March 4 marks the third birthday of Omar al-Bashir’s original International Criminal Court indictment, charging him on multiple counts of war
crimes and crimes against humanity. (The genocide charges came a little later.) If indictments were children, Bashir’s would be able to:
- Speak in complete sentences
- Walk
- Count to 10
- Play nicely with others
- Ride a tricycle
Well, it’d be doing a little better than Bashir on some of those counts, at any rate! What went wrong with him, anyway? He’s still riding his tricycle all over Sudan, kicking sand and terrorizing the other kids on the playground with no ramifications.
What indictments cannot do at any age is enforce themselves. If it takes a village to raise a child, it takes a global community to say no to murderous dictators. Let’s put an end to this before that indictment is still wetting the bed in its awkward teens, shall we?
While not directly connected to the International Criminal Court and its due process, the term “Responsibility to Protect” is directly connected to everything we have discussed here in ‘Defined:’ to date.
This term is an official UN initiative created to bring swift action in response to mass atrocity crimes. It not only encompasses the use of military action, but also is the driving force behind NGOs and activist groups worldwide.
The concept of “Responsibility to Protect” is the glue that binds activists together. It is the idea that we are all responsible for one another and all responsible for the successful preservation of human rights. When one person’s rights are violated and no one responds, we have all failed in our mission as human beings.
The official UN initiative was enacted in 2005 in the wake of the Rwandan genocide. At its heart are three main tenants:
1. A state has a responsibility to protect its population from mass atrocities.
2. The international community has a responsibility to assist the state if it is unable to protect its population on its own.
3. If the state fails to protect its citizens from mass atrocities and peaceful measures have failed, the international community has the responsibility to intervene through coercive measures such as economic sanctions. Military intervention is considered the last resort.
Has the world done its duty in protecting those in need? We know End Impunity readers do what they can – yet End Impunity would not exist if this concept were consistently enforced. How do you feel the international community needs to step up and help where it has fallen short?
by Katie Hoselton, JWW University Fellow
This January, I launched an End Impunity campaign at my university, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. The campaign consisted of three weeks of advertisement through a series of posters, and culminated in a screening of the documentary The Prosecutor by Barry Stevens. The first poster that went up was a picture of Omar al-Bashir’s face covered by a QR link, with the words “Can you stop me?” This poster is intriguing because it does not give much information and poses a challenge to the viewer. People around my campus were confused by it at first. I put posters up all around campus: in bathrooms, classrooms, elevators, hallways – so people became really curious to find out what it was all about. After about a week of posting these around campus, I asked a few of my friends if they had seen and most said yes, and then asked me what it was all about. I think a lot of people were very curious but many either didn’t realize that they are supposed to scan it with their smartphone (had never seen a QR before), or didn’t have a smartphone to scan it with. This problem will disappear as QR and smartphones become more common. The posters I put up in the graphic arts and computer science buildings received the most attention, as people there knew what to do with them!
After about 10 days of QR posters, I put up “wanted” posters. I did not notice as dramatic of a response from the students from these posters as I did with the QR ones, but they did provide a clear message of the situation at hand. I put the posters up side by side so that people would make the connection that they are the same person. After another week, I put up flyers for the screening event, which was held on February 15. The flyer for the event had a picture of the QR link with al-Bashir’s face so that people would connect this event to the original posters. I also wanted to get members of the community involved, so I advertised in the local newspaper and on a San Luis Obispo events website. I also got in touch with a local congregation in SLO, Congregation Beth David, who advertised for the event at their temple. I also worked with the political science department and talked to most of the teachers in the major, who either announced the event in their classes or allowed me to come in and make a short announcement. A few of the teachers offered extra credit, which was a major plus. I talked to about 7 classes and clubs, which encouraged a lot of people to come. They saw that this was a student-run event, rather than just a lecture their teacher thought they should attend. I also saw students I knew in some of the classes I went to, which encouraged them to come to the event and support the cause.
