Change.org's Stop Genocide Blog

A Courting We Will Go

Karl Horberg — 2009-11-20T08:14:00-08:00

The Genocide Convention was nearing completion. The crime, the punishable acts, and the perpetrators had all been defined. It was now necessary to establish the entity responsible for prosecuting the crime.

In drafting the articles pertaining to prosecution and jurisdiction the triumvirate of experts took a rather expansive and radical approach. Article VII of the Secretariat draft recognizes universal jurisdiction by requiring states to "punish any offender under this Convention within any territory under their jurisdiction, irrespective of the nationality of the offender or of the place where the offence has been committed." This would mean that states are responsible for prosecuting perpetrators of genocide regardless of where the crime took place or the nationally of the perpetrator.

Article IX committed states to hand over all persons guilty of genocide to an unspecified international court in cases where the state was unwilling to try offenders or if the state had supported the commission of genocide. However it should be noted that Lemkin opposed the inclusion of the first clause. He argued that such cases were of lesser importance. He, rather presciently, voiced his concern about offenders escaping punishment because of the complex process involved in turning over guilty parties to an international court. Article X was submitted in two drafts. The first gave the International Court of Justice criminal jurisdiction in all matters connected with international crimes. The second provided than an international court be set up to try the crimes of genocide. Lemkin spoke out against an international court, warning that such an action might be premature.

With a little fine tuning the Ad Hoc Committee accepted that a person guilty of genocide would, depending on the circumstances, be tried by either a state or international tribunal. However, the members of the committee rejected the concept of universal jurisdiction. The delegates from France, Poland, the Soviet Union and the United States all argued that not only did due process differ from country to country, but that allowing a country to prosecute a foreign official violated the concept of state sovereignty and the generally accepted principles of international law. The Committee did agree that an issue over interpretation or application of the Convention should be submitted to the ICJ.

The debate about universal jurisdiction only intensified when it reached the Sixth Committee. Article VI made clear that persons guilty of genocide were to be tried by the country in which the act was committed. If this was not possible then they would be tried by an international tribunal but only if the perpetrator's home country had accepted the tribunal's jurisdiction.

The disparity of views was so great that the drafters saw it necessary to attach a lengthy explanatory note to Article VI in their draft. The note was an attempt to address the two competing viewpoints. The first viewpoint was embodied by India which did not want their nationals prosecuted by other countries. The second group was led by Sweden which wanted to preserve the right to prosecute individuals who committed genocide outside of Swedish territory but against Swedish citizens. As much as the drafters tried to reconcile these desires the general consensus was impossible to accommodate or resolve conflicts between the myriad legal systems of member nations.

Opposition to universal jurisdiction was so staunch that the provision of an international tribunal was initially rejected. It was restored only as an attempt at ensure unanimous support for the Convention. Even then the tribunal was left vague and only ambiguous promises were made to establish this tribunal at an unspecified time in the future.

The Sixth Committee did not have a problem in taking the text of Article IX beyond the Ad Hoc version by giving the ICJ competency over "the responsibility of a State for genocide."

Since the ratification of the Genocide Convention only four cases have been filed before the ICJ under Article IX: Trial of Pakistani Prisoners of War (Pakistan v India) in 1973, The Application of the Genocide Convention Case (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro) in 1993, Legality of Use of Force Case (Yugoslavia v. NATO members) in 1999 and Croatia v. Serbia in 1999. Of these four a judgment has only be rendered in Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro. In that case the ICJ did not find that Serbia committed, conspired or was complicit in genocide. It did, however, find that Serbia failed to prevent genocide.

It was not until 1993 the first international tribunal responsible for prosecuting crimes of genocide was formed. The ICTY and the ICTR certainly contributed greatly to international criminal law, but the ad hoc tribunals were just that-tied to a specific event in a specific country. It would take five more years to agree on the formation of a permanent international criminal court and four years after that before the ICC would begin functioning. Much like Lemkin predicted debate has raged on about the court's high-profile indictment of the president of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir.

