March 12, 2010
What has just happened in Jos, Nigeria, isn't new, but an annual ritual in the North between Muslim extremists and Christians. The war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in Umuechem (1990), by $hell Oil and the Federal Government is part of the ritual. The Ogoni genocide (1993-1996); those of Odi in 1999 are all such unfortunate ritual punishable under national or domestic, regional and international laws. But they may go unpunished because the perpetrators are presidents, powerful oil companies, individuals of high statuses and other state executive members.
It's criminal behaviors such as the above that necessitated the Nuremberg ad hoc tribunals of 1945. The tribunal was to bring to accountability, and it brought to accountability or justice war criminals.
It also sent a chilling message to prospective perpetrators of crimes against humanity, yet inhumanity by man against man seems to grow in absurd proportion. The crimes against innocent citizens in Jos falls under the above category and should be treated as such. Since the Nazi Germans-Nuremberg episode, sporadic tribunals of ad hoc status have been formed. The Bosnian-Serb and Rwanda tribunals are examples. In Nigeria, however, the inhuman, senseless and hateful killings have continued like in few other places. And sadly too, after this current noise-making in Nigeria and beyond (with no concrete action) nothing tangible would be done to stop the madness in the north and the nation in general. Another round of the killing field would emerge if no serious action is taken before this year ends, in 2011 and beyond. Yet, the International Criminal Court (ICC), which model after and carries the dreams of Nuremberg is at The Hague, Netherlands. In 2002, the ICC, which is an international permanent court of "Last Resort," was finally established about 57 years after the Nuremberg tribunals tried and convicted about 24 Nazi Germans, who were loyal to Adolf Hitler. The court came as a result of the spirited motion sponsored by the former president of Trinidad and Tobago at the United Nations in 1989.
Arthur N.R. Robinson was the Prime Minister of Trinidad then. And he's a student when Nuremberg argument and the tribunal came up. The lesson here is that, he didn't lost sight of the horrific experience of World War 11, neither did he lost hope of making a difference. Another lesson is that one person can surely make a difference against the traditional wisdom or cliché that says it isn't possible. This is of course dependent on who that person is; what the cause or motivation is and so on. And such person should be able to identify, understand, hold firm and commit to the cause on which to act. Like many others Robinson was concerned about justice and peace especially as someone who studied law and took great interest in international law and human rights. And knowing justice and peace can only come by moral equity, fair play and honesty, and to crime victims by enacting domestic and international laws that holds accountable alleged war criminals in any given state. He stayed focused and worked assiduously to bring them about. His thoughts, like those of others were the dreams of Nuremberg, which intended to create a legal system that will be a respecter of no one but a bastion of hope to the defenseless and hopeless. It doesn't matter if the perpetrators of these crimes are presidents, cabinet members, militia groups, or other individuals. Meanwhile, the Rome Statute, which creates the ICC, has more than 120 signatories, but has been ratified by about 110 as at 2009. Like most international treaties or laws it isn't mandatory for nations to join.