Over 40 people turned out for the main event. I was happy with this number, because I really had no idea what to expect. I was a little surprised that more kids who were offered extra credit did not come. I reserved a big room with comfortable chairs in our University Union, which is one of the central hubs on campus, so we had an ideal location. Pizza was donated by Woodstocks. I think the smell of pizza wafting down the halls might have drawn in a few last minute attendees! I also bought soda, water, and chips, so that we had a little more food to offer. One thing that was frustrating was several people left early. Some left as early as 30 minutes into the 95 minute film. I had people sign in at the door, so I think students who came for extra credit realized they had already signed in and decided to leave early. I realize that there is nothing I can do about this but hope that the people who attend an event like this are truly interested in the cause. By the end of the film there were about 20 left.
Following the film we had an open discussion about the film and the issues it touched on. The Chair of the Political Science Department, who is very familiar with the workings of the ICC, helped me lead the discussion. Many people ended up voicing their opinions. The debate got quite heated and we ended up discussing how to ultimately achieve world peace! We stayed until the maintenance man came to kick us out. A few of the people who stayed until the end told me the next day how cool they thought the event was. The discussion at the end definitely enhanced the experience, and next time I will focus on getting more people to stay for it.
I consider this event a success, as I learned that there is a network of people at Cal Poly who are interested in these causes, even though sometimes I feel very alone in my pursuits. I think many students are aware of the situations in Sudan and Congo, but there is just currently no movement or outlet for these people to meet. The success of this event, as well as the positive response I have received from those who attended, have motivated me to continue to pursue these causes that I feel are so important. People seemed thankful for the opportunity to learn about what is going on in other parts of the world, which is very reassuring to me. While I still feel like I have a lot of work to do to make Sudan and Congo topics of conversation here at Cal Poly, I think that the End Impunity campaign was a great start to achieving this goal.
Thanks so much to End Impunity, who walked me through every step of this campaign, and to Barry Stevens for creating such a wonderful and provocative film.
In this series, we’ve taken a look at many of the counts criminals can be indicted under by the International Criminal Court. Soon, there will be another to add to the mix. “Crimes of Aggression” will likely be an indictable offense beginning in 2017 – provided enough supporting parties ratify the amendment at that time.
But that paints a rather gloomy outlook, doesn’t it? Almost five years away before anyone could be indicted for what the ICC calls a “most serious” crime?
Then again, take a look at our countdown and see just how long some of these offenders have operated after being indicted. While there clearly has been a wave of change in some parts of the world, others remain hopeless and ignored by the international community.
So what is a crime of aggression?
Also called a “war of aggression,” this term is used in cases of hostile acts for no apparent cause between different states. It is not used for civil conflict. An ICC document states a crime of aggression is:
“the planning, preparation, initiation or execution of an act of using armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State.”
What will the End Impunity roll call look like when “crime of aggression” becomes an indictable offense? Will anything have changed but the tally of days?
They say “all’s fair in love and war” – but is it? Is there a point at which war crosses the line? Is that even possible when you’re already shooting to kill?
According to the Rome Statute, there is. Even amid wartime, there are certain acts that are considered so deplorable that they are grounds for an indictment. Even in war, there are rules – rules on whom can be attacked and when, rules governing the recognition of surrender, and rules dictating the humane treatment of prisoners of war.
The exact boundaries between what makes something a crime of war or a crime against humanity are blurry. This is one of the greatest criticisms of the International Criminal Court. Yet a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet, and war crime or crime against humanity – rape is still a crime. Much of what the indictment states is a matter of the context of the situation.
At the end of the day, the guy who can’t even wage war without breaking the rules is one of the biggest scumbags of them all.
When you’re an important member of the UN, you’ve got a lot of things on your plate. There’s all that world peace mumbo jumbo and something about human rights? All those meetings, finding someone to pick up your dry-cleaning, and of course taking time out to schmooze with your fellow diplomats.
I mean, who could resist a chance to catch up on old times with war criminal Omar al-Bashir at a wedding hosted by the head of the brutal Janjaweed? It’s not like he ever responds when you post on his wall!
UNAMID Chief Gambari says it was just his ‘diplomatic duty’ to make nice with the first sitting head of state ever to be indicted for genocide.
Send a love note of your own to the United Nations: Don’t Break Our Hearts by Cozying Up To Bashir!
Everyone knows when you want something done right, you send a kid to do it!
Wait, what?
