Showing posts with label ICC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ICC. Show all posts

Thursday, November 29, 2012

U.N. Assembly, in Blow to U.S., Elevates Status of Palestine


More than 130 countries voted on Thursday to upgrade Palestine to a nonmember observer state of the United Nations, a triumph for Palestinian diplomacy and a sharp rebuke to the United States and Israel.

But the vote, at least for now, did little to bring either the Palestinians or the Israelis closer to the goal they claim to seek: two states living side by side, or increased Palestinian unity. Israel and the militant group Hamas both responded critically to the day’s events, though for different reasons.

The new status will give the Palestinians more tools to challenge Israel in international legal forums for its occupation activities in the West Bank, including settlement-building, and it helped bolster the Palestinian Authority, weakened after eight days of battle between its rival Hamas and Israel.

But even as a small but determined crowd of 2,000 celebrated in central Ramallah in the West Bank, waving flags and dancing, there was an underlying sense of concerned resignation.

“I hope this is good,” said Munir Shafie, 36, an electrical engineer who was there. “But how are we going to benefit?”

Still, the General Assembly vote — 138 countries in favor, 9 opposed and 41 abstaining — showed impressive backing for the Palestinians at a difficult time. It was taken on the 65th anniversary of the vote to divide the former British mandate of Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab, a vote Israel considers the international seal of approval for its birth.

The past two years of Arab uprisings have marginalized the Palestinian cause to some extent as nations that focused their political aspirations on the Palestinian struggle have turned inward. The vote on Thursday, coming so soon after the Gaza fighting, put the Palestinians again — if briefly, perhaps — at the center of international discussion.

“The question is, where do we go from here and what does it mean?” Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian prime minister, who was in New York for the vote, said in an interview. “The sooner the tough rhetoric of this can subside and the more this is viewed as a logical consequence of many years of failure to move the process forward, the better.” He said nothing would change without deep American involvement.

President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, speaking to the assembly’s member nations, said, “The General Assembly is called upon today to issue a birth certificate of the reality of the state of Palestine,” and he condemned what he called Israeli racism and colonialism. His remarks seemed aimed in part at Israel and in part at Hamas. But both quickly attacked him for the parts they found offensive.

“The world watched a defamatory and venomous speech that was full of mendacious propaganda against the Israel Defense Forces and the citizens of Israel,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel responded. “Someone who wants peace does not talk in such a manner.”

While Hamas had officially backed the United Nations bid of Mr. Abbas, it quickly criticized his speech because the group does not recognize Israel.

“There are controversial issues in the points that Abbas raised, and Hamas has the right to preserve its position over them,” said Salah al-Bardaweel, a spokesman for Hamas in Gaza, on Thursday.

“We do not recognize Israel, nor the partition of Palestine, and Israel has no right in Palestine,” he added. “Getting our membership in the U.N. bodies is our natural right, but without giving up any inch of Palestine’s soil.”

Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, Ron Prosor, spoke after Mr. Abbas and said he was concerned that the Palestinian Authority failed to recognize Israel for what it is.

“Three months ago, Israel’s prime minister stood in this very hall and extended his hand in peace to President Abbas,” Mr. Prosor said. “He reiterated that his goal was to create a solution of two states for two peoples, where a demilitarized Palestinian state will recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

“That’s right. Two states for two peoples. In fact, President Abbas, I did not hear you use the phrase ‘two states for two peoples’ this afternoon. In fact, I have never heard you say the phrase ‘two states for two peoples’ because the Palestinian leadership has never recognized that Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people.”

The Israelis also say that the fact that Mr. Abbas is not welcome in Gaza, the Palestinian coastal enclave run by Hamas, from which he was ejected five years ago, shows that there is no viable Palestinian leadership living up to its obligations now.

As expected, the vote won backing from a number of European countries, and was a rebuff to intense American and Israeli diplomacy. France, Spain, Italy and Switzerland all voted yes. Britain and Germany abstained. Apart from Canada, no major country joined the United States and Israel in voting no. The other opponents included Palau, Panama and Micronesia.

Susan E. Rice, the American ambassador to the United Nations, was dismissive of the entire exercise. “Today’s grand pronouncements will soon fade,” she said. “And the Palestinian people will wake up tomorrow and find that little about their lives has changed, save that the prospects of a durable peace have only receded.”

A major concern for the Americans is that the Palestinians may use their new status to try to join the International Criminal Court. That prospect particularly worries the Israelis, who fear that the Palestinians may press for an investigation of their practices in the occupied territories widely viewed as violations of international law.

Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, said that after the vote “life will not be the same” because “Palestine will become a country under occupation.”

“The terms of reference for any negotiations become withdrawal,” Mr. Erekat said.

Another worry is that the Palestinians may use the vote to seek membership in specialized agencies of the United Nations, a move that could have consequences for the financing of the international organizations as well as the Palestinian Authority itself. Congress cut off financing to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, known as Unesco, in 2011 after it accepted Palestine as a member. The United States is a major contributor to many of these agencies and is active on their governing boards.

In response to the Palestinian bid, a bipartisan group of senators said Thursday that they would introduce legislation that would cut off foreign aid to the authority if it tried to use the International Criminal Court against Israel, and close the Palestine Liberation Organization’s office in Washington if Palestinians refused to negotiate with Israel.

Calling the Palestinian bid “an unhealthy step that could undermine the peace process,” Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said that he and the other senators, including Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, would be closely monitoring the situation.

The vote came shortly after an eight-day Israeli military assault on Gaza that Israel described as a response to stepped-up rocket fire into Israel. The operation killed scores of Palestinians and was aimed at reducing the arsenal of Hamas in Gaza, part of the territory that the United Nations resolution expects to make up a future state of Palestine.

The Palestinian Authority, based in Ramallah, was politically weakened by the Gaza fighting, with its rivals in Hamas seen by many Palestinians as more willing to stand up to Israel and fight back. That shift in sentiment is one reason that some Western countries gave for backing the United Nations resolution, to strengthen Mr. Abbas and his more moderate colleagues in their contest with Hamas.

Source: New York Times

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

DR Congo: US Should Urge Rwanda to End M23 Support

The United States government should publicly support sanctions against Rwandan officials backing the armed group M23, which has been responsible for widespread war crimes in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. M23 rebels, whose commanders have been implicated in serious abuses, captured the city of Goma on November 20, 2012.

“The US government’s silence on Rwandan military support to the M23 rebels can no longer be justified given the overwhelming evidence of Rwanda’s role and the imminent threat to civilians around Goma,” said Tom Malinowski, Washington director at Human Rights Watch. “The US government should support urgent sanctions against Rwandan officials who are backing M23 fighters responsible for serious abuses.”

Rwandan military support for the M23 rebels has been evident in their offensive that began on November 15, Human Rights Watch said. Several civilians living near the Rwandan border told Human Rights Watch that they saw hundreds of Rwandan army soldiers crossing the border from Rwanda into Congo at Njerima hill, Kasizi, and Kabuhanga in apparent support of M23 fighters. Human Rights Watch has also documented several incidents in which Rwandan and Congolese soldiers fired across the border from either side between November 16 and 20.

A draft of the final report of the United Nations Group of Experts on the Democratic Republic of Congo, soon to be published, alleges that the Rwandan government has provided “direct military support to M23 rebels” and that the “M23’s de facto chain of command includes General Bosco Ntaganda and culminates with the Rwandan Minister of Defense General James Kabarebe.” Ntaganda is on the UN sanctions list and is sought on arrest warrants from the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Human Rights Watch has independently established that the Rwandan army has regularly provided significant military support to the M23, including overseeing operational planning, providing weapons and ammunition, recruiting at least 600 people in Rwanda to fight for the M23, training new recruits, and deploying Rwandan army troops to eastern Congo in direct support of M23 rebels.

Over the past seven months, Human Rights Watch has documented widespread war crimes by M23 rebels in eastern Congo, including summary executions, rapes, and forced recruitment, including of children. Rwandan officials may be complicit in war crimes through their military assistance to M23 forces throughout this period, Human Rights Watch said.

The draft UN Group of Experts’ report says that, “Rwandan officials coordinated the creation of the rebel movement as well as its major military operations” and “provided military support to M23 through permanent troop reinforcement and clandestine support by RDF [Rwandan Defence Forces] special units.” The Group of Experts found that “RDF commanders operated alongside M23 and provided logistical support during the July 2012 operations which enabled the capture of Bunagana, Rutshuru, Kiwanja and Rumangabo.” During these operations, “the rebels killed one [UN] peacekeeper at Bunagana and fired on the [UN peacekeeping] base at Kiwanja,” the report states.

