Blog Series
Conflicts
Announcements
Archive
- May, 2012 (31)
- April, 2012 (62)
- March, 2012 (64)
- February, 2012 (53)
- January, 2012 (53)
Blog Roll
- Africa in Transition
- Africa24 Media
- Across the Aisle
- Burning Billboard
- Change.org - Human Rights
- Chris Blattman's Blog
- Condition Critical
- Congo Siasa
- From the Front Line
- Genocide Intervention Network
- Huffington Post
- ICC Observers
- IJCentral
- Impunity Watch
- In Situ
- Institute for War & Peace Reporting
- Opinio Juris
- Meskel Square
- Mia Farrow
- National Security Network Democracy Arsenal
- Nicholas Kristof, The New York Times
- Promise of Engagement
- Pulitzer Center - Untold Stories
- Resolve Uganda
- Save Darfur
- South Sudan Info
- STAND
- SudanReeves.org
- TakePart
- Think Progress
- UN Dispatch
- Voices from the Field
- Voices on Genocide Prevention
- War Crimes
- WITNESS
- Woodrow Wilson Center
- World is Witness
- Wronging Rights
Books by John Prendergast
An “African response” to the ICC? Hardly
File this one under “why victims need the International Criminal Court.”
Much has been written of the “African response” to the ICC’s arrest warrant for Sudanese President Bashir, but some reporters and commentators have mistakenly conflated the African Union’s response with the broader and more diverse cross-section of opinion on the continent, and frequently discount African voices who support the Court’s actions.
Digging a bit deeper, it becomes clear that the AU’s reaction to the ICC’s move against Bashir seems less a response to the specific situation in Darfur and more an indication of the AU’s general feelings on accountability for war crimes and crimes against humanity. As discussed in this report from Chatham House and a quick IRIN article, the newly created African Court of Justice and Human Rights, the legal arm of the AU, is not exactly catered to the demands of victims:
…the court will rule only on cases brought against states, unlike the International Criminal Court, which issues individual arrest warrants. Unless a state waives the requirement, alleged victims and NGOs cannot lodge cases against it in the new court without going through the AU, which makes human rights compliance dependent on the regional body…
The AU includes a fair number of leaders with a lot of blood on their hands, so it’s no surprise that they would seek to shield themselves from individual prosecution. But for the victims of war crimes and crimes against humanity, the institutionalization within the AU of impunity for the likes of Bashir, Mugabe, Deby, Meles, Issayas, Kagame, and Gaddafi is deeply troubling.
Understanding the AU’s position through this lens, I would posit that the “African response” to the ICC is less monolithic and negative than some would like us to believe. In reality, the AU’s rejection of the charges against Bashir are no more an “African response” than that of the Darfur Consortium, a group of African civil society organizations that supports the ICC’s actions in Sudan. And for the victims of crimes against humanity directed by the state, as is the case in Darfur, the ICC might be their only recourse for real justice.
Mr. Colin Thomas says: Digging a bit deeper, it becomes clear that the AU’s reaction to the ICC’s move against Bashir seems less a response to the specific situation in Darfur and more an indication of the AU’s general feelings on accountability for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The question is: Why is this theory is inapplicable in the case of Bush, Blair & Olmert, who started destroying Nations more than six years ago while Israel has been killing stone defenders for more than sixty years ago and although two of them have already left the office but people are still paying, in blood, the price of an unfair and an unjustified invasion according to their statements and confession. No weapons of mass disruction, no relation to Al Qaeda or 11/9. Can anyone tell me why the war on Iraq, Afghanistan & Palestine have not been considered by Ocampo, the ICC or even discussed at Enough Site? Or may be it is not Enough yet!! Can the ICC bring any American for trial the same way as it did with President Omer Al Bashir? I tell you: It won't dare. It never happened and it won't. Maybe, after the elimination of the scandalous veto issue. What is the point in putting a matter into vote and when the veto owner is not satisfied, raising his hand turns over the vote!! Regarding the AU, I believe that it has the right to make its own rules and laws and also the unrecognized nations world wide are fed up of being underestimated and represented internationally by sitting at the UN doing nothing but listening and obeying orders coming from above with the word "Veto" as the final word and all has to accept the verdict. If the ICC wanted to be respected and recognized by all, it has to be honest with the true genocide, war crimes and usage of banned weapons displayed on TV channels in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine. Please go to these sites and I want to see Enough and Mr. Colin Thomas comments on the same space of this topic. http://www.elfarra.info/carnage/zionist.htm http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=white+phosphorus&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv&oi=property_suggestions&resnum=0&ct=property-revision&cd=3#