Intl Justice Reconciliation_Reflection Memo

In my class reflection memo, I will try to summarize the whole lecture and discussion among lecturer and students focused on justice and reconciliation process in particular African states. I will mention also the required readings which were indeed interesting and provided different views and perspectives on the whole issue. However, I will mainly provide my thoughts and insights concerning the issue of justice and reconciliation in Africa. I will try to reflect the topic, readings and discussion which emerged during class and I will also provide my personal views on these important issues.

Our lecture and discussion started with crucial topic. What was impact of International Criminal Court in case of Sudan? We were focused on the case of Darfur and charge against Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. Also various required readings that we were supposed to read were dealing with this issue. Lecturer posed crucial questions. What was the purpose of prosecutor to do this? Some of my colleagues were mentioning incompetence of prosecutor, damage of reputation of ICC which he caused and also that he definitely did not consider the situation in Sudan. One of students stated that Sudan was a time bomb and I definitely agree with this argument, but I would say that charge of foreign Court that has no competence to really arrest the perpetrator could not worsen the dangerous situation in Sudan or have some other impact.

Thus, was the expectation of ICC realistic? We started to discuss real reasons of this charge because it indeed seems to have no sense at all. Lecturer explained us that when we are discussing and dealing with case of ICC charge against Bashir we should be focused on many other and different issues which led to something similar. The context of situation in Western world is important. Lecturer mentioned Save Darfur campaign, discourse of genocide, CNN effect and Western public opinion. I indeed liked and agreed with this argument. I think that the whole phenomenon of Save Darfur campaign and focus of politicians on Darfur was caused when Kofi Annan mentioned in one his speech that situation in Darfur was genocide and Western world should take an action and help. He did it at anniversary of Rwandan genocide and I think that this was the important event which caused the Western attention and focus on Darfur. Influential public and political figure such as Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General, mentioned in his speech indeed strong words such as genocide and Rwanda and linked them to Darfur. I think that this is perfect case for discourse analysis of political speech act which led to and caused vast number of events. When Kofi Annan mentioned Rwanda and genocide, the effect on public in Western world and politicians had to be strong. I think that Rwanda is linked with strong feelings of shame and guilt in West because public and politicians well know that when Rwandan genocide was happening they did not anything. They did not help Rwandans. Nobody took any action. Whole Western world was just watching how massacre was going on. Politicians only played with words and labels because nobody of them wanted to label these events as genocide because they thought that in that case they would have to take an action according to Genocide Convention. These are the reasons why I would argue that Save Darfur campaign emerged because of Kofi Annan´s speech and feelings of guilt and shame in Western world.

In case of Darfur, politicians such as US President Bush or Colin Powell used genocide label from the very beginning. On the contrary, they thought that Genocide Convention did not oblige them to take an action, so they misused genocide rhetoric about Darfur to please some US voters and raise their popularity. It is indeed interesting that documents like convention could be interpreted in various ways. I think that this has also serious impact on international justice. And I think that also charge of ICC against Bashir was part of this complex chain of events. Something had to be done. Public was focused on Darfur. Everyone talked about it. My opinion is that the purpose of ICC charge was mainly to please Western public. I think that personal ego, popularity and image were for Western politicians more important than events in Darfur. They misused labels of genocide for their personal profit. I am aware that these claims could be strong but it is only my personal opinion after studying Darfur case. I have read numerous articles dealing with Darfur and after that I think that Darfur was not special at all. I think that it was just another case in Sudan and its long-lasting civil war. There are vast number of similar events not only in Sudan but in the whole region because situation in Sudan was and still is linked and connected to its neighbouring countries, their governments and rebel groups. We can not deal separately with Sudan, we should be focus on the whole region. And we can easily find there even worse situations and cases than Sudan.

So, I think that when we talk about justice we should consider and discuss many more issues. For me, it is interesting and terrifying at the same time, that in West we were playing with words and labels and in Africa they were dealing with complex violent situation, famine, massacres, civil wars, etc. I think that discourse could have indeed strong influence in West and can directly lead to numerous serious consequences. We should study and discuss labels and words just like genocide.

I also indeed liked when lecturer mentioned prosecutor´s ego, personal characteristics and ambitions. I absolutely agree that these things play important role even in the highest and most important political or judicial positions. However, I would like to know how Bashir reacted to this charge. What was his answer? Did it mean anything to him? Could he find it even „funny“ when he imagined Westerners who want to judge him without competences and chances to arrest him? They had to know that they could not arrest him. He just had to consider his travel plans and visits of some foreign countries. I would indeed like to know his feelings and thoughts because that could also contribute and help to understand African position towards Western justice and ICC.

In class, our discussion also led to questions about African opinions and attitudes towards ICC. How they understand and see ICC? We ended with conclusion that particular African states and politicians have different opinions and attitudes towards ICC. Some of them, like Museveni, even changed his attitudes. Some leaders are in favour of this court and they even know how to use it and profit from cooperation with ICC and Western justice. That was for me, indeed interesting view. Some of them are strongly against Western justice because as it was said in class, they relate it to neocolonialism and Western influence in Africa. They could question why ICC wants to judge only African criminals and not for example US ones. I think that these opinions are also influenced by specific rhetoric. In this case, it should be Pan-Africanism and „African solutions for African problems.“ These discourses emerged because African leaders and states wanted to promote their independence and sovereignty but mainly they wanted to demonstrate their ambitions to deal with their problems and to solve them without Western help and Western influence. I think that this rhetoric still plays role in some states. Therefore, some Africans perceive ICC as Western ambitions to judge Africans and influence African politics.

Then, our discussion shifted to the issue of traditional practices of reconciliation. I was quite surprised when I was reading articles which were against traditional practices. Before I thought that these practices are perceived only as good and suitable for African states.  However, I appreciated these opposite views and also further explanations and clarification of our lecturer during class. Mato oput and gacaca could be indeed misused by government. They could be also ineffective or non-appropriate for particular regions and communities.

We could not apply one traditional practice in a state where many ethnic groups have different customs and cultures. I think that traditional practices are brilliant and indeed functioning on local level, however just in case when we indeed successed to find out suitable tradition for specific community. I think that one traditional practice should not be applied on whole country and all its regions. We should firstly do some anthropological research to study particular culture, region or ethnic group. However, the question is whether a state in conflict or NGOs have capacities to do that. It could be even dangerous for researchers themselves to work in particular regions. However, how to resolve the situation and achieve reconciliation? Is applying one traditional approach only possible and simple solution? However, how to avoid misuse of government? I still think that traditional approach is suitable however there are many problems and issues that have to be solved when we want to apply it. However, it is necessary to achieve reconciliation on the level of communities and individuals because without this, situation can still escalate into another conflict because of lasting hatred and guilt.

There is still question how to deal with the main perpetrators. Who should judge them? People, national court, African court, international court? In my opinion, I would prefer rather national justice, in some cases African court. However, justice and reconciliation is indeed very complex and crucial issue in Africa. After reading required articles, I see that also scholars and their opinions differ a lot.