The Group of Experts also documented support to the M23 by commanders of the Ugandan People’s Defence Force. While stating that “Rwandan officials exercise overall command and strategic planning for M23,” they note that “senior Government of Uganda officials have also provided support to M23 in the form of direct troop reinforcement in DRC territory, weapons deliveries, [and] technical assistance.”

“The fall of Goma to the M23 magnifies the security risks to civilians in eastern Congo,” Malinowski said. “As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the US should press for sanctions that target not only the M23 but the foreign officials backing their atrocities.”

The Group of Experts has recommended individual sanctions against several Rwandan and Ugandan officials named in its report.

The M23’s latest offensive began on November 15 with M23 rebels fighting UN peacekeepers and Congolese army forces as the rebels progressed toward Goma. By the early afternoon of November 20, after heavy fighting in and around Goma, the M23 had taken control of key areas of Goma. Congolese army soldiers had fled the town, while UN peacekeepers were still present.

Human Rights Watch has received reports of at least 11 civilians killed and dozens of others wounded during the fighting in and around Goma since November 15. An estimated 80,000 people are newly displaced in the area around Goma, including an estimated 60,000 who were in a displacement camp about 10 kilometers outside Goma, according to the UN Office for Humanitarian Affairs.

“The US should endorse all measures that would enable UN sanctions against Rwandan officials who are assisting the M23,” Malinowski said. “All parties to the conflict should take urgent measures to protect civilians and stop abuses.”

Background on the M23

The M23 is largely made up of soldiers who took part in a mutiny from the Congolese army between late March and May 2012. Many were previously members of the National Congress for the Defense of the People (CNDP), a former Rwanda-backed rebel group that integrated into the Congolese army in January 2009. Bosco Ntaganda, who was then a general in the Congolese army, initially led the mutiny. In May, Col. Sultani Makenga, a former colleague of Ntaganda in the CNDP, announced he was beginning a separate mutiny. In the days that followed, Ntaganda and his forces joined Makenga. The new armed group called itself the M23. The M23 claimed the mutiny was to protest the Congolese government’s failure to fully implement the March 23, 2009 peace agreement (hence the name M23), which had integrated them into the Congolese army.

Some of the M23’s senior commanders have well-known histories of serious abuses, committed over the past decade in eastern Congo as they moved from one armed group to another. They have been responsible for ethnic massacres, recruitment of children, mass rape, killings, abductions, and torture. Before the mutinies, at least five of the M23 leaders were on a UN black list of people with whom the UN would not collaborate due to their human rights records.

Ntaganda has been wanted by the International Criminal Court since 2006 for recruiting and using child soldiers in Ituri district in northeastern Congo in 2002 and 2003. In July, the court issued a second warrant against him for war crimes and crimes against humanity, namely murder, persecution based on ethnic grounds, rape, sexual slavery, and pillaging, also in connection with his activities in Ituri.

Human Rights Watch has documented numerous war crimes and crimes against humanity by troops under Ntaganda’s command, as well as by other M23 commanders, including Col. Makenga, Col. Innocent Zimurinda, Col. Baudouin Ngaruye, and Col. Innocent Kayna.

On November 12, 2012, the UN Security Council added Makenga to its list of individuals under sanctions, including an asset freeze and a travel ban. On November 13, the US imposed sanctions on Makenga, which includes an asset freeze and forbids American citizens from undertaking any transactions with him.

Source: Human Rights Watch

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Tutu withdraws from leadership summit

Archbishop Desmond Tutu has withdrawn from participating in a leadership summit in Johannesburg to protest the presence of Tony Blair.

Tutu's decision forms a protest against Blair's decision to back the United States war in Iraq.

"The archbishop has spent considerable time over the past few days wrestling with his conscience and taking counsel from trusted advisers with respect to his attendance at the event," the archbishop's office wrote to the event organisers on Tuesday.

"Ultimately, the archbishop is of the view that Mr Blair's decision to support the United States' military invasion of Iraq, on the basis of unproven allegations of the existence in Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, was morally indefensible.

"The Discovery Invest Leadership Summit has leadership as its theme. Morality and leadership are indivisible. In this context, it would be inappropriate and untenable for the archbishop to share a platform with Mr Blair.

"The archbishop greatly regrets inconveniencing and disappointing the organisers and participants of the Discovery Invest Leadership Summit."

Following Tutu's decision, Blair released a statement.

"Obviously [Tony Blair] is sorry that the archbishop has decided to pull out now from an event that has been fixed for months and where he and the Archbishop were never actually sharing a platform.

"As far as Iraq is concerned they have always disagreed about removing Saddam by force – such disagreement is part of a healthy democracy.

"As for the morality of that decision we have recently had both the memorial of the Halabja massacre where thousands of people were murdered in one day by Saddam's use of chemical weapons; and that of the Iran-Iraq war where casualties numbered up to a million including many killed by chemical weapons.

"So these decisions are never easy morally or politically".

Anger grows

A group of Durban-based organisations want to arrest Blair on charges of war crimes when he arrives in South Africa.

"Various Muslim organisations are in talks about possible actions that will be carried out should Tony Blair visit South Africa," said Mustafa Darsot, a member of the South African Muslim Network executive committee.

"This includes protest marches outside the summit venue, possible sit-ins and legal action against Mr Blair. We have also asked various legal professionals to look at the feasibility of having a warrant of arrest issued against him."

Blair will join several big names, including chess master Garry Kasparov and Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan at the annual event, which will take place in Sandton on August 30.

Darsot said the network and several other organisations had written to Discovery Group founder and chief executive officer Adrian Gore urging him to withdraw the invitation to Blair. They did not believe he was "fit to lecture on leadership" because of his key role in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

"Mr Blair is complicit in the murder of thousands of people in Iraq and should be tried for war crimes," Darsot said. "He violated the trust and responsibility of his office and it was his cosy and illegitimate relationship with the [Rupert] Murdoch press that prevented much of the truth about his role in the invasion of Iraq and murder of its citizens from being revealed in the press."

Offence

But Iona Maclean, head of Discovery Life and Discovery Invest Marketing, said the invitation to Blair would not be withdrawn.

"The Discovery Invest Leadership Summit brings together a range of leaders to debate the challenges that face the world's economy, business, government and society," she said.

"The event is not intended to reflect a political view or cause offence. Discovery Invest selected the speakers based on their experience as leaders from various spheres of society and we will not be withdrawing our invitation to any of the speakers."

Patrick Bond, director of the Centre for Civil Society at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, said there was no question that Blair could be prosecuted for a "crime of aggression".

"The website arrestblair.org spells out Blair's role in recent mass murder from the Middle East to Central Asia," he said.

"Since Pretoria politicians justifiably complain that the International Criminal Court mainly prosecutes African tyrants, leaving European and American war criminals to travel the world gathering huge speaking fees, some action by Foreign Minister Maite Nkoane-Mashabane would reduce the talk left, walk right accusation against South Africa. She might simply follow the recent lead of Malawian President Joyce Banda, who warned Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir to stay away from Lilongwe on threat of arrest."

Bond said if Nkoane-Mashabane did not intervene, South Africans who viewed Blair as a war criminal could attempt a citizen's arrest.

Source: Mail & Guardian

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

Congo war crimes suspects named

The U.N.'s top human rights official on Tuesday named five Congo rebel leaders who she says may be responsible for war crimes, a rare step prompted by concerns that their group - known as M23 - could continue to rape and kill civilians in the east of the country.

Navi Pillay, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, frequently speaks out about serious abuses being committed around the world, but it is unusual for her to single out individuals unless they are suspected of being responsible for large-scale atrocities.

“The leaders of the M23 figure among the worst perpetrators of human rights violations in the Democratic Republic of Congo, or in the world for that matter,” Pillay said in a statement issued by her Geneva-based office.

The newly formed group is composed of former rebel fighters who were integrated into the army after a 2009 peace deal but have since deserted again.

Pillay named the group's leaders as Col. Sultani Makenga; Col. Baudouin Ngaruye, Col. Innocent Zimurinda; Col. Innocent Kaina; and Gen. Bosco Ntaganda.

“Many of them may have been responsible for war crimes,” she said, noting their “appalling track records including allegations of involvement in mass rape, and of responsibility for massacres and for the recruitment and use of children.”

Ntaganda is already wanted by the International Criminal Court on war crimes charges for recruiting and using child soldiers between 2002 and 2003.

