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.

When it comes to war crimes, especially those committed under heightened emotional circumstances, it is utterly impossible for the military of a nation that refuses to adhere to the authority of the International Criminal Court to try their own. But that is precisely what has happened with regards to the Marines involved in the massacre in Haditha in 2005.

As of yesterday, all but two Marines have been cleared of all charges against them concerning the incident. Some point to that as vindication. I, on the other hand, do not, especially given the fact that numerous Iraqi witnesses weren’t even heard from. Why would they be? After all, they’re not ‘credible’ – they’re Iraqis.

You see; you can set a country ‘free’, but viewing its citizens as anything but beneath you is simply out of the question.

So, yesterday, Lt Andrew Grayson, who had been charged with obstruction of justice and making false statements in the aftermath of the incident, walked. The crowd in attendance at the trial at Camp Pendleton cheered when the verdict of Grayson’s acquittal was read. One probably can’t say the same for those in Haditha whose voices weren’t even heard.

For many, what occurred that day is most likely nothing more than a vague media memory now. Since I started writing about the incident several Marines have contacted me and admonished me for my views, claiming that the acquittal of those involved proves that no wrongdoing occurred. My response is always the same – those innocents that died that day will see no justice, nor will the testimonies of those Iraqis that witnessed what happened ever be taken seriously. Given that, how can true justice prevail?

The rule of law? What rule of law? The United States military, and those contractors in the employ of the Pentagon and State Department, have absolutely no right to even utter that phrase when they, themselves, cannot be held accountable for their actions under Iraqi law. The United States has not brought the rule of law to Iraq; it has brought nothing more than hypocritical contradiction.

It comes down to a simple position – do you believe that the Marine Corps can try its own impartially given the already inflammatory state of the war with regards to US domestic perceptions?

My answer? Absolutely not.

On this side of the ocean the incident has been largely forgotten. As for what Iraqis think, what does that ultimately matter? The United States hasn’t taken the disposition of the Iraqi people seriously for some time now, if ever. The Pentagon does not, nor have they ever, even attempted to keep a record of Iraqi civilian casualties. For all intents and purposes they got away with Abu Ghraib. Blackwater, shielded by the protections of the State Department, got away with the Nisour Square massacre. And God knows how many other criminal events have gone unchecked since 2003?

Sure, there have been a few incidents that have led to serious repercussions, such as the rape and murder of a 14 year old girl and her family in 2006 in Mahmoudiya. Due to the extreme nature of that incident, it being the premeditated rape of a minor, severe punishments were handed out. But the same cannot be said of the rapes that took place at Abu Ghraib, nor have those that have first hand knowledge of them ever been taken seriously.

You can throw a few soldiers to the wolves here and there in an attempt to achieve the perception of judicial transparency, but the fact remains that the rule of law is not something that the United States is all that interested in as it applies to the conduct of its personnel in Iraq. In fact, they opted out of the ICC for that very reason.

In 1994, the world turned its back on Rwanda. In 100 days, some 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were slaughtered while the international community did nothing. The Security Council sold UNAMIR down the river, events in the Balkans taking precedent over one of the most horrific and systematic acts of genocide since the Second World War.

But make no mistake; those that did nothing had their reasons. The French were flying some of the individuals involved in the masterminding of the genocide out of the country, even while it was occurring. They also supplied the Rwandan military at the time with arms. One of the revolving seats on the Security Council at the time was actually occupied by Rwanda, allowing those in power in Kigali a front row seat from which to observe the world’s response. The United States, gun shy due to previous events in Somalia, refused to intervene.

All of it led to the hobbling of any real, concerted effort that the UN could have taken. Thus, a skeleton force led by General Dallaire remained, despite the fact that the Security Council had ended UNAMIR’s mandate. Dallaire, and a handful of others, chose to remain and, at the very least, protect those that they had already given sanctuary to. In the end, they were able to save the lives of some 30,000 people without really firing a shot.

Now, consider what could have been accomplished had there been a real UN presence on the ground.

During a recent stop in Rwanda on his current tour of Africa, President Bush said the following…

“Evil must be confronted,” he said after touring the Kigali memorial.