Universal jurisdiction remains a controversial topic. Some countries, such as Canada, France, Australia, and most famously, Spain have incorporated universal jurisdiction into their domestic law. Earlier this week a Spanish judge took steps toward prosecuting Chinese officials for genocide. But universal jurisdiction remains far from an international norm. The ICJ even disagrees over the extent of the principle. Some judges claim it applies only to piracy whereas others took a broader approach. One thing is for certain-it will be some time before criminals will be able to travel without impunity.

[Photo from Wikimedia Commons: Palace of Justice in Brussels, Belgium.]

A Holocaust Victim on Facebook: Crude or Compelling?

Michelle — 2009-11-19T11:44:00-08:00

Holocaust education is important. Adolf Hitler famously quipped, "After all, who remembers the Armenians?" - education and remembrance are critical for moving the world closer to the still-hollow concept of "Never Again."

Devotees of the anti-genocide cause, both educators and advocates alike, constantly search for new ways to engage and expand their audience. But is a Facebook alter-ego of a child victim of the Holocaust going to far?

A 22-year-old Polish man created a Facebook page for Henio Zytomirski, a seven year old Jewish boy who perished in a Nazi concentration camp. The page is updated regularly with brief posts from the child's point of view, as if he is reliving the horrific experience:

"Winter has arrived. Every Jew must wear the Star of David with his last name. A lot has changed. German troops walk the streets. Mama says that I shouldn't be frightened, and always that everything is just fine. Always?"

I've written in the past about my unease with victim identification methods of education and advocacy. (The tactic has been widely discredited as a pedagogical tool.) While I recognize the need for creative approaches to grabbing and holding people's attention on such a depressing subject, putting words into the mouths of child ghosts seems rather tasteless.

We have substantial testimony from genocide survivors -- who speak from actual rather than imagined experience -- and we honor those rendered voiceless when we act to protect those subjected to genocide and mass violence, and hopefully one day to prevent its occurrence all together.

Tactics like Henio's Facebook page come off as gimmicky. It might not do any particular harm, in the end of the day, but that does not mean that it's appropriate, especially when far more tactful and respectful tools are at our disposal.

[For more on the internet and Holocaust education, see Martha's recent post.]

Presidential Silence in Beijing on Sudan

Jerry Fowler — 2009-11-18T09:04:00-08:00

This is a guest post by Jerry Fowler, Save Darfur Coalition president.

Less than a month after his Administration proclaimed in its new strategy for Sudan that “American leadership is essential to a more effective multilateral approach,” President Obama left China early this morning without any public reference to having brought up Sudan with his hosts. There were background statements to journalists that it was on a list of things discussed. Such low-key treatment was a huge missed opportunity to enlist the support for the new strategy from a crucial country. It also was a rejection of the recent, bipartisan plea by 44 Members of Congress:

As you prepare to visit China, we strongly urge you to make Sudan a priority in your bilateral discussions. As you are well aware, China is a major arms supplier and source of economic strength to the regime in Khartoum, and has a vital role to play in any ultimate resolution of the multiple crises in Sudan.

The Congressional letter echoed a petition signed by tens of thousands of citizen-activists who asked for President Obama to call on the Chinese to work with the U.S. and:

Use their economic and political influence with Sudan to support the Darfur peace process, full implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), and significant structural, political and judicial reforms to Sudan.

The President’s public silence on Sudan in Beijing follows on a similar silence by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on her recent visit to Egypt – another country that is crucial to bringing peace to Sudan. Their failure to raise Sudan publicly in bilateral meetings with key countries sends an unfortunate message to the Sudanese government and other key actors: The United States is not leading for peace in Sudan.

Michael Gerson recently summed up the urgent need for leadership:

Only a president and his secretary of state can insist on boldness.

Absent that insistence, America's Sudan policy is in a holding pattern, waiting for the next crisis to refocus global attention. Meanwhile, women are raped, with impunity. Weapons are illegally imported, with impunity. Civilians are attacked, with impunity. And at some point, impunity becomes permission.