Makenga, too, recruited child soldiers and is suspected of involvement in a 2008 massacre in which his then group, the CNDP, executed at least 67 civilians in Kiwandja in Congo's North Kivu region. The U.N. also linked him to the 2007 killing by another rebel group, the FARDC, of 14 civilians in Buramba, North Kivu.

Fighting between rebels and the army has flared up again in North Kivu since April, causing more than 200,000 people to flee their homes.

Abuses attributed to Ngaruye include recruitment of child soldiers and involvement in the killing of up to 139 people in Shalio, North Kivu, in April 2009. The FARDC troops believed responsible also abducted about 40 women, some of whom were gang-raped and mutilated, the U.N. said.

Zimurinda is also alleged to have had command responsibility for the Kiwandja and Shalio massacres. The U.N. Security Council placed him on a sanctions and travel ban list in Dec. 2010.

Pillay said Kaina “is alleged to have been involved in a range of human rights abuses including crimes committed in Ituri, Orientale province, in 2004.” He was arrested by Congolese authorities in June 2006, but released without trial less than three years later.

“Every effort must be made to hold these men, and the soldiers under their command, accountable for human rights violations committed against civilians, both for crimes committed within the context of the current mutiny, and also for offences committed previously,” Pillay said.

“I fear the very real possibility that they will inflict additional horrors on the civilian population as they attack villages in eastern DRC,” she added.

Source: IoL

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Ex-Liberian Leader Gets 50 Years for War Crimes

Charles G. Taylor, the former president of Liberia and a once-powerful warlord, was sentenced on Wednesday to 50 years in prison for his role in atrocities committed in Sierra Leone during its civil war in the 1990s. In what was viewed as a watershed case for modern human rights law, Mr. Taylor was the first former head of state convicted by an international tribunal since the Nuremberg trials in Germany after World War II.

Mr. Taylor was found guilty of “aiding and abetting, as well as planning, some of the most heinous and brutal crimes recorded in human history,” said Richard Lussick, the judge who presided over the sentencing here in an international criminal court near The Hague. He said the lengthy prison term underscored Mr. Taylor’s position as a government’s leader during the time the crimes were committed. “Leadership must be carried out by example, by the prosecution of crimes, not the commission of crimes,” the judge said in a statement read before the court.

If carried out, the sentence is likely to mean that Mr. Taylor, 64, will spend the rest of his life in prison. He looked at the floor after he was asked to stand as the sentence was read. The chief prosecutor, Brenda Hollis, told a news conference that could be viewed in West Africa: “The sentence today does not replace amputated limbs; it does not bring back those who were murdered,” she said. “It does not heal the wounds of those who were raped or forced to become sexual slaves.”

Mr. Taylor’s legal team said it would file an appeal. “The sentence is clearly excessive, clearly disproportionate to his circumstances, his age and his health, and does not take into account the fact that he stepped down from office voluntarily,” said Morris Anya, one of Mr. Taylor’s lawyers.

The prosecution, which had sought an even longer sentence of 80 years, said it was considering its own appeal, to raise the level of responsibility attributed to Mr. Taylor for crimes committed under his leadership. Two rebel commanders tried earlier were handed similar prison sentences of 50 and 52 years, and a prosecutor said Mr. Taylor’s overall responsibility for the atrocities was considerably greater. He did not freely leave office, but was pushed out in 2003 as rebels marched on his capital and a delegation of African leaders urged him to prevent further bloodshed and seek exile in Nigeria. The court must set a precise prison term; it is not allowed to impose a life sentence or the death penalty.

Outside the courthouse, Salamba Silla, who works with victims’ groups in Sierra Leone, pleaded for more help for former child soldiers, orphans, people whose limbs were hacked off and other victims of the country’s war. “You can see hundreds of them begging on the streets of Freetown,” the capital, she said. “Many who suffered horrendously need help to return to the provinces, they think they cannot survive there.” Ibrahim Sorie, a lawmaker from Sierra Leone who had been seated in the court’s gallery, said the sentence was fair. “It restores our faith in the rule of law, and we see that impunity is ending for top people,” Mr. Sorie said. By previous agreement, Mr. Taylor will serve his sentence in a British prison, but since the appeals process is expected to last at least a year, he will remain in the relative comfort of the United Nations’ detention center at The Hague.

After more than a year of deliberations, the Special Court for Sierra Leone found Mr. Taylor guilty in late April of crimes against humanity and war crimes for his part in fomenting widespread brutality that included murder, rape, the use of child soldiers, the mutilation of thousands of civilians and the mining of diamonds to pay for guns and ammunition. Prosecutors have said that Mr. Taylor was motivated in these gruesome actions not by any ideology but rather by “pure avarice” and a thirst for power.

The United Nations-backed tribunal began it work in Sierra Leone, where it tried its other cases, but out of concern that hearings in West Africa would cause unrest among those who still support Mr. Taylor, his trial was moved to the Netherlands.

In Liberia, where Mr. Taylor began a civil war and amassed a record of human rights atrocities during his dictatorial rule, there has not been the political will or the resources to set up a tribunal. The mandate of the Special Court for Sierra Leone covers only crimes between 1996 and 2002, and because the tribunal is to be shut down, critics say that a number of people close to Mr. Taylor have escaped prosecution.

Witnesses who testified at the Taylor trial — which lasted more than twice as long as planned — included men whose hands had been chopped off and women who had been raped. Associates and aides of Mr. Taylor also testified. One aide described a secret bonding ritual in Liberia during which he and others joined Mr. Taylor in eating a human heart.

Diamonds, as well as atrocities, also came up repeatedly in the 2,500-page judgment. The judges agreed with the prosecution that diamonds mined in Sierra Leone were used to pay for arms and ammunition for Mr. Taylor’s proxy army, and that rough diamonds were delivered to Mr. Taylor’s house in Monrovia, the Liberian capital. One diamond story that received a lot of attention during the trial involved the court appearance of the model Naomi Campbell. Prosecutors said Ms. Campbell had been sent uncut diamonds as a gift from Mr. Taylor after they attended a charity dinner hosted by Nelson Mandela when he was the president of South Africa. Two of Ms. Campbell’s companions who recounted the episode in court — her agent, Carole White, and the actress Mia Farrow — were repeatedly called “liars” during cross-examination by the defense. But the judges wrote that the two women were “frank and truthful witnesses,” and contrasted them with Ms. Campbell. They called her a “reluctant witness” who “deliberately omitted certain details out of fear.” They added that Ms. Campbell “said she came to the realization that the diamonds were sent by Taylor.”

Eight other leading members of different forces and rebel groups have already been sentenced by the tribunal. Mr. Taylor is the special court’s last defendant. Since his trial began, 115 witnesses have testified.

The three-panel bench, made up of judges from Uganda, Samoa and Ireland, gave Mr. Taylor leeway during his defense. He spent seven months — covering 81 days of the trial — in the witness chair, telling his life story without ever being cut off for digressions or political statements. He said he had heard about atrocities — “that nobody on this planet would not have heard about the atrocities in Sierra Leone” — but that he would “never, ever” have permitted them.

Source: New York Times

Friday, March 23, 2012

African Union to Make Push Against Rebels

The African Union announced Friday that it would launch a new regional military operation against the Lord’s Resistance Army, the vicious Ugandan rebel group that has been terrorizing parts of central Africa for more than 20 years. The operation, which aims to bring together 5,000 troops from four African countries each victimized by the Lord’s Resistance Army and its leader, Joseph Kony, will tap from troops already deployed to fight the group. But officials said the force will be more cohesive and disciplined.

“We’re on a mission,” an African Union envoy, Francisco Madeira, told reporters on Friday. “We need to stop Kony.”

The announcement came a few weeks after a YouTube video from an American advocacy organization went viral on the Internet and brought unprecedented attention to Mr. Kony, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for a range of unspeakable atrocities. The announcement also came a few days after a bipartisan group in Congress introduced a resolution condemning Mr. Kony and supporting a regional military effort from the four most victimized nations. The armies of those nations — Uganda, South Sudan, Central African Republic, and Democratic Republic of the Congo — have been fighting the L.R.A. since last year under a loosely organized effort. But some soldiers in those armies have resentments toward one another that have overshadowed their common goal of eradicating Mr. Kony’s group and arresting him.

The new operation announced Friday could offer a new beginning. Uganda said it would reallocate 1,500 of its troops currently fighting the L.R.A. in the Central African Republic under the new African Union operation, to be headed by Uganda, but it remained unclear how new troops would be brought in from the other nations, when they would arrive, and whether they would all be under a single military command. Headquarters for the operation will be in South Sudan, the world’s youngest and possibly most cash-hungry nation, and will include offices and administration.

