Justice for all

The LRA - from the Enough Project

While the deadly Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) may have left Uganda for good, the notorious rebel army hasn’t stopped wreaking havoc in the region. Ugandan President Museveni recently said at a press conference in Kampala that Joseph Kony, leader of the LRA, may now be in southern Darfur. Kony has been fleeing ever since he refused to sign a peace deal with Kampala. About a month ago, after he was forced out of the DRC, he fled to the Central African Republic. And now, he’s in Darfur.

Part of the problem, certainly, is the ICC arrest warrant for Kony and other top LRA commanders. Many now believe that one of the reasons Kony hasn’t yet signed a peace treaty with Kampala is because he’s attempting to evade the ICC arrest warrant. Moreover, Kony is refusing to agree to a peace deal because he hopes the ICC will drop his warrant. However, there really is no evidence that the ICC is obstructing peace in the country, despite a strong debate over the issue. Kony has long avoided peace agreements - he is likely simply using the ICC as an excuse to continue doing what he originally intended to do. There is no evidence, really, that Kony wants peace.

Another complication is that the LRA may be receiving assistance and support from Khartoum; the LRA has received such support in the past, and the Sudanese government clearly has a track record of using militia groups to cause chaos and target civilian populations. It’s certainly possible, but there is no concrete evidence as of yet that this is taking place.

Now, it seems that both al-Bashir and Kony, who are both wanted by the ICC, have joined together. What could this mean? Quite simply: further chaos, instability, and perhaps even violence. Darfur doesn’t need any further instability, especially with the upcoming elections and referendum.

The Obama administration needs to devise a strong response to this negative development. The reality is that today in central Africa, all the conflicts are inextricably linked. This recent news is testament to the trend of the regionalization of conflict. Rwanda, Sudan, the DRC, and the CAR are all involved in the regional conflict today. When rebel leaders and perpetrators of mass atrocity in one region are allowed to go free, the problem burgeons into a regional conflict with more and more actors involved. Perpetrators will increasingly begin to band together in the face of common threats, resulting in continued insecurity throughout the region. That’s why institutions like the ICC are so important in stopping these deadly regional conflicts. But the ICC lacks any enforcement power, and so countries like the US have to step in to help the ICC enforce its arrest warrants.

If this increasingly interconnected regional conflict continues to be ignored, peace may not be a possibility for the Great Lakes region.

Thanks to Running Chicken, I found an excellent new article by Hunjoon Kim and Kathryn Sikkink: Explaining the Deterrence Effect of Human Rights Prosecutions for Transitional Countries. The article basically concludes that:

We find that human rights prosecutions after transition lead to improvements in human rights protection, and that human rights prosecutions have a deterrence impact beyond the confines of the single country. We also explore the mechanisms through which prosecutions lead to improvements in human rights. We argue that impact of prosecutions is the result of both normative pressures and material punishment and provide support for this argument with a comparison of the impact of prosecutions and truth commissions, which do not involve material punishment.

If the article’s findings are correct and the statistical methodology is sound, then this is a great finding and can really help international justice move forward more confidently in the future. I am especially impressed by the finding that the normative impact of prosecutions has actually resulted in deterrence, since many have argued that international justice has not been communicated well on the ground, thus resulting in little impact on deterrence. More quantitative studies should be done on this particular question to further confirm these conclusions.

One of the questions that I had when I first read this was whether there would be a difference between post-conflict transitional justice and justice during conflict - such as the intervention of the ICC. Certainly, post-conflict transitional justice is often undertaken by regimes that are willing to prosecute members of a previous regime, and it would be understandable for those countries to ultimately have a better human rights record. However, the same cannot be said for international bodies undertaking prosecutions during a conflict, as indicted war criminals could simply exacerbate repression and continue to flout international law.

However, they addressed these questions as well, finding that prosecutions under civil wars do not have a different impact on repression than those in peace; indeed, prosecutions during civil wars may even lead to greater improvements on human rights records than prosecutions during peacetime. This is an incredible and truly groundbreaking finding, because it has applied statistical methods to the peace v. justice argument that has thus far been based on mostly qualitative case studies.

