More on the Bush Administration Dithering While Darfur Burns

Human Rights Watch also takes the Bush administration to task for their gyrations in seeeking justice for the victims of the Darfur genocide while weaseling out of any act that might lend legitimacy to the International Criminal Court:

This week, the U.N. Security Council is expected to receive the findings of the commission of inquiry it established to investigate violations of international human rights and humanitarian law in Darfur. It was also charged with determining if acts of genocide have occurred, and identifying perpetrators with a view to ensuring accountability. While identifying several options, the commission is likely to recommend that the Security Council refer the Darfur situation to the ICC.

"The delay involved in setting up a new tribunal would only lead to the loss of more innocent lives in Darfur," said Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice Program at Human Rights Watch. "The Bush administration seems willing to sacrifice Darfur's victims to its ideological campaign against the court."

Since Sudan is not a party to the court, the ICC would require a referral from the Security Council. An ICC referral is the course of action that can best guarantee efficient and effective prosecution of those most responsible for these atrocities, Human Rights Watch said.

The U.S. ambassador-at-large for war crimes, Pierre-Richard Prosper, on Thursday presented other Security Council members with the idea of setting up a new ad hoc court for Darfur. Explaining the U.S. rationale, he said, "We don't want to be party to legitimizing the ICC."

As HRW notes,

Setting up a new tribunal would be a time consuming and complicated process. Establishing a new court requires creating a new statute and rules, recruiting staff, and electing judges. Even if the physical structures of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda were used, as the Bush administration has proposed, it could take more than a year to get the new tribunal off the ground.

By contrast, the ICC is already up and running as a permanent criminal tribunal. It could promptly open investigations of those most responsible for serious crimes in Darfur. This would maximize the deterrent value, thereby helping to save lives.

Shame on the Bush administration for putting its narrow, paranoid political agenda ahead of the victims of the Darfur genocide.

Comments

[Glenn]

Who in the world gets sent straight to trial while still in the process of committing the crime??

The all-knowing all-beneficent United Nations Security Council is where this matter should be handled, and right now!

...if it'll ever grow up.

[Randy Paul]

Glenn,

That makes no sense. Crimes against humanity have already been committed in Darfur. Do we wait for more to be committed before steps be taken to prosecute those responsible?

Moreover, the referral to the ICC doesn't mean that a trial starts immediately afterwards. It means that the prosecutor starts investigating (although much of the material supplied by the UN can be used to gain an indictment), prepares an indictment and issues arrst warrants.

The problem here is not with the Security Council but with the Bush administration wanting to reinvent the wheel and further delay justice in order to avoid giving any legitimacy to the ICC.

[Glenn]

it makes perfect sense randy. the crimes are still being committed and nothing is being done to stop them except to say that a trial should be held in the ICC which would take years and years to complete. That is NOT how you handle an ongoing atrocity!

The prosecutions and trials and all that should not begin even one second before the crime is actually stopped. If you stopped focusing on the legitimacy of the ICC, then maybe you'll see through to the most urgent issue at hand. hint hint: preventing mre deaths!

http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?target=SUDAN.HTM

"SUDAN: Why The Bombers Continue to Bomb Darfur

February 1, 2005: Apparently the Sudanese government is once again using its An-24 transports as bomber aircraft in the Darfur region. The An-24 is a two engine Russian aircraft, developed in the 1960s to replace pre-World War II American DC-3s. An-24s can carry up to 50 passengers, or five tons of cargo. Sudan have some of the An-26 versions of the An-24, which has a rear ramp, which bombs are rolled out of. The African Union and various relief agencies report that Sudanese planes bombed the village of Rahad Kabolong in North Darfur state. The attack took place on January 26 and left more than 100 people dead. Some 9000 people fled the village and the surrounding area after the air attack. A monitoring team reported that most of the dead were women and children. As of January 31, the government continued to deny that the air raid took place..."

[Randy Paul]

Glenn,

If you start making arrests (the ICC has the power to issue warrants), maybe the others will think twice before committing such acts.

The way these things work are indictments, arrests, trials, not trial first.

If you stopped focusing on the legitimacy of the ICC, then maybe you'll see through to the most urgent issue at hand. hint hint: preventing mre deaths!

Glenn, if you start indicting and arresting culprits that may also stop the atrocities. It's also a hell of a lot more than is being done now.

[Glenn]

Randy, I want to point out just a few more things:

While you've posted the views of from Human Rights Watch, it would only be fair to point out the views of an organization with a little less obvious (political) agenda, iAbolish.

you could check out their march last year:

http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archives/003988.shtml

and they have a website too also worth checking out.