The United States, which has participated in special operations against the rebel group in the past, last year sent 100 troops to Uganda and operational field locations to act a special advisers to the national forces, and reiterated its support on Friday for the regional military operation and its own “multi-year strategy.”

The African Union said Friday that its operation had been months in the planning, and would not stop until Mr. Kony was captured. The Lord’s Resistance Army has been murdering, mutilating and kidnapping children across East and Central Africa for decades, and has been the focus of numerous military operations, but while their atrocities were well known, the group did not come under their current widespread global scrutiny until the YouTube video. Uganda, which has complained of being drowned-out of the L.R.A. conversation since the video gained worldwide attention, was quick to distinguish the new effort, though it may not result in much change on the ground.

“The video excites those who have ignored African issues, otherwise it’s a joke,” said a Ugandan military spokesman, Col. Felix Kulayigye. “It is now A.U. that is in charge,” Colonel Kulayigye said, referring to the African Union. “The L.R.A. has always been there, it must be dead once and for all.”

Source: New York Times

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Congolese Warlord Convicted, in First for International Court

Thomas Lubanga, a rebel leader from the Democratic Republic of Congo, was found guilty on Wednesday of recruiting and enlisting boys and girls under the age of 15 and using them in war, in the first ruling by the International Criminal Court since it began its work 10 years ago.

The decision, which came after a halting, arduous three-year trial, firmly establishes as an international crime the use of children in war — a practice that still enslaves tens of thousands of the young. The ruling adds to the rush of attention to another suspect wanted by the court, Joseph Kony, the leader of the dwindling Lord’s Resistance Army, which for years turned abducted children into soldiers as it marauded through at least four central African countries. But it also underscores some of the failings and limits of the prosecution’s approach. The rebels under Mr. Lubanga’s command were known to have pillaged, raped and killed many civilians in enemy villages, but prosecutors said when he was handed to The Hague in 2006 that the best evidence they had was about child recruiting. The judges strongly reprimanded the prosecution on Wednesday, saying it had been negligent and had delegated investigations to unreliable paid go-betweens who had encouraged witnesses to give false testimony. Two of the three judges wrote dissenting opinions, which were not immediately released.

In a packed courtroom, Mr. Lubanga, 51, dressed in an elegant white ceremonial robe, looked down as the presiding judge, Adrian Fulford of Britain, said that the evidence had confirmed that he and fellow fighters had enlisted boys and girls, sometimes by force; put them through harsh training; punished them; deployed them in fighting; and subjected girls to sexual violence. Mr. Lubanga, who held a degree in psychology and once worked as a teacher and trader, went on to lead a rebel group in the Ituri region, where the local press reported that he asked every family to contribute a cow, money or a child to his militia. He told the court that he was only the political leader of the Union of Congolese Patriots and had discouraged deploying children. But the judges found that in 2002 and 2003, during a brutal ethnic conflict in the northeast of Congo, Mr. Lubanga also led his group’s military wing, provided weapons, ammunition, food and uniforms and made speeches in the Ituri region “encouraging children to join the army.” Videos presented in court showed Mr. Lubanga in training camps in the presence of uniformed children. Although the conflict in Ituri, fueled by rivalries for power and control over mineral riches, dated to the 1990s, the court’s jurisdiction only went into effect in 2002.

In the coming weeks, the court is expected to issue its sentence of Mr. Lubanga and hold hearings on reparations for his victims. He has 30 days to appeal the court’s verdict. The verdict was welcomed by human rights groups.

Navi Pillay, the South African who is the United Nations human rights commissioner, said that “for many years, and on a daily basis, we have been documenting gross violations of human rights of the sort perpetrated by Lubanga against the people of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.” She said that the Lubanga verdict represented the coming of age of the court and that it sent “a strong signal against impunity for such grave breaches of international law that will reverberate well beyond the D.R.C.”

The United Nations estimates that tens of thousands of boys and girls, some only 8 years old, are involved in numerous conflicts in Africa, Latin America and Asia. Roméo Dallaire, the former Canadian general who commanded the outnumbered United Nations force in Rwanda during the genocide, turned his focus afterward to halting the use of child soldiers. Now a Canadian senator, he said recently that more than 250,000 children, about 40 percent of them girls, are used as messengers, bodyguards, soldiers or sex slaves in conflicts in more than 30 countries.

Some lawyers believe that the ruling dealing with the gravity of sending children into war could help change legal attitudes, if not practices, worldwide. In recent years, other international courts, including those that tried war crimes in Sierra Leone and Rwanda, have addressed similar crimes. But the International Criminal Court, an independent institution now joined by 120 nations, with its broad mandate and scope, carries a particular weight. Still, in Congo, there was some skepticism that the ruling would be able to stop militias from recruiting children. “Over the last 20 years, various militia have conscripted children,” said Aloys Tegera of the Pole Institute, a research group based in the eastern Congolese city of Goma. “Any new militia born will do exactly the same.” He called it a “hope” that the Lubanga verdict would “become a deterrent for warlordism still rampant in the Kivus,” referring to ravaged provinces in the east, and that the court’s critics regard it as a “political instrument.” Even supporters of the court have been ambivalent or critical about the prosecution’s handling of the case. Intense confrontations between prosecutors and judges took place in court as the two sides sought to control the trial. Several times the case came close to imploding.

On two occasions, Mr. Fulford, an experienced British judge, called a halt to the proceedings and ordered Mr. Lubanga released. He said the prosecution’s errors in dealing with evidence and its refusal to follow orders from the bench were making a fair trial impossible. Both times, appeals judges ordered the trial resumed and the errors corrected. Defense lawyers produced evidence that several witnesses, presented as former child soldiers, had given evidence that had been fabricated with the help of researchers for the prosecution

International treaties that prohibit recruiting children have set the age of conscription or other involvement in hostilities at 18, three years older than the limit used by the judges at the court in The Hague. Some activists hope that drafters of future peace treaties will be prompted to recognize the special plight of underage soldiers, perhaps making provisions to start the difficult process to help them rejoin civilian society. Several programs are already under way in Africa. Social workers say that even if children have enlisted willingly, looking for food, status or protection, they are often still damaged by war-time violence and drugs.

Source: New York Times

Wednesday, March 9, 2011

The Hague: 6 Top Kenyan Politicians Are Summoned

Six top politicians from Kenya have been summoned to appear at the International Criminal Court in April to answer charges of crimes against humanity in connection with Kenya’s election violence in 2007 and 2008. The men, whose names were first cited by the prosecutor in December, include Uhuru Kenyatta, finance minister and son of Kenya’s founding leader; Mohammed Hussein Ali, the former police chief; and several other ministers. Coinciding with the court’s announcement, Kenyan government envoys have arrived at the United Nations in New York, seeking to block the move.

Source: New York Times

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

On the Line With Libya

By telephone, I reached a family in Tripoli, Libya, with deep roots in the armed forces there, and members of the family offered some insight into what we should do to help nudge Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi from power.

One member of the family is a senior naval officer who says that his ship and two others were ordered to sail to the major city of Benghazi, which has been liberated by rebels. The boats were instructed to attack Benghazi, he said, speaking through an English-speaking family member.

Some of the senior officers were aghast at the idea of attacking civilians but feared summary execution if they disobeyed orders, by his account. In that tense situation, the officer said, four officials supporting Colonel Qaddafi staged a rally for him on the naval base. Other officers then hushed them up without explicitly condemning the government, my contact said, and there was a fierce argument that ended with the pro-Qaddafi group giving way because it was far outnumbered by the anti-Qaddafi forces.

There has been no mutiny, and in theory the naval officers accepted their orders, my contact said. But in practice they have not yet set sail. I can’t say more for fear of getting some very brave people in trouble.

Likewise, in another phone call to Tripoli, I was given firsthand information about an air force unit in the Tripoli area that is staying on base and refraining from getting involved in the fighting one way or the other. The unit’s leaders don’t dare disobey orders directly, but they are waiting and watching and sitting out the fighting for now.

Those are the people we need to send signals to: Libyan military officers who are wavering about which way to turn their guns.

We shouldn’t invade Libya, but there are steps the international community can take that may make a difference by influencing these officers who haven’t yet committed. Senator John Kerry, the Genocide Intervention Network, the International Crisis Group and others have laid out sensible steps that countries can take. These include:

Offer a safe haven for Libyan pilots ordered to bomb their country. For example, they could be encouraged to land on airstrips in Malta or neighboring countries. Even if not many took advantage of the offer, Colonel Qaddafi might be more reluctant to dispatch his air force if he thought he might lose it.