Indeed, I do think that many people are coming to the conclusion that the peace versus justice is a false dichotomy. While there was at first much backlash regarding cases in Uganda and Sudan, ultimately those who are indicted are responsible for massive human rights violations; while “peace” might depend on them temporarily, it would probably be best in the long-run if those responsible are simply taken out of the picture. I think the question now shouldn’t be whether we should wait to indict a war criminal or not, but should be about the enforcement of these arrest warrants. Faster and more efficient ways of apprehending war criminals would not only contribute to the deterrence effect, but it would also reduce the possibility of an indicted perpetrator continuing to wield power and exacerbate conflict at home.  Certainly, the challenges are numerous — but I really do think the next step should be to innovate better ways to arrest war criminals and gain international cooperation for their work, rather than to continue the debates about peace versus justice.

Here’s a horrifying article from The Guardian, discussing the spread of Kony’s Lord’s Resistance Army into Congo. Already 1,200 have been killed and more than 2,000 (about one-third children) have been kidnapped in the DRC in the past year. In one area of Congo, about 360,000 people have been forced to flee their homes. While the situation in Uganda is stabilizing, unfortunately the violence hasn’t truly stopped but has simply been displaced into the DRC. The article states:

In Congo, the confusion and anger is amplified. Father Benoit Kinalegu, the director of the Justice and Peace Commission in Dungu, said Kony was “not a human being”. “A human being can kill with reason, and an animal to eat. But Joseph Kony just kills people for nothing. The only way is take him out.”

Attempts are continuing. Officially, the Congolese army is leading the operation, with logistical support from UN peacekeepers. But it is the Ugandans who are doing most of the hunting. Despite claiming to have left behind only a few “intelligence squads” after Operation Lighting Thunder, interviews with analysts, aid workers, local officials and LRA victims suggest the number of Ugandan soldiers in the Congolese bush could exceed 3,000.

The situation seems to be devastating. I don’t want to go into the gory details of how the LRA is torturing, killing, and terrorizing the Congolese people - you can find that information in the article, and suffice it to say that it is horrifying.

It really disturbs me to hear this news, and realize that despite the efforts of the ICC, nothing has really changed. Sure, things haven’t exactly gotten worse, but the ICC’s warrant doesn’t seem to be deterring Kony one bit. On the other hand, it doesn’t seem like he would have agreed to a peace treaty even without the warrant. Basically the situation is just as it was before - violent and relentless. What disturbs me is: what next? Do we just sit aside and hope that the relevant state actors and authorities are able to find and arrest Kony? Perhaps the ICC needs to assemble some sort of force imbued with the ability and authority to arrest war criminals. Honestly, at the pace things are going now, the violence will never end.

The truth is this conflict isn’t going to end unless Kony is arrested. So it’s clear he needs to be stopped. But what is being done to ensure that this is the case? And how much longer can this go on? I’m clearly not an expert on this, yet I find myself questioning the current approach. I just know that some action needs to be taken to halt this horrible violence. What do you think would be a good solution?

Photo credit: here

I’m pretty upset right now. I’m angry, and I usually don’t get this fired up about things. In fact, I’m so angry that I feel like punching a wall or screaming from frustration. But I know anger leads to nothing, so here I am channeling that anger into a blog post.

Yesterday, as is common knowledge by now, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir on counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity (notably, genocide wasn’t included).

Immediately afterwards, Al-Bashir began expelling aid groups and NGOs from Sudan. He’s moved against about 10 foreign aid agencies so far, which provide essential aid to about 2.7 million people who are homeless due to the war in Darfur, and help to reconstruct South Sudan after decades of civil war. The expelled organizations include Oxfam, which provides humanitarian aid to about 600,000 people; Doctors Without Borders France and Holland, providing medical care to over 200,000 patients; and other organizations like the Norwegian Refugee Council, Save the Children UK, Care, Action Contre La Faim, the International Rescue Committee and Mercy Corps. Change.org has an excellent post about how many people will be affected as a consequence. The organizations were told to leave the country within 24 hours, having had their registrations revoked and some assets seized.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon said that “this represents a serious setback to lifesaving operations in Darfur,” according to his spokeswoman.

