Intl Justice Reconciliation_Reading Memo

In the article The International Criminal Court's case against the President of Sudan: A Critical Look by M. Mamdani, the author focuses on the prosecutor’s narrative of the Sudanese history that was presented in order to get the president of Sudan found guilty of a number of charges, including genocide. The author also offers own perspective of the Darfur conflict, including the factors involved in the breakout of the war. The roots of the division of Sudan’s people into Arab and the others (black Africans) is traced to the colonial era, when Sudan was a part of the British colonial empire. The author also claims that the conflict in Sudan is way more complex, pointing out the desertification of the territory and saying that the conflict was rather a fight to survive than a fight to eradicate the other side. Another factor that helped stir up the Darfur conflict was also the spillover of Chad’s civil war fighters into Darfur and last, but not least al-Bashir regime’s military response to an insurgency in the area of Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa.

Throughout the article, the author points out the mistakes of the prosecutor in making his case, such as offering higher victim count estimates than usual or claiming that al-Bashir was personally in charge of everything, which is not very convincing. Main issue of this prosecution was that it seemed like the prosecutor didn’t fully comprehend not only the importance of this case on an international scale, but also not understanding the Sudanese state and society.

A different article, Should President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan Be Charged and Arrested by the International Criminal Court? by Alex de Waal and Gregory H. Stanton argues that trying to convict the Sudanese president is not likely to succeed and very likely to cause further violence in Sudan. De Waal, just like Mamdani, believes that the prosecutor couldn’t handle the application in a way it needed to be handled. He points out several errors and mistakes the prosecutor has made. He also offers a variety of possible outcomes of the case, none of which would help Sudan in the future. Most of all, he argues, this trial can make Africa a “jurisdiction-free zone”, since no African country approves of the ICC’s proceedings in this case, therefore it is highly unlikely that they would ask for the ICC’s help in the near future. At the same time, other heads of state who commit similar acts as al-Bashir’s regime might reconsider, seeing that they can in fact be called out for their actions.

As far as I am concerned, I believe that the ICC exists not only to put on trial (and punish) those, who are guilty of crimes against humanity etc., but also to scare off those heads of states (or other high officials and individuals) who might be tempted to commit such crimes. In the case of al-Bashir the prosecutor failed to prove that al-Bashir was solely responsible, which lead the ICC to not find the president guilty of directing a genocide. However, since most experts agree that al-Bashir did certainly play a part  in the crimes, I do not believe that it is over just yet. Personally, I don’t know what the future holds for al-Bashir and other people responsible for the mass killings and other violent acts in Sudan, but I certainly hope that justice will be served one day and they will be held responsible for their crimes.

Another thing I found quite intriguing is the political aspects mentioned in the articles. While the ICC is strictly apolitical with its judicial mandate, taking on the president of a country quite shortly before the next election (trial started in 2008 and the Sudan’s election took place in 2010), one has to wonder if the decision to pick up such a case was completely stripped of politics. Rumors had it that al-Bashir was about to step aside in the 2010 election to make room for “fresh blood”, he did not do so after the trial, so he remained in power. Since the articles voiced fear of the unstable future of Sudan, I believe a debate on this topic would be highly interesting.

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.

Intl Justice Reconciliation_Reading Memo

I have found the readings for this lesson quite interesting. I would like to start my reflection saying that the issue of international justice is a concept of a quite new introduction in our contemporary history. In the aftermath of the end of the Second World War, it started to be clear that States were not able alone by themselves to guarantee the respect of fundamental human rights of their citizens. For this, reason at the international level the issue of protecting individuals became more important and a lot of work was did both thanks to the so-called hard law as well as thanks to the soft law.  Therefore, on one side exists a huge number of treaties and documents aimed at the protection of individuals, but from the other they are not enough because often they cannot prevent the violation of human rights or perpetration of crimes by State authorities or criminals. Still, it is not yet clear if individuals can be considered subjects of the international law or not, but for sure we can say that there is a clear tendency in considering them as such. Two examples of this trend can be saw in the creation of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in 1993, and the one for the Rwanda in 1994, both conceived to put an end to the genocide and mass violations of human rights that were ongoing in those countries at that time.

While reading the materials were firstly: is there a universal jurisdiction and If it so, can it be defined as the accountability for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity? What about the existence of a universal jurisdiction?

I think that a clear step forward in the issue of international justice was made when the International Criminal Court (ICC) started functioning after the entered into force of the Roman Statute on July 2002. The work of the International Criminal Court has been criticized for being too focused on the criminal crimes in Africa then elsewhere as well as to be a tool in the hand of the western imperialism. Is it true or is just a narrative followed by the scholars who are not in favour of a broader concept of justice nor moreover to let the power of judging to a defined international body?

