A reader points me to this Reuters dispatch reporting that Sudan will issue arrest warrants for six French aid workers who were released from custody in Chad after being pardoned by Chadian President Idris Deby for abducting 103 children. (In case you missed the story when it came out, the short version is that a French humanitarian group tried to "rescue" Darfuri orphans from refugee camps in Chad and deliver them to adopting families in France. It turned out that many of the children were not orphans, nor from Darfur.) The Reuters article notes that Sudan will ask interpol to issue the warrants, so the exasperated reader remarks, "It would be laughable if it weren't so infuriating. The idea of Interpol arresting "criminal" aid workers at the behest of the Sudanese regime boggles the mind."
Just one point of fact. Presumably, Sudan is asking Interpol--the international criminal police organization--to issue what it calls a "Red Notice" for the six aid workers. In many cases, the Red Notice is a functional equivalent to an international arrest warrant because many countries have bi-lateral extradition treaties with each other. But in this case, I sincerely doubt that Interpol will issue a Red Notice at all because the organization's charter prohibits it from issuing Red Notices for people targeted for arrest for anything that smells like political reasons. It would be one thing if these were car thieves, but becausel'affair Zoe's Arkis so wrapped in political controversy, it's hard to imagine any red notices being issued on these aid workers.
A reader points me to this Reuters dispatch reporting that Sudan will issue arrest warrants for six French aid workers who were released from custody in Chad after being pardoned by Chadian President Idris Deby for abducting 103 children. (In case you missed the story when it came out, the short version is that a French humanitarian group tried to "rescue" Darfuri orphans from refugee camps in Chad and deliver them to adopting families in France. It turned out that many of the children were not orphans, nor from Darfur.) The Reuters article notes that Sudan will ask interpol to issue the warrants, so the exasperated reader remarks, "It would be laughable if it weren't so infuriating. The idea of Interpol arresting "criminal" aid workers at the behest of the Sudanese regime boggles the mind."
Just one point of fact. Presumably, Sudan is asking Interpol--the international criminal police organization--to issue what it calls a "Red Notice" for the six aid workers. In many cases, the Red Notice is a functional equivalent to an international arrest warrant because many countries have bi-lateral extradition treaties with each other. But in this case, I sincerely doubt that Interpol will issue a Red Notice at all because the organization's charter prohibits it from issuing Red Notices for people targeted for arrest for anything that smells like political reasons. It would be one thing if these were car thieves, but becausel'affair Zoe's Arkis so wrapped in political controversy, it's hard to imagine any red notices being issued on these aid workers.
In describing the hard political trade-offs that must be made in negotiating peace in Darfur, longtime Sudan expert Alex De Waal, in his aptly named blog, Making Sense of Darfur, offers this insightful nugget into the operations of the young ICC:
Arguably the main role of the ICC is less to mount prosecutions itself and more to push nations to take the rule of law and accountability seriously. We are a long long way from possessing an international rule of law in which it would be possible routinely to enforce justice against perpetrators.In the cases of both Darfur and Northern Uganda, I have argued that bringing perpetrators to justice -- at least eventually -- is a key aspect of achieving peace and reconciliation. Alex correctly identifies the scale of the difficulties faced by the ICC and the importance of infusing a culture of justice into societies marred by conflict. However, I am not swayed by the implication that the ICC's involvement in Sudan will push that country's government to "take the rule of law and accountability seriously." The system of kangaroo courts that it has implemented to try suspects involved in the Darfur genocide is proof enough that, without a credible threat, the regime will pay only lip service to the notion of accountability. ICC prosecutions are important in their own right -- they need to at least initially be used as sticks, even if, later, they are turned into carrots.
In describing the hard political trade-offs that must be made in negotiating peace in Darfur, longtime Sudan expert Alex De Waal, in his aptly named blog, Making Sense of Darfur, offers this insightful nugget into the operations of the young ICC:
Arguably the main role of the ICC is less to mount prosecutions itself and more to push nations to take the rule of law and accountability seriously. We are a long long way from possessing an international rule of law in which it would be possible routinely to enforce justice against perpetrators.In the cases of both Darfur and Northern Uganda, I have argued that bringing perpetrators to justice -- at least eventually -- is a key aspect of achieving peace and reconciliation. Alex correctly identifies the scale of the difficulties faced by the ICC and the importance of infusing a culture of justice into societies marred by conflict. However, I am not swayed by the implication that the ICC's involvement in Sudan will push that country's government to "take the rule of law and accountability seriously." The system of kangaroo courts that it has implemented to try suspects involved in the Darfur genocide is proof enough that, without a credible threat, the regime will pay only lip service to the notion of accountability. ICC prosecutions are important in their own right -- they need to at least initially be used as sticks, even if, later, they are turned into carrots.