Seriously? That’s a vast understatement! This is not a “setback” but Genocide, Part II. So many who were depending on aid agencies for everyday needs will now be left in the dust. Millions of lives will be affected, and I don’t think its anything short of genocide. And the worst of all? It has all been set off by the ICC’s indictment of Al-Bashir. The ICC comes in with the noble goal of “justice for all” and with the idea that even amidst a complex conflict, such an arrest warrant is good for the country. There have been so many debates about the ICC and its negative effect on the ground. There are many arguments that justice doesn’t impede peace, and is absolutely necessary. This is true, but this latest backlash confirms my view — we have to consider, realistically, the lives that will be affected on the ground — before pursuing grandiose visions of justice. Peace and justice go together. True, in the long run. But by failing to seriously consider ongoing conflicts and attempts for peace - justice, too, can fail.

President Omar al-Bashir

Tomorrow, Wednesday March 4 2009, the International Criminal Court (ICC) will issue a decision concerning the arrest warrant for Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir. Sudan - and indeed, the world - is waiting. Some are waiting curiously, some eagerly, some angrily, and some hopefully. Most hope that an arrest warrant would improve the situation on the ground in Darfur, but there are also fears that such a move could exacerbate the violence. Overall, the situation is uncertain and the future is hazy.

Al-Bashir is accused of genocide aiming to wipe out certain tribes in Darfur, a sad story most of us know all too well by this point due to incredible media attention. Private militias allegedly funded by the government killed 35,000 people; up to 300,000 have died from the conflict so far, according to the UN.

However, although most agree that justice is necessary and a culture of impunity is never a good thing, many are hesitant to trust the ICC as the ultimate solution. The ICC thinks that justice cannot be catered towards the political climate; after all the political situation changes daily, but justice must be rendered absolutely and indiscriminately. But in the recent movement towards “globalization of justice” - as everything else in our world is being globalized - is it a huge flaw of the ICC to ignore local peace processes and political situations?

“I dream about getting rid of the government, but it should come through internal movement, not from the ICC,” human rights activist Azhari Alhaj said. “Having the ICC come in at this sensitive time could have a negative impact, because we are going to be seen as working for the ICC. We are the ones who are going to suffer, and no one in the international community is going to protect us.”– LATimes

The ICC warrant could potentially destabilize the country further, by causing the collapse of the government or a return to civil war. The warrant could anger the ruling regime and cause them to become even more isolationist and unwilling to cooperate in peace talks and agreements.

On the flip side, the regime could also become more cooperative and less antagonistic. But regarding recent developments, this just doesn’t seem as likely. Already, Bashir is receiving the backing of other African leaders - the African Union asked the UN Security Council to halt the ICC’s proceedings, and the Group of 77 endorsed Sudan’s chairmanship despite the alleged charges against Bashir. African leaders are coming to Bashir’s side despite his involvement in genocide, and argue that the court’s actions will impede peace in Darfur. At the same time, Al-Bashir himself is trying to mobilize the Sudanese people in his favor - by stirring up anti-Western and populist sentiment. He tells his people that Sudan is being targeted by the West for its support to Palestine, Lebanon and Afghanistan and identifies himself with the Islamic movement. Huge propagandist posters have appeared on the streets of Khartoum to urge the people to rally behind their “virtuous” president against the “evil” ICC. The Sudanese government itself has stated that it doesn’t recognize the ICC’s jurisdiction and will ignore any arrest warrant.

Now does this look like a man ready to give up? I didn’t think so.

So is the ICC the right mechanism through which justice should be administered, especially during times of conflict? Does it increase conflict and violence, or can it actually help the cause of peace? Only time will tell, and soon we’ll see the results - for better or for worse - of the ICC’s latest experiment. If it works and helps foster peace, the ICC will be touted as the next great invention in international criminal justice, and it’s potential will be viewed as immense, endless.

If it fails and violence exacerbates in Darfur, the world will continue to debate about justice and peace - and the Court’s existence will only continue to become more controversial.