Change.org's Stop Genocide Blog

A Case of Liable

Karl Horberg — 2009-11-06T14:44:00-08:00

So far the drafters of the Genocide Convention had established a definition and punishable acts. The next step was to clearly establish who could be held liable for genocide.

The Secretariat draft placed criminal liability for genocide on "rulers, public officials, and private individuals." In their commentary the experts stressed that the greatest responsibility for genocide prevention lies with rulers or statesmen. They also took the position that international law should concern itself with prosecuting "rulers" and that states should be in charge of prosecuting lesser public officials.

In a nod to the famed "Nuremberg defense" the Secretariat draft also prohibited "command of law or superior orders" as a justification of genocide. However, it did acknowledge that in some cases command of law or superior orders may constitute extenuating circumstances. This question would be left to the judge.

The Ad Hoc Committee unanimously voted to impose criminal liability on "heads of State, public officials or private individuals." Interestingly a Soviet proposal to include a prohibition of the Nuremberg defense was rejected. Other committee members explained that an in accordance with the definition of genocide an individual could not be held liable unless they possessed the requisite intent and orders were not sufficient to meet this requirement.

The Sixth Committee adopted the language of the Ad Hoc Committee, but substituted the phrase "constitutionally responsible rulers" for "heads of State." The reasoning behind this change was that some countries recognized immunity for constitutional monarchs from domestic and international liability.

The UK delegate proposed an amendment to extend criminal liability to "States, governments or organs or authorities of the State." The delegate pointed out that genocide was usually committed by agents acting on behalf of states and these states would probably be hesitant to punish their own agents or turn them over to international tribunals then it was necessary to include state responsibility for genocide. This amendment was soundly defeated. In an era where state sovereignty was unquestionable many countries did not yet recognize criminal liability of states under international law.

Undeterred by the failure of their previous attempt the Soviet delegation again tried to include an amendment that would prohibit command of law or superior orders as justification for genocide. It was again rejected on the grounds that individuals must possess intent to commit genocide. A slightly less appealing argument was made that making superior orders indefensible may lead to subordinates questioning the orders of their superiors.

Besides the definition of genocide, criminal liability is the portion of the Genocide Convention that has perhaps gone through the most significant evolution. Former or current heads of state are of course not immune to prosecution. The indictments of Charles Taylor, Slobodan Milosevic and Omar al-Bashir makes this clear. However, as discussed in a previous post, the ad hoc tribunals have largely rejected the drafters' contention that an individual need to possess intent to be complicit in genocide. The ICTY has gone as far to rule that a superior commander can be responsible for atrocities of his subordinates as long as he "had reason to know" crimes were being committed and did nothing to stop it.

The International Court of Justice addressed the question of state liability in the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro. In an opinion regarding provisional measures one judge insisted that a narrow interpretation of liability, which holds that the Convention relates only to individual responsibility, must be rejected. In its final judgment the full Court seemed to accept this notion of state accountability when it voted twelve to three in finding that Yugoslavia violated its obligation to prevent genocide.

All of our ducks are nearly lined up. Now we know who can be liable, but we need someone who will hold these perpetrators to account. Next time we will take a look at the one judicial body given jurisdiction over the Genocide Convention.

[Photo: At work on the Court Room at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials, by Alexander, Charles, Office of the United States Chief of Counsel.]

A Special Message from Indego Africa

Michelle — 2009-11-06T04:28:00-08:00

I received the following message from a board member at Indego Africa, nonprofit taking a social enterprise approach to empowering hundreds of women Rwanda to lift themselves out of poverty. If you're looking for something to do in DC tonight, check it out -- and enter the raffle to win a trip to Rwanda.

Dear Michelle:

I am a Board member of the non-profit Indego Africa, and I wanted to alert you to our fall fundraiser event being held this Friday night from 7-10pm at the Josephine Butler Parks Center in Northwest, DC. Indego is an innovative and entrepreneurial nonprofit built upon the belief that women in Rwanda can become economically self-sufficient. Our annual Ibirori fundraiser is meant to raise awareness of our organization and celebrate Rwandan progress. Maybe you could mention the event on your website?

We believe there will be no better way for DC residents to spend their Friday night. Here are three reasons why:

(1) Rwandan dancing. If you've never seen a great intore show, you don't know what you're missing. Come see Amariza N’Amasonga, the best Rwandan dance group in the area!

(2) Good people, good food and good drinks. Indego Africa events attract interesting people from all age groups, united by the common bond of an interest in the world outside our borders. The $45 ticket price will include traditional Rwandan food and an open bar.

(3) Raffle Drawing. We'll be drawing for our raffle grand prize: a trip to Rwanda (or $3000). Already have a raffle ticket? Come see if you're the lucky winner. If not, you can get one at reduced price when you buy your ticket.

Tickets and more info are available here.

We would really appreciate your help in promoting this event.

Thank you in advance.

Racialized Refugee Status in the UK?

Michelle — 2009-11-05T04:27:00-08:00

Did the UK just endorse racial profiling of refugees?

According to a decision announced on Tuesday by Britain's Interior Ministry, all "non-Arab" Darfuri asylum-seekers will be allowed to remain in the country, contingent upon periodic reviews of the situation in Sudan:

"All non-Arab Darfuris, regardless of their political or other affiliations, are at real risk of persecution in Darfur and internal relocation elsewhere in Sudan is not currently to be relied upon," the Interior Ministry's UK Border Agency concluded in its operational guidance note.