The “unstinting resolve” that Candidates Obama and Clinton pledged last year is needed now, more than ever.

Adolf Hitler, Soccer Coach?

Michelle — 2009-11-18T08:00:00-08:00

If I told you that one in 20 British schoolchildren think Adolf Hitler was a German soccer coach, would you be a.) appalled, or b.) skeptical?

The results of a survey of 2,000 children in the UK revealed that while most students aged 9-15 recognized Hitler's rightful role as one of history's most nefarious mass-murdering war-mongers, 13.5% of them thought he discovered gravity and 7% thought he was Germany's national soccer coach. It gets better: 15% said that Auschwitz was a WWII-era theme park, and 6% though the Holocaust was a celebration of the end of the war.

The survey, however, was multiple choice, which really begs the question: Are the pre-teens a.) really that dense, or b.) smart-asses?

Rather than kvetching to the media about the "shocking" results, perhaps a more jackass-proof survey is in order. (I was certainly one at that age, and I'm sure you were too.)

To close on a more serious note, though, over at the other end of the British Commonwealth, Canadian politicians commemorated Ontario's Holocaust Education Week with commanding rhetoric. From Premier Dalton McGuinty:

"The Holocaust serves as an enduring reminder of our obligation - as a society and as individuals - to be vigilant against all forms of hatred and intolerance, and to embrace inclusiveness and diversity."

Well said.

Darfur: To the Victor Go the Spoils

Michelle — 2009-11-17T04:57:00-08:00

Is the genocide in Darfur complete?

Michael Gerson's provocative op-ed in the Washington Post last week argues that Khartoum has essentially achieved its "policy aims" in Darfur by "targeting disfavored ethnic groups, destroying their way of life and forcing millions into camps," and is set to seal the deal with a newly-announced plan to close camps for internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Darfur early next year. The troubling report comes despite the fact that numerous international observers, including the African Union's own panel on Darfur, recognize that the security situation remains too volatile to allow for safe returns, and that issues of land and property must be carefully dealt with in order to facilitate peaceful repatriation.

But Khartoum is clearly concerned with none of this. As Darfur expert Bec Hamilton wrote, the desire to close down the IDP camps goes hand-in-hand with President Omar al-Bashir's National Congress Party's (NCP) hell-bent desire to "legitimately" win next year's presidential elections.

But IDP issue goes beyond the NCP's plan to, as Enough blogger Amanda Hsiao aptly puts it, "sweep the IDP problem under the rug in time for elections." Getting back to Gerson's point, permanently (and forcibly) resettling 2.7 million Darfuri IDPs to a location of the government's choosing could very well be a last grand stand in the effort to eliminate the influence, if not fully the existence, of groups presenting a threat to the NCP's rule.

Forced resettlement -- rather than voluntary return -- cements the process of land dispossession that began in 2003 when Darfuris were violently driven from their homes, and manipulating the location of the resettlement allows for further dispossession of any political significance. Even though the physical destruction of the Fur, Massaleit, and Zaghawa ethnic groups is far from complete -- though keep in mind, the legal definition of genocide specifies destruction "in whole or in part" -- they were successfully driven from their land and now stand to be even further politically marginalized.

This is, by the way, not the first time Darfur has been politically manipulated, though the actual moving of populations is a bit more extreme: In 1994, the government redrew the administrative boundaries of Darfur, splitting the previously consolidated Fur stronghold into the three states of North, South, and West Darfur. According to the ICG report Darfur Rising, "The new administrative units were mostly created at the expense of black African groups, further alienating them from the government, and stimulating conflicts." In the US, we know this practice as "gerrymandering."

The genocide may not be complete, but if Khartoum has its way, it may have been just successful enough to consolidate its brutal hold on power in Darfur.

[UN Photo/Olivier Chassot : Water Distribution by UNAMID in Tora Northern Darfur. 26 July 2009.]