I think is a quite complicated issue and for that it is difficult to deal with. Indeed, there are a lot of questions that come to my mind, like: what are now the challenges that the International Criminal Court has to face? What is the role of the other criminal tribunals in relation to the ICC? What should be done in order to assure and grant worldwide the respect of fundamental rights?

I hope that in the upcoming lesson some of these questions will be answered or will give space to the debate.

Intl Justice Reconciliation_Reflection Memo

Ever since its creation in 1998 in virtue of the Rome statute, the International Criminal Court has vowed to effectively deal with major international crimes, therefore presenting itself as some kind of binder in a world torn by brutal conflicts. Ideologically, it is supposed to be the pure expression of democracy, taking down violent leaders and making sure that international justice is guaranteed, in order to maintain global safety. Similarly to the UN, it presents itself as a permanent international and universal judge. Paradoxically, the ICC's actions are not particularly well perceived by several African states and it has not concretely saw its objectives through, as the general outcry following president Omar Al Bashir's trial and the arrest warrants issued against LRA commanders shows it. Indeed, it seems that the entirety of the concept of justice conveyed by the ICC is contested. That is why we are going to ask ourselves to what extent the tools of justice and reconciliation used by the ICC might actually be unfit to resolve African conflict, through the Sudanese and Ugandese examples. One of the first issues outlined during our class debate was Luis Ocampo's virulence when treating Bashir's case. Indeed, the crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes charges have met large discontent from many African states. One can argue that these charges are excessive on one hand and inadequate for the Sudanese context on another hand and they have not concretely led to any kind of improvement whatsoever of the situation in Darfur. Even worse, during the Addis Abeba summit, a « strategy of collective withdrawal » from the ICC have been discussed , signifiying the growing African opposition to the ICC which leads to another question : is the ICC anti-African ? Many critics, such as Ethiopian Prime Minister Haile Mariam Dessalegn, argue that « it is a neocolonialist institution which indulges in a racial hunt », since it only puts African leaders on trial. Others, such as Kenyan head of diplomacy Amina Mohamed, consider the ICC as the « instrument of the Western world ». Despite Ocampo's replacement by Fatou Bensouda as main prosecutor, this feeling of unfairness keeps growing bigger, especially since former Côte d'Ivoire's President Laurent Gbagbo's arrest in 2016, which has been perceived as a political manœuvre to favor Alassane Ouattara rather than an effort to restore real justice. As of 2016, Burundi, Gambia and South Africa announced their withdrawal from the ICC, a decision that was also greatly criticized as it reinforces tensions between the ICC and African states. Furthermore, concerning the LRA situation in Uganda, the ICC has intervened by arresting one of its commanders, Dominic Ongwen. One can argue that Ongwen's arrest will not lead to any kind of resolution as it shows a lack of understanding of the LRA's actions in Uganda. Indeed, like many of its fellow commanders, Dominic Ongwen was originally a child soldier, meaning that he will also be accused of the crimes of which he has been the victim. Therefore, one can argue that African states should favor local and national conflict resolution mechanisms rather than leaning on the ICC, as they will comprehend these issues in a more realistic and pragmatic way. With this in mind, the Ugandese government decided to employ the Mato Oput mechanism, which alludes to a restorative justice mechanism for forgiveness and reconciliation among the Acholi people in Northern Uganda consisting in finding a middle ground between victims and perpretrators, in order to bring peace back. The Mato Oput might be considered as a more appropriate resolution mechanism as it deals directly with violation of people and the relationships between them. However, this solution is still at the heart of many debates. In one hand, one can argue that restorative justice gives a chance to peace and reconciliation since it takes into account the fact that the LRA soldiers are also the victims of this vile status quo while retributive justice mechanisms (such as the ICC) magnify the tensions between people. On the other hand, detractors argue that the Mato Oput mechanism will grant total impunity to the LRA and banish accountability as no one will be judged. In addition, one can also compare the Mato Oput mechanism to Paul Kagame's « forgetfulness policy » (from the original French « politique de l'oubli ») in Rwanda. Indeed, following the Tutsi genocide, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda has been created on November 8th 1994 in order to punish all perpetrators of the Tutsi massacre. After its dissolution in 2015, the number of effective convictions has been estimated to 61 in about 20 years, which is a far cry from reality. This is why Kagame decided to give prominence to forgiveness and reconciliation between Hutus and Tutsis, as it would be almost impossible to arrest all perpetrators of the genocide. However, the tensions between Tutsis and Hutus are still strong and many Tutsis, such as writer Révérien Rurangwa who wrote Génocidé about his family's death and his own mutilation during the genocide, feel forsaken by their country, as they did not see justice done. This kind of policy might maintain political and social stability but the victims' memories are still unbearable. Finally, one can argue that some African leaders indulge in the collective withdrawal strategy from the ICC only because they want to avoid being prosecuted for acts of violence they have committed, the main example being Pierre Nkurunziza, President of Burundi. Moreover, some African leaders also seem to consider the ICC as a tool in their political agendas. Indeed, after August 27th elections, President Ali Bongo Ondimba accused his main rival Jean Ping of being responsible of some acts of violence that took place the day of the election after the latter built a case according to which there have been crimes against humanity in Gabon, which directly incriminates Ali Bongo Ondimba. All in all, it seems that the ICC is more and more contested in Africa and that local justice and reconciliation mechanisms are favored, as the ICC is on one hand considered as a Western binding instrument and on the other hand seen as completely disconnected from the reality that it judges. However, it seems that many African leaders are being dishonest, as they mostly oppose the ICC because of their personnal political agendas but even so, it would be absolutely misleading to consider the ICC to be some kind of magic bullet for African conflict resolution. This creates a crucial debate between restorative and retributive justice, between international intervention and local management of conflicts. In any case, international intervention cannot be considered if it does not comprehend the exact context in which these conflicts take place. Otherwise, it might worsen the situation and magnify tensions, as the growing anti-ICC feeling shows it. 