Yes, non-Arab Darfuris were the targets of Sudan's genocidal violence, and return from abroad is a very dangerous prospect. But while the situation in Darfur is perilous for those groups singled out by the government, the human rights situation is pretty crummy (in my professional opinion) across the entire country -- for Arabs and non-Arabs and mixed races and foreigners and really anyone who happens to be there.

I'm certainly no lawyer, but I thought that an individual's asylum claim should be evaluated on the specific merits of his/her case. While its laudable for the British government to recognize the need to ensure of asylum to Darfuris, that protection should be extended to all Sudanese fleeing abuse in their home country.

[Photo from Wikimedia Commons: Women at Darfur refugee camp in Chad, March 2005, by Mark Knobil.]

New Darfur Film Knows No Shame

Michelle — 2009-11-04T04:42:00-08:00

The man "widely considered to be the worst working director today" + Darfur = Disaster.

You don't even need to see the full film to tell -- here's all you need to know: White journalists in a gun battle with the Janjaweed.

Seriously.

If the trailer is any indication, Uwe Boll's new film Darfur is the worst kind of white-man's-burden, heart-of-darkness trash known to cinema -- Eurocentric Africa filmmaking at its most condescending. Starring Billy Zane.

The film repeats a theme commonly seen in movies about African wars: White people in search of adventure stumble into a land of lawlessness and are touched and distraught by the devastation they find. But by bringing his rugged characters into direct confrontation with villainous Janjaweed militia, Boll is truly in a class of his own.

I've often found that most people are unwilling to criticize a movie about genocide, be it documentary or feature film. I was given a funny look when I walked out of Invisibles and said, "That's the most boring movie I've ever seen." The movies are always "moving" and "heartbreaking" because of the gravity of the subject matter, as if basic standards for storytelling (not to mention respect, in Boll's case) are thrown out the window every time someone decides to make a film about human suffering.

Boll takes this unfounded freedom too far. The trailer is embedded past the jump -- judge for yourself.

[Photo of Uwe Boll from Wikimedia Commons.]

Bold Words, from Sudan to Zim to the DRC

Michelle — 2009-11-03T08:00:00-08:00

Dictator Delusion Disorder

Congolese President Joseph Kabila boasted that his army is winning its battle to uproot extremist Hutu militias in the east, just as the UN withdrew its support for the Congolese army and human rights groups issued warnings about egregious violence committed by the troops against civilians.

A typical day at the office?

Says my favorite old curmudgeon Bobby Mugabe of his Prime Minister: "Even if some person is not mentally stable he is still your partner . . . . We bound ourselves to work together even though we had disparate position." So is he on or off the Christmas card list?

Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

Such is the gist of statements by Sudanese presidential adviser Ghazi Salahuddin on Obama's recently-released Sudan policy: "We believe that the U.S strategy toward Sudan is tactics more than anything else, and therefore we need the U.S. to come out with a true strategy dealing with the overall relations."

Who else would have the moxie to tell the Leader of the Free World, "You did it wrong. Go back and try again?"

Foot, meet Mouth

"Incriminating the president is out of question and fundamentally unacceptable" -- so said (reportedly) former Egyptian foreign minister and member of the African Union's high level panel on Darfur Ahmed Maher, speaking of Sudanese President and indicted war criminal Omar al-Bashir. The AU Panel, led by former South African President Thabo Mbeki, submitted its proposal for a Darfur peace process last week.

From what I've read (still digging through it), Maher's comments don't actually jive with the report -- or at least, would involve a very serious case of reading-between-the-lines -- which presents a complex and nuanced assessment of the Darfur crisis and its possible resolution. So were Maher's statements a.) taken out of context or an error of translation, b.) playing to the home audience of an Egyptian newspaper, or c.) actually serious?

Them's fightin' words.

Sadly, an apt subtitle: For the first time, President of South Sudan Salva Kiir called on Southerners to vote for independence, telling a congregation at St. Teresa's Cathedral in Juba, "You want to vote for unity so that you will become a second class in your own country, that is your choice." As I wrote yesterday, the 2011 referendum for Southern independence is an increasingly contentious issue, with many wondering if the North will actually allow the South to secede without a fight. Kiir's comments are an interesting, if not unsurprising, escalation in rhetoric.

[UN Photo/Marie Frechon: MONUC Peacekeeping Officer Patrol Temporary Operating Base - A member of the Indian battalion of the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) patrols the newly installed operating base during a visit by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General and Head of the United Nations Mission in the country. 23 April 2009.]

Khartoum's Spin Zone

Michelle — 2009-11-02T05:31:00-08:00

Misinformation is the cornerstone of dictatorship -- control of dominate political narratives allows for the manipulation of public sentiment. Those of you familiar with certain cable news programs may know this as "spin."

An intriguing interview from the latest edition from the Sudan Radio Project (an excellent program, if you're not familiar) makes me wonder exactly how the Sudanese government is spinning the Obama Administration's recently-released policy review. In a segment on Sudanese perspectives of the plan, a 27-year-old woman from Khartoum incorrectly states that Obama supports unified Sudan, with "no division between South and North," presumably following the 2011 referendum on Southern independence.

The policy statement, in fact, wisely does not take a stance on the outcome of the referendum, but states the administration's intentions to ensure peace both before, during, and after Southerners head to the polls. It is, after all, not our right to weigh in on what the outcome of the referendum should be -- the vote for self-determination was a key component of the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement that ended two decades of war, and the right to chose unity or independence belongs to Southerners alone.

