The International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for Sudan’s President, Omar al-Bashir. It is the first ruling of its kind to be issued against a sitting national leader.

The charges against al-Bashir include war crimes and crimes against humanity, though outright accusations of genocide were not included, which I find troubling. If the ICC believes al-Bashir’s government culpable in the organization of premeditated operations against civilians in Darfur, including extermination, murder, rape, torture, the forcible transfer of land and pillaging, then how exactly is that not tantamount to the implementation of genocidal practices? And that’s not even including the fact that they refuse to surrender Humanitarian Affairs Minister Ahmed Haroun and Janjaweed militia leader Ali Abdul Rahman, both of whom also have warrants out against them.

I do not believe that by choosing to go after al-Bashir on lesser charges, severe as they might be, will produce better results. After learning of the ruling, the Sudanese government said the Hague could “eat the arrest warrant” and that it was “toothless”. Some legal experts agree, stating that the ICC does not have a police force with which to implement the warrant. Further complicating the matter has been the international response, with the Egyptian government claiming it was “deeply disturbed” by the ruling and calling for the UN Security Council to defer implementing the warrant. The Russians simply claimed it “a dangerous precedent”.

The Obama Administration, on the other hand, welcomed the decision, which is somewhat hypocritical given that the US opted out of the ICC to protect US soldiers from prosecution. If anything, the precedent set by the Bush Administration with regards to dismissing the ICC’s authority has only helped embolden the likes of al-Bashir. One hopes President Obama will amend that decision, though that would then open the door for the ICC to issue charges against members of the Bush Administration for war crimes if enough actionable evidence was attained – a precedent that even the Obama Administration would be hesitant to set.

So what does the warrant mean in the end? Not much, unfortunately. Symbolically it’s a step in the right direction, but unless al-Bashir is detained by another country while visiting it there is little chance that he will be handed over. One of the only realistic options at this point is that a future political rival might use the warrant to gain an upper hand in the Sudanese political arena were al-Bashir to fall out of favour.

March 4, 2009 5 Comments

I should have spent some time today writing about the Sudanese government’s reaction to the recent charges leveled by the ICC that President Omar al-Bashir has played a role in the genocide in Darfur. There’s little point though. Unfortunately, the Sudanese government has international precedence on its side…

“Sudan’s UN envoy said the International Criminal Court had no jurisdiction in Sudan and that it would not co-operate.”

Like the United States, the Sudanese signed the Rome Statute in 2000 but refused to ratify it. The US, of course, decided to refuse to adhere to the authority of the ICC to protect members of the US military and government from possible prosecution. The Sudanese government shares the same position. Just as President Bush can disregard any ICC initiated charges, so too can President Omar al-Bashir. And, given that the Chinese have been complicit in aiding the Sudanese government militarily in Darfur, the Sudanese have an ally on the UN Security Council to ensure that they remain somewhat shielded, especially given the fact that China is Sudan’s chief oil exporter.

July 14, 2008 12 Comments

Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba’s (Ret.) new report regarding human rights abuses in Iraq and elsewhere, initiated and published by Physicians For Human Rights, has lent credible gravity to the argument that officials within the administration are guilty of war crimes…

“The Army general who led the investigation into prisoner abuse at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison accused the Bush administration Wednesday of committing “war crimes” and called for those responsible to be held to account.

The remarks by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, who’s now retired, came in a new report that found that U.S. personnel tortured and abused detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, using beatings, electrical shocks, sexual humiliation and other cruel practices.

“After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes,” Taguba wrote. “The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.”

Taguba, whose 2004 investigation documented chilling abuses at Abu Ghraib, is thought to be the most senior official to have accused the administration of war crimes. “The commander in chief and those under him authorized a systematic regime of torture,” he wrote.

A White House spokeswoman, Kate Starr, had no comment.”

Most of us are not so daft as to realize that we live in a world in which those truly responsible will never be brought to justice, but that does not make Taguba’s report any less important. But, ultimately, if the Sudanese ambassador to the United Nations can be outraged at the possibility that the President of Sudan could be charged with war crimes, then, really, who’s not entitled to hold the view that justice is nothing more than a word tossed about when convenient?

Also of import are new documents released last week that show that the United States willfully concealed from the International Red Cross the location of various detainees and the harsh techniques used to interrogate them…

“We may need to curb the harsher operations while ICRC is around. It is better not to expose them to any controversial techniques,” Lt. Col. Diane Beaver, a military lawyer who’s since retired, said during an October 2002 meeting at the Guantanamo Bay prison to discuss employing interrogation techniques that some have equated with torture. Her comments were recorded in minutes of the meeting that were made public Tuesday. At that same meeting, Beaver also appeared to confirm that U.S. officials at another detention facility — Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan — were using sleep deprivation to “break” detainees well before then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld approved that technique. “True, but officially it is not happening,” she is quoted as having said.

