10 Years International Crime Court: Towards World Law? (page 9)

hillary_step

hamilcar,

Burn and James seem to represent a minority stance of the political elite alienated from its electorate.

On this thread, they represent a minority alienated from the facts.

HS

hamilcarr

ql,

had a little time so decided to do some research

Thanks for your input.

BurnTheShips

More harm than good, and even the good it does it can not enforce. This piece is written by a Sudanese Muslim and published in PJM.

According to the Washington Post, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court is now seeking an arrest warrant for the Sudanese dictator, Omar al-Bashir, charging him with crimes against humanity for his role in the mass killings that engulfed Darfur during the last five years.
The move in itself, and the symbolic pursuit of morality and justice it represents, are commendable. Any research and evidence that can shed more light on the butchery that took place in Sudan’s western region is more than welcome.
Nevertheless, once all the warm and fuzzy feelings vanish, we are left with the reality and the negative consequences that such moves can cause.
First of all, what on earth does the ICC’s chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, plan to do after he gets his warrant? Walk into Khartoum and handcuff the Sudanese president? Let’s get real. If people in such influential positions are going to make such inflammatory rhetoric, then they better have the ability to act upon it. Otherwise they should avoid making such empty threats in the first place, because such foolishness can carry a high price.
The very lives of Darfur’s innocent women and children could face increasing danger as a result of this warrant. Khartoum will very likely react aggressively, by stubbornly stirring up more trouble than already exists. This is already being foreshadowed by the UN’s very recent security tightening in Sudan.
Al-Bashir is currently scrambling after the Arab League to hold a meeting of foreign ministers in order to discuss the ICC matter. However, this panicky attitude shouldn’t be mistaken as a positive development, because the goal of the effort isn’t to annoy Sudan’s president or force him into a corner. The final goal is peace and security for Darfur’s people — and pursuing a well-meaning but ultimately unhelpful strategy won’t achieve that.
The ICC — which got the green light to conduct its Darfur investigations from the UN Security Council — can’t do much on its own in terms of enforcement. It needs the support of the UN, but the UN has mainly been the source of disappointment after disappointment. Its clumsiness in this context is self-explanatory. All one needs to do is look at the UN’s history in the matter.
What is ironic is that the UN insists on deploying all peacekeepers and pushing the peace process forward, yet at the same time it is coordinating badly with the ICC initiative, which in turn will only hurt the UN’s peace agenda for Darfur.
On top of that, the UN is also notorious for not having the will to confront what needs confronting. The so-called “international community’s” and UN’s reactions to al-Bashir’s possible coming damaging reactionary maneuvers are all too predicable and they’ll be anything but tough or sufficient.
The United States is currently in a position to push the peace process harder, but it isn’t doing so anymore. Why? The little-publicized reason is the anti-terrorism cooperation between Khartoum’s Intelligence (Mukhabarat) and the CIA. Sudan’s intelligence has spies planted in Somalia and Iraq collecting valuable information. Only a year ago the CIA convened a conference in Khartoum attended by more than 50 African intelligence agencies.
To a certain extent this is all understandable, but America needs to balance its national security interests with the importance of human rights.
The Bush administration helped us Sudanese end our 20-year civil war between north and south because it dedicated significant resources to doing so. It can do the same for Darfur with adequate attention and the right approach.
The Olympics, by the way, is not necessarily the venue for action regarding Darfur. Really, if Bush is to be condemned for attending the Beijing Olympics as some believe, don’t we all deserve condemnation for purchasing goods with cute, little labels on them saying “Made in China?”
Choosing to boycott the Olympics or deciding to pressure the sponsors might send a strong message and make us feel good about ourselves, but it would produce nothing substantial at this point — just like the ICC warrants. The pursuit of justice at the expense of peace and highly critical political stability is imprudent.
To clarify my position, I must emphasize that the ICC’s indictment of other lower-ranking individuals involved in Darfur’s mass killings is something that should be fully supported as it is both moral and pragmatic, but indicting the head of state himself is unwise and even reckless. Where is the pragmatism? Where is the concern for possible negative repercussions?
If the ICC effort could truly deliver positive results, it would be wonderful, but I strongly suspect the bad will outweigh the good.
The ICC will just make itself look more and more like what the UN already is — a fangless, paper tiger.

http://www.sudanesethinker.com/2008/07/14/the-icc-vs-sudan/

Who is going to serve the warrant?

quietlyleaving

burn (from your extract)

The United States is currently in a position to push the peace process harder, but it isn’t doing so anymore. Why? The little-publicized reason is the anti-terrorism cooperation between Khartoum’s Intelligence (Mukhabarat) and the CIA. Sudan’s intelligence has spies planted in Somalia and Iraq collecting valuable information. Only a year ago the CIA convened a conference in Khartoum attended by more than 50 African intelligence agencies.
To a certain extent this is all understandable, but America needs to balance its national security interests with the importance of human rights.

are you saying then that the US ought to get on board?

BurnTheShips

are you saying then that the US ought to get on board?

Something needs doing. If the US does nothing, nothing will get done but paper warrants. That's all the Euros know how to do these days.

BTS

quietlyleaving

What is the point of your link?

The ICC would take the pursuit of justice out of the religious arena and into the legal arena don't you think?

hillary_step

Burn,

Something needs doing. If the US does nothing, nothing will get done but paper warrants. That's all the Euros know how to do these days.

You really are an ace plonker. You have been defeated by the facts and still continue to post your sneering little comments. Do you think that people reading this thread are that stupid? Ae you really that arrogant?

MORE FACTS: The ICC is in its INFANCY. It as successfully prosecuted twelve cases involving crimes against humanity, four of which led to immediate imprisonment. Six warrants have been served on others who are now fugitives from the law in most countries apart from the US, China, Russia and Cuba. If and when these people are caught in any of the 106 membership nations, they will be arrested and imprisoned. Two other defendents died in due process. Six hundred new cases are being dealt with as we speak.

You have no understanding of the ICC, its aims, the UN and its relationship to the ICC, and above all, no understanding of international criminal law. The common thought in my previous sentence should be taken to heart Burn, it is 'no understanding', and it is aimed at you!

HS

hamilcarr

What is the point of your link?

Good question.

hillary_step

What is the point of your link?

What is the point of BurnTheShips link?

To give the appearance of knowing what he is talking about and that he has researched a matter. It is his modus operandi in such threads as these. The problem is that more often than usual, he has not bothered to read all the information on a matter so as to gain an impartial view, but like religious fundamentalists, he starts with a conclusion and bends the facts to suit. He then spends precious hours of his life trawling the Internet, finding little intellectual scraps that fit his Frankenstein monster, and then lumbers onto a discussion board with his findings.

One of the most hilarious of Burn's 'cut and paste' chatterings was the one that he posted in defence of his view but had unfortunately not read the whole article, only the first sentence. The article was actually undermining Burns viewpoint, not advancing it....lol.

Tells us all we need to know.

HS

BurnTheShips

HS, you are an idiot and a liar, and you resort to ad hominems to cover your ignorace. This is how you operate. I won't be bothered with you.

10 Years International Crime Court: Towards World Law?

Share this