Given that the National Congress Party (NCP), the CPA signatory from the North, has done little to make unity an attractive option for the South, secession is almost a foregone conclusion. The benefit of convincing the public that Obama is on the NCP's side is clear: It validates the positions and actions of the North while portraying the South as something akin to a red-headed stepchild.

This chronic two-faced nature is just one more thing for Obama's team to keep in mind as they attempt to coax the NCP out of its war-footing.

(PS - The rest of the radio program is quite interesting as well -- the segments on women in war and peacebuilding in the South and on the humanitarian situation in Darfur are worth a listen. I'm not one for genocide-inspired ballets, but you can make up your own mind on that one.)

[UN Photo/Tim McKulka: Residents of Abyei Celebrate Permanent Court of Arbitration Decision - Residents of Abyei march to celebrate the decision of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, ruling on the boundaries of the Abyei Area after the two parties to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement referred the case to the court according to the Abyei Road Map. 24 July 2009.]

This Week in Who's Going to Jail

Michelle — 2009-11-01T07:22:00-08:00

The wheels of justice keep on turnin':

A Rwandan actor "known for his humour [and] ability to act diverse roles and linguistic prowess" will spend 19 years in prison for his role in instigating the massacre of Tutsis during the 1994 genocide, thanks to a verdict from a gacaca court last week.

A fellow Rwandan genocidaire became the first person convicted under a Canadian law allowing for the prosecution of war crimes committed abroad; Desire Munyaneza received a life sentence from a Montreal court for his role in the killings.

Rwanda also plans to request the extradition from Italy of a Hutu priest accused of involvement in the massacre of 80 students at the school where he was the headmaster in 1994.

Meanwhile, over at the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia, notorious Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic is essentially being tried for genocide in absentia, on account of the fact that he boycotted the opening of the trial last week and reportedly will continue to do so next week -- which presents an interesting dilemma for the court, given that Karadzic is defending himself.

And finally, in a bit of an odd twist, a British bishop was fined $16,822 by a German court for denying the Holocaust in an interview on Swedish television. The story became an international scandal with the Vatican restored the ex-communicated ultra-conservative Bishop Richard Williamson earlier this year.

[UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe: Security Council Meeting Considers Genocide Crimes

A Security Council meeting during its consideration of the prosecution of persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. 04 June 2009.]

The Websites of War Criminals

Michelle — 2009-10-30T08:00:00-07:00

What's a misunderstood war criminal to do when he feels the world is unjustly against him? Create a website, of course.

Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, currently wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity, recently launched a website complete with a dove, olive branch, and upbeat headlines about the supposedly-peace-loving dictator's latest activities. Interestingly, as Bec Hamilton notes, the website is in English as well as Arabic: "It's not the regular Sudanese voter he's pitching to."

Bashir is not the first to use a glossy and misleading website for an international PR campaign, of course. According to Laura at the Enough Project and Jason at Congo Siasa, the diaspora leaders of the FDLR, the Congo-based militia led by former Rwandan genocidaires, have thus-far resisted attempts to shut down their website by simply changing hosts. According to Jason, the site is currently hosted in the US -- which means that we need to figure out who it is, and harass the bejeezus out of them. (Instead of E-cards for Dictators, maybe E-cards for the Morally Depraved?)

Not to be left out of all the fun, Darfur's Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) has its own multi-language propaganda site, which conveniently leaves out headlines about its use of child soldiers, among other less-than-upstanding activities.

So when will this unsavory cast of characters discover the magic of Twitter?

Secret Conversations in Zimbabwe

Michelle — 2009-10-29T07:00:00-07:00

I once had an extended conversation with a hotel bartender in Zimbabwe about the T.I. song "Live Your Life." It was last fall -- talks between long-time dictator and master-election-stealer Robert Mugabe and opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai were stalled, human rights activists and opposition party members were disappearing left and right, a massive cholera epidemic was just beginning to make international headlines, and Harare looked like a ghost town.

And three Nobel Peace Laureates had just been denied entry to the country. The repressive police state was in overdrive.

So at the end of a long day, I was chatting with the bartender about movies, music, family, etc, and we discovered our mutual appreciation of T.I. and Rihanna. The song is a condemnation of greed and corruption, and he quickly started drawing comparisons between the lyrics and his own brutal government. I was petrified, at first -- state security officers were everywhere, frequently visiting the hotel and talking to the staff, and even following me throughout the day. I'd been careful to keep all public conversation benign and trust no one, and the bartender's forthrightness caught me off-guard.

I sat quietly and listened, occasionally asking broad questions but trying not to appear too interested. I was, of course, enthralled. He talked in hushed tones about how the delirious crash of the country's economy was straining his marriage, how his mother's house was burned down by youth militia in the post-election violence earlier that year, and how everyday is a struggle for survival. He said that no one dares to openly criticize the government because you never know who is listening, and he listed the names of friends and family who'd disappeared, or been murdered.

Every time someone walked into the room he changed the subject, but he'd quickly pick up where he left off upon their exit. It was a deluge of pent-up frustration. He leaned over the counter, put his head in his hands, and in a barely audible voice said, "So much suffering, and all because of the greed of a powerful few."

We sat in silence, until the evening's first dinner guests arrived. Before I left, early the next morning, he shook my hand and said that he hoped that I would return to "see a Zimbabwe truly owned by Zimbabweans, one day when this nightmare is over."