Impose financial and trade sanctions on Libya, as President Nicolas Sarkozy of France has suggested, and freeze assets of the Qaddafi family. In particular, military exchanges and weapons transfers should be canceled. Sanctions take time to bite (aside from a cutoff from the global banking system), but they would signal to those around Colonel Qaddafi that he is going down and they should not obey his orders.

Impose a no-fly zone, as Libya’s deputy ambassador to the United Nations proposed after he defected, to prevent the government from bombing or strafing its own people. This is what we did to prevent Saddam Hussein from attacking his Kurdish population, and in Libya we could do it without dispatching NATO aircraft to hover continually over the region. We can warn Libya (publicly or quietly) that if military aircraft or ships are used against civilians, Libya’s military assets will later be destroyed. The aim is to encourage the air force and navy to keep their assets from being used against civilians.

Encourage the Arab League and African Union to continue to pressure Libya in connection with the killing of its people. Such efforts undermine Colonel Qaddafi’s nationalist warnings that this is about foreign powers trying to re-colonize Libya and encourage his aides to appreciate that he is losing all his allies.

Seek a referral by the United Nations Security Council to the International Criminal Court for the prosecution of Colonel Qaddafi for crimes against humanity.

Skeptics will note that none of these moves would convince Colonel Qaddafi to be any more genteel. And these are uncertain levers, creating some risk that he would respond by going after citizens of the United States. But there are two reasons why I think it’s very important to pull these levers.

The first is that so many Libyans have defected or seem to be wavering. That military family in Tripoli estimates that only 10 percent of those in the Libyan armed forces are behind Colonel Qaddafi — and the rest are wondering what to do next.

The second is that as this democracy uprising spreads, other despots may be encouraged to follow Colonel Qaddafi’s example. We need to make very sure that the international reaction is so strong — and the scorched-earth strategy so unsuccessful — that no other despot is tempted to declare war on his own people.

So let’s not sit on our hands.

Source: New York Times

Friday, July 31, 2009

African Civil Society Urges African States Parties to the Rome Statute to Reaffirm Their Commitment to the ICC

On 3 July 2009 the African Union (AU) agreed that its members should withhold cooperation from the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the arrest and surrender of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. The court issued its arrest warrant for President al-Bashir on 4 March 2009 for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Darfur.

The AU's decision threatens to block justice for victims of the worst crimes committed on the continent. It is inconsistent with article 4 of the AU's constitutive act that rejects impunity, as well as the treaty obligations of the 30 African governments that ratified the Rome Statute of the ICC. The decision also undermines the consensus reached by African ICC States Parties at a meeting in Addis Ababa in June 2009.

Recognizing our obligation to help protect human rights and uphold the rule of law, we, the undersigned civil society organizations, appeal to African ICC States Parties to reaffirm their support for the ICC and their commitment to abide by their obligations under the Rome Statute, particularly in relation to the arrest and transfer of the President of Sudan to the ICC.

The ICC was created to bring accountability for the most serious crimes of international concern: genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. African governments, together with civil society, played an active role in establishing the court and African governments were among the founding ratifiers of the Rome Statute.

A majority of African countries are now Parties to the ICC: Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Republic of Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia. In ratifying the Rome Statute, these states signaled their dedication to cooperate with the ICC to defend the rights of victims and to ensure that the perpetrators of the most serious crimes known to humankind, whoever they might be, are brought to justice.

In Addis Ababa in June, those states underscored their continued support for the court. Proposals to consider making recommendations in relation to possible withdrawal from the ICC or withholding cooperation from the court failed to win a consensus.

The decision adopted at the AU summit just three weeks later is a backward step. The basis provided by the AU for withholding cooperation with the ICC is the UN Security Council's lack of response to the AU's request for a deferral of the ICC's case against President al-Bashir. Consistent with States Parties' obligations under the Rome Statute, this is a matter to direct to the Security Council and does not warrant withholding cooperation from the ICC.

Following the AU summit, the governments of Botswana and Uganda issued statements reiterating their commitment to cooperating with the ICC. These statements are important.

Civil society across the continent has expressed concern about the AU decision. Ensuring that the determined steps to end impunity on our continent are not undermined requires a collective effort by all Africans. Instead of retreating from important achievements to date, we look to our governments to remain steadfast in their support for justice for victims of the worst crimes, including by reaffirming their commitment to cooperate with the ICC.

Source: Human Rights Watch

Friday, July 17, 2009

Zuma under pressure over al-Bashir

Pressure on President Jacob Zuma to distance himself from the African Union (AU) decision to ignore the arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir mounted yesterday when a host of civil society organisations and prominent South Africans urged him to honour treaty obligations.

SA is a signatory to the Rome Statute under which the International Criminal Court (ICC) was established. Because the treaty has been ratified by Parliament, for SA to not observe its obligations is arguably unconstitutional and against the law. The ICC has issued an arrest warrant for al- Bashir and this requires signatory states to execute the warrant should he land on their soil.

The group said Zuma and International Relations Minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane were present at the AU meeting when the decision was approved to ignore the ICC warrant and “neither the president nor the foreign minister is reported to have raised any objections.

Yesterday, human rights organisations in SA, including the statutory Human Rights Commission, the Centre for Applied Legal Studies, the Centre for Human Rights at Pretoria University, the Centre for Justice and Crime Prevention, the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, the Human Rights Institute of SA, the International Centre for Transitional Justice, the Institute for Security Studies, the Khulumani Support Group, the Legal Resources Centre and Lawyers for Human Rights, called for the government to abide by SA’s ICC obligations and to distance itself from the AU position.

“SA’s endorsement of the declaration requires it to break its international treaty obligations and to defy its own law and constitution . As a state party to the Rome Statute, SA is obliged to co-operate fully with the ICC in the arrest and transfer of President al-Bashir to the ICC, whether or not it agrees with the indictment.

“Should the South African government persist with its support for the decision, it will do so in open defiance of its own constitution and law.”

Source: Business Day

Friday, May 8, 2009

Zuma Should Grasp Opportunity to Break With the Recent Past

South Africa's new government should make human rights a central pillar of its foreign policy agenda, Human Rights Watch said today in a letter to President-elect Jacob Zuma.

Human Rights Watch expressed concern that in recent years - including during its two-year stint as a member of the United Nations Security Council - South Africa has chosen to side with some of the worst human rights abusers, including Iran, Burma, Sudan, and Zimbabwe. While it justifiably criticized the human rights practices of the United States and Israel and sought reform of international institutions, Pretoria failed to take the moral high ground and build a broad north-south alliance around strengthening international law and human rights. As a result, it squandered its international reputation, which it had so effectively built up in the 1990s, as a champion of human rights and the rule of law. "South Africans and their supporters all over the world who had such high hopes for this country's leadership on human rights felt betrayed by the previous government," said Georgette Gagnon, Africa director at Human Rights Watch. "This is a chance for Zuma to take the high road and restore credibility and balance to South Africa's foreign policy."

Human Rights Watch called attention to situations in three nations where South African leadership could lead to significant improvements and progress in human rights: Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Zimbabwe.

In Sudan, a number of interlinking issues continue to undermine human rights. The major elements are: the armed conflict, lack of security, and obstruction of humanitarian aid in Darfur; African Union and Arab League moves to help President Omar al-Bashir evade justice; and the threat of renewed north-south conflict between Khartoum and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A). Those responsible for the worst crimes in Darfur know they will not face justice and the Sudanese government has used the International Criminal Court's (ICC) arrest warrant for al-Bashir as a pretext to expel international humanitarian organizations, unnecessarily endangering further the lives of millions of civilians in Darfur.

Human Rights Watch called on the new South African government to: support the ICC's work in Sudan and the principles of international justice, and press other African countries to do the same; and press Sudan to reverse its decision to expel humanitarian agencies, and reinstate the full scope of humanitarian assistance in Darfur.

In its letter to President-elect Zuma, Human Rights Watch also detailed how the new government could help end the rampant abuses in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and help set the country firmly on a democratic footing. To its great credit, South Africa has contributed a substantial number of peacekeeping troops to the United Nations force in Congo. The UN force is involved in joint military operations with Congolese government forces against brutal Hutu militias like the Democratic Liberation Forces of Rwanda (FDLR).

