The Debacles of the ICC
It is unquestionably that the issuance of the warrant arrest against the Sudanese president Omar Al-Bashir on March 4th, 2009 triggered heated controversy and divided the world into partisans and opponents of the court decision .Equally important, the warrant arrest has brought the court's credibility and impartiality to the fore.Four years after the Room Statute and the adoption of a treaty to establish a permanent court, the ICC found its way to existence and entered into force in July 2009. Pursuant to its establishment in 2002, the court proclaimed that all perpetrators and criminal found guilty, irrespective of their nationality, status or political inclination, should be brought to justice to be held accountable for their violations of international law. In this respect, Kofi Annan,the ex-Secretary General of the UN said: "Our hope is that, by punishing the guilty, the ICC will bring some comfort to the surviving victims and to the communities that have been targeted. More important, we hope it will deter future war criminals, and bring nearer the day when no ruler, no State, no junta and no army anywhere will be able to abuse human rights with impunity."We applauded its establishment and eventually aspired that peace, due justice, rule of law and respect for the fundamental human rights would spread in the world. Nevertheless, our aspirations quickly went to ashes and we felt that we were building castles in the sand .Briefly stated, Bush together with his henchmen, Colin Powell,Gondoleeza Rice and Donald Rumsfield , orchestrated the most deplorable and unprecedented crimes in Iraq. They waged a barbarian war against a peaceful country in the name of bringing democracy and freedom to the Iraqi people. The result on the ground is a fake democracy soaked in the blood of innocent people. As such, the long-waited-for freedom, democracy, stability and peace have become no more than a wishful-thinking for Iraqis.The 29-day war waged on Lebanon by Israel in 2006 was another flagrant infringement of all international law conventions. The some scenario took place lately .The same aggressors but against different victim and in a different battlefield. Israel waged a merciless 22-day war, against defenseless and unarmed people, using the most destructive and sophisticated weapons in hope to inflict the maximum sufferance on people. In fact, it is needless to restate the resounding destruction and indelible wounds that this war left behind.Albeit, it is with much regret to say that none of the perpetrators of the above stated crimes was held accountable. As very often, they went unpunished and rewarded impunity.a. A late awakening
After its long hibernation and its blind-eye attitude towards the aforesaid grave crimes, the ICC, in show of bravado, issued a warrant arrest for President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan on seven counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity for his role in massive atrocities in Darfur. The court's decision and the speed by which it relayed the arrest raises many questions and puts the court's credibility at test. According to international law, aren't the crimes stated above war crimes par excellence. Richard Dicker, director of Human Rights Watch's International Justice Program, claims that: "the International Criminal court is Pro-victim, not Anti – or Anti-Arab African. The pursuit of justice for serious international crimes wherever they are committed is vital". Such declarations may seem promising if they truly reflect the reality. Nowadays, many powerful non-African perpetrators systematically go unpunished for their crimes.The court's decision may hold some credibility if indeed there is no double-standard approach to justice. How can we trust a court's decision while the same court applies a deaf –ear and blind –eye attitudes towards other cases where justice is highly needed?At Doha's Summit, Omar Al-Bashir was warmly welcomed by most Arab leaders. Such welcome then can be seen as a refusal of the court's decision on the part of the Arab leaders' although such rejection was not really substantiated by clear unanimous declaration. The final communiqué of the Arab Summit made no reference to this refusal or to the overall on-going procedures of the court. The presence of Ban kimon, Secretary General of the UN, in a summit where there is someone who is wanted by the international community even further voids the seriousness of the UN vis-a vis this case. In the same vein, Obama's envoy of Scot Gration in hope to establish partnership and build stronger bilateral relationship with Sudan is another sign that the USA is not genuinely convinced by the court's decision. Otherwise how can a country such as USA look for partnership with someone who is allegedly wanted by the International Court?Against this backdrop, we may unhesitatingly conclude that the court has precipitated in taking such decision. A reappraisal in its approach is urgently needed at least for face saving. The court also needs to adhere to its core principle of non-discrimination and impartiality in addressing legal allegations. The Arab countries need to ratify the convention establishing the ICC. In doing so, the Arab's opinion or stand in such international legal matter can bear weight and hence yield influence.