[Photo by "lowem," Creative Commons:: A Zimbabwean $50 million note.]

Why America Does Not Need a TRC

Michelle — 2009-10-28T08:30:00-07:00

What started as an extraordinary institution for extraordinary times seems fast on its way to becoming a pre-packaged catch-all for sinister deeds. Instant justice, just add water.

Ethan Zuckerman posted an interesting account of a recent talk by South African human rights activist-extraordinaire Paul Van Zyl on "Why America needs a TRC." But in the case of torture and the War on Terror, a Truth and Reconciliation Commission would simply cement the notions of our past (and future?) leaders that they are, indeed, above the law.

The South African TRC was an extraordinary institution -- years of hearings and research uncovered and put on public display the insidiously dirty deeds of the Apartheid government, providing at least some measure of justice to its victims and in many cases, even years after the Commission ended, locating the bodies of missing loved ones. The TRC was uniquely South African, painstakingly developed by activists and scholars like Van Zyl and particularly suited for the negotiated terms of the country's transition to democracy.

Truth commissions more generally are often appropriate for post-conflict societies, where functioning judiciaries are notably absent and the scale of the violence is too great for even a healthy system to handle. As justice mechanisms, they often represent a compromise -- far less than many victims may want, but far more than they would get otherwise. Simply put, they are better than nothing, and the use of grandiose theoretical selling points -- about healing, reinventing, reconciling -- lead to overblown and unfulfilled expectations.

(Full disclosure: As a grad student in South Africa, I wrote a dissertation on how the TRC sorta-maybe-coulda had a broader societal impact in South Africa. My examiner commented that I "excel in abstract theorizing," and I don't think he meant it as a compliment.)

The United States, however, has a sizeable, functioning, independent judicial system capable of handling this case load. We have a Congress capable of holding hearings and commissioning reports, and a robust (if Balloon Boy-obsessed) media to help them along. The cases themselves may be extraordinary, as the crimes are among the most serious breach of our Constitution and national ethos ever seen, but that is precisely why the perpetrators need to familiarize themselves with the inside of an American courtroom: To show that no one can so thoroughly disregard the rule of law without consequence.

In my own view, the architects of crimes against humanity should be held criminally accountable for their actions, though this frequently proves to be a frustrating task. In the case of the U.S., our only excuse is a dangerous complacency sure to breed future contempt, and future crimes.

[Photo from Wikimedia Commons: Abu Ghraib detainee, February 2006.]

Advocacy, Super-Sized

Kelly Spellman — 2009-10-27T04:26:00-07:00

If a picture is worth a thousand words, what is it worth if it's 7 feet tall and 10 feet wide?

The New York Times photojournalism blog, Lens recently did a feature on the project Congo/Women, a traveling exhibit created by the Art Works Projects. This exhibit, currently housed at the United Nations in New York, displays the devastating impact that decades of conflict, HIV/AIDS and rape as a war tactic have had on women and girls in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The difference is that the pictures are far from your traditional gallery size -- they are larger than life.

In the article, "Behind the Scenes: Suffering Writ Large," Leslie Thomas, the founding executive director of Art Works Projects explains that the massive images of the Congo/Women exhibit were meant to "grab the attention of those not normally concerned with human rights."

In 2006 and 2007 the Art Works Projects released another traveling multimedia exhibit called Darfur/Darfur that included huge projected photographs and music, documenting the lives of people experiencing the conflict in Darfur. The images were digitally displayed on walls of the venue spaces.

Though I have not had the opportunity to see these exhibits in person, after going through the Lens article and the Art Works Project websites for both projects, seeing the images was both moving and haunting. I can only imagine the effect they can have when they are wall-sized and impossible to miss. According to Lens, one of the current Congo exhibit portraits is placed right outside of the General Assembly chamber, and I cannot think of a more appropriate place for it.

I know that the Darfur exhibit made its way to the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. and that the Congo exhibit was shown at Senate and House office buildings earlier this year, but a part of me wonders if maybe a semi-permanent installation should go up in the Capitol Hill area of this nation's capital -- a daily reminder to both those who work and visit that the decision we do (or do not) make have a monumental impact on the lives of individuals, families, and communities across the world.

[Photo of the Darfur/Darfur exhibit in New York by the Save Darfur Coalition, used with written permission from the organization.]

Human Rights in Eric Posner's Lawless World

Transitionland — 2009-10-26T09:00:00-07:00

Conservative legal provocateur Eric Posner has an article titled "Think Again: International Law" in the most recent Foreign Policy. If you are involved in human rights work, it won't make you happy.

Posner writes:

"Academic research suggests that international human rights treaties have had little or no impact on the actual practices of states. The Genocide Convention has not prevented genocides; the Torture Convention has not stopped torture. The same can be said for the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and a host of treaties meant to advance the rights of women and children. States that already respect human rights join human rights treaties because doing so is costless for them. States that do not respect human rights simply ignore their treaty obligations."

What is Posner's argument here? That laws that aren't followed 100 percent of the time should be disposed of? That genocide and torture shouldn't be illegal? If that is, in fact, what Posner is saying, his complaint isn't with international law, but law in general. After all, murder is illegal in every society, yet murders are still committed everywhere.

Posner goes on to explain:

"The evidence shows that human rights are best in those states that are wealthiest, leading many scholars to speculate that the best way to promote human rights is to promote growth."

