NGOs (Non Governmental Organisations), followed by another three.
The impact goes beyond the expelled Darfur-based aid agencies themselves and their relief programmes. Many of these NGOs are implementing partners of other -often larger organisations-, who themselves were not expelled.
Concretely, this means that for non-expelled organisations, providing aid relief in Darfur will become even more challenging than it already was, with the security problems and logistical problems. More challenging, if not impossible for what is the largest humanitarian operation in the world.
So no wonder the aidworkers' blogosphere has been abuzz today on the ICC indictment and its consequences for the humanitarian relief efforts in Darfur. Check what Michael, Harry, Thirsty Palmetto, Paul, Scott, Peter and Rob have to say. (and check AidBlogs for more).
Add to that, what Rob Crilly, a reporter currently in Darfur, wrote on his blog a few days ago:
Today I met families who fled the fighting in Muhajiriya (..) One of them was Mariam Ahmed Abu. (..) She had survived six years of war but left when she realised she no longer had any children left to care for her. (..)All of that combined makes me think in how far the ICC indictment by itself will not cause a new genocide. Not one executed by AK47s and bombs dropped from helicopters, but a hidden genocide caused simply by blocking aid to flow to Darfur... Would we then have killed in the name of justice? Murdered those we should have protected?
She hadn't heard of the ICC until I asked her about it and I'm starting to think that taking Bashir to the Hague will be more of a victory for activists far away from Sudan than for the people stuck in this miserable war.
More on The Road about Darfur and Sudan.
By the way, if you have a high bandwidth Internet connection, you can watch "Darfur now", the movie online, right here on the The Road.
Picture courtesy Britolam.org Read the full post...
Wanted for war crimes: the Sudanese president.
[i-bashir:wanted for war crimes]
It's done. The International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague has issued an arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir.
Al-Bashir is charged on two counts of war crimes and five counts of crimes against humanity. This makes him a suspected criminal wanted in the 108 nations who ratified the ICC's Rome Statute. The US is not one of them, by the way, since Bush "unsigned" the US back in 2002.
Bashir is the first head of state to be indicted by the ICC while still in office. (Full)
ICC Prosecutor Moreno-Ocampo said Bashir masterminded and implemented a plan to destroy in substantial part the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawah groups, on account of their ethnicity. "His motives were largely political, his alibi was a ‘counter-insurgency’, his intent was genocide". (Full)
While this is bad news for anyone in the world trying to get away with genocide, even within their own national territorial borders, here is a dark after-thought: Why would this happen for the Sudanese president and not for the leaders of Hamas and Israel who caused the suffering of Gaza civilians. Israel surely scored extra points for a criminal case due to its use of phosphorous bombs and targeting aid convoys, UN facilities and civilians.
How about indicting Bush and his gang on the basis of crimes against humanity? After all, they invaded a country causing thousands of deaths, millions of displaced, and dragging a whole region into violent turmoil? Unilaterally and on basis of forged evidence.
PS: Keep an eye on my predictions on how the situation will evolve inside Sudan.
Update March 5: Trouble already starts: Sudan expels 10 aid agencies
(more updates in the side column)
Discovered via The Road Daily.
Picture courtesy Antony Njuguna/Reuters
Heading for trouble in Sudan
[i-Sudan's Bashir soon to salute to the ICC?]
Judges at the International Criminal Court have decided to issue an arrest warrant for President Omar Hassan al-Bashir of Sudan, brushing aside diplomatic requests to allow more time for peace negotiations in the conflict-riddled Darfur region of his country, according to court lawyers and diplomats.
It is the first time the court has sought the detention of a sitting head of state, and it could further complicate the tense, international debate over how to solve the crisis in Darfur.
Ever since international prosecutors began seeking an arrest warrant last year, opponents have pressed the United Nations Security Council to use its power to suspend the proceedings. But a majority of Council members have argued that the case should go forward, saying Mr. Bashir has not done enough to stop the bloodshed to deserve a reprieve.
Many African and Arab nations counter that issuing a warrant for Mr. Bashir’s arrest could backfire, diminishing Sudan’s willingness to compromise for the sake of peace. Others, including some United Nations officials, worry that a warrant could inspire reprisal attacks against civilians, aid groups or the thousands of international peacekeepers deployed there. (Full)
While Sudan still plays down reports on al-Bashir arrest decision for the moment, there was plenty of press in the past months where Sudan claimed indicting their president would risk bloodshed.
And then there is of course the statement of the UN envoy to Sudan saying Bashir's government warned the UN of "serious consequences" for its staff and facilities if the International Criminal Court issues an arrest warrant.
This resulted in the Sudanese government denying such threats (Full), and the UN denying it was to evacuate its staff in view of the upcoming arrest warrants (Full).
All politics and maneuvering... My predictions:
- Sudan will not surrender its president to the ICC
- UN and the powers-that-be will further pressure Sudan
- Masses will come onto the streets in all major cities, attacking UN and NGO facilities, causing the latter to seriously reduce staff.
- Darfur rebels and South Sudanese fractions will see a potential vacuum, and will renew military actions.
- ..causing the Sudanese military to respond more violently than before
- UN and NGOs evacuate
- ...giving either warring fractions enough space to do whatever they want in a free-for-all genocide.
- and by the time all of this is finished with a political compromise, Sudan will have one million people less. And the world will have one more genocide to justify.
But that is just me and my cynical mind, of course.
Picture courtesy AFP/Getty Images Read the full post...