Darfur's Rebels Divorced from Reality

Michelle — 2009-11-16T04:48:00-08:00

Darfur's various rebel factions seem to be operating in more of a "chaos and havoc" mode than anything strategically oriented towards achieving their insurgent objectives. That is, of course, if you can even rightly call some of the faction "rebels," as they often appear more like common bandits with a steady arms flow, using a hollow ideology to somehow justify their existence.

Either way, their latest tactics reveal more self-interest than concern for the people in Darfur they claim to represent.

Serially-delayed multi-party peace talks due to resume in Doha, Qatar today were once again postponed, after the two largest rebel factions refused to participate. The branch of the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) led by leader-in-self-imposed-exile Abdel Wahid has been busy threatening elections officials in South Darfur and attacking UNAMID peacekeepers, while the leader of the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) Khalil Ibrahim protested that the peace talks should first begin with him.

Ibrahim's arrogance conveniently ignores the fact that direct negotiations with JEM failed earlier this year.

While international mediators, including US Special Envoy Scott Gration, have made recent progress in uniting Darfur's smaller rebel factions, will peace talks materialize without the participation of Wahid and Ibrahim?

Even more, though, is there anything that will convince the two rebel leaders to set aside their egos and reconnect with the needs of their so-called constituents? With steady flows of arms and a highly-profitably banditry economy, have the rebels lost sight of what they began fighting for?

The prolonged insurgency has Darfur in a holding pattern: The rebels continue their futile attacks -- because, get real, they're never going to win militarily -- and the government of Sudan continues its disproportionate counterinsurgency that targets civilians just as much as it targets rebels, and keeps Darfur in a state of volatile insecurity. Rebel tactics thus give the appearance of a desire to maintain their status quo rather than fight for meaningful political change for the people of Darfur.

[Photo of Darfuri IDPs from Wikimedia Commons.]

Three New (to Me) Internet Resources on Genocide

Michelle — 2009-11-15T15:15:00-08:00

For all of the students of genocide and conflict out there, here are a few internet resources that I recently stumbled upon:

The Peace Media Clearinghouse is a collaboration between the US Institute of Peace and Georgetown University's Conflict Resolution Program. The easily-searchable Clearinghouse offers "multimedia materials that support conflict analysis and prevention, conflict resolution, and post-conflict reconstruction and reconciliation," including items such as a documentary on child soldiers in the DRC and a computer game on nonviolent conflict management. You can search by country, region, language, subject, or type (photo, podcast, etc). The site even has an open-source element, allowing you to add or suggest new materials. (Hat tip: Forced Migration Current Awareness Blog.)

The Holocaust Collection, made possible by the US National Archives and the Holocaust Memorial Museum, allows users to search National Archive records, trace family trees, browse items looted by the Nazis from their victims, and read stories from the Holocaust Museum's collection of survivor testimony. The site also includes a interactive Google map of Nazi concentration camps.

Parts of the Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence are still under construction, but the site already offers case studies, maps, scholarly reviews, theoretical papers, and more, all cross-referenced by place, chronology, and thematic issue. The Encyclopedia is the brainchild of scholars at the Center for International Research and Studies in Paris, and aims to be a comprehensive online database for all thing mass atrocity. (Hat tip: @goldlis.)

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

Aid Worker Attacks in Chad a Sign of Worse to Come?

Michelle — 2009-11-13T16:37:00-08:00

I'd like to think that there's a special place in a particularly fiery afterlife for anyone who attacks humanitarian aid workers.

The UN announced today that six international humanitarian agencies are suspending operations after a French ICRC worker was kidnapped and a Chadian national staffer with Solidarite was murdered. The suspension will impact service delivery to 37,000 Darfuri refugees and internally displaced Chadians, and comes after an increase in attacks in recent months. Since the beginning of 2009, 190 attacks on aid operations have been reported.