Wealthier states are, on average, more likely to respect human rights, but Posner is assuming that economic growth causes states to respect human rights. There is a huge body of literature, including, most famously, Amartya Sen's Development as Freedom, that concludes the exact opposite, that respect for human rights -especially freedom of expression- enables disaster-prevention, poverty reduction, and economic growth.

Then, there are the glaring examples of developed and wealthy countries showing little respect for the rights of people residing within their borders. Russia, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Singapore might all be developed, but they're hardly paragons of good human rights policy. Economies can boom and skylines soar on the labor of exploited, brutalized underclasses, and in spite of authoritarian denials of civil and political rights.

However, countries like Singapore, representing the so-called "authoritarian development" model, and rentier states like Saudi Arabia -regimes that survive on income from natural resources- are exceptions globally. Most undemocratic countries are dismally poor.

As law, human rights have instrumental value to people campaigning for equality, exposing cruelty, and taking cases against their abusive and feckless governments to national and international courts.

Whether it entails locating mass graves or litigating on behalf of slum residents, human rights work outside the democratic world often places advocates and their loved ones in mortal danger. International human rights law isn't always honored, and it certainly cannot bring the dead back to life, but without the law itself on their side, threatened human rights defenders in places like Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, and Russia would be even worse off than they are now.

If nothing else, human rights law gives some wronged parties recourse and a focus for the future. It has allowed Chechen village mothers whose sons were forcibly disappeared to take the Russian state to the European Court of Human Rights and, in doing so, say to the world, "Our government must account for its actions, and acknowledge our suffering." That alone is a powerful -and empowering-thing.

About which Eric Posner has nothing to say.

I wouldn't expect an arch-realist to address norms, but not addressing the instrumental value of human rights law is sheer intellectual laziness.

If Posner is correct about anything, it's that the world we live in is too often still one in which a person's birthplace, rather than humanity, dictates the rights she or he may enjoy. But that's not an argument for less international law, that's an argument for more and better human rights advocacy.

Side note: Posner's worldview is, ironically, best represented by this Amnesty International ad -minus the last line, of course.

[Image credit: Mikhail Evstafiev on WikiCommons - GNU Free Documentation License]

Engaging with a Hostage-Taker

Mohamed E. Suleiman — 2009-10-25T08:59:00-07:00

Obama's administration finally, on Monday, October 19, unveiled its new Sudan policy As a policy, on paper, it sounded like there is something for everybody.

Many dictators in Africa had a good sleep that night. They never had such relaxing sleep since they saw on television some years back, one of their own fellows handcuffed and shipped to The Hague to stand trial on war crimes and crimes against humanity. Yes, every one of them saw his nightmare come true in seeing Charles Taylor, the ex-dictator of Liberia, hunted down, handcuffed, and taken to the International Criminal Court prison in the Netherlands waiting to be tried on crimes he had committed against his own people. A dictator in handcuffs was strong message to the rest of the dictators that, finally, accountability is on the way.

Omer Hassan Al Bashir, the dictator of Sudan, is a fugitive and wanted by international justice. The International Criminal Court has indicted him for committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur.

What did Al Bashir do to force the international community (mainly the U.S.A.) to bargain with him? He took 3 million people of his own people in Darfur as hostages and confined them to miserable camps across Darfur in deplorable living conditions. Experience through years and around the world shows that it is a bad idea to give in to the hostage taker's conditions and demands, let alone offering them incentives, cookies, or carrots. That is a wrong message from the Obama Administration to both the people and dictators of Africa.

The greatest incentive is already enjoyed by the regime in Khartoum: to be allowed to stay in power.

The favorite strategy (or game) of Al Bashir's regime is that of a thug who steals your wallet or purse from you, and at the peak of your panic, he appears as your savior and returns your wallet and purse to you. Of course you would feel relieved when you account for your credit cards, driver's license, and other important stuff. You feel so relieved that you find yourself reaching in your wallet or purse and handing him some cash as a reward. The thug is the one who has created the problem, but in the final analysis he is the one who is rewarded for the problem.

The Government of Sudan is the root cause of all the problems of Sudan, including the genocide in Darfur. Yet now, instead of being held accountable for the crimes and problems of its own creation, the regime in Khartoum is grinning in hearing words like carrots, cookies, and incentives.

The weakest link in this new Sudan policy is the Special Envoy to Sudan Major General Gration.

After the expulsion of 13 humanitarian aids on March 4^th following the indictment of Al Bashir by the International Criminal Court, the regime agreed after talks with the Special Envoy General Gration to allow four humanitarian aid groups in Darfur. This is a set back rather than a progress. Humanity lost seven humanitarian aid organizations. Yet Khartoum played successfully the thug's game with the Special Envoy to Sudan.

I find it disingenuous for the Administration to say that it will not engage with Al Bashir himself but is ready to engage with the individuals around Al Bashir. The individuals around Al Bashir are not less ruthless than Al Bashir if not worse. Each and every one around Al Bashir has bloods of innocents on his hands. These are the architects of the civil war in the South and the ongoing genocide in Darfur. That is how and why they are close to him. The irony is that the Administration knows very well that these assistants of Al Bashir are middlemen between the administration and Al Bashir. Every move or action has to be approved by and cleared with Al Bashir himself.

The three top foreign policy officials of the Administration in their announcement of the new Sudan policy uttered as a mantra: Verify then trust.

