Ljd, great write up on the ICC protest. I understand the issue of some powers not ratifying or allowing their citizens to be taken to the ICC. However, I wonder if the issue of fair judicial process and equal access does make a difference here. Since we are almost certain the accuse will almost always be accorded due process and fair trial in example the US or UK justice system for the whole world to see.
In contrast, majority of African governments don't accord their citizens the same equal access or to bring their leaders be4 a court of law . Do you see it necessary then to create an independent body that can allow corrupt and despotic leaders to be held accountable by such a court since their citizens don't have the same power.
Do you also believe if all African countries have an equal or free justice system that will hold leaders accountable then there won't be any need for the ICC? Thus isn't that the concept that created the ICC? Holding leaders like Tailor accountable for mass murder who could never be tried without consequences in his native Liberia?
Your thoughts are always greatly appreciated. Eid Mubarak!
Demba
From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network.
-------- Original message --------
From: Haruna <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 10/15/2013 10:38 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [G_L] They want to be above the law
[-----Original Message-----
From: Lamin Darbo <[log in to unmask]> To: GAMBIA-L <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tue, Oct 15, 2013 6:50 pm Subject: Re: They want to be above the law
Haruna
The AU protest is directed at the differential application of the international criminal justice regime.] JDAM.
Indeed JDAM that much I understood.
[I am not worried about the Prosecutor, and the Judges, the "Officers" as you refer to them. My query, and that of the AU, is focused at the critical question who is selected for an ICC appearance on a charge of any of the justiciable offences currently recognised, i.e., war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity, or any combination of these offences.] JDAM
JDAM, Allow me to defer to you for our greater education on WHO SELECTS those who are selected for an ICC appearance. I shall come back to this point later in anticipation of more info.
[With all the criminals running around, why are only black Africans appearing as defendants before the ICC? This is a critical systemic issue and it must be addressed if international criminal justice is to have any credibility. The tainted credibility of many members of the group notwithstanding, AU heads of state are onto something quite profound.] JDAM
I agree with you on the above that there is profuse racism as well as fetid corruption at the ICC. Therefore, and in order to render justice for victims, the AU ought to do all it can to establish a non-racist court system to prosecute her own criminals. You will acknowledge that all the other signatories to the ICC have local or subregional courts that take the prosecution of their criminals out of the hands of the pen-pushers at the ICC. But they remain part of the ICC if for international aesthetics sakes. But the AU clamors for an African chief prosecutor and a few African judges and officials as if they had no idea those "officers" are merely for show.
[Recall the analogy about our grandfathers? You ignored it but that represents the crux of the dispute!] JDAM
No I did not ignore that grandfather analogy. I simply could not use it in my response for I find it woefully inadequate for the purposes of this conversation. Perhaps if you substitute "polygamy" for a crime, I might be able to use it JDAM.
[I recognise the AU cannot unilaterally alter the Statute of Rome vis-à-vis "sitting heads of state", and that, in my view, is an irresponsible angle to hold on to. What it can do is insist on impartiality as far as selecting targets for prosecution. Some diversity is needed in light of the colours of international criminality. If the so-called international community cannot resolve such a basic element of the regime, the AU should walk out en masse.] JDAM
I recognize the AU cannot and should not unilaterally alter the statute of Rome vis-a-vis "sitting heads of state", and that, also in my view, is an irresponsible angle to hold on to. What it can do is insist on impartiality as far as selecting targets for prosecution. Some diversity is needed in light of the colors of international criminality. If the so-called international community cannot resolve such a basic element of the regime, the AU should proclaim an Addis/Johanessburg/Accra/Cairo/Dar-es-Salam/Nairobi/Lome/Bamako/Abidjan/Harare statute to dispossess the ICC of the privilege to commit racial crimes against AU citizens. While they are at it, the AU should insist on a more democratic UN Security Council. But get a court nonetheless to prosecute her own criminals.
Thank you JDAM for the conversation. I look forward to your illuminating on WHO selects respondents to the ICC courts.
Haruna.
On Tuesday, 15 October 2013, 21:03, Haruna <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
JDAM,
Reverend Tutu told us the ICC prosecutor is African, and that several judges of the Court are also African. Spot the incredulous naivety in pondering over the critical question of who pays the prosecutor and the judges. A continent that could not built its own organisational headquarters can have no capacity to pay for international criminal justice. How could the venerable Tutu not recognise the hopelessness of the African voice on these issues! Like they say, "he who pays the piper ....."
I am sympathetic to your frustrations vis-a-vis the glaring and malignant shortcomings of the ICC regime. I re-presented your above synopsis to illustrate that even with all the farces (Africans would have been no better were they the custodians of the ICC since its inception), the fact still remains that absent an ICC, and as you admitted, Africans/AU are incapable of funding an efficient AUCC. Therefore, what should we do for the victims of such heinous crime while we gather resources to establish an AUCC? I think a court of lower threshold bar is easily affordable by the AU and strengthening the ECOWAS court would go a long way to obviate the ICC's intervention if not to prevent the crimes in the first place. It is in this light that I encourage you reconsider your position in this matter.
Must we be retired to the notion that we will dispossess victims of some justice because the officials of courts have grave flaws in character to render full justice?
Haruna.
-----Original Message-----
From: Lamin Darbo <[log in to unmask]>
To: GAMBIA-L <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Mon, Oct 14, 2013 7:12 pm
Subject: Re: They want to be above the law
Unquestionably agonising, but an international court must indeed be international. Even for those countries yet to formally accede to the Rome Statute setting up the ICC, their nationals can be hauled before the Court under the Chapter VII powers of the UN Security Council. It stands to reason that if the Security Council has this ultimate power, all its permanent members must be subject to ICC jurisdiction. The US, Russia, and China are not. I call this farce number one in current international criminal justice.
As to "high crimes", I suggest that the character and effects of murder, rape, etc. do not change because of the manner in which they are committed. These mundane crimes only become special because of intensity, method, and scale. In other words, the only difference lies in context. Context is what elevates an ordinary crime of murder, or rape, to the international crimes of genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity. Context is what elevates them to the threshold trigger known as "crimes of general concern to the international community". Would you not call this a farce?
As to victims and perpetrators, these classifications can create some difficulties. Take a conflict like Sierra Leone where more than .5 million were displaced, internally and externally, and some 50000 killed. Including Taylor, less than 20 people were prosecuted for a disaster on the magnitude of the Sierra Leonean civil war. Under the Statute setting up the Special Court for Sierra Leone, which was effectively a treaty between Sierra Leone and the UN, Tijan Kabbah, then President, should have been prosecuted as a "great perpetrator" under the now accepted international criminal law doctrine of "command responsibility". Nothing ever happened to him, and this perverse selectiveness is quite characteristic of international criminal justice through the decades from Nuremberg to the ICC. What Sierra Leone needed was a truth and reconciliation commission because the country self destructs through general lawlessness that the ordinary population abundantly partook in.
On the issue of selective justice then, I urge that you reflect on the atrocities committed across the world since 01 July 2002 when the ICC came into effect. It is indefensible that only black people were and are the defendants before the ICC. Ponder the quandary of, say, our two grandfathers, both polygamists. Why should I accept your prosecution of my grandfather on your thesis that yours is a responsible polygamist. The crime is polygamy. They both committed the offence. They should both sit at the dock in The Hague. International criminal law fails this most basic test of non-discrimination.
Image is crucial, and the image of the black person suffers from perennial public battery. Seductive violence ala "shock and awe" weaponry via flat screen television sets is no less wicked than brutal violence utilising machetes and blunt objects. I have no time for our dictators but I am quite uncomfortable with the selective demonization of Africans.
About complementarity, it is the great lie in international criminal justice. It is an escape mechanism from international criminal responsibility by nationals of the so-called rule of law jurisdictions. Commissions of enquiry are routinely set up and criminal responsibility exonerated not through independent judicial processes but through political negotiation and cover-ups. Complementarity is another farce, and it is a farce manufactured and marketed at the expense of the lawless African, but there is no question the disconnect between appearance and reality on criminal behaviour rooted in foreign policy.
Would you not say the ICC was utilised as a foreign policy tool in the Libya conflict when Gaddafi, his son, and others were indicted by the Court. Why is the same international community keeping mute over Libya's idiotic insistence on subjecting the younger Gaddafi to a show trial that would lack all the guarantees available at a Hague trial?
Reverend Tutu told us the ICC prosecutor is African, and that several judges of the Court are also African. Spot the incredulous naivety in pondering over the critical question of who pays the prosecutor and the judges. A continent that could not built its own organisational headquarters can have no capacity to pay for international criminal justice. How could the venerable Tutu not recognise the hopelessness of the African voice on these issues! Like they say, "he who pays the piper ....."
LJDarbo
On Sunday, 13 October 2013, 18:38, Haruna <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I spoke too soon Malamin.
Haruna.
-----Original Message-----
From: Malamin Barrow <[log in to unmask]>
To: GAMBIA-L <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sun, Oct 13, 2013 9:48 am
Subject: Re: Fwd: They want to be above the law
My only concern is will Africa put in place of the ICC, a mechanism to at least
say sorry to so many victims. Leaving the victims to their own devise will only
encourage revenge and more violence on the continent. Imagine someone elected
president can be sitting comfortably in office with such a horrendous past.
Malamin
----- الرسالة الأصلية -----
من: "Lamin Darbo" <[log in to unmask]>
إلى: [log in to unmask]
المُرسل: الأحد 13 أكتوبر، 2013 9:02:20 ص
الموضوع: Re: [G_L] Fwd: They want to be above the law
Interesting Niamorkono, but this is a campaign I cannot now, and maybe will
never support given the current dynamics of international public life and the
ICC record thus far. International criminal justice ala ICC does not help the
pursuit of freedom in Africa. It does not restrain dictatorship in any manner
meaningful to the ordinary and powerless. The standards that trigger an
international
response are too high and selecting targets for prosecution too discriminatory.
No question there are arguments pro and con, but on balance, the dignified
conduct is for Africa to exit the ICC. It is a big area, and God willing, I
shall take a look at it in the coming months, maybe years. Desmond Tutu is a
conscientious human being, but on the ICC, his position is far from compelling.
LJDarbo
On Saturday, 12 October 2013, 13:15, Fye Samateh <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I will join Tutu to sign the Petition...
Niamorkono...
Dear Avaaz friends,
In 2 days, African leaders could vote to withdraw from the International
Criminal Court, crippling one of the world's best hopes for confronting genocide
and crimes against humanity. I know together we can stop this. Join me in urging
the voices of reason within the African Union to stand up for justice and
accountability -- let's protect this great institution:
SIGN THE PETITIONIn just 2 days ’ time, African leaders could kill off a great
institution, leaving the world a more dangerous place.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) is the world’s first and only global
court to adjudicate crimes against humanity. But leaders of Sudan and Kenya,
who have inflicted terror and fear across their countries, are trying to drag
Africa out of the ICC , allowing them the freedom to kill, rape, and inspire
hatred without consequences.
I know that together we can change this. But we have to join hands and call on
the voices of reason at the African Union (AU) – Nigeria and South Africa – to
speak out and ensure that the persecuted are protected by the ICC. Join me by
adding your name to the petition now and share it with everyone -- when we have
hit 1 mill ion our petition will be delivered straight into the AU conference
hall where Africa’s leaders are meeting in Addis Ababa.
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/justice_for_africa_icc/?bgJNBab&v=30048
In my years of work, life and travel, the fight for justice has been a long and
arduous one. I have seen the very worst in Darfur and Rwanda, but also the very
best with the reconciliation in South Africa. During this journey, I have seen
great gains made that protect the weak from the strong and give us all hope.
The ICC is one of these beacons of hope.
This threat to the ICC started precisely because the court was doing its job. It
charged Kenya's Deputy President for killing people who rallied against him
during an election and Sudan's President for murdering women and children in D
arfur. Now Kenya and Sudan are lobbying all of Africa to pull out of the court
and destroy its chance of success.
But in Darfur, Congo, Cote D’Ivoire and Kenya, the ICC has played a key role in
bringing hope to those terrified by the armies, militias and madmen that have
waged
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
|