The culprits remain unknown, but could be any of the number of rebel factions (Chadian or Darfuri) or opportunistic bandits that roam freely in the Chad-Sudan border region. Sudanese-backed Chadian rebels are known to attack humanitarian convoys and compounds in eastern Chad, steal their vehicles, and drive them back to basecamp in Sudan; evidence of this was also noted in the recent UN Panel of Experts report on Darfur.

Attacks often peak in advance of another rebel incursion -- now that the rainy season is over, are Chadian rebels gearing up to make another pass at N'djamena? Or is this just a case of cut-and-dry banditry?

US Special Envoy to Sudan Scott Gration has been working to mend relations between Chad and Sudan and end the proxy war between the two countries, which is critical to achieving peace in Darfur. If Chadian rebels attack again, be ready to watch this all fall apart -- Chad will assume Sudan is behind it (not necessarily unreasonably), and the last time it happened, Chad went on bombing raids inside Darfur.

Here's to hoping that this is all just pointless speculation on a rainy Friday night, and that too much time studying Chad and Sudan has turned me into a conspiracy theorist.

GOP Failure of Leadership on Tea Partier Abuse of the Holocaust

Michelle — 2009-11-12T14:52:00-08:00

The use of Holocaust imagery and rhetoric by the GOP's so-called Tea Party Patriots has progressed from annoying to downright disgusting.

Last week, several House Republicans joined right-wing ideologue (er, Representative) Michelle Bachmann for a 5,000-person strong protest of Obama's health care reform in front of the US Capitol. Directly in front of the speakers, which included House Minority Leader John Boehner, was a 5-by-8 foot sign with a famous image of a pile of dead bodies from a Nazi concentration camp and the words, "National Socialist Healthcare, Dachau, Germany, 1945." No one condemned the horribly disrespectful use of the tragic image, and many even denied seeing it when confronted after, despite numerous eye witness and photographic accounts that place the rather large sign in plain sight of the podium.

The Anti-Defamation League, National Jewish Democratic Council, and others are calling on Republicans to put an end to the vile abuse of Holocaust imagery by their constituents. ADL sent a letter to Boehner and several others condemning the failure of Republican leadership on the "inappropriate and profoundly offensive" use of Nazi symbolism athealth care protests. Bachmann issued a belated statement essentially agreeing that the incident was distasteful, calling the incident "regrettable" but failing to apologize for neglecting deal with -- and thus implicitly supporting -- the issue when it arose at the rally she organized last week. And as Rep. Steve Israel commented, "It shouldn't have taken peer pressure, media inquiries or national outrage to get Rep. Bachmann to take a stand in defense of Holocaust victims."

The Dachau poster is not a lone example, but represents an increasingly distasteful penchant for health care-Holocaust comparisons by GOP stalwarts. That the trend has progressed as long as it has is a testament to irresponsible and reprehensible Republican leadership -- and it only does a disservice to their cause, as legitimate criticisms ofhealth care reforms get lost in the crowd of hyperbolic poster slogans.

In respect of the 12 million lives lost in the Holocaust, it is time to put an end to this, yesterday.

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

Is Obama's Man Too Nice for Sudan?

Michelle — 2009-11-11T09:00:00-08:00

"I feel like I'm watching George Bush."

Such was the reaction of the person I sat next to yesterday while watching the White House's live webcast with US Special Envoy to Sudan Scott Gration. Indeed, Gration's rambling answers to questions posed by Save Darfur President Jerry Fowler and STAND Student Director Layla Amjadi were oddly reminiscent of our verbally-challenged ex-president. Only a handful of questions received a direct answer. An idea for drinking game came to mind as we listened to repeated phases like "psychological stuff" and "a bright future" or "a future that is...bright."

Personal style aside, Gration is clearly committed to his job and is diligently trying to move all of the pieces into place for sustainable peace for Africa's largest nation. And he is clearly a good guy -- a nice guy trying to do the right thing. But is he too much of a nice guy to deal with the hard-nosed, militant, manipulative authoritarians in Khartoum?