The regime in Khartoum is not executing the atrocities in Darfur as a concealed uranium enrichment operation. Rather, it carries out its military and security operations in Darfur openly. At one time during the recent attacks on Korma and villages around Jebel Marra, a Darfuri on the roadside leading out from El Fasher to Korma counted 263 vehicles in a military convoy heading towards Korma and Jebel Marra. Residents on the hilly side facing the airport in El Fasher can see clearly military airplanes (Antonoves and Hilicopter gunship) take off and land repeatedly day and night during the same period of military operations. Needless to say that UNAMID airplanes and helicopters share this airport. UNAMID is headquartered in El Fasher. It is impossible for the UNAMID officials and pilots not to notice the ordinance loading and take-off of the government Antonoves and Helicopters.

Engaging with Al Bashir is immoral, wrong, counterproductive, and dangerous. It is immoral to negotiate with a government that United States has labeled the crimes committed in Darfur by the regime in Khartoum as genocide. It is wrong because negotiating or engaging with a government that still involved in an on-going genocide and oppressing its own people will send the wrong message both to the rulers of Africa and the people of Africa. That accountability may be pushed aside to give room for deals similar to those took place with many dictators around the world during the cold war in the decades of 1960s and 1970s.

It is counterproductive, given the track record of the regime in Khartoum of evasion and stonewalling. Al Bashir and the individuals around him are masters of deceit and professionals in brinkmanship policy. It is dangerous because time and lives in Darfur and the South will be wasted before any fruits may be realized.

I find myself asking this question: Is it lack of commitment or creativity that the officials in Obama's Administration are trying to convince us that there is no way for a solution to the problems of Sudan without appeasing (engaging) the same government that is the source of the very problems in Sudan?

[Photo from Wikimedia Commons: Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir, the president of Sudan, listens to a speech during the opening of the 20th session of The New Partnership for Africa's Development in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Jan. 31, 2009.]

Mine Eyes Have Seen the Light

Michael Bear — 2009-10-23T08:00:00-07:00

Michelle asked me for a guest post on Darfur -- I agreed. And now I'm doing something rather underhanded; the classic bait and switch. This guest post won't be about Darfur at all. Partially because I don't have anything particularly new or interesting to say about Darfur.

And mostly because there's something else I'd much rather say.

Namely, thank you. To Michelle. And hopefully, because this is my guest blog, she'll feel duty-bound to post it. No matter how embarrassed she might be.

I'm a google reader junkie -- I get more RSS feeds than I know what to do with. All the relevant humanitarian blogs, articles from Reliefweb and IRIN, and yet still I rely on Michelle for somewhere upwards of 90% of all my Darfur news in particular, and genocide news more broadly.

It's not easy to blog every day, especially when you're blogging about such a difficult topic. It's even harder to collate and aggregate a massive amount of information, and make it easily accessible. If that was all that Michelle did with Stop Genocide, it would be more than enough.

Even more, though, I'd like to take this rather public forum to thank Michelle for changing my mind -- about the power and potential of advocacy movements, about the importance of addressing justice when discussing peace.

We've rumbled, and I can't think of any blogging I've enjoyed more. She's also funnier than I am. Which is painful to admit, but true. (For instance, she came up with the vast majority of our joint e-cards to dictators. My contributions were somewhat lacking.)

So, here's to Michelle. The best damn genocide-mass atrocity-crimes against humanity-Darfur blogger around.

Checking in with the Khmer Rouge Tribunal

Kate Cronin-Furman — 2009-10-22T08:00:00-07:00

What hasn't gone wrong at the Khmer Rouge Tribunal*? No, seriously. It's pop quiz time:

Which of the following didn't happen over the last year?

(a) A corruption scandal over allegations that local staffers were forced to kick back portions of their salaries to senior tribunal officials;(b) Statements by Prime Minister Hun Sen suggesting (threatening?) that attempts to expand the the list of indictees were likely to produce another bloody civil war;
(c) Tribunal cursed to seventh circle of hell by very angry defendant;
(d) International Co-Prosecutor's resignation in protest after being mauled by Prime Minister's pet tiger;
(e) a and b.
(f) a, b, and c.
(g) I'm pretty sure all of that happened, even the totally ridiculous thing about the tiger.

The correct answer is (f). (Hun Sen does not, to my knowledge, have a pet tiger, but Ieng Thirith definitely cursed the whole enterprise during a hearing earlier this year.) And things show no sign of improvement, given the recent reaction to a summons for six senior government officials to appear as a witnesses in the Tribunal's second case. Hun Sen would apparently prefer they not testify. His argument? That the role of the officials in the process of overthrowing the Khmer Rouge and, nearly 30 years later, setting up the Tribunal, renders them ineligible to testify because "turning the plaintiffs into witnesses would doom the accused."

Quick show of hands: Who's convinced by this sudden interest in fair trial rights for the accused? I'm not, but I suspect that the defendants will be spared the presence of the ministers anyway. One of them has already indicated that he will likely be washing his hair that day.

The Tribunal's troubles are not only a problem for the victims, who have waited a really long time for justice, but also for the advancement of international criminal law. The Phnom Penh Post reports that a number of victims have raised allegations that they were subjected to forced marriages. Earlier this year, the Special Court for Sierra Leone handed down the first ever convictions for forced marriage as a distinct crime under international law. A decision by the Cambodian Tribunal's Trial Chamber to add forced marriage to the list of crimes against humanity under its jurisdiction could be an important step in the growth of this emerging legal norm. But it's hard to take seriously a court that is so obviously beholden to political imperatives, and the ongoing corruption issues will seriously hamper the Tribunal's ability to contribute to the development of international law.