The proper thing to do as a nation, however, is to be part of the ICC so as to check the excesses of leaders and other powerful individuals. Note that under this statute states don't commit crimes against humanity or genocide but individuals do. The ICC has come along way, but the most problems it faces is its non acceptance by states such as United States, Russia, China who are among the UN Security Council's permanent members. It can survive without them, but it will be better and simpler or easier with them and other nations such as Sudan, Iraq, India and Libya to mention but few who are also against the ICC. About 30 African nations are signatories to the Rome Statute or the ICC. Meanwhile, if Africa is serious about tackling and resolving conflicts that spread across the continent the Africa Union (AU) must not protect any accused person (s) as it's allegedly doing in the Sudan case. It must work openly, courageously, justly with other groups and communities in the region to help stop the senseless killing especially by government officials and militia groups. The Houses of Parliaments, National Assembly of African nations must act in similar manner. They must make laws that strengthens the judiciary and protects no one found wanting or accused of criminal behaviors against another person and crimes of ethnic cleansing. Yet the rights of the accused must also be protected and due process of law observed alongside the rights of the victims. A stop to killing spree or genocide and the spread of equity and justice should signal positive development hence growth and stability in the continent. The ICC will need the efforts of Africans as will those of North Americans, Europeans, and South Americans, Asians, Australians and others of the world. But the attitudes of the most powerful nations so to speak (and some less powerful or weak) are discouraging even as more nations subscribe to the ICC. When nations append a treaty it of course means ceding aspects of their sovereignty to abide by and execute such treaty or protocol in good faith. It's like in any agreement (as an agreement itself) to do business or anything else. Parties to such agreement are required to respect, agree, honor the terms of such agreement and accept penalties for noncompliance. In international law, however, and the United Nations in particular member-nations signatory to treaties have sometimes acted in disobedience to their pledge thus making the UN a toothless bull dog in most instances. The five permanent members Security Council makes it more unequal and dictatorial. America (as was the case when it disobeyed UN rules and proceeded to invade Iraq unjustly), China, Russia, Britain and Japan do as they please with their veto powers. This is more so when their interest or of their allies isn't going accordingly. It's this trend of possible noncompliance by member states who could be party to the African Union's position allegedly supporting Al-Bashir of Sudan for example and the non cooperative behavior of non member states that threatens the dream of having a just and peaceful world. There is serious trouble or danger where nations such as America and China aren't involved with an international legal framework that will strengthen respect for human rights, sovereign states (democracy) and humanity in general. It's like the "power brokers" or dictators of the world are yet to see reasons to back the good cause to protect and safe humanity. Ironically, America in particular, with its status of the only super power left professes human rights protection, rule of law, and justice. How then is it worried or scared of driving home what it claims to value? America isn’t the only culprit here. All nations of the world must take seriously the issues of human rights; the rule of law, justice and peace. It doesn’t matter whether these nations are supporters of the UN or not. What matters are humanity and the need to preserve and protect it! Well, those who oppose the ICC fears culpability and liability, and also fears losing their mad dogs or aggressive and economic predatory attitude around the world. China, U.S.A., Indonesia, India and Russia are among the six most populated nations on earth that strongly oppose the ICC. The court should have been received with a “jus cogens” importance which should have overridden any other rules because it deals with lives and their protection hence gives meaning to them. Interestingly, these or all nations (individuals) could be answerable to this court if recommended as accused war criminals by the UN.
That is, non member states could be referred to the ICC by the UN for investigation and possible indictment if probable cause exists of their commission of crimes within the court's jurisdiction. It’s already happen in the case of the Sudan President Umar Al-Bashir, who was referred by the UN for alleged crimes against Durfuris of Western Sudan. Although he hasn't been arrested and being the president of a non member state, warrant against him is active though running cold due to power-play and the so-called "peace process" in Sudan as even alluded to by the African Union (AU). Notwithstanding Al-Bashir could still face trial no matter how long, just like former President George W. Bush of the United States could also face trial for similar crimes against Iraqis. America isn't a party to the ICC as previously said, even though it sent about 80 delegates to negotiate the treaty. One reason Bush advanced then was that the court will politically prosecute American soldiers on foreign mission and that the Chief Prosecutor (Luis Moreno Ocampo) has exclusive power. All he and his lawless administration needed but surreptitiously was protection and they are getting it from Obama. As the first “black” president of the United States (and someone under pressure) he will play the “good boy” and not be the first to prosecute past administration despite overwhelming evidence. The ICC has jurisdiction in the three areas already mentioned: war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. It's also discussing the crimes of aggression to be part of its jurisdiction but not confirmed as the fourth. This issue of aggression is another huge concern America has. Why? It’s because of its guilt in crimes of aggression against certain people around the globe.