While Gration rightly notes that we have to deal with the bullies in Khartoum whether we like it or not, his nice-guy approach at least has the appearance of failing to push the government of Sudan to change its brutal ways. The US might not have infinite leverage, but Khartoum is quite keen on normalized relations with the US -- they wouldn't hire lobbyists and take out full-page ads in DC newspapers if they weren't -- but we've yet to see any indication that Gration is using this to his advantage.

The most troubling example relates to the civilian protection crisis in Darfur. When the conversation turned to Khartoum's expulsion of 13 humanitarian organizations from Darfur in March, Jerry hit the proverbial nail on the head when he told Gration, "You've given the government a lot of credit for averting -- barely -- a catastrophe that they set in motion." Jerry then went on to ask, "yes or no," if unimpeded humanitarian access would be one of his benchmarks for progress from Khartoum.

Gration's answer was troubling. He focused entirely on the security situation, noting that the government is not in control of the entire region, and many areas are inaccessible to the UNAMID peacekeeping force. This is partly true, but what Gration neglected to acknowledge -- as he has in the past -- the Khartoum's relentless efforts to intentionally obstruct humanitarian access and impede UNAMID deployment. The government is clearly not in control of security in all of Darfur, but they are in control of ridiculous bureaucratic impediments on aid agencies and on UNAMID, not to mention the harassment and intimidation of their staff, and many areas of Darfur are off-limits to UNAMID because the government prohibits the peacekeepers from reaching them. UNAMID can only go where the government of Sudan says it can, and this authority is used with well-documented (if not well publicized) abandon.

Gration also claims that improved humanitarian access is difficult to measure. Not so -- all you have to do is ask the agencies on the ground.

[Photo from the webcast by Martha Heinemann Bixby for the Save Darfur Coalition, used with written permission from the organization.]

A Devastating Report on Darfur

Michelle — 2009-11-10T04:25:00-08:00

After reading the latest UN report on Darfur, it should be abundantly clear to anyone that the Government of Sudan (GoS) is far from deserving cookies and gold stars.

In fact, no one comes out of the Report of the Panel of Experts looking good. The report, which covers a broad investigative mandate including arms embargoes and violations of international humanitarian law over the past year, exposes all actors in the Darfur conflict -- the governments of Sudan and Chad, the rebels of both countries, and a three-page list of corporations -- as the morally-depraved, power-hungry thugs they are, and in meticulous detail. It's a fascinating read, especially considering that the extensive documentation was assembled by the Panel despite significant obstruction of their work.

In fact, GoS stonewalling and obstructionism is repeatedly noted through the report, including intimidation and at least one case of arrest and detention of Darfuris interviewed by the Panel. Several government officials agreed to provide requested information and then were never heard from again. The Panel also noted multiple incidents of cosmetic measures implemented by GoS to feign the appearance of concern for its obligations under international humanitarian and human rights law, such as committees to combat sexual violence and decrees against torture and targeting civilians during combat operations; according to evidence uncovered by the Panel, these measures are hollow efforts to pay lip-service to human rights and civilian protection and actually change nothing about the situation of Darfuris on the ground.

Nothing raises suspicion like acting like you have something to hide.

The report offers further devastating evidence of the breakdown of humanitarian services following the March 4 expulsion of 13 international aid organizations -- gaps which the government claims have been filled -- "rampant" sexual violence and other atrocities committed against Darfuri civilians, the persistent use of child soldiers (particularly by the rebel Justice and Equality Movement), the failure of GoS to disarm Janjaweed militia, the high frequency of offensive military flights and bombing of civilian targets, and much, much more. The report states, "There is a systematic failture to protect civilians at the local, state and national levels," and places responsibility squarely on the shoulder of the Sudanese government.

The report also lists 15 international corporations with outstanding questions related to business activities with Sudan, including such notable names as Microsoft, Toyota, Nissan, Hyundai, and Renault. On one positive note, the report states that European company MAN ended its business relationship with Sudan once it realized that its products were being used for military purposes in Darfur.