Rachid ElalaouiJeddah ,Saudi Arabiamailrachid27@yahoo.comM.A in Human Right and DemocratizationGent University, Belgium
It is unquestionably that the issuance of the warrant arrest against the Sudanese president Omar Al-Bashir on March 4th, 2009 triggered heated controversy and divided the world into partisans and opponents of the court decision .Equally important, the warrant arrest has brought the court's credibility and impartiality to the fore.Four years after the Room Statute and the adoption of a treaty to establish a permanent court, the ICC found its way to existence and entered into force in July 2009. Pursuant to its establishment in 2002, the court proclaimed that all perpetrators and criminal found guilty, irrespective of their nationality, status or political inclination, should be brought to justice to be held accountable for their violations of international law. In this respect, Kofi Annan,the ex-Secretary General of the UN said: "Our hope is that, by punishing the guilty, the ICC will bring some comfort to the surviving victims and to the communities that have been targeted. More important, we hope it will deter future war criminals, and bring nearer the day when no ruler, no State, no junta and no army anywhere will be able to abuse human rights with impunity."We applauded its establishment and eventually aspired that peace, due justice, rule of law and respect for the fundamental human rights would spread in the world. Nevertheless, our aspirations quickly went to ashes and we felt that we were building castles in the sand .Briefly stated, Bush together with his henchmen, Colin Powell,Gondoleeza Rice and Donald Rumsfield , orchestrated the most deplorable and unprecedented crimes in Iraq. They waged a barbarian war against a peaceful country in the name of bringing democracy and freedom to the Iraqi people. The result on the ground is a fake democracy soaked in the blood of innocent people. As such, the long-waited-for freedom, democracy, stability and peace have become no more than a wishful-thinking for Iraqis.The 29-day war waged on Lebanon by Israel in 2006 was another flagrant infringement of all international law conventions. The some scenario took place lately .The same aggressors but against different victim and in a different battlefield. Israel waged a merciless 22-day war, against defenseless and unarmed people, using the most destructive and sophisticated weapons in hope to inflict the maximum sufferance on people. In fact, it is needless to restate the resounding destruction and indelible wounds that this war left behind.Albeit, it is with much regret to say that none of the perpetrators of the above stated crimes was held accountable. As very often, they went unpunished and rewarded impunity.a. A late awakening
After its long hibernation and its blind-eye attitude towards the aforesaid grave crimes, the ICC, in show of bravado, issued a warrant arrest for President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan on seven counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity for his role in massive atrocities in Darfur. The court's decision and the speed by which it relayed the arrest raises many questions and puts the court's credibility at test. According to international law, aren't the crimes stated above war crimes par excellence. Richard Dicker, director of Human Rights Watch's International Justice Program, claims that: "the International Criminal court is Pro-victim, not Anti – or Anti-Arab African. The pursuit of justice for serious international crimes wherever they are committed is vital". Such declarations may seem promising if they truly reflect the reality. Nowadays, many powerful non-African perpetrators systematically go unpunished for their crimes.The court's decision may hold some credibility if indeed there is no double-standard approach to justice. How can we trust a court's decision while the same court applies a deaf –ear and blind –eye attitudes towards other cases where justice is highly needed?At Doha's Summit, Omar Al-Bashir was warmly welcomed by most Arab leaders. Such welcome then can be seen as a refusal of the court's decision on the part of the Arab leaders' although such rejection was not really substantiated by clear unanimous declaration. The final communiqué of the Arab Summit made no reference to this refusal or to the overall on-going procedures of the court. The presence of Ban kimon, Secretary General of the UN, in a summit where there is someone who is wanted by the international community even further voids the seriousness of the UN vis-a vis this case. In the same vein, Obama's envoy of Scot Gration in hope to establish partnership and build stronger bilateral relationship with Sudan is another sign that the USA is not genuinely convinced by the court's decision. Otherwise how can a country such as USA look for partnership with someone who is allegedly wanted by the International Court?Against this backdrop, we may unhesitatingly conclude that the court has precipitated in taking such decision. A reappraisal in its approach is urgently needed at least for face saving. The court also needs to adhere to its core principle of non-discrimination and impartiality in addressing legal allegations. The Arab countries need to ratify the convention establishing the ICC. In doing so, the Arab's opinion or stand in such international legal matter can bear weight and hence yield influence.
Rachid ElalaouiJeddah ,Saudi Arabiamailrachid27@yahoo.comM.A in Human Right and DemocratizationGent University, Belgium
No comments:
Post a Comment