The International Criminal Court's chief prosecutor officially opened proceedings today against Sudanese President Omar el Bashir by submitting an application for an arrest warrant to a panel of pre-trial judges. The application includes a nine page summary of the charges against Bashir, as well as an explanation of why the prosecutor believes the evidence shows he is responsible for genocide in Darfur. The judges will take the next few weeks to weigh the merits of the application and decide whether or not to issue the warrant for the arrest of the Sudan's head of state.
On a conference call with reporters this morning the Enough Project's John Norris and John Prendergast responded to these developments. They made two points I think are worth repeating ad nausea. First, concerns that this action will somehow disturb the "peace process" ignore the fact that there is no peace process of which to speak. The status quo is untenable and, they say, worth jarring; attacks on civilians persist, UNAMID is coming under attack by government sponsored militias, and humanitarian access is routinely denied or obstructed by the Sudanese government.
Second, John Prendergast noted the political utility of the ICC action, saying it offers the Security Council a unique opportunity to "build leverage for a real peace process." By this, he means that the Security Council should hold out the potential of suspending the ICC process, if, and only if the Sudanese government enters into a good faith peace process. In other words, if members of the Security Council plays their cards right, they can use the threat of the ICC to back up a peace process that so far has proven elusive.
UPDATE: Here's a link to the Enough Project's full report making the case for bringing Bashir to justice.
Over at the Wonk Room, the Enough Project's David Sullivan offers a nice run down of Omar al Bashir's career low lights.
- From 2000-2001, systematically depopulated the oil fields of western Upper Nile. According to the UN: "government bombers, helicopter gunships, tanks and artillery were used against unarmed civilians to clear a 100-kilometer area around the oils fields. Witnesses reported that over 1,000 government soldiers swept through Ruweng county, wreaking human and material destruction, including destroying 17 churches." - Continually used aerial bombing of women and children, aid workers, and hospitals. Among the hundreds of air strikes from 2000-2001 were a World Food Program airlift, a church school, a hospital, and the International Committee of the Red Cross. - In 2003, organized the creation of the Janjaweed militias to commit genocide in Darfur. On the Today Show, Bashir claimed: "I would confirm that we have never targeted civilian citizens and we can never target citizens." Of Musa Hilal, the notorious Janjaweed commander, Bashir said: "He has contributed to peace and stability." Also: "The so-called Darfur conflict is an invention by foreign interests."ICC prosecutions can only cover crimes committed since July 2002, so much of Bashir's dirty work prior to then will likely never be aired inside a courtroom. One final thought on the big news of the day after the jump.
Referring to ICC action against the Sudanese president, international law scholar Kevin Jon Heller asks in the comments: "Is this the way to ratchet up the pressure? To be honest, I really don't know how I feel about the Prosecutor's decision -- I just know it makes me very nervous..." It makes me nervous too. That said, one recurring theme over the past, sad four years of conflict in Darfur is that the international community was never able to muster the requisite pressure to alter the decision making calculus in Khartoum. Powerful countries like the United States and China failed to summon the will (in the American case, to put their money where their mouth is; in the Chinese case to put their mouth where their money is) to take actions that would make obstructing peace in Darfur more painful for the Sudanese government than cooperating with the international community.
The Security Council came close a few times with sanctions packages, but ultimately these sanctions never targeted the real decision makers. To the Council's great credit, though, it did decide to let loose the ICC prosecutor on Darfur. So now we have an alternative way to press the Sudanese into staking a more cooperative posture on Darfur. For this I am glad: all other diplomatic means have so far failed to do so.
Tragic news out of one of the most war-torn places on the planet:
Gunmen opened fire on people leaving a mosque in Mogadishu on Sunday night, killing one of the country's senior United Nations officials and wounding his son and another man, a witness and a family member said.Osman Ali Ahmed was the head of the UN Development Program for Somalia. His assassination -- and he appears to have been specifically targeted -- follows the abduction just last week of the top man at another key UN agency operating in the country, the UN High Commission for Refugees, as well as the emergence of an al-Qaeda video calling for attacks on the UN in Somalia. Facing the constant threat of such violence, UN personnel in Somalia must be among the bravest individuals to volunteer their services. Their work is exceedingly valuable -- and necessary, in a country in which an estimated half of the population will be in need of assistance this year -- but they cannot continue to have to operate under conditions of such rampant insecurity. As in most countries in which the UN works, most of its employees are nationals of the host country. Somalis are taking up the burden of repairing their country -- we owe it to them to help make sure they are not kidnapped and killed. UPDATE: Truer words couldn't be spoken by Ahmed's boss:
"The killing of Osman Ali Ahmed is a loss not only for the United Nations but also for the Somali people, who are the ultimate victims when humanitarian workers and aid officials are targeted in this way," Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said in a statement issued by his spokesperson.And Ban's Special Representative in Somalia, Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, pledged that "this killing will not deter the UN from carrying on its vital work inside the country," a welcome voice of confidence against those who seek to harm Somalis by undermining the UN's efforts in their country. In response, Somalia's prime minister has called for the "immediate" deployment of UN peacekeepers. While this carries with it the hope of greater protection, it is also not unreasonable to expect that UN peacekeepers will themselves face similar attacks. Until the parties -- pushed by the UN and international community, naturally -- are able to come to a meaningful political solution and ceasefire on the ground in Somalia, it will be difficult to ask Member States to contribute their soldiers to be shot at in Mogadishu.