But UN peacekeepers have so far been unsuccessful in restraining government soldiers from also committing abuses against civilians. To make matters worse, the deputy commander of the Congolese military force is reported to be Bosco Ntaganda, a former rebel commander who has been charged with war crimes by the ICC. Human Rights Watch said that South African forces should not be standing by while abuses are taking place or working with people like Ntaganda.

Human Rights Watch called on the new government to help the Congolese government establish a vetting mechanism to remove from the army and police individuals accused of serious human rights violations, and to ensure that they are brought to justice rather than promoted; and press the Congolese authorities to punish abusive soldiers and their commanders and to bring abuses to a halt.

In Zimbabwe, despite the formation of a new power-sharing government, the crisis persists and human rights abuses continue. Police continue to intimidate and arrest activists, and supporters of the Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF), the longtime governing party, continue their violent invasions of commercial farms. Police and prosecuting authorities who have remained under the control of ZANU-PF in the power-sharing government have continued politically motivated prosecutions of political opponents and have failed to investigate ongoing allegations of torture. Key state and judicial institutions remain partisan and unreformed. The government is yet to initiate comprehensive legislative reforms and repeal repressive laws like the Public Order and Security Act, Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as well as a litany of laws that restrict media operations.

Human Rights Watch called on the new South African government to: monitor closely the progress of all parties to Zimbabwe's power-sharing agreement in carrying out all commitments they made as part of the Global Political Agreement, including respecting individual rights, passing human rights-centered legislative reforms, drafting a new constitution, and holding fresh elections that meet international standards of freedom and fairness; and press Zimbabwe's inclusive government to commit to, and institute, genuine political change. "The new government of President Zuma should establish early on that it is committed to playing a positive role in ending repression and abuses not only on the continent but in other parts of the world," Gagnon said. "Zimbabwe is an obvious place to start."

Source: Human Rights Watch

Sunday, September 7, 2008

South Africa's Human Rights Reputation Tarnished

As a member of the United Nations security council for two years, South Africa has had many opportunities to speak out forcefully for human rights - or to join those speaking out against them. Again and again, it has chosen the latter course. The South African government's unwillingness to confront President Robert Mugabe on his extremely abusive governance of Zimbabwe is well known to South Africans, and justly controversial. Less well known are the many other important international issues on which the South African government has sided with reactionary rather than progressive forces.

Burma is the best-known case. With Russia and China, South Africa has blocked efforts to condemn the military government's lethal crackdown on peaceful protesters last year. Perhaps the department of foreign affairs has forgotten that, when Burma was still democratic, it demanded that the evils of apartheid, including the Sharpeville massacre of 1960, should be brought before the security council.

The international solidarity movement against apartheid constantly confronted the argument that what happened inside a country's borders was none of the rest of the world's business. That is precisely the argument that the South African government now makes frequently at the security council. It narrowly defines what constitutes a "threat to international peace and security", and insists that all other matters be taken up at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. Meanwhile, in Geneva, outside the limelight, South Africa has demonstrated a similar pattern - failing to support key resolutions condemning human rights abuses in countries from Iran to Uzbekistan, and aligning itself with countries whose human rights records are, by anyone's standard, abysmal.

At the UN this month, a diplomatic struggle is shaping up to be South Africa's lowest moment yet. The issue is Darfur, and more specifically the request by the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) for an arrest warrant for Omar al-Bashir, the Sudanese president. The accusation: genocide and crimes against humanity, the world's most serious crimes. News of the warrant request was greeted with joy among the millions of Darfuris who have been driven from their homes by government forces acting in concert with janjaweed militias. Tens of thousands of Africans have died in this civil war, most of them civilians, and most of them as a result of Sudanese government actions.

The Sudanese government has begun a concerted campaign to evade justice for these crimes and the South African government has become its accomplice. Together with Libya, also on the security council, South Africa has been leading an effort to suspend the International Criminal Court's request for the next 12 months. Suspending the request for an arrest warrant would send a clear signal, not only to the Sudanese government, but also to tyrants everywhere that they can continue to cheat justice through international political machination. I was present at the negotiations on the treaty for the International Criminal Court 10 years ago in Rome, and listened with admiration to the speech of Dullah Omar, the South African justice minister, in ringing support of this important new human rights institution. Achieving a strong treaty at those talks was an uphill battle, but we won. Only the steadfast leadership of South Africa, along with a handful of others, overcame the opposition of major powers such as the United States, China and Israel.

The International Criminal Court is not an anti-African institution, as some have alleged. It is a pro-African institution: pro-civilians in Darfur whose villages have been burned to the ground, pro-women in the Democratic Republic of Congo who have been raped in wartime, pro-children in northern Uganda who have been abducted as child soldiers. It is opposed to government and rebel leaders responsible for such crimes, no matter where they live.

The prosecutor has also been looking into situations in Colombia and Afghanistan, as well as crimes committed in the Russian-Georgian armed conflict. It is truly heartbreaking to see South Africa preparing to abandon the court at a critical juncture in its history. Sadly, it appears to be part of a trend that is putting Pretoria's foreign policy on the wrong side of history. Perhaps only a fervent and sustained outcry from South African society can restore the country to its rightful path and begin to repair the damage that has already been done to its reputation.

Source: Human Rights Watch

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Who Really Killed Thomas Sankara?

As the Charles Taylor trial continues, African historian Carina Ray looks at the possibility that Taylor was complicit in Sankara's assassination.

In January 2008, after much delay, the trial of former Liberian president, Charles Ghankay Taylor, is scheduled to begin at the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Taylor faces an 11-count indictment for crimes against humanity, war crimes, and other violations of international humanitarian law. These charges stem from his involvement in the atrocities committed during Sierra Leone’s armed conflict dating back to 1996, and more specifically his support of the main rebel group, the Revolutionary United Front (RUF), headed by Foday Sankoh. The brutality of the war and its direct toll on the civilian population are most visible today in the thousands of amputees throughout Sierra Leone whose limbs were hacked off in a bid to stifle civilian resistance through fear. While Taylor’s path of destruction arguably came to its apex during the war in Sierra Leone, his history prior to that also deserves our scrutiny since we know his much longer record of wanton destabilization in West Africa is precisely what allowed him to wield so much power within the RUF.

In particular, Taylor’s return to West Africa from the United States in 1985 and the events that followed deserve our attention. Taylor arrived in Ghana after escaping from a prison in Boston, Massachusetts where he was being held pending extradition to Liberia on embezzlement charges levied against him by the Doe regime. Ghanaian authorities eventually jailed Taylor twice for his increasingly subversive activities. By 1987, however, he had arrived in Burkina Faso. The approximate timing of his appearance in the country coincided with the assassination of President Thomas Sankara, the charismatic revolutionary leader of Burkina Faso, on 15 October 1987.

While it is commonly accepted that Burkina Faso’s current head of state, Blaise Compaore, ordered Sankara’s assassination after their once close relationship soured, for years people have also been linking Taylor to the assassination. In 1993 Liberian economist, S. Byron Tarr, published an article in the respected academic journal, Issue: A Journal of Opinion, on the Economic Community of West African States Monitoring Group’s (ECOMOG) intervention in the Liberian civil war (1989-1996). Therein Tarr gave the most detailed account to date of Taylor’s movements prior to Sankara’s assassination. According to Tarr, in 1987 Taylor approached the Burkinabe embassy in Accra to ask for assistance in overthrowing the Doe regime in Liberia. The Burkinabe ambassador to Ghana, Madam Mamouna Ouattara, a Compaore loyalist, appears to have solicited Compaore’s assistance in getting the Ghanaian authorities to release Taylor into Burkinabe custody. This was facilitated by the fact that Ghana neither wanted to hand Taylor over to the Americans nor to Doe, and so Rawlings apparently released him to Compaore who had come to Accra as part of a mediation process Rawlings had undertaken to resolve the mounting disagreements between Sankara and Compaore. Tarr, notes that “Not long after Taylor was delivered to Compaore, Sankara was murdered.” In exchange for Taylor’s assistance in carrying out Sankara’s assassination, Tarr suggests that Compaore provided assistance to Taylor who was in the process of organizing the guerilla war that would eventually lead to the overthrow of the Doe regime. Crucially, Compaore is believed to have introduced Taylor to Libyan president, Muammar Qaddafi. Taylor and his recruits subsequently traveled to Libya where they underwent guerrilla training and formed a strategic alliance with Qaddafi who supported his desire to overthrow the Doe regime. The training he gained there was critical to his ability to launch the Liberian civil war in 1989 from his base in Ivory Coast. This general version of events has been echoed more recently in articles that have appeared in several other forums, including the Liberian Democratic Future’s (LDF) on-line newsmagazine, The Perspective, and The Liberian Mandingo Association of New York’s website.