[Photo by Albeiro Rodas, Wikimedia Commons: Rests of victims of the Khmer Rouge in the Kampong Trach Cave, Kiry Seila Hills, Rung Tik (Water Cave) or Rung Khmao (Dead Cave), 45 kilometers at the east of Kampot City, south of Cambodia. Although the goverment gathered most of the rest in the late 1990's, still some of them in the cave.]

The Punishers

Karl Horberg — 2009-10-21T15:55:00-07:00

It goes without saying that the Genocide Convention addresses a particular crime. But it would be a toothless document if it stopped at the definition of that crime. It is necessary to outline the types of acts that are to be punished. Article III of the Genocide Convention enumerates these acts, but how did this article arrive at its final form? How have these acts been interpreted over the years?

The three experts in charge of the Secretariat draft sought to punish types of preparatory acts, including "setting up of installations, manufacturing, obtaining, possessing or supplying of articles or substances with the knowledge that they are intended for genocide" or "issuing instructions or orders, and distributing tasks with a view to committing genocide." In their report the experts recognized that banning preparatory acts stretched the definition of criminal action and might be construed as being too distant from the crime of genocide itself. However, they concluded that punishment of these acts could be justified when weighed against the need to curb genocide.

The Ad Hoc draft condensed the Secretariat's language and settled on four categories: conspiracy to commit genocide, incitement to commit genocide, attempts to commit genocide, or complicity in any of the aforementioned acts. The Committee initially supported, but ultimately voted against, a clause punishing preparatory acts. The arguments was twofold, one that preparatory acts were difficult to define and second that any definitions already put forth would naturally already fall under the conspiracy and complicity paragraphs.

The Soviet delegate submitted a proposal to punish all "forms of public propaganda...aimed at inciting racial, national or religious enmities or hatreds or at provoking the commission of the acts of genocide." This proposal was rejected outright by the rest of the Committee because they feared it would be used to limit freedom of expression.

In the Sixth Committee the U.S. delegate attempted to remove the paragraph concerning incitement. The delegate argued that incitement should create an imminent threat and as the paragraph stood it was too broad. The Polish delegate disagreed, arguing that the crime of genocide was so serious it demanded that certain acts should be punished, even though they were not currently punishable under criminal law. The delegate from Haiti brushed aside freedom of expression concerns, stating that those the gravity of the crime demanded that the rights of potential genocide victims take precedence over the rights of the media.

The Soviet delegate again attempted to add preparatory acts to the article. This time it found support from the Netherlands who pointed out that the Holocaust would not have been possible if the Nazis did not have a detailed plan. But the delegate from the UK protested that preparatory acts should not be punished because of a "vague assumption" that these acts will lead to genocide. Still undeterred by failure the Soviets attempted to include a paragraph that would require states parties to "disband and prohibit any organizations aimed at inciting racial, national or religious hatred or the commission of the acts of genocide." This proposal was soundly defeated.

In its final form the Genocide Convention lists five punishable acts: genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide, direct and public incitement, attempt to commit genocide, and complicity in the commission of genocide. The ad hoc tribunals have incorporated all of acts into their statues, but have generously expanded individual responsibility. Article 6(1) in the ICTR Statute and Article 7(1) in the ICTY Statue hold any person "who planned, instigated, ordered, committed or otherwise aided and abetted in the planning, preparation or execution" responsible for genocide. The Rome Statute, on the other hand, does not list any of the punishable acts.

The punishable acts are useful not only because they make it clear what is a crime, but because as the drafters realized they add new dimensions to criminal law. Genocide is a crime of great magnitude, requiring the deaths of thousands of people. It is nearly impossible to prove that a person physically murdered an entire race, but is much simpler to prove that a person either ordered or planned the killings.

In this regard, complicity is one of the more interesting punishable offenses. Criminal liability is not a new additional to international criminal law. In fact, shortly after World War Two two German chemists were put to death by the British Military Court for their role in supplying the chemical Zyklon B for use in concentration camps. The ICTR Trial Chamber examined the issue of complicity in Akayesu, eventually deciding that while a positive action is necessary, such as procuring weapons, the accomplice does not need to possess special intent mentioned in Article II. Some scholars question the utility of the Trial Chamber's decision because of its reliance on complicity as defined in the Rwandan penal code. The ICTR Trial Chamber later rejected the Akayesu formulation in the Semanza decision, adopting a much broader definition of complicity describing it as encompassing all acts of assistance or encouragement that contribute substantially to the commission of genocide.

The question of who is responsible for genocide is an important one as well. What types of persons can be brought before the court on these charges? This is a question the drafters had to deal with and one we will look at next time.

[Photo of Auschwitz-Birkenau by Daniel Gasienica.]

The Grey Zone Between Victims and Perpetrators

Michael Bear — 2009-10-20T16:18:00-07:00

Stories about conflicts are often framed as stories about perpetrators and victims. Rhetorically, morally, these distinctions often make sense.

Yet these distinctions are also brutal simplifications. Perpetrators act, whereas victims are denied any equivalent agency. They are simply people to whom things are done, or people to whom help must be given.

Reality is never quite so straight-forward. There's a grey zone between victim and perpetrator; individuals in positions of power, individuals who bear some responsibility for the suffering they bring on themselves and others.