He said the UN’s response to the crisis in Darfur “seems very bureaucratic to me, particularly with people suffering”.

Indeed it does, Mr. Bush. And being that your country has one of the most predominant voices on the Security Council, one has to wonder why more isn’t being done? True, UNAMID has been instituted, but the time for half measures has come and gone. The Sudanese government, with which your government has worked covertly, may refuse the presence of a substantial UN force in Darfur, the Chinese may very well fight you tooth and nail to stop a concerted intervention, but at least have the fortitude to make the issue one that is utterly unavoidable. Breath into it, sir, the urgency that it deserves.

There is the truth and then there is talk of it. In the case of African events of this nature, talk is all that is ever produced. The reality is that were an event comparable to Darfur to take place in, for example, the Balkans, the Western world’s actions would be considerable. In fact, it would become an issue that would dominate the headlines the world over. Unfortunately, when it comes to African nations, the horrible truth is that while the killing is occurring the world does nothing, and only after the fact laments it.

In comparison to UNAMID, UNMIK, empowered by UN resolution 1244, has been active in Kosovo since 1999. UNMIK is provided security by KFOR, which is a NATO led international force. In April of last year, KFOR’s numbers consisted of some 16,000 soldiers from 34 different nations – nine years after UNMIK’s mandate began. At its height, KFOR had 50,000 personnel in operation. As of January of this year, UNAMID, the joint UN-AU mission in Darfur, has a mere 9,065 personnel in place, of which 6,880 are soldiers, 645 are military staff and observers, 1,400 are police officers, 285 are civilian personnel, 552 are local civilian staff, and 63 and UN volunteers.

UNAMID’s actual mandate, as passed in UN resolution 1769 in July of last year, allows for - “Up to 19,555 military personnel; 6,432 police, including 3,772 police personnel and 19 formed police units comprising up to 140 personnel each; and a significant civilian component”.

So where are they?

Perhaps they’ve been employed writing speeches for the likes of Mr. Bush and other world leaders that use the issue when convenient and ignore it when it’s not.

In 1994, while the world was struggling to come to terms with the untimely death of Kurt Cobain, almost 1 million people died in Rwanda. Most of them, if not all of them, had never heard of Nirvana.

What do you do when you’ve served 27 years in prison for a crime that you didn’t commit?

The story I am referring to, that of Charles Allen Chatman, reads like an American tale of woe that is replete with all the usual characteristics of wrongful imprisonment.

Chatman is an African American. He was accused of sexually assaulting a white female neighbour. He was charged, convicted, and has spent the last 27 years of his life attempting to prove his innocence, primarily to restore his family’s faith in him. He now represents the 15th wrongfully convicted individual in Dallas County, and the longest to serve time in prison for a crime he did not commit.

Chatman’s saving grace, after 27 years, was that his DNA did not match that found at the crime scene, which has been stored for the last 27 years at the Orchid Cellmark Private Lab.

“Attorney Jeff Blackburn of the Innocence Project, who served as legal counsel during Chatman’s exoneration process, said Chatman’s case is proof that there is a tragic lack of real defense given to poor people.

“The problem with Charles’ case is that it is not that remarkable,” he said.

Blackburn said an unjust pattern has developed in the U.S. legal system that leads to numerous erroneous convictions. He says young black men with prior criminal records who are accused of rape and have little or no money for a proper defense are quickly convicted by largely white juries.

Chatman agrees. He said he is one of hundreds of people who sit in prisons and penitentiaries across the state and nation who are wrongfully convicted of crimes they did not commit.

“I know of two or three people personally who would be sitting where I am if they had the support I had,” Chatman said.

Although Chatman spent almost three decades falsely imprisoned, he said he doesn’t hold in malice in his heart for the woman who accused him of rape.

“I am a Christian, and my Bible teaches me forgiveness,” Chatman said. “That doesn’t mean I don’t want to bring recognition to what happened. This is something that needs to be stopped. There are too many people in the penitentiary that don’t need to be there.”

Chatman said he was just a 20- year-old kid working here and there for his relatives’ janitorial company when he was accused, prosecuted and wrongfully convicted of rape.”