The report was made public at an interesting time, not too long after the Obama administration released its Sudan policy review and the US Special Envoy is making valiant efforts to reach out to a frustrated activist community. (The editors of TNR even called for his removal last week.) In fact, the Envoy is taking activist questions during a live webcast today at 3pm -- I hope someone asks for his thoughts on the evidence in the Panel of Experts report.

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

Breaking: Bashir Cancels Turkey Visit, After All

Michelle — 2009-11-08T13:42:00-08:00

[Update: Turkish PM Tayyip Erdogan told a state-run news agency that he is comfortable talking to Bashir "Because a Muslim couldn't do such things. A Muslim could not commit genocide." Can he really be that naive and foolish?]

What caused Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir to cancel plans to visit Turkey this weekend?

The indicted war criminal was scheduled to fly to Turkey on Sunday for a meeting of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). The trip grabbed international headlines after human rights groups protested the rolling out of the Turkish welcome mat for the wanted president, and European Union (EU) asked the wanna-be-EU-member to rescind the invitation. Turkey, however, remained defiant.

But word broke this afternoon that Bashir's plane left for Turkey without its VIP passenger -- though the reason remains unclear. Did Bashir cancel his visit at the last minute because:

a.) Turkey caved to EU pressure and quietly revoked the invitation?

b.) He was worried by rumors that Israel or Greece might intercept is plane en-route and arrest his genocidal arse? Or,

c.) Who the hell knows, but I sure would've paid money to be a fly on the wall of the room where that decision was made.

Option B seems far-fetched. Even if Israel and Greece are committed to arresting Bashir, would they actually go so far as to force down his plane? My guess is that Turkey quietly revoked the invitation and Khartoum offered the excuse as a face-saver for both Turkey and Bashir -- by making it seem like the decision was Bashir's, it avoids a bit of public embarrassment over Turkey's submission to EU and US pressure and over Bashir's increasing status as an international persona non grata.

Though if Turkey did ask him not to come, I'd imagine that Bashir is none-too-happy about his erstwhile host caving to the pressure of those crazy Western-neocolonial-imperialist-Zionist-always-out-to-get-us jerks. But given that Khartoum is intently pursuing normalized relations with the US, I suspect they'll leave any such hard feelings out of official press releases.

[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.]

Jewish World Watch in the Congo

Michelle — 2009-11-08T12:52:00-08:00

"When your translator is in tears, you know you're in trouble."

My friends at Jewish World Watch (JWW) are currently in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), on a mission to record survivor testimony and to visit organizations working on the ground in the region. The travelers are diligently posting blogs, photographs, Tweets, and more and they make their way through what must be an emotionally and physically exhausting trip.

Here's more information about JWW and the Congo trip from JWW staffer Ari Averbach:

Jewish World Watch is a California non-profit dedicated to combating genocide and egregious violations of human rights. Its first five years have been focused on the ongoing genocide in Sudan. JWW has mobilized the community by educating its constituents, advocating for policies to stop the genocide, and raising funds for refugee relief projects to alleviate the suffering of the survivors. On a visit to refugee camps in Chad at the end of 2007, the leaders of JWW met with Darfuri survivors and assessed the effectiveness of their many projects, including its Solar Cooker Project.

JWW has expanded its activities to now include a new campaign, Congo Now!, to address the ongoing atrocities in the Democratic Republic of Congo. From November. 3-13, four JWW activists are on a fact-finding mission to the cities of Goma and Bukavu in the Kivu Provinces of Congo in order to meet with survivors and to research opportunities for engagement with local and other NGOs doing work to support the ravaged communities, especially the women. The JWW team is led by JWW co-founder and president, Janice Kamenir-Reznik, who is accompanied by Naama Haviv, JWW Assistant Director and genocide scholar, John Fishel, President of the Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles and others. The team is blogging daily, and on Facebook and Twitter.

[Photo from JWW's Flickr stream, used with written permission from the organization.]

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.]