The Obama administration isn't doing much to support or ratify the Rome Statute. As a constitutional lawyer and activist by nature he could back the court, but can't do it alone. He needs the support of Americans; the congress which could be lobbied by interest groups and the custodians of the American project. Yet, the court is only of last resort and may not come in if the American Government understands its values of Justice, Equality (which is yet equal) and Democracy among others and prosecute Bush and his team. The ICC doesn't have jurisdiction over cases that occurred before its formation. That is why Dauda Musa Komo, Okuntimo and others who committed egregious crimes against Ogonis can't be petitioned before the ICC. The Odi massacre committed under former president Olusegun Obasanjo can also not be heard by the court since it happened in 1999 and the court came into being on July 1, 2002. This isn't to say these criminals can't face justice elsewhere; they could, and Ogonis and others must research such legal avenues through which they will be brought to justice, if the Jos-type massacre must stop. Other cases which took place between 2002 and presently in Niger Delta communities, including the Jos killings and elsewhere could be brought to the ICC. Importantly and as with all criminal indictments the prosecution will look into issues of jurisdiction. That is the nature of crimes and so forth to determine investigation, presentation before pre-trial judges. This is a procedure contrary to American fears of exclusive power given to the prosecution. And sometimes the prosecutors present their case before member states to justify their pursuit of the accused persons, before indictment. There are great setbacks with the ICC or call it issues. These setbacks aren't uncommon. Like in many UN-based (Geneva Convention) and other works, politics might also play into what case should be followed based on member states interest. The court also can't entertain crimes committed before its birth, non state parties can't be brought before the court except recommended by the UN which is politically tinted and isn't a fair place to seek redress against big governments and economic giants such as America and China. And even though a recommendation has been obtained the court has no police to execute its warrants, a case in point is Al-Bashir. Nevertheless, accused person such as Al-Bashir could still be arrested by states that are signatory to and have ratified the statute.
Although certain states could be influenced and may not help in such arrest the propensity that arrest is possible exists. The ICC is a court of last resort in the sense that it doesn't have overriding power to just go into a country, investigate and arrest or try those accused of the aforementioned crimes. Rather countries signatory to the court invite, petition or refer internal matters of war crime and genocidal magnitude it can't handle (lacks the ability) to the court. Individuals can also petition the court as I did in my petition against Bush. The court also comes in if there is evidence to believe a state has shown no willingness to prosecute matters of this sort. The latter happens when presidents are the accused or some powerful citizens a state feels it can't or will not touch. The former is in militia or paramilitary, rebel group or powerful individuals' situations. Then the last which is if recommended by the UN via a Security Council vote also applies. It's interesting to note that America refused to vote when Al-Bashir was recommended by the UN to the ICC. Knowing what we know about the ICC and the challenges it faces, especially its struggle to gain acceptance across the borders and lack of executing powers. The need arise for the world citizens to stand up for the ICC because it's a good cause that isn't only aimed at holding war criminals accountable, but also serves as crime deterrent. That is, it will instill some sense and fear in prospective offenders once they know their actions are no longer ignored and tolerated by their own people and the world. That they will go in for their actions once they allow power sink into their heads and see killing as a means to ease the madness.
Consequently, we must endeavor to push the UN despite its frailties and other relevant non state actors to rally behind the ICC and possibly grant it overriding power to investigate, etc. any case of crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide irrespective of where they're committed. That is whether the nations whose citizens are accused are signatories or not. This would check or stop intended war criminals from using flimsy alibi of not being members to the Rome Statute (ICC) to committing egregious crimes. And the world would drive toward becoming a better place to live. The UN politics that holds sways some good causes because of so-called national sovereignty and interest must stop. They will only stop if the citizens of the world and activists stand up for the ICC and other institutes that seek accountability and justice within and across borders. We must stand up for humanity and stand against all acts capable of undermining the dreams of Nuremberg, Rome, etc. against war criminals.
According to Arthur Robinson, the ICC and human rights icon, S. Albert, who was the “most gifted Hitler’s technician” said “It is necessary that rules must be device whereby mankind can learn to live together.” This was after being sentenced to 20 years of prison term. These rules are here but needs your support. The time is therefore now to act so that the success or victory intended with the advent of the ICC will not be rubbished by the wicked. Remember, silence is more dangerous and deadly than poverty and HIV/AIDS. It's criminal not to speak out or acting decisively because keeping mute will only protect the perpetrators of these crimes. They are by so doing granted more poise to kill. The victims stay victimized because they've no protection. Therefore, work to help give them protection by supporting the ICC!