It must be pointed out, however, that this version of events has been called into question. Ghanaian political scientist Eboe Hutchful who serves as the executive director of the Accra-based NGO, African Security Dialogue and Research, has suggested that his Ghanaian informants dispute the idea that Ghana released Taylor to Compaore; rather they contend that he was taken to the Ivorian border and released there. From Ivory Coast he is said to have made his way to Burkina Faso, “where the Libyans introduced him to Compaore,” rather than the other way around. Moreover, Hutchful suggests that Sankara may have already been killed by the time the Ghanaian authorities released Taylor.

The striking aspect of each of these sources is that they treat Taylor’s possible involvement in Sankara’s assassination as a side note. To date, the question of what role he played in organizing and carrying out Sankara’s murder has not been the focal point of investigation.

In March 2006 the United Nations Human Rights Committee ruled that Sankara’s family has “the right to know the circumstances of his death.” Any attempt to shed light on these circumstances, therefore, must seriously consider whether Taylor was involved in the assassination, and if so, to what extent and under whose direction.

Source:  pambazuka

Friday, September 14, 2007

State of Anarchy

Since mid-2005, hundreds of civilians have been killed, more than 10 thousand houses burned, and approximately 212,000 persons have fled their homes in terror to live in desperate conditions deep in the bush in northern Central African Republic (CAR). Bordering eastern Chad and war-ravaged Darfur in Sudan, this area has been destabilized by at least two major rebellions against the government of President Franois Boziz.

The vast majority of summary executions and unlawful killings, and almost all village burnings, have been carried out by government forces, often in reprisal for rebel attacks. While both main rebel groups have been responsible for widespread looting and the forced taxation of the civilian population in areas they control -and rebels in the northeast have committed killings, beatings, and rape -their abuses pale in comparison to those of the Central African Armed Forces (Forces armes Centrafricaines,FACA) and the elite Presidential Guard (Garde prsidentielle, GP). As the International Criminal Court (ICC) begins investigations into atrocities committed during the 2002-2003 rebellion against former President Patass, it should also investigate possible war crimes under its jurisdiction committed in the current round of fighting.

This report documents the human rights abuses and breaches of international humanitarian law being committed in northern CAR and describes the make-up, origins, and aims of the most significant rebel groups. The Popular Army for the Restoration of the Republic and Democracy (Arme populaire pour la restauration de la Rpublique et la dmocratie, APRD) is active in the northwestern provinces of Ouham, Ouham-Pend, and Nana-Grbizi. The Union of Democratic Forces for Unity (Union des forces dmocratiques pour la rassemblement,UFDR) is most active in remote northeastern provinces of Bamingui-Bangoran and Vakaga.

In February and March 2007 Human Rights Watch researchers visited the majority of towns and villages affected, documenting summary executions, unlawful killings, beatings, house burnings, extortion and unlawful taxation, the recruitment and use of children as soldiers, and many other human rights abuses. Human Rights Watch researchers interviewed over 100 persons, including many victims and witnesses, local and regional government officials, military commanders, rebel officials, religious leaders, and representatives of local and international humanitarian organizations active in northern CAR.

Until quite recently there was little international awareness of the situation in northern CAR. However, in 2006, human rights violations and breaches of international humanitarian law began to receive some attention. The killings, village burnings, displacement, and humanitarian suffering are now occasionally reported in the international press and are the subject of increasing diplomatic notice, usually being seen as "spill-over" from the continuing crisis in Darfur.

Little attention, however, has been paid to the actual dynamics of conflict, which are largely home grown. The main rebel protagonists are Central Africans with local grievances. Human Rights Watch's research suggests that the degree of linkage with the situation in Darfur has been exaggerated. The APRD in the northwest is so poorly equipped that it is difficult to imagine it has foreign sponsorship. Human Rights Watch has found no other evidence of such support. Although there have been contacts between the UFDR and Sudan-sponsored Chadian rebels opposed to the Chadian President Dby based in the northeast of CAR in early 2006, foreign support does not appear to be a driving force behind this rebellion.

Neither has attention been paid to the issue of responsibility for human rights violations and breaches of international humanitarian law, nor to action to ensure accountability. The sorry fact is that the perpetrators of violence and abuse, the majority of them government soldiers, have so far enjoyed total impunity for acts that include war crimes.
The APRD Rebellion

The APRD rebellion in the northwest was launched almost immediately after controversial 2005 elections led to the election of General Boziz as President. These had excluded the candidacy of ex-President Patass, who had been overthrown by General Boziz in March 2003. The leadership of the APRD rebellion consists mostly of former Presidential Guards of Patass, himself from the region. The APRD has about 1,000 poorly equipped members, including 200 rebels armed with automatic weapons, and another 600 with home-made hunting weapons. They claim their aim is to engage in "dialogue" to address the political exclusion of Patass and his supporters and to improve the security situation in the northwest, rather than to overthrow the government.

One of the main grievances of the population of the northwest is lack of security. Armed bandits, known as zaraguinas or coupeurs de route, regularly attack villagers and have taken advantage of insufficient security provided by the state to increase attacks. The zaraguinas commonly kidnap children for ransom and regularly kill civilians during raids. Many cattle-herders from the Peulh ethnic groupin the northwest, particularly targeted because of their valuable livestock, have fled to the safety of larger towns and refugee camps in Chad. Along with the political grievances of former Patass supporters, the failure of the CAR security forces to protect local communities from banditry is an important element in the development of the APRD, and many local armed self-defense groups have merged into the rebel group.
The UFDR Rebellion

From October to December 2006, the UFDR rebel movement gained international attention by seizing military control of the major towns in the remote Vakaga and Bamingui-Bangoran provinces of northeastern CAR, right on the border of Sudan's Darfur region. The UFDR's bold military offensive led to French military intervention on behalf of the CAR government in December 2006, allowing the security forces to regain control of urban centers.

The UFDR rebellion has its roots in the deep marginalization of northeastern CAR, which is virtually cut off from the rest of the country and is almost completely undeveloped. Elements from the Gula ethnic group, many of them trained militarily as anti-poaching units, are at the core of the rebellion, citing grievances such as discrimination against their community and the alleged embezzlement by the CAR authorities of compensation funds received from the Sudanese government following clashes perpetrated by Sudanese nomads in 2002. As the rebellion has grown, a backlash of anti-Gula sentiment among government officials, the military, and the general population has developed. As a result, most of the Gula population has fled government-controlled areas in fear of retaliation.

A second element making up the UFDR is Boziz's own former colleagues, so-called ex-librateurs, who participated in his overthrow of former President Patass in 2003. They accuse Boziz of betraying his promises and failing to compensate them for their support.
Abuses by FACA and GP Forces

Since the beginning of the conflict in mid 2005 with rebel forces in northern CAR, the CAR security forces have committed serious and widespread abuses against the civilian population, including multiple summary executions and unlawful killings, widespread burning of civilian homes, and the forced displacement of hundreds of thousands of civilians, which have instilled terror in the civilian population. In most instances, these village burnings and killings were in direct response to recent rebel activity in the area and amount to unlawful reprisals against the civilian population. It is the FACA and GP that have been responsible for the vast majority of the most serious human rights abuses in the conflict, and they have carried out these atrocities in full confidence of impunity from accountability for their crimes.

During the course of its research, Human Rights Watch documented 119 summary executions and unlawful killings committed by government security forces in both the northwest and northeast (the vast majority in the northwest), including at least 51 committed since late 2005 by a single military unit, the Bossangoa-based GP unit, commanded at the time by Lieutenant Eugne Ngakoss.

Human Rights Watch believes that the killings it has documented are only a fraction of the total number of those committed by government security forces. Since the beginning of the conflict these are estimated to amount to many hundreds. Killings committed by security forces have often involved dozens of civilian deaths in a single day and have often included unspeakable brutality. For example, on February 11, 2006, a single GP unit killed at least 30 civilians in more than a dozen separate villages located along the Nana-Barya to Bmal road. On March 22, this same GP unit beheaded a teacher in Bmal, cutting off his head with a knife while he was still alive. Other civilians have simply "disappeared" in military custody, arrested and not seen alive again.