A third person at the meeting, Jonathan Fredman, the chief counsel for the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center, disclosed that detainees were moved routinely to avoid the scrutiny of the ICRC, which keeps tabs on prisoners in conflicts around the world.

“In the past when the ICRC has made a big deal about certain detainees, the DOD (Defense Department) has ‘moved’ them away from the attention of the ICRC,” Fredman said, according to the minutes.

The document, along with two dozen others, shows that top administration officials pushed relentlessly for tougher interrogation methods in the belief that terrorism suspects were resisting interrogation.”

July 12, 2008 11 Comments

If you’re labouring under the misconception that the Bush Administration is going to leave office without first confronting the Iranians, it’s time to start paying serious attention.

The propaganda machine is in full swing, led by a new report by the State Department that labels Iran the most active sponsor of terrorism. If you can believe it, the Sudanese government actually ranked lower despite the fact that it has been complicit in supporting the Janjiweed who have been responsible for a genocidal campaign in Darfur.

Falling conveniently in line with the State Department’s release, the United States has deployed a second US carrier group to the Gulf with the specific purpose of “developing new options for attacking Iran” – a directive issued directly by The Pentagon. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is justifying the move as a response to what the United States now believes is official Iranian policy – “killing American servicemen and -women inside Iraq”. Michael Hayden, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, recently asserted at a lecture at Kansas State University…

“It is my opinion, it is the policy of the Iranian government, approved to highest level of that government, to facilitate the killing of Americans in Iraq.”

It would seem that it is more than Mr. Hayden’s opinion, and a very crucial question has to be asked – why is the director of the CIA making such claims during a lecture? This is the same man whose agency provides the White House with a daily brief, which means that Hayden’s position has not only been presented the President, but also obviously adopted. If it hadn’t been, the White House would have condemned his assertion during that lecture, which it hasn’t, meaning that Hayden’s mentioning of it is being used as a tool with regards to circulating policy in the press without it coming directly from the President’s mouth.

Added to all of this, rather conveniently, is also another Pentagon assertion that the Iranians are directly aiding the Taliban in Afghanistan, a claim that was originally made last year and denounced by both the Iranians and the Afghan government. It should also be noted that it was made around the same time as US allegations that the Iranians were also supporting Sunni extremists in Iraq, which were quickly attacked by various analysts as being utterly preposterous given the massive, and historic, ideological differences between the two. Not surprisingly, the promotion of that information was tracked back to the office of the Vice President.

On the nuclear front, the Israelis are playing their part, with Israeli Transportation Minister, Shaul Mofaz, claiming yesterday that Iran will likely possess the ability to produce a nuclear weapon before the end of 2008. His source? Israeli intelligence, of course. Ironically, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert refused to comment on Mofaz’s claim, which is interesting being that his office is in direct control of the Israeli intelligence apparatus and has far more insight than that of the office of the Transportation Minister.

So what does all of this add up to? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out. Fishermen call it baiting a hook; the intelligence community refers to it as Psy-Ops. And if you think it’s the Iranians that are the target with regards to psychological initiatives employing the media as their primary conduit, think again. It is, in fact, the American people being targeted.

The question is, have the people of the United States learned their lesson?

Iraq was invaded because they supposedly possessed weapons of mass destruction, or, at the very least, were in the process of obtaining them.

After that justification fell through, the toppling of the regime of Saddam Hussein took its place, and human rights, liberty, and democracy became the bugle call.

After Hussein’s capture, and the continued occupation of the country to combat the insurgency, al-Qaeda was used as the primary justification despite the fact that their numbers in Iraq, which didn’t exist prior to the occupation, constituted less than 5% of the insurgency itself.

And so here we find ourselves, five years after the fact, with the Iranians having become the new justification. Like Hussein’s regime prior to the invasion, the Iranians are being accused of attempting to secure a nuclear weapon. Their intended target? Israel. The consensus, of course, is that were they to acquire one they would use it, that it would not be seen as the acquisition of a deterrent, but rather an offensive weapon.

In my next entry, although I have covered the subject before, I will delve into the reality of why that line of thought is based on nothing more than the desire to militarily confront Iran, not the Iranian regime’s desire to actually engage in a nuclear exchange.

May 1, 2008 13 Comments

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.

February 20, 2008 36 Comments