It also sent a chilling message to prospective perpetrators of crimes against humanity, yet inhumanity by man against man seems to grow in absurd proportion. The crimes against innocent citizens in Jos falls under the above category and should be treated as such. Since the Nazi Germans-Nuremberg episode, sporadic tribunals of ad hoc status have been formed. The Bosnian-Serb and Rwanda tribunals are examples. In Nigeria, however, the inhuman, senseless and hateful killings have continued like in few other places. And sadly too, after this current noise-making in Nigeria and beyond (with no concrete action) nothing tangible would be done to stop the madness in the north and the nation in general. Another round of the killing field would emerge if no serious action is taken before this year ends, in 2011 and beyond. Yet, the International Criminal Court (ICC), which model after and carries the dreams of Nuremberg is at The Hague, Netherlands. In 2002, the ICC, which is an international permanent court of "Last Resort," was finally established about 57 years after the Nuremberg tribunals tried and convicted about 24 Nazi Germans, who were loyal to Adolf Hitler. The court came as a result of the spirited motion sponsored by the former president of Trinidad and Tobago at the United Nations in 1989.
Arthur N.R. Robinson was the Prime Minister of Trinidad then. And he's a student when Nuremberg argument and the tribunal came up. The lesson here is that, he didn't lost sight of the horrific experience of World War 11, neither did he lost hope of making a difference. Another lesson is that one person can surely make a difference against the traditional wisdom or cliché that says it isn't possible. This is of course dependent on who that person is; what the cause or motivation is and so on. And such person should be able to identify, understand, hold firm and commit to the cause on which to act. Like many others Robinson was concerned about justice and peace especially as someone who studied law and took great interest in international law and human rights. And knowing justice and peace can only come by moral equity, fair play and honesty, and to crime victims by enacting domestic and international laws that holds accountable alleged war criminals in any given state. He stayed focused and worked assiduously to bring them about. His thoughts, like those of others were the dreams of Nuremberg, which intended to create a legal system that will be a respecter of no one but a bastion of hope to the defenseless and hopeless. It doesn't matter if the perpetrators of these crimes are presidents, cabinet members, militia groups, or other individuals. Meanwhile, the Rome Statute, which creates the ICC, has more than 120 signatories, but has been ratified by about 110 as at 2009. Like most international treaties or laws it isn't mandatory for nations to join.
The proper thing to do as a nation, however, is to be part of the ICC so as to check the excesses of leaders and other powerful individuals. Note that under this statute states don't commit crimes against humanity or genocide but individuals do. The ICC has come along way, but the most problems it faces is its non acceptance by states such as United States, Russia, China who are among the UN Security Council's permanent members. It can survive without them, but it will be better and simpler or easier with them and other nations such as Sudan, Iraq, India and Libya to mention but few who are also against the ICC. About 30 African nations are signatories to the Rome Statute or the ICC. Meanwhile, if Africa is serious about tackling and resolving conflicts that spread across the continent the Africa Union (AU) must not protect any accused person (s) as it's allegedly doing in the Sudan case. It must work openly, courageously, justly with other groups and communities in the region to help stop the senseless killing especially by government officials and militia groups. The Houses of Parliaments, National Assembly of African nations must act in similar manner. They must make laws that strengthens the judiciary and protects no one found wanting or accused of criminal behaviors against another person and crimes of ethnic cleansing. Yet the rights of the accused must also be protected and due process of law observed alongside the rights of the victims. A stop to killing spree or genocide and the spread of equity and justice should signal positive development hence growth and stability in the continent. The ICC will need the efforts of Africans as will those of North Americans, Europeans, and South Americans, Asians, Australians