From VOA, an aspect of the repression in Myanmar that has not attracted the same level of attention as did the government's blocking of foreign aid after Cyclone Nargis:
Cheery Zahau, a member of Burma's Chin minority, says members of the Burmese army rape women in ethnic minority areas all over the country. She says in Burma's western Chin State alone, at least 38 cases of sexual violence were committed by soldiers in 2006. The youngest victim was only 12. ... "The soldiers are raping women to punish the populations who they suspect of supporting insurgency groups," she said. "And also they rape the women to disturb the faith and psychological welfare of these ethnic women. For example in 2003, a woman was raped by four soldiers on her way back home from the market. Until now she is mentally disturbed."In light of the UN Security Council's recent -- if long-overdue -- resolution officially condemning rape as a weapon of war, this testimony reveals yet another example of a conflict zone marred by rampant, targeted sexual violence against women. The situation in Myanmar following Nargis may have slipped off the radar of the mainstream press, but the same ruling military junta remains, using the same reprehensible tactics to terrorize its people. Humanitarian support is still desperately needed to aid those suffering from the cyclone's destruction, and such a systematized, state-organized campaign of rape will require a sustained effort from the UN and its Member States.
There's been a lot of buzz in the blogosphere over the meeting hosted by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last week that resulted in the UN Security Council's resolution declaring rape as a weapon of war.
Now that the word is out, there's much to be done, including a push for international law of rape as a war crime. In the meantime, serious kudos goes to the UN Security Council for creating this resolution. As I said last week, while rape as a weapon of war has existed for a long, long, time, it's only begun to be documented and its recognition is a huge step. And now it seems the resolution has already begun to mobilize the international community; UNIFEM's "Say No to Violence Against Women" campaign has signed on ten more supporting countries this week.
One of UNIFEM's goals is to have 1 million names signed before November 25, the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, when the signatures will be handed over to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. So get to it and sign your name.
Photo was taken by Hazel Thompson used in NY Times article, of Honorata Barinjibanwa, rape victim of war crimes in the Congo.
At least one of Somalia's Islamist insurgent groups has rejected al Qaeda's call to sabotage the recent (partial) peace that the UN recently helped broker in the country.
Alliance for the Re-Liberation of Somalia Deputy Chairman Abdirahman Abdishakur, who was in the Kenyan capital Nairobi, rejected the terrorist appeal. "I do not think we are interested in al-Qaida's statements and they have nothing to do with Somali issues. Al-Qaida has not got any base in Somalia and they always issue statements against any peace process. I do not think their statements are relevant to the Somali people," said Abdishakur.Abdishakur has exposed al Qaeda' attempted interference for what it is: a transparent and ill-substantiated ploy to exacerbate tensions on the ground, impede any progress toward a cessation of hostilities, and, most likely, to induce fear in those committed to bringing peace to Somalia. Unfortunately, not all of Somalia's fractured opposition has so clearly repudiated al Qaeda's involvement, and the more militant groups -- those that did not sign the ceasefire -- share the commitment to unraveling the deal. Leaders of these organizations called the peace agreement "rubbish and inconsequential" and vowed to undermine it through increased attacks -- promises they have sadly followed up on. No sign yet that al Qaeda involvement is any more than hortatory, but it would not be the first time that the organization operated out of Somalia, or fed on another country's instability and violence. More terrorist activity is, of course, the last thing that Somalia needs right now.
Last week, we flagged press reports about new fighting on the Djibouti-Eritrea border, apparently sparked when Eritrean soldiers raided a Djibouti border town. Following the clashes, the United States (which has a special forces base in Djubouti) condemned Eritrea's "military aggression." The Security Council also issued a presidential statement to the same effect.
Today, the Security Council is expected to take up the matter again. The ever-valuable Security Council Report analyzes the Council dynamics at work during this debate.
There is broad sympathy in the Council for Djibouti's situation, and strong concern about the need to avoid escalation of the recent fighting. Members also seem increasingly alarmed by the potential for a generalised conflict in East Africa, not the least involving Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia and Djibouti. Most members seem frustrated about and alienated by Eritrea's actions. One option in the minds of some members has been a fact-finding mission, but it is unclear if and when members will be ready to adopt a statement or a resolution. This is likely to depend on the prospects of current regional efforts as well as the situation on the ground.In related news, the Council considered on Monday a plan to officially disband the United Nations Mission to Eritrea/Ethiopia (UNMEE), which was forced to withdraw from Eritrea this spring after Asmara effectively cut off its access to fuel. The council took no immediate action though.
With the United States holding the rotating presidency of the Security Council this month (a position that lets it help set the Council's agenda), the Council approved a "presidential statement" calling on Sudan to hand over indicted war criminals to the International Criminal Court.
Why is this such a big deal? Well, it was only a few years ago that the United States was doing all it could (short of a veto) to prevent the ICC from even opening an investigation in Darfur. It was also not long ago that the United States embarked on a global campaign to limit the jurisdiction of the ICC by signing so called "bi-lateral immunity agreements" with its allies around the world, like those in Europe, who supported the ICC. (Just to give you a sense of how strongly the United States cherished these bi-lateral immunity agreements, official American policy was to withhold aid to countries that refused to enter into these agreements.)
But times have changed.
U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, who currently holds the rotating presidency of the Security Council, insisted that U.S. support for the council statement does not mean Washington has altered its position on the court. But Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice Program at the New York-based Human Rights Watch, said there has been a noticeable shift in the U.S. approach to the court. "This support for justice marks a further break from Washington's previously ill-conceived and highly ideological opposition to the ICC," he told reporters, adding that Washington's previous approach had been an anti-ICC "jihad."These days, it seems that the United States is finding the ICC to be a useful tool of international relations. (And don't miss the edition of UN Plaza in which Dicker and I discuss America's evolving relationship with the ICC.) It is also the only hope that those responsible for unleashing genocide in Darfur will ever face justice. I, for one, warmly welcome this detente between the United States and ICC.