Yesterday, a group of international legal scholars and human rights activists sent a letter to the UN Security Council, urging Sudan to hand over two indicted war criminals, whom it has thus far shielded from prosecution. It seems that the ICC is on the same page. The Sudan Tribune reports:
The prosecutor of the ICC Luis Moreno-Ocampo said in prepared remarks at the twelfth diplomatic briefing that his office is working with unspecified countries to trace the whereabouts of Ahmed Haroun, state minister for humanitarian affairs. [skip] Ocampo said that he is pushing world countries to assist in the arrest of the Darfur war crime suspects including those who are not members of the court. "Our principal objective is to make sure that the issue of enforcement of the arrest warrants is not put off the agenda of relevant international meetings" he said.This will hopefully accelerate the slow process -- the two men were indicted over a year ago -- of bringing the perpetrators of the Darfur genocide to justice. Unfortunately, the reach of the ICC's current ambitions remains constricted. The arrest warrants should carry the weight of international obligation, but -- due to Khartoum's persistent obstructionism and a paucity of international will -- Moreno-Ocampo seems backed into a defensive position. Instead of staking out a more affirmative role for his office, he must work to fight for the issue to remain on the agenda at all. Moreno-Ocampo's efforts should be praised, but he certainly could use some help -- starting with the Member States that he has explicitly called on to aid the monitoring and prosecution processes.
Yesterday, a group of international legal scholars and human rights activists sent a letter to the UN Security Council, urging Sudan to hand over two indicted war criminals, whom it has thus far shielded from prosecution. It seems that the ICC is on the same page. The Sudan Tribune reports:
The prosecutor of the ICC Luis Moreno-Ocampo said in prepared remarks at the twelfth diplomatic briefing that his office is working with unspecified countries to trace the whereabouts of Ahmed Haroun, state minister for humanitarian affairs. [skip] Ocampo said that he is pushing world countries to assist in the arrest of the Darfur war crime suspects including those who are not members of the court. "Our principal objective is to make sure that the issue of enforcement of the arrest warrants is not put off the agenda of relevant international meetings" he said.This will hopefully accelerate the slow process -- the two men were indicted over a year ago -- of bringing the perpetrators of the Darfur genocide to justice. Unfortunately, the reach of the ICC's current ambitions remains constricted. The arrest warrants should carry the weight of international obligation, but -- due to Khartoum's persistent obstructionism and a paucity of international will -- Moreno-Ocampo seems backed into a defensive position. Instead of staking out a more affirmative role for his office, he must work to fight for the issue to remain on the agenda at all. Moreno-Ocampo's efforts should be praised, but he certainly could use some help -- starting with the Member States that he has explicitly called on to aid the monitoring and prosecution processes.
In this week's UN Plaza, Matthew Lee and I cover a host of issues, including francophones at the UN, Northern Uganda, and circumstances surrounding the assassination attempt on East Timor president Jose Ramos Horta. In the segment below, we discuss Ban's recently released report on Somalia.
In this week's UN Plaza, Matthew Lee and I cover a host of issues, including francophones at the UN, Northern Uganda, and circumstances surrounding the assassination attempt on East Timor president Jose Ramos Horta. In the segment below, we discuss Ban's recently released report on Somalia.
Last week, Mark and I both expressed our opinions of the controversy in Northern Uganda, where a proximate peace accord is being stalled by rebel leader Joseph Kony's insistence on immunity from ICC prosecution. Though there are no new developments in the stalemate, I wanted to share the well-reasoned opinion of Kevin Jon Heller, a blogger at the peerless Opinio Juris. Rejecting his colleague Julian Ku's assertion that "the ICC really is now the obstacle to peace," Kevin gives his take on how to navigate out of this morass.
It seems to me that the answer lies in the ICC's principle of complementarity. Given that ordinary Ugandans favor traditional justice for low-level perpetrators and criminal prosecution for high-level perpetrators, the Court should insist on two things: (1) that the Ugandan government and the LRA revert back to their original plan to try Kony and the other LRA leaders in Uganda's High Court; and (2) that the Ugandan government revamp its criminal justice system to satisfy the principle of complementarity. At that point -- and only at that point -- should the ICC step aside.The key, of course, is to reconcile Ugandans' belief in the need to prosecute high-level LRA criminals with the deficiencies of the Ugandan justice system. While simply dropping its indictments would be devastating, the ICC could opt for a tactical delay, accepting a less-than-ideal solution in immediate term, but retaining the prerogative to bring Kony et al to justice at least eventually. This would both provide a viable option for the ICC and, as Kevin pointed out to me, give Uganda an opportunity to bring its courts up to the legal standards of the ICC.