and others of the world. But the attitudes of the most powerful nations so to speak (and some less powerful or weak) are discouraging even as more nations subscribe to the ICC. When nations append a treaty it of course means ceding aspects of their sovereignty to abide by and execute such treaty or protocol in good faith. It's like in any agreement (as an agreement itself) to do business or anything else. Parties to such agreement are required to respect, agree, honor the terms of such agreement and accept penalties for noncompliance. In international law, however, and the United Nations in particular member-nations signatory to treaties have sometimes acted in disobedience to their pledge thus making the UN a toothless bull dog in most instances. The five permanent members Security Council makes it more unequal and dictatorial. America (as was the case when it disobeyed UN rules and proceeded to invade Iraq unjustly), China, Russia, Britain and Japan do as they please with their veto powers. This is more so when their interest or of their allies isn't going accordingly. It's this trend of possible noncompliance by member states who could be party to the African Union's position allegedly supporting Al-Bashir of Sudan for example and the non cooperative behavior of non member states that threatens the dream of having a just and peaceful world. There is serious trouble or danger where nations such as America and China aren't involved with an international legal framework that will strengthen respect for human rights, sovereign states (democracy) and humanity in general. It's like the "power brokers" or dictators of the world are yet to see reasons to back the good cause to protect and safe humanity. Ironically, America in particular, with its status of the only super power left professes human rights protection, rule of law, and justice. How then is it worried or scared of driving home what it claims to value? America isn’t the only culprit here. All nations of the world must take seriously the issues of human rights; the rule of law, justice and peace. It doesn’t matter whether these nations are supporters of the UN or not. What matters are humanity and the need to preserve and protect it! Well, those who oppose the ICC fears culpability and liability, and also fears losing their mad dogs or aggressive and economic predatory attitude around the world. China, U.S.A., Indonesia, India and Russia are among the six most populated nations on earth that strongly oppose the ICC. The court should have been received with a “jus cogens” importance which should have overridden any other rules because it deals with lives and their protection hence gives meaning to them. Interestingly, these or all nations (individuals) could be answerable to this court if recommended as accused war criminals by the UN.
That is, non member states could be referred to the ICC by the UN for investigation and possible indictment if probable cause exists of their commission of crimes within the court's jurisdiction. It’s already happen in the case of the Sudan President Umar Al-Bashir, who was referred by the UN for alleged crimes against Durfuris of Western Sudan. Although he hasn't been arrested and being the president of a non member state, warrant against him is active though running cold due to power-play and the so-called "peace process" in Sudan as even alluded to by the African Union (AU). Notwithstanding Al-Bashir could still face trial no matter how long, just like former President George W. Bush of the United States could also face trial for similar crimes against Iraqis. America isn't a party to the ICC as previously said, even though it sent about 80 delegates to negotiate the treaty. One reason Bush advanced then was that the court will politically prosecute American soldiers on foreign mission and that the Chief Prosecutor (Luis Moreno Ocampo) has exclusive power. All he and his lawless administration needed but surreptitiously was protection and they are getting it from Obama. As the first “black” president of the United States (and someone under pressure) he will play the “good boy” and not be the first to prosecute past administration despite overwhelming evidence. The ICC has jurisdiction in the three areas already mentioned: war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. It's also discussing the crimes of aggression to be part of its jurisdiction but not confirmed as the fourth. This issue of aggression is another huge concern America has. Why? It’s because of its guilt in crimes of aggression against certain people around the globe.