Since December 2005, government forces, particularly the GP, have also been almost solely responsible for the burning down of more than 10,000 civilian homes in northwestern CAR. Hundreds of villages across vast swathes of northern CAR have been destroyed. Troops arrive in villages and indiscriminately fire into the civilian population, forcing them to flee before burning down their homes, sometimes looting them first. In December 2005, GP forces burned down 500 to 900 houses in the Markounda area. A Human Rights Watch count in the Batangafo-Kabo-Ouandago-Kaga Bandoro area found a total of 2,923 burned homes, including more than 1,000 homes in the large market town of Ouandago alone. In some places every single home in every single village was burned. Similarly massive destruction can be found all around the town of Paoua, all the way east to Nana Baryahundreds of kilometers of villages destroyed by government security forces.

The reprisal and counterinsurgency tactics of the CAR security forces have affected the lives of over 1 million people and have forced an estimated 212,000 civilians to abandon their road-side homes and live deep inside the bush, too fearful to return to their burned villages in case of repeat attack. Another 78,000 have sought refuge in neighboring Chad and Cameroon. The level of civilian fear in northern CAR is palpable. People are simply not to be seen in many areas, hiding far away. At the sound of approaching cars, everyone flees, dropping their possessions, sometimes even abandoning babies in their haste.

Living conditions for the displaced are life-threatening. They have no access to clean water, are often desperately short of food supplies, and their widely dispersed shelters are beyond the reach of the humanitarian community. Educational facilities have been closed, and aside from mobile clinics run by international organizations in some areas, health care is non-existent.
Rebel Abuses

APRD rebels in the northwest have engaged in widespread extortion, forced taxation, kidnappings for ransom, and beatings of civilians, particularly in the Batangafo-Kabo-Ouandago area of Ouham province. In that area, particularly on the Batangafo-Ouandago road, almost all villages have been systematically looted of all livestock, and village leaders have been regularly kidnapped for ransom. APRD rebels also have large numbers of child soldiers in their ranks, some as young as 12. APRD commanders expressed willingness to Human Rights Watch to demobilize the child soldiers if the post-demobilization security of the children could be guaranteed.

During its investigation in the field, Human Rights Watch documented one summary execution by the APRD (the killing of Mohammed Haroon in June 2006, in Gbazera) and did not identify any cases of home-burning by the group. Human Rights Watch has not received any credible additional reports of summary killings or village burnings by APRD rebels from local or international human rights organizations or journalists. On June 11, 2007, APRD rebels fired upon a vehicle of the international humanitarian organization Doctors without Borders (Mdecins Sans Frontires, MSF), killing Elsa Serfass, an MSF nurse. While the APRD immediately apologized for the incident, saying it had been a "mistake," the persons responsible should be held to account.

Human Rights Watch's research found that UFDR rebels in the northeast have carried out widespread abuses against the civilian population. During attacks on villages and towns they have often indiscriminately fired at fleeing civilians, leading to unlawful killings. Meanwhile, UFDR rebels have been responsible for summary executions of captured civilians. From October to December 2006, the rebels carried out massive looting of the belongings and livestock of the civilian population in areas they controlled. There have been allegations of rape by UFDR rebels, although Human Rights Watch has only been able to corroborate one case-a woman raped by five UFDR rebels during their brief capture of Birao in March 2007. The UFDR also has child soldiers in its ranks, and Human Rights Watch found that some of them had been forcibly recruited.
The Need for Protection

Establishing credible mechanisms to protect the civilian population from abuses is fundamental to addressing the human rights crisis in northern CAR. The responsibility for civilian protection lies first and foremost with the CAR authorities: they must take immediate steps to end military abuses and to re-establish a functioning police force and court system that serve to protect the rights of the civilian population.

However, the international community can also do more. A stronger international protection presence in the north is urgently needed. There already is a substantial UN human rights presence in CAR, in the form of a 19-person human rights unit in the office of the United Nations Peace-building Support Office in the Central African Republic (Bureau d'appui des Nations Unies pour la consolidation de la paix en Rpublique centrafricaine, BONUCA), a long-standing UN peace support mission established in 2000. However, the human rights unit has been largely passive to date and does not effectively monitor or report on human rights abuses in the north. The UN should take the necessary measures, including changes to the mandate of the human rights section, to ensure that the BONUCA human rights unit effectively monitors and reports on human rights abuses in the north, in the same way that the human rights units of UN peacekeeping missions operate in neighboring Sudan and DRC.

If the UN Security Council moves ahead with the deployment of a UN protection mission to CAR and Chad, that mission should focus on the real protection needs of the civilian population of both countries, and not focus solely on neutralizing the "spill-over effect" of the Darfur crisis.
The Need for Accountability

The crimes being committed in northern CAR by government security forces are no secret inside the country. Local newspapers and radio frequently report them, opposition parliamentarians have prepared public reports documenting the atrocities, and diplomatic envoys regularly raise their concerns with President Boziz. Despite this, the government has not investigated, prosecuted, or punished a single military officer, or even publicly reprimanded them for any of the abuses. Even in the capital, Bangui, security forces carry out summary killings of suspected bandits and rebels with impunity. During Human Rights Watch's visit, two handcuffed Chadian rebel suspects were executed on the outskirts of Bangui by security forces. The commander of the most notorious of the units, Lieutenant Eugne Ngakoss of the Bossangoa-based GP unit that has killed dozens of civilians and is directly implicated in most of the village burnings in the north, remains a free man and an active duty military officer to date.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor's office is already involved in the CAR, having announced in May 2007 that they would investigate crimes committed in CAR during the 2002-2003 fighting, and that they would continue to monitor possible crimes committed during the current conflict. The investigations of the ICC in CAR should not, however, detract from the primary obligation of the CAR authorities to end impunity and bring about accountability for crimes committed by its armed forces and others. Ultimately, the crisis in northern CAR will only be resolved when law and order is restored, and the institutions of justice have the capacity to punish those who commit crimes against the civilian population, including members of the army and the elite GP.

The international community-particularly France, without whose direct military support the government of President Boziz would not survive-have an obligation to speak out about the abuses in northern CAR and to demand accountability for the crimes committed in northern CAR.

Source: Human Rights Watch

Monday, November 27, 2000

South Africa Praised on International Court

Human Rights Watch today welcomed South Africa's ratification of the Rome Treaty for the International Criminal Court (ICC). The rights group commended Pretoria for taking a leadership role in the establishment of the ICC by proceeding with early ratification of the treaty.

In depositing its "instrument of ratification" at the United Nations today, South Africa took the formal step to become the twenty-third state to ratify the Rome Treaty. The ICC will prosecute future cases of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. The court will come into being after sixty states have ratified the treaty.

"South Africa's ratification is a major step forward on the path to establishing the court," said Brigitte Suhr, Counsel for the International Justice Program at Human Rights Watch. "South Africa has provided consistent leadership on behalf of an independent and effective ICC, and its ratification sends a strong message that this Court has strong support in every region. We believe its action today will help to spur additional ratifications in southern Africa and around the world." During the treaty negotiations for the ICC in Rome in 1998, South Africa, along with other states from the Southern African Development Community (SADC), played a key role in thwarting the efforts of some major powers to weaken the court. The strong united support for the Court from SADC nations, which South Africa helped to forge, was critical to the successful adoption of the Rome Treaty in the face of strong opposition from major world powers, including the United States.

Source: Human Rights Watch

Monday, June 15, 1998

Rights Group Praises South Africa For Stand On International Court

Human Rights Watch today praised the speech of South African Justice Minister Dullah Omar at the opening day of a conference to establish an International Criminal Court (ICC).

At a speech before delegates from 156 countries in Rome, Dullah called for an ICC with the authority to make an independent decision of when to take up cases of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression. He supported giving the prosecutor the powers to begin investigations on his or her own initiative.

South Africa has been a leader of the "like-minded group" of more than 50 states, which seeks to form an ICC with strong and independent powers.

Dullah spoke on behalf of the Southern Africa Development Community, which has 14 members. "The creation of the ICC will send a clear and unequivocal message that perpetrators of these crimes will not get away with impunity," he said.

"Dullah's speech was right on target," said Richard Dicker, who heads the ICC campaign for Human Rights Watch, a New York-based monitoring organization. "South Africa has been on the right side of this issue time and again."

But Dicker warned that as the conference gets underway, South Africa will likely come under heavy pressure from influential countries such as the United States to dilute the court's powers. Washington wants to curtail the authority of the prosecutor to begin investigating matters on his or her own initiative. Some countries of the Non-Aligned Movement want to have a veto power over the court's docket, enabling them to block cases that might embarrass them.

"The ICC could really make a difference in how the world punishes grave human rights abuses," said Dicker. "South Africa can play a historic role in that process - if it sticks to its principles."

Source: Human Rights Watch