Intl Justice Reconciliation_Reflection Memo

Reconciliation
During the class there were a lot of points made that were made that caught my attention and i felt i would like to talk about.
First on the case of reconciliation in Uganda after the lecture i was quiet skeptical and reconciliation efforts would be effective there giving the fact that they still have a leader like President Museveni who to me i feel his quite brutal and his not someone who will be willing to see it work. Because he has held on to power for very long time by dividing the society and ruling them and such leaders anything aimed at peace scares them of so much. And one important aspect for reconciliation working is willingness and efforts on the side on the authority
Secondly, also from the lecture the point of religion was discussed. And i think its quite effective giving the facts that most of those societies very religious and when this reconciliation is tied to religion it will be quite more effective, as in such societies people have more respect for those religious gods than government who has failed them. We get to see that people in those societies view this as a spiritual thing ritual that must be performed before they are cleansed of their wrong doings, so people are more willing to participate in this reconciliation process.
Lastly i also learnt that the reconciliation process depended or varies from societies to societies. So there shouldn’t be a universal style of doing this. E.g. as we could see in Somali Land were local clans negotiated peace agreements between societies which was far from the formal was of settling peace but it worked and brought peace for nearly decade. We could also see in Rwanda were there national identity cards no longer had ethnicities on it, it just started you were Rwandan and we could see it worked.
So my own recommendations would be that societies who engage in this reconciliations practice should have long term plan such as: sustainability plan, such as rehabilitation, education and certain contents that promote national identity should be incorporated into the educational system from primary to high education were citizens are taught.

AU AND ICC and President Al-Bashir
A question was asked if the Al-Bashir case tainted the image of the ICC on the African continent: Personally I feel the case damaged the reputation of ICC on the continent where it brought about African leaders questioning the integrity of the ICC and believing that they were ignorant about the situation in Sudan. Because Sudan is a very volatile country,  just like a time bomb waiting to go off at any moment.
We could see the call for mass withdrawal from the ICC by African states, were the had this feeling of been witch hunted by the ICC, and also we could see the case were the ICC indicted virtually the whole Kenyan government and all this issues were accumulating and bringing into the minds of African leaders which of them is going to be next? So this brought a lot of distrust for the ICC on the side of African states.
We could see that most African countries no longer honor Rome Statue even thou they are still part of it. So from this we could see that the ICC was quite too ambitious and ignorant about the case of Sudan before issuing the arrest warrant.
Second question that was asked was if the African states not aware or ignorant when signing to Rome Statute? Personally I wouldn’t agree to that. At the time most of these African nations were signing this agreement, most governments were still naïve in the aspect of governance as most of them just got independence and also after gaining independence they wanted to be among communities of states that were democratic. And lastly to some extent I felt some of them could have signed up to this statute as a condition before gaining so sort of international support us aid, developmental programs etc.
And lastly as stated in the class, we could see part of their anger was the case of Security Council in which 3 of it’s member who are not parties to the ICC were deciding on matters regarding the ICC.  

Intl Justice Reconciliation_Reading Memo

“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.