The Obama administration isn't doing much to support or ratify the Rome Statute. As a constitutional lawyer and activist by nature he could back the court, but can't do it alone. He needs the support of Americans; the congress which could be lobbied by interest groups and the custodians of the American project. Yet, the court is only of last resort and may not come in if the American Government understands its values of Justice, Equality (which is yet equal) and Democracy among others and prosecute Bush and his team. The ICC doesn't have jurisdiction over cases that occurred before its formation. That is why Dauda Musa Komo, Okuntimo and others who committed egregious crimes against Ogonis can't be petitioned before the ICC. The Odi massacre committed under former president Olusegun Obasanjo can also not be heard by the court since it happened in 1999 and the court came into being on July 1, 2002. This isn't to say these criminals can't face justice elsewhere; they could, and Ogonis and others must research such legal avenues through which they will be brought to justice, if the Jos-type massacre must stop. Other cases which took place between 2002 and presently in Niger Delta communities, including the Jos killings and elsewhere could be brought to the ICC. Importantly and as with all criminal indictments the prosecution will look into issues of jurisdiction. That is the nature of crimes and so forth to determine investigation, presentation before pre-trial judges. This is a procedure contrary to American fears of exclusive power given to the prosecution. And sometimes the prosecutors present their case before member states to justify their pursuit of the accused persons, before indictment. There are great setbacks with the ICC or call it issues. These setbacks aren't uncommon. Like in many UN-based (Geneva Convention) and other works, politics might also play into what case should be followed based on member states interest. The court also can't entertain crimes committed before its birth, non state parties can't be brought before the court except recommended by the UN which is politically tinted and isn't a fair place to seek redress against big governments and economic giants such as America and China. And even though a recommendation has been obtained the court has no police to execute its warrants, a case in point is Al-Bashir. Nevertheless, accused person such as Al-Bashir could still be arrested by states that are signatory to and have ratified the statute.
Although certain states could be influenced and may not help in such arrest the propensity that arrest is possible exists. The ICC is a court of last resort in the sense that it doesn't have overriding power to just go into a country, investigate and arrest or try those accused of the aforementioned crimes. Rather countries signatory to the court invite, petition or refer internal matters of war crime and genocidal magnitude it can't handle (lacks the ability) to the court. Individuals can also petition the court as I did in my petition against Bush. The court also comes in if there is evidence to believe a state has shown no willingness to prosecute matters of this sort. The latter happens when presidents are the accused or some powerful citizens a state feels it can't or will not touch. The former is in militia or paramilitary, rebel group or powerful individuals' situations. Then the last which is if recommended by the UN via a Security Council vote also applies. It's interesting to note that America refused to vote when Al-Bashir was recommended by the UN to the ICC. Knowing what we know about the ICC and the challenges it faces, especially its struggle to gain acceptance across the borders and lack of executing powers. The need arise for the world citizens to stand up for the ICC because it's a good cause that isn't only aimed at holding war criminals accountable, but also serves as crime deterrent. That is, it will instill some sense and fear in prospective offenders once they know their actions are no longer ignored and tolerated by their own people and the world. That they will go in for their actions once they allow power sink into their heads and see killing as a means to ease the madness.
Consequently, we must endeavor to push the UN despite its frailties and other relevant non state actors to rally behind the ICC and possibly grant it overriding power to investigate, etc. any case of crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide irrespective of where they're committed. That is whether the nations whose citizens are accused are signatories or not. This would check or stop intended war criminals from using flimsy alibi of not being members to the Rome Statute (ICC) to committing egregious crimes. And the world would drive toward becoming a better place to live. The UN politics that holds sways some good causes because of so-called national sovereignty and interest must stop. They will only stop if the citizens of the world and activists stand up for the ICC and other institutes that seek accountability and justice within and across borders. We must stand up for humanity and stand against all acts capable of undermining the dreams of Nuremberg, Rome, etc. against war criminals.
According to Arthur Robinson, the ICC and human rights icon, S. Albert, who was the “most gifted Hitler’s technician” said “It is necessary that rules must be device whereby mankind can learn to live together.” This was after being sentenced to 20 years of prison term. These rules are here but needs your support. The time is therefore now to act so that the success or victory intended with the advent of the ICC will not be rubbished by the wicked. Remember, silence is more dangerous and deadly than poverty and HIV/AIDS. It's criminal not to speak out or acting decisively because keeping mute will only protect the perpetrators of these crimes. They are by so doing granted more poise to kill. The victims stay victimized because they've no protection. Therefore, work to help give them protection by supporting the ICC!
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('comments'); });
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content1'); });
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content2'); });