This grey zone exists in all conflicts, including Darfur.

The conflict erupted in 2003, when rebel groups drawn primarily from the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa tribes attacked Sudanese military bases in the region. In response, the Sudanese military began a brutal counter-insurgency campaign, including the use of Janjaweed militias.

The Janjaweed - drawn primarily from nomadic tribes - were unleashed against the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa, hundreds of thousands of whom were killed, millions of whom were displaced. Many of the displaced person camps, in turn, became highly politicized.

What responsibility do individual Fur, Masalit or Zaghawa leaders who originally supported the rebel groups bear for what happened afterwards? What risk calculations did they make when they decided to support the SLA or JEM?

And, when we talk about the importance of community participation in any Darfur peace process, are we empowering those same leaders to once again speak for their communities?

I know, I know - this could easily shade into a morally reprehensible, blame-the-victim sort of justification for atrocities. But unless we understand these dynamics, and how these dynamics impact the calculations of other actors like the Sudanese Government, our analysis - and the solutions we propose - will be fatally limited, no matter how strong our rhetoric.

[Photo from publik15's Flickr stream, Creative Commons license.]

Sudan Policy Review Released

Martha Heinemann Bixby — 2009-10-19T08:02:00-07:00

This morning, the Obama Administration released their policy for Sudan at a press conference at the State Department. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and Sudan Special Envoy Scott Gration discussed the policy and answered questions from the press.

The State Department released a paper, "Sudan: A Critical Moment, A Comprehensive Approach," and a statement that outline the strategy. The paper states:

The United States has a clear obligation to the Sudanese people -- both in our role as witness to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, and as the first country that unequivocally identified events in Darfur as genocide – to help lead an international effort.

The White House also released a statement, saying in part:

Our conscience and our interests in peace and security call upon the United States and the international community to act with a sense of urgency and purpose. First, we must seek a definitive end to conflict, gross human rights abuses and genocide in Darfur. Second, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement between the North and South in Sudan must be implemented to create the possibility of long-term peace. These two goals must both be pursued simultaneously with urgency. Achieving them requires the commitment of the United States, as well as the active participation of international partners. Concurrently, we will work aggressively to ensure that Sudan does not provide a safe-haven for international terrorists.

Initial reaction has been coming in from activists and concerned citizens via Twitter, on the Save Darfur Coalition's blog, and on the Enough Project's blog.

Genocide + The Internet: The Good, The Bad, The Questionable

Martha Heinemann Bixby — 2009-10-18T09:25:00-07:00

The internet. One of the best things about it is that anyone with a connection and a computer can use it to spread ideas, learn and connect with other people. One of the scariest things? Anyone with a connection and a computer can use it to spread ideas, learn and connect with other people.

Michelle recently highlighted some of the innovative ways that people are harnassing the internet to map conflict to better study and prevent it. (That's the good).

On the other end of the spectrum, the "Balloon Boy" national fascination late last week took a particularly odd and nasty turn when it revealed that instead of floating away with his father's experiment, the boy had instead been hiding in the attic. Thousands upon thousands of Twitter users repeated a short "joke" turning the other recent national fascination, Kanye West's interruption of Taylor Swift, into variations on:

"Yo, Balloon Boy. I'm really happy for you and Imma let you finish, but Anne Frank had the best hiding place of ALL TIME!"

That one person wrote this -- let alone that so many people decided that something like this was worth repeating -- is clearly the bad.

And the questionable? Last week the Polish authority that manages Auschwitz created a Facebook page for the memorial. A spokesman said:

"If our mission is to educate the younger generation to be responsible in the contemporary world, what better tool can we use to reach them than the tools they use themselves?"

And the page itself isn't necessarily the problem. The motivations behind it clearly make sense, and the dialogue on the page (which is closely monitored) is mostly respectful memories of visiting the memorial and exhortations to "never forget".

Perhaps it's the Facebook terminology that's most troubling - it's hard to want to become a "fan" of Auschwitz. And the general setting of Facebook - with its "what Mad Men character are you?" quizzes and birthday party invites - might not be the most appropriate for such a complicated and weighty topic, as Sinead Gleeson points out in the Irish Times.

What makes me most nervous, though, is that although the page is supposedly closely monitored and the comments to date are civil, the page is open to anyone on Facebook. And Facebook is open to anyone on the internet. And the internet is open to anyone with a computer and a connection. Which isn't a problem until people stop thinking and start inanely retweeting jokes about Anne Frank.

You Know You Aren't Democracy's Poster-Child When...

Michelle — 2009-10-16T04:53:00-07:00

For those of you taking notes on how to make it into this year's Hall of Shame, here are a few recent tips from the annals of my Google Reader:

You arrest and beat pesky college students for such treasonous statements as, "[You are] the major outstanding issue that is stalling progress for the inclusive government."

You arrest and beat pesky opposition figures for any reason you want, all the better if pulled out of thin air.

You only attend conferences and dialogues than you call for/are in charge of, and boycott all others, if you can't outright shut them down.

You roll out the welcome mat for wanted war criminals, and your government proposes the most repressive anti-gay legislation in the history of the world, ever.

If you're a rebel leader, you thwart peace negotiations with rival factions by, um, detaining them.

And, if you're really a pro, you refuse to fund your own National Healing Conference set up to fake the appearance of caring about all of the havoc you've wrecked over the past 20+ years.

[Photo from roberlan's Flickr stream, Creative Commons license.]