“Hunger for Justice:” A Tale of Three Cities

 

Berlin, Germany—September/October 2007

It is the most indescribable feeling to walk on the same cobble-stoned streets where soldiers once marched to the cry of Heil Hitler! over sixty years ago as you make your way to the Berlin Parliament—the quietly grand and beautiful Abgeordnetenaus—to participate in a conference dedicated to the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) fight against impunity for the world’s worst crimes. It is nothing short of marveling awe as you recall the recent history of today’s breathtakingly diverse, bold, and beautiful Berlin—a city once torn in two with a divisive, glaring Wall separating East and West after World War II. It is simply astounding to see this city—once the headquarters of the Nazi government responsible for the calculated mass slaughter of millions—now the proud and deserving second home of international justice (IJ). For those of you who asked me why the conference on the ICC’s challenges and successes was being held in Berlin (as opposed to IJ’s first home—The Hague), I can only say that Germany’s capital city is living proof of the advancement of international law and justice.

And where are we—Americans—on the advancement of IJ? Has the U.S. shifted its reactionary and counterproductive policy toward a now adolescent ICC? That was, essentially, the topic of my speech at the Berlin Conference. Imagine trying to explain to a hall full of international organizations, civil society leaders, and German officials why the U.S. government, once responsible for the Nuremberg Trials prosecuting Nazis for their crimes, is now a challenge to a Court that is the natural and necessary evolution of Nuremberg. Not a simple task. Far less simple with only twelve minutes at the podium.

As promised, I emailed a number of you snippets of my speech. I will not regurgitate it here—I have made my position and supporting analysis of whether the U.S. is in fact shifting its policy toward the ICC clear in previous blog entries. Sufficed to say that my goