Darfurther Nonsense LX
Hey, Mia Farrow.
I know you want to save Darfur, but how do you want to do it? You want to send in the UN?
The International Criminal Court prosecutor told the United Nations yesterday to prepare to arrest Sudan’s president if he is indicted on genocide charges, and not to protect him in a “coverup.”
ICC judges in the The Hague are considering a request by the prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Campo, for a warrant to arrest President Omar Hassan al-Bashir for crimes in the war-torn Darfur region. A decision is expected next month.
Moreno-Ocampo told the 15-nation UN Security Council it “must be prepared. If the judges decide to issue an arrest warrant against President Bashir, there will be a need for united and consistent action to ensure its execution.”
…
“Genocide continues. Rapes in and around the (refugee) camps continue. Humanitarian assistance is still hindered. More than 5,000 displaced persons die each month,” he said. Sudan’s UN envoy dismissed the allegations as “blackmail”.
Bashir would try to win Security Council protection but his “criminal actions should not be ignored,” the prosecutor said. “The international community cannot be part of any coverup of genocide or crimes against humanity.”
Moreno-Ocampo was apparently taking aim at Article 16 of the ICC statute whereby the Security Council can delay investigations for a year or more.
African and Arab states have proposed invoking the article, saying Moreno-Ocampo’s attempt to bring Bashir before the ICC is likely to damage attempts to halt the five-year-old conflict in Darfur, western Sudan.
Wow. African countries backing criminal Sudan and an indicted genocidist: this ain’t your daddy’s UN. But it’s sure as hell ours.
BTW, I’m no fan of the ICC, either. They’ve never heard a complaint against Israel they haven’t embraced. Two Jew-hating institutions doing battle—what’s not to love?
BG said,
December 5, 2008 @ 8:46 am
They’ve never heard a complaint against Israel they haven’t embraced.
Cite please.
Bloodthirsty Liberal said,
December 5, 2008 @ 9:09 am
Why, sure son.
Here you go:
“However, alongside Israel’s support for the aspirations of the court, Israel has concerns as to how effectively these will be achieved through the court as it has been constituted. A major concern is that the court will be subjected to political pressures and its impartiality will be compromised. Israel has recently witnessed many international bodies, established for the highest goals such as protecting human rights and fighting racism, cynically abused and turned into political tools. Clearly, the court could only be effective if it remains scrupulously impartial. Regrettably, there are already some troubling indications that this impartiality may be compromised:
Rewriting principles of international law - and inventing new crimes: While the court was intended to address the crimes which had been recognized as being the most serious crimes in international law, in practice the statute of the court frequently fails to reflect those crimes accurately.
For Israel, the clearest example of distorting existing principles of international law, as part of a political agenda, is the inclusion as a war crime of: “the transfer, directly or indirectly, by the occupying power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”. This particular offense represents neither a grave breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention, nor does it reflect customary international law. The inclusion of this offense, under the pressure of Arab states, and the addition of the phrase “directly or indirectly,” is clearly intended to try to use the court to force the issue of Israeli settlements without the need for negotiation as agreed between the sides.
Selective lists of crimes: The list of crimes included in the court’s statute is highly selective. Offenses such as terrorism and drug-trafficking are not included, because of political disputes over their definition and scope. The paradoxical result is that a state acting against acts of terrorism may find itself under the scrutiny of the court for the way it exercises its right of self-defense, while the terrorists themselves are outside the court’s jurisdiction.
Appointment of judges: One area in which Israel fears that political discrimination is likely is the appointment of judges to the court. Such appointments are, according to the statute, to be made having consideration to “equitable geographical representation.” This formula reflects the standard mode for elections in UN organs based on the UN regional groups system. As Israel is the only UN member state which is not accepted as a full member of any of the regional groups in the system, it seems that no Israeli candidate - however competent - could be elected as judge.
The extensive powers of the prosecutor: In an attempt to bridge the gaps between civil and common law systems, the court has adopted a hybrid approach in which the prosecutor has extensive powers, including to initiate proceedings on his or her own initiative. Israel is concerned that these far-reaching powers are inconsistent with checks and balances necessary in any legal system and leave the role of the prosecutor open to potential abuse.”
That’s just one quick Google before I have to run. Do you want me to find more citations, or can you handle things from here?
BG said,
December 5, 2008 @ 10:30 am
Ah. The IMF (in a conservative-led government, no less!) says it and that settles it, eh?
Midwest McGarry said,
December 5, 2008 @ 10:37 am
You didn’t really answer the question. The article you reprinted lists Israel’s fears, but it says nothing to support your double negative statement:
“They’ve never heard a complaint against Israel they haven’t embraced.”
(Take out the double negatives and it basically means the ICC has embraced all complaints it has heard against Israel.)
While there is probably some sentiment behind that statement you CAN defend, the statement itself is patently false. First, has the court itself (and I mean the court, not just the prosecutor) ever heard a legal complaint made against Israel? And has it embraced (by this I think the common understanding of “embrace” when applied to a court would mean “held a trial and rendered a decision”) even one of them?
Bloodthirsty Liberal said,
December 5, 2008 @ 10:38 am
So, BG, what you’re saying is that no amount of documentation matters to you, you can just shrug it off? I get it.
- Aggie
Bloodthirsty Liberal said,
December 5, 2008 @ 10:48 am
MidWest,
You remind me of Bill Clinton. Depends on what you mean by “is”.
In any normal context, the meaning of BTL’s comments, and the documentation he provided would be clear. But if there is enough anti-Israel bias in your paradigm, you can’t see it. So, you play games.
- Aggie
Midwest McGarry said,
December 5, 2008 @ 12:10 pm
In fact, the comments and documentation provided so far could only be meaningful to someone who had previously made up their mind.
The question is very simple: Has the ICC ever heard a legal complaint made against Israel? And has it embraced one of them?
The answer is important to people who have not yet formed an opinion about the ICC. And it is important to people hoping to judge the credibility of BTL’s arguments.
Bloodthirsty Liberal said,
December 5, 2008 @ 12:22 pm
I’ve carried this discussion back to the main page here.