And then maybe we can talk about why after 7-8 months later, while deaths continued to pile up, the UN was finally able to issue a report for some action to be taken, something along the lines of blue-helmeted UN soldiers marching into the government buildings of Sudan and arresting those leaders most responsible so that they can be put on trial in front of the ICC. That would be quite a sight. Its quite a fantasy actually. Lets see how that plays out.

Professor Geras has some other interesting posts about Darfur. Genocide or not:

http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2005/02/genocide_in_sud.html

http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2005/02/genocide_in_sud_1.html

Where exactly do you stand on that issue?

[Randy Paul]

Glenn,

If you're going to slur Human Rights Watch show some proof of their "obvious political agenda." Just for the record disagreeing with the Bush administration isn't proof of an "Obvious political agenda." You should look at the number of reports that HRW has put out on the subject of the genocide in Darfur.

Read Nick Kristof today. It was the Bush administration that urged the UN to conduct this investigation. Now it is the Bush administration that is trying to stymie the arrest and prosecution of those responsible in an ass-covering attempt to reinvent the wheel.

Don't blame this on the UN, Glenn. The Bush administration would rather delay the arrest and prosecution of these people than lend legitimacy to the organization that is best suited to do just that. Do you realize how ridiculous it will be if the US vetoes the resolution to refer this to the ICC? The only other option for Bush is to hope that China will veto it. Imagine that.

As for my feelings, I support the rule of law. That entails drawing up indictments, making arrests and holding trials. It happened in the former Yugoslavia and is still taking place. If you don't think that the threat of idnictments has an impact, consider what got Charles Taylor out of power in Liberia.

BTW, when you want to slur peacekeepers, please bear in mind that one of my Brazilian cousins was a peacekeeper in Angola subjecting himself to mines, rebels and malaria. One of the sergeants in his unit was killed by rebels. So when you want to use a broad brush to trash UN peacekeepers, do it somewhere else, okay?

[Glenn]

whoa randy, settle down. by no means did i say ANYTHING to trash un peacekeepers. all i said was that the thought of blue helmets storming in to Sudan and arresting the leaders of that nation to put them on trial in front of the ICC is a fantasy. it will never happen and those accused by ICC prosecutors will never voluntarily appear. that is my prediction. i did not make one comment disparaging the un soldiers and you are absolutely wrong to accuse me of that.

i already read kristof's editorial. i'm still a new yorker and (for some ridiculous reason) still spend time reading the ny times almost every day. i disagree with him on this (though i dont always) as i disagree with you. i'll tell you one thing for sure. in past reports on the sudan, kristof was very very critical of annan and the un, something you seem unable to allow yourself to do on any issue!

the united states has done quite a bit to spur action in the un over the last eight months. calling the atrocities a "genocide" as the us has done would compel the un to act immediately to prevent further genocide, something which the un report that took 8 months to prepare does not do at all. (how long will it take to build a case? how many more people will die before then?) those actions would include no-fly zones, sanctions, all else in its power. a report taking 8 months to complete was not the us solution to the problem. once again, just look at where iabolish and people from the Sudan direct their ire. how is it possible that during this whole storm, where sudan's atrocities are obvious to the world, that the un allows sudan to be appointed to the human rights commission?? if that doesnt tell you theres something seriously wrong at the un, then nothing will. that is it.

[Randy Paul]

Glenn,

You're right I overreacted and I apologize. Let's be clear, however: I really believe your comment about HRW was out of line. They have been consistent in criticizing regimes who abuse human rights regardless of their political leanings.

kristof was very very critical of annan and the un, something you seem unable to allow yourself to do on any issue!

Nonsense. You just haven't been reading me lately. Beware of sweeping generalizations ;-)

As for the makeup of the UNHRC, the blame lies not just with the UN, but perhaps more squarely and more firmly on the backs of the nations in Africa that voted Sudan onto the UNHRC. Let's not be disingenuous here. Kofi Annan didn't put Sudan on the UNHRC.

It's not solely the province of the UN to declare a genocide in Sudan. During the Rwanda genocide among the truly disgraceful acts of the Clinton administration was a concerted effort to avoid referring to what was happening in Rwanda as genocide becuase it would have required the US to act. If that is the case and Colin Powell having referred to the situation in Darfur as genocide, why has the US not acted? I can't believe that this president would be reluctant to act on his own . . .

[Glenn]

ok randy, fair enpugh. i enjoy commenting over here. the only reason why i write on this is because i care about this stuff, just like you do. obviously, we're really on the same side, just two guys trying to figure out how to make this world a better place, but with slightly different ideas about how to get there.

take care, glenn

[Randy Paul]

Glenn,

Fair enough on my side as well. Please note that you are always welcome here even if we have to agree to disagree.