“A judge somewhere in rural areas of France, one of the village judges somewhere decides that his going to indict leaders in Rwanda and talks about killings in Rwanda, whereas during the genocide there are so many things that happened that involved people from France and Rwanda Refused. The judge called it a universal jurisdiction which gave him the power to do so. If that be the case we requested our judges to indict those people from France who were involved in crimes committed in Rwanda” by President of Rwanda Paul Kagame
Let me start by saying I’m in no way supporting impunity but when we look at such instances as I quoted earlier I begin to ask myself certain like who decides what’s wrong or write? Who decides when and where a person should face justice? Why must Sudanese President AL-Bashir not face justice at ICC and not in an African court? Just like former chad president Hissène Habré.
All this questions begins to point to us why most African leaders have distrust for the ICC, the view it as a western tool of imperialist to hunt down African leaders to who doesn’t play to their tune or demands. Also why haven’t the ICC tried other world leaders?
When we look at the case of Sudanese president, it can’t be proven vividly that he had the intentions of committing genocide, because from history when we look at the perpetrators of such crime it was more or less obvious that’s what they wanted and some even openly said it but in the case of Sudanese president there hasn’t been any instance where he said or acted that he intended on getting rid of ethnic group or so ever. Also looking at the case it’s not even against the estimated 300, 00 people who died that they are charging him from, they are charging him for “intention to kill” and secondly they refer to the life in Darfur camps as life in Nazi camps. But this camps were set up by Sudanese governments to take care of refuges out of their own will and they never established this camps to exterminate people. Yes I understand that there is starvation going on in those camps, but what could you expect from a nation that has suffered years of civil war and most government institutions aren’t functioning.
Looking at events that lead to the 2003 to 2005 violent clashes in Sudan we could see that it was clear that the government of Sudan initiated a counterinsurgency operation just like any other government in the world does, but which unfortunately tuned into bloody classes that lead to deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. So I don’t see why he is been charged when it was just a military operation. We have seen in Somalia where US forces launched a raid to capture Al-Shabaab leader and it turned into blood confrontation and so many other examples so why should that of Sudanese president be different?
As it is started in the chapter that the search for peace should be pursued in a way that it does not jeopardize efforts aimed at promoting lasting peace. As could see the Sudan is a very volatile country, a time bomb ticking and waiting for any little instance to go off. From this point we could understand the position of African Union why they are seeking a deferral from Security Council. But since it wasn’t honored decided on their own no to honor the ICC indictment. This also points to you why African leaders feel they aren’t important. Because of Al-Bashir is arrested and there is full assurance that Sudan would go back into another full blown civil war and its African states who are going to suffer the spill-over effect not those in Hague.
I believe everyone who commits atrocities should face justice. And in the case of Al-Bashir, how should it be done?
Reconciliation
Biblically and morally, it's been told that say the truth and the truth alone shall set you free" but from societies where some of us grew the truth hardly got you freed rather it got you into regrets of ever telling it.
This also goes both ways given the fact that some if not most African societies are very religious, this could work because it could be tied strongly to religious point where people see it as spiritually moral thin to do.
Also the religious park has it pullback, since so many people believe in God and they know or feel that once they have confessed their sins to God, they don't owe it to any man again.
Also in some African societies where there isn't an effective system of witness protection or let me call it a very "good insurance policy". For those who decide to come forward are most at times scared of fear of vengeance. Or they might been seen as outcasts in the society and there wouldn't be an effective system to reintegrate them back.
There's also a common adage in Nigeria which goes like " You say the truth you die, you lie you die " so you see there’s very thin line between choosing to tell the truth or not.
But the truth and reconciliation system will be quiet and probably be very efficient if managed properly and also there shouldn't be a universal principle of how it should be there, it should depend on society to society values and traditions. And also there should be willingness on the side of the government.
Let me start by saying I’m in no way supporting impunity but when we look at such instances as I quoted earlier I begin to ask myself certain like who decides what’s wrong or write? Who decides when and where a person should face justice? Why must Sudanese President AL-Bashir not face justice at ICC and not in an African court? Just like former chad president Hissène Habré.
All this questions begins to point to us why most African leaders have distrust for the ICC, the view it as a western tool of imperialist to hunt down African leaders to who doesn’t play to their tune or demands. Also why haven’t the ICC tried other world leaders?
When we look at the case of Sudanese president, it can’t be proven vividly that he had the intentions of committing genocide, because from history when we look at the perpetrators of such crime it was more or less obvious that’s what they wanted and some even openly said it but in the case of Sudanese president there hasn’t been any instance where he said or acted that he intended on getting rid of ethnic group or so ever. Also looking at the case it’s not even against the estimated 300, 00 people who died that they are charging him from, they are charging him for “intention to kill” and secondly they refer to the life in Darfur camps as life in Nazi camps. But this camps were set up by Sudanese governments to take care of refuges out of their own will and they never established this camps to exterminate people. Yes I understand that there is starvation going on in those camps, but what could you expect from a nation that has suffered years of civil war and most government institutions aren’t functioning.
Looking at events that lead to the 2003 to 2005 violent clashes in Sudan we could see that it was clear that the government of Sudan initiated a counterinsurgency operation just like any other government in the world does, but which unfortunately tuned into bloody classes that lead to deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. So I don’t see why he is been charged when it was just a military operation. We have seen in Somalia where US forces launched a raid to capture Al-Shabaab leader and it turned into blood confrontation and so many other examples so why should that of Sudanese president be different?
As it is started in the chapter that the search for peace should be pursued in a way that it does not jeopardize efforts aimed at promoting lasting peace. As could see the Sudan is a very volatile country, a time bomb ticking and waiting for any little instance to go off. From this point we could understand the position of African Union why they are seeking a deferral from Security Council. But since it wasn’t honored decided on their own no to honor the ICC indictment. This also points to you why African leaders feel they aren’t important. Because of Al-Bashir is arrested and there is full assurance that Sudan would go back into another full blown civil war and its African states who are going to suffer the spill-over effect not those in Hague.
I believe everyone who commits atrocities should face justice. And in the case of Al-Bashir, how should it be done?
Reconciliation
Biblically and morally, it's been told that say the truth and the truth alone shall set you free" but from societies where some of us grew the truth hardly got you freed rather it got you into regrets of ever telling it.
This also goes both ways given the fact that some if not most African societies are very religious, this could work because it could be tied strongly to religious point where people see it as spiritually moral thin to do.
Also the religious park has it pullback, since so many people believe in God and they know or feel that once they have confessed their sins to God, they don't owe it to any man again.
Also in some African societies where there isn't an effective system of witness protection or let me call it a very "good insurance policy". For those who decide to come forward are most at times scared of fear of vengeance. Or they might been seen as outcasts in the society and there wouldn't be an effective system to reintegrate them back.
There's also a common adage in Nigeria which goes like " You say the truth you die, you lie you die " so you see there’s very thin line between choosing to tell the truth or not.
But the truth and reconciliation system will be quiet and probably be very efficient if managed properly and also there shouldn't be a universal principle of how it should be there, it should depend on society to society values and traditions. And also there should be willingness on the side of the government.
No comments:
Post a Comment