No Sharks, Just Little Fish
Jean-Pierre Bemba, the ex-Vice President of the DR Congo, has been extradited to The Hague to face war crime charges. While a rebel leader in 2002, forces under Bemba’s command have been accused of committing atrocities, an accusation that Bemba naturally denies.
The likes of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and a cast of others will not share Bemba’s fate. The reason? Because the United States opted out of the ICC after 9/11 and because high level American officials, even ones that are no longer in office, never have to answer for their actions as they pertain to war crimes. Major world powers never do.
Prosecuting the little fish for their actions is one thing, and certainly keeps many believing that justice is something that has not altogether vanished. But the reality remains that those responsible for widespread crimes, such as the illegal invasion of nations based on fallacies and the subsequent loss of life produced, are not held accountable if they are undertaken by major world powers. The reason for that is, of course, quite simple – who has the power to bring them to justice?
The answer is, unfortunately, no one.
The United States is, according to the United States, a beacon of global freedom, of equality, and the protection of human rights. Of course, their implementation of such values when it comes to their deliverance at then end of a rifle is entirely hypocritical. They can point to others and claim that human rights abuses must not be tolerated while, at the same time, completely disregard international law, the Geneva Conventions, and the Universal Declaration by indefinitely detaining individuals – not to mention creating a global network of secret facilities at which to employ torture to interrogate them. They can claim that they are a beacon of global freedom, but the fact remains that the freedom they strive to deliver others is one wholly steeped in their own best interests.
Of course, the United States is not alone when it comes to such hypocrisy. Every member of the United Nations Security Council is a global military enabler, as they constitute the most prolific arms manufacturers and retailers in the world. Ironically, when it comes to making UN sanctioned decisions as to who will and won’t be punished for transgressions, be they real or simply the result of foreign policy agendas, the same five nations represent the world’s most influential voices.
Bemba will face justice. But despite his transgressions, he is merely a little fish in a much larger ocean, onE in which sharks always have the final say.
July 3rd, 2008 at 12:42 pm
I don’t disagree with your assessment of the effective immunity afforded a superpower by its own status as such. I also don’t disagree with your lament over this being the case. Well said.
I would simply like to point out that appealing to things like “international law, the Geneva Conventions, and the Universal Declaration” (presumably of rights) as things that one (individual or nation) should morally bind themself to, is an awkward philosophical place to maintain ones balance on.
July 3rd, 2008 at 12:45 pm
If you believe that the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights is an awkward philosophical “place” to maintain balance then I have absolutely no reply to that. It speaks for itself.
July 3rd, 2008 at 12:54 pm
I didn’t say that.
I don’t think that Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al were consciously intent on doing ‘evil’ when they created the rationale for the invasion of Iraq. It is my belief that they felt that American interest, whatever that rightly or wrongly was defined to be, was best served by the invasion, and justified by it. IOW, the transgression of said declaration, not to mention the various Security Council resolutions at the time, was a just action in their collective minds.
That said, how would you propose to bind the conscience of people who do not hold to such a declaration as you or I do, to abide by it? Particularly when they ARE the superpower and have the immunity card to play by virtue of their very power?
That is the philosophical place of difficulty.
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:01 pm
The more small fish that are fried, the less apt humanity in general will shine a spot light on the shady practices of the big boys in the dark back room. It does indeed lull people into a false sense of justice and makes it easier to say “aw, a little torture and wrongful imprisonment are small price to pay for all of the wonderful efforts they’re making in keeping the little fish accountable for their actions.”
It’s the dancing monkey in the street to keep you from noticing your pockets are being picked.
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:12 pm
I can’t decide if the U.S.’s seemingly monstrous hypocrisy is based in ignorance or something more sinister. Is it all just skewed perspective– the U.S. being blind to their own transgressions because they believe they have morality and “rightness” on their side, so their actions must therefore also be moral and right? Is it one big case of the purported ends (”defending freedom”) justifying the means, any means? Is it a matter of “do as we say, not as we do”– we make the rules that everyone else must follow, so we can break ‘em too? Or is it that they just plain don’t care?
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:19 pm
“God bless America, everyone’s life means nothing”
It seems to be the motto of my government, and a lot of other people here.
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:21 pm
“God bless America, everyone else’s life means nothing”
fixed that for grammatical reasons
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:24 pm
[quote comment="57591"]I didn’t say that.
I don’t think that Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al were consciously intent on doing ‘evil’ when they created the rationale for the invasion of Iraq. It is my belief that they felt that American interest, whatever that rightly or wrongly was defined to be, was best served by the invasion, and justified by it. IOW, the transgression of said declaration, not to mention the various Security Council resolutions at the time, was a just action in their collective minds.
That said, how would you propose to bind the conscience of people who do not hold to such a declaration as you or I do, to abide by it? Particularly when they ARE the superpower and have the immunity card to play by virtue of their very power?
That is the philosophical place of difficulty.[/quote]
Evil has many faces - one of them is blind self interest. Given the fact that the invasion was based on known falsehoods, I would certainly classify that as blind self interest. Innocent people have paid with their lives because of it.
And the entry is entirely about the inability to bind such powers to any realistic sense of just responsibility, so that’s a moot point.
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:44 pm
[quote comment="57596"]
Evil has many faces - one of them is blind self interest. Given the fact that the invasion was based on known falsehoods, I would certainly classify that as blind self interest. Innocent people have paid with their lives because of it.
And the entry is entirely about the inability to bind such powers to any realistic sense of just responsibility, so that’s a moot point.[/quote]
There is no real way to bind the Project for the New American Centur….er….the President of the United States and the former Secretary of Defense as two examples, to current international law. I concede without argument, and recognize that that was indeed the substance of your entry.
But what I was trying to identify for you, what you’re describing as ‘moot’, is really the fundamental underlying issue - the one that is causal to the deeds you’re calling them to account for.
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:50 pm
If you’re attempting to argue that their intentions were not hegemonic, that they acted out of purely the interests of national security, then I’m not going to waste my time. The tenets of the DPG and numerous papers after it, all of which were endorsed by the same individuals involved in the implementation of the Wolfowitz doctrine as official foreign policy following 9/11, point to an overtly hegemonic foreign policy platform.
July 3rd, 2008 at 2:18 pm
From what I’ve read on the topic, they went along with Britain because they felt that Iraq was a threat. To say that it was based on known falsehoods simply isnt true. The governments acted based on the intelligence they had (and yeah, it turned out to be faulty intel); to say that Bush and his Administration knew full well ahead of time that there were no WMD’s and invaded Iraq anyways is just ludicrous.
July 3rd, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Sometimes coming here just makes me really sad.
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:10 pm
[quote comment="57591"]I didn’t say that.
I don’t think that Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al were consciously intent on doing ‘evil’ when they created the rationale for the invasion of Iraq. It is my belief that they felt that American interest, whatever that rightly or wrongly was defined to be, was best served by the invasion, and justified by it. IOW, the transgression of said declaration, not to mention the various Security Council resolutions at the time, was a just action in their collective minds.
That’s a scary thing to hold such high positions within a country, you would believe that they would at least think about the consequences behind their decisions, for the future of their country. When you send hundreds of thousands of troops to another country carring their own weapons of mass destruction, what exactly was their intention? In the end, no one wins. It’s evil vs. evil over there. As its been said “Two wrongs don’t make a right”.
In the end all the fish will be killed and all that will be left is the Sharks. Soon enough though they will get hungry and feed upon each other.
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:11 pm
[quote comment="57598"]If you’re attempting to argue that their intentions were not hegemonic, that they acted out of purely the interests of national security, then I’m not going to waste my time. The tenets of the DPG and numerous papers after it, all of which were endorsed by the same individuals involved in the implementation of the Wolfowitz doctrine as official foreign policy following 9/11, point to an overtly hegemonic foreign policy platform.[/quote]
As far as I can tell you have only to look to the Project for a New American Century, and the Wolfowitz doctrine to find the reasons for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, that being, Western democracy in Iraq under the leadership of the United States, which would stand as a challenge to the likes of radical Islam. The invasion and occupation of Iraq may be a botched job, and downright misguided, but I do not believe that the intentions behind it were unethical.
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:15 pm
It appears that my most recent comment has been…..deleted.
Sigh….some things never change.
July 3rd, 2008 at 6:35 pm
I really do enjoy reading all these articles, very interesting topics ALWAYS and very informative. Keep it up matt, im always reading. All this also gives me an idea about whats happening in the world which i VERY much appreciate.
Thank Goodness for Freedom of Speech, eh!
July 3rd, 2008 at 6:48 pm
why can’t we all just get along? Luther if your post was deleted, you probably swore.
hmmm, what to do what to do… … eat a watermelon or buy an iphone… hmmmmmmm
oops, sorry, what was the question?
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:35 pm
[quote comment="57612"]why can’t we all just get along? Luther if your post was deleted, you probably swore.
[/quote]
I did not use profanity nor was I rude.
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:47 pm
[quote comment="57600"]From what I’ve read on the topic, they went along with Britain because they felt that Iraq was a threat. To say that it was based on known falsehoods simply isnt true. The governments acted based on the intelligence they had (and yeah, it turned out to be faulty intel); to say that Bush and his Administration knew full well ahead of time that there were no WMD’s and invaded Iraq anyways is just ludicrous.[/quote]
Actually, the Bush administration did knowingly mislead the American people, and that has recently been confirmed by a Senate report. Also pretty damning is the Downing Street Memo.
And Matt’s right by the way, hegemonic aspirations were definitely involved. The neocons (Wolfowitz, Pearl, Bolton, Kristol, et al) had designs on hegemony at least as far back as 1992. And they wanted to go into Iraq very, very badly.
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:06 pm
I didn’t remove anything. But thanks for the insult.
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:40 pm
[quote comment="57615"][quote comment="57612"]why can’t we all just get along? Luther if your post was deleted, you probably swore.
[/quote]
I did not use profanity nor was I rude.[/quote]
Sorry, I’m not sure what happened, then… your comment possibly went into moderation then it was later posted…. patience my friend, patience.
July 4th, 2008 at 12:04 am
I wonder if the upcoming new president will make things better or worse. What’s happened in the DRC is atrocious. I currently sponsor a child there and it’s horrible the suffering that still lingers to this day.
July 4th, 2008 at 4:56 am
[quote comment="57617"]I didn’t remove anything. But thanks for the insult.[/quote]
You’re right Matt, that was uncalled for and I apologize. I was the recipient of a number of deletions a few years ago on the old mblog, and made the unwarranted assumption that this was the present case as well.
To T-Lee, it appears the post has been lost. It’s not up and I doubt it remains in the moderation queue.
July 4th, 2008 at 6:52 am
To take this debate in a different direction, I’m wondering if you’ve read this fantastic article by Stephanie Nolen: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080614.wafrica0614/BNStory/energy/
It presents an interesting perspective: that the ICC is basically a western initiative, and that prosecuting African war criminals under the ICC is not necessarily in the best interest of African countries subject to dictatorship or violent rebel movements, nor is it often what citizens of those countries want. She suggests that Mugabe’s absolute refusal to consider giving up power can be partially attributed to the “Charles Taylor Effect” — he knows what happened to Charles Taylor after he left power, and has no intention of letting that happen to him! From a practical perspective, allowing former dictators to slip off somewhere to a countryside villa with access to their swiss bank account may actually be the best way to bring freedom, justice and an end to tyranny. Now, I’d love to see Mugabe come to justice as much as the next guy, but I think she makes a very convincing argument (and more eloquently than i do — go read it!)
July 4th, 2008 at 8:18 am
I know he is a small fish, but I cant help but be happy that a man who has done nothing for the millions of women, children, and grandmothers that get raped there , is out of power, maybe those women can see some justice.
July 4th, 2008 at 8:41 am
Luther, it happens once in a while.. posts don’t publish sometimes… not sure why.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:01 am
I think what Luther was trying to say in a more elaborate fashion was that they needed to do something to satisfy the blood lust of the american people and it just so happened a war in Iraq would as well be beneficial for a select few private investors that no doubt had huge sway in the matter. The war in Iraq was a win-win situation for the powers that be. If they chose not to do anything so boldly public, they would have more than likely made more of those secretive facilities trying to evict the problem covertly (and more than likely quite inhumanely) and that really doesn’t help much either.
For lack of better words, if you’re part of the american government, you’re damned if you do and damned if you dont. I feel as if they’ve dug their own hole so deep trying to justify their self-image that they can never get out of it barring any major catastrophe that would completely destroy the political structure and force a reformation. But I somehow doubt that will happen in my time.
July 6th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Ordering a war where some soliders at the bottom comitted a war crime is not a war crime in itself. The war itself isn’t necessarily a crime.
Did Hemba directly order war crimes with intent?
Did Bush directly order war crimes with intent?
Can you prove this in a court of law?
Part of the American fear for international courts, I’m sure, are judges from France, Russia or China who will be less than impartial with the American president.
If anything is ridiculous about the whole thing, it’s the military tribunals presiding over Guantanamo prisoners, and I’m glad that the whole thing is being torn apart by the Supreme court, and I am also glad that both McCain and Obama are in favour of shutting the place down.