Sudanese President Bashir, who'd previously shown few qualms in provocatively traipsing across Africa after his indictment by the ICC, visiting allies that he knew were non-signatories to the Court, has recently backed off a planned trip to neighboring Uganda.  Why?  Well, Kampala hasn't exactly been clear on the matter, but it seems that even the faintest threat of being arrested (Uganda has ratified the ICC's Rome Statute) was enough to dissuade Bashir from the chance of looking foolish -- and of ending up in the dock in The Hague.

This isn't surefire proof that the ICC warrant is "working," of course.  Bashir remains pretty safely ensconced in power -- at least as long as he remains in Sudan.  But this is exactly the point of the of the warrant, to constrain Bashir in his movement.  Whether it will actually result in his eventual arrest -- or, even better, a viable peace settlement in the country -- is far from clear, but if Uganda is willing to arrest send mixed signals about arresting Bashir, well, then that's a step at least.

One of the controversies the ICC has had to deal with is the notion that it is "biased" against Africa. Even though most of the ICC's work to date has been in African countries, this is a pretty hollow charge; the reason that the ICC is operating in three of these four states is because they asked it to do so.

Much of the resistance to the ICC in Africa, particularly since the indictment of Sudanese President Bashir, has come from other heads of state. Hence the AU resolution last week rebuking the court, which was concluded in a closed-door session and evidently did not garner the support of all participants.

Discomfort with the ICC among Africans on a populist level, though, does undeniably exist, even if much of it seems based on misinformation (often peddled by state governments). To counter these negative impressions, the ICC is taking to the airwaves.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) today launches a series of radio programmes in the Central African Republic (CAR) as part of an outreach campaign aimed at informing the country’s population about the court’s mandate and activities.

The 13-episode series, which will be broadcast in the Sango language, is called “Understanding the International Criminal Court” and uses a question-and-answer format. At least 14 separate radio stations are expected to air the programmes.

Crank that dial.

(image from flickr user fatcontroller under a Creative Commons license)

The International Criminal Court yesterday formally ordered that Jean Pierre Bemba, a former Congolese vice president and militia leader, stand trial on charges that he commanded his militia in a campaign of rape, murder and pillage in the Central African Republic. Bemba was arrested last year in Belgium where he was living in exile.

The case against Bemba is unprecedented in international war crimes tribunals for the fact that it will center on the crime of rape. The number of alleged rapes by Bemba's troops far outnumber cases of murder that his troops are alleged to have committed in the Central African Republic in 2002-2003. Rape was Bemba's primary weapon of war. Accordingly, much of the jurisprudence decided upon by this case will have long-lasting effects on how future war crimes prosecutors and judges approach cases of rape-as-a-war crime.

At issue yesterday was whether or not the prosecutor could charge Bemba for both rape AND torture for the same act of rape. That is, when a soldier under Bemba's command raped a victim, the prosecution argued that this soldier is also committing the crime of torture.

In yesterday's pre-trial ruling, ICC judges said, basically, "not so fast."

Bec Hamilton summarizes the key point.

Although during the confirmation hearing the Prosecution said that Bemba’s...troops “used torture through acts of sexual violence for the purpose of punishing and intimidating the civilian population for allegedly sympathizing with Bozizé’s rebels, as well as for the purpose of discriminating against their victims”, the Chamber found that the specific purpose was not clearly articulated in the Amended Document Containing the Charges, and therefore the Defence did not have sufficient notice to respond to the charge. (para 299/300) It was this lack of notice, rather than an ‘in-principle’ view that both rape and torture as a war crime could not be charged for the same act of rape, that lead the Chamber to dismiss the charge of torture as a war crime.

So, it seems we will have to wait a bit longer for a resolution to the legal question: "is rape also torture."

If you want to learn more about the terrible crimes that occurred in CAR during 2002-2003, this Amnesty report is a good place to start.

I'm sympathetic to the argument that human rights lawyers Geoffrey Nice and Pedro Nikken make in this Washington Post op-ed: that interest in Burma should go beyond the legitimate calls for Aung San Suu Kyi's freedom; that grave human rights abuses, probably amounting to war crimes and crimes against humanity, have been going on unchecked for a long time in the country; and that the international community, including the United Nations, have long known about these travesties. But I find their proposed solution -- "maintain[ing] our gaze" and "authoriz[ing] a commission of inquiry" -- well-prescribed (both by these two and by one of our own) but not wholly fleshed out here and, if anything, insufficient.

As symbolically (and actually) egregious as the continued imprisonment of Burma's celebrated pro-democracy leader is, I've always found the international attention heaped upon her -- as if her release alone would clear the way for a domestic Burmese solution -- troublingly myopic. This has in fact allowed the Burmese generals to focus their propaganda efforts on show trials and (severely) limited accommodations for one individual, even as the subjugation of the rest of the country's population steamrolls along. Similarly, for Burmese to rest their hopes on Suu Kyi's shoulders is to foster an illusion that her release would wholly relieve them of their plight.

But Nice and Nikken are right; the world has known about these pervasive patterns of abuse for a long time. Despite citing a study that relied only on UN documentation, though, the authors allege that "the U.N. Security Council has not systematically investigated these abuses." A commission of inquiry mandated for a wide-ranging investigation is doubtlessly necessary, but even a full accounting of abuses will not, like the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, guarantee that the abuses cease.

I don't expect an op-ed to propose a long-range, comprehensive plan for Burma's rehabilitation (nor do I have one), but some acknowledgment of the factors that would make a commission of inquiry difficult -- the chokehold that the country's generals maintain over the population, their North Korea-esque penchant for unpredictable intransigence and intractability, and the dire humanitarian needs of the country -- seems necessary (the ICC indictment of Bashir could provide lessons, for instance). Urging on the Security Council and a commission of inquiry is important, but important players like China, India, and the United States cannot hide behind either the UN or a claim to need to know more.