So what’s the big deal with this “enlisting child soldiers” thing? How did this come to be a charge someone could be indicted under? Who in their right mind would want to have an army of children?
Well, no one. A few of the ICC’s indicted, do, however.
According to the Rome Statute, “Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into the national armed forces or using them to participate actively in hostilities” is a war crime. It is a form of human trafficking, considered on par with child sexual enslavement.
Children are easily manipulated, especially in areas where food and shelter are scarce. Their families may be killed or threatened. The seductive lure of a meal and a place to sleep may be all it takes to unknowingly sign up for life – short though it may be. For others, there is no choice other than simply “kill or be killed.”
The most infamous child soldiers are those of Joseph Kony‘s LRA, for which he is indicted. Many others are either indicted or suspected of the enlistment of child soldiers as well. One, Dominic Ongwen, is even a former child soldier himself.
‘Crimes against humanity’ is one of the terms that falls under the umbrella of “mass atrocity.” While this term seems to be so vague it could incorporate just about any crime committed against another person, there is a specific legal definition of the term.
The International Criminal Court operates under the Rome Statue, a treaty outlining legal definitions and operating procedures. In this statute, “crimes against humanity” includes:
‘murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation or forcible transfer of population, imprisonment, torture, rape or sexual slavery, persecution, enforced disappearance, apartheid, or other means of causing great suffering’
In an explanatory memorandum, the Rome Statute goes on to denote that these acts are generally perpetrated by a government or authoritative body. This means that more or less, a ‘crime against humanity’ is an outright abuse of power on an ongoing and large scale.
Those indicted on counts of crimes against humanity are not just the schoolyard bullies – but rather the teacher or the principal bullying all the students in an incredibly vicious way.
‘Mass Atrocity’ is a term you don’t hear much outside the activist world – but it is a very important term indeed. After all, it’s right there in the founding premise for End Impunity: ‘a campaign to stop mass atrocities.’ It seems self-explanatory enough – it’s a… well, it’s a large-scale bad thing, right?
While it seems like any event where a lot of people die or are injured could fall under the definition of “mass atrocity” – the term is correctly used only when the cause of death is via deliberate criminal means. Earthquakes, tsunamis, and hurricanes, while tragic, are not mass atrocities. The Darfur conflict, the Rwanda genocide, and the Holocaust are all mass atrocities.
Three specific crimes fall under the umbrella of “atrocity” – genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. We already talked about genocide on “Defined:” and we will cover the others in weeks to come. There is quite a bit of overlap in each of these terms, but they each have their own individual legal definition. Therefore, “mass atrocity” is the catch-all phrase used to cover any act intentionally perpetrated on a large amount of people that causes their pain and suffering.
To put it in other words, if genocide is apples and war crimes are oranges – mass atrocity is fruit.
Pop quiz!
What is by and large considered the worst crime known to man? Well, there’s quite a few actually, and before we run too far down that road, we’ll just give you the answer:
genocide
This word gets used a lot in activist circles, but what does it really mean? And where did it come from, anyway?
‘Genocide’ came into vogue – or out of, so to speak – in the 1940s after the Holocaust. With its linguistic roots in the Greek, it literally means the extermination of a race. With its historic roots in response to the darkest time in human history, it should never be taken lightly.
The legal definition of genocide, according to the United Nations, is:
…any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in
whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as
such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated
to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
— Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide, Article II
—
Camps and gas chambers are not necessary for a genocide to be happening. There are many, many ways of attempting to eradicate a people. Think about the Janjaweed burning villages and killing in Darfur. Think about the Hutu slaughtering the Tutsi in Rwanda. Think about the forced marching of the Armenians.
We know, you would rather not think about it. We would rather not have to think about it either.
So would the victims.
Genocide is a game of cat and mouse to the perpetrator. Even worse, more often than not, the fat cat leader who is commanding the genocide sits back and orders his cronies to do the dirty work. Though indicted on counts of genocide (among others), Sudan’s Bashir enjoys a posh life of a world leader while his militia burns, tortures, rapes, and kills the people of Darfur. Bashir never gets his hands dirty.
Apparently, the perpetrators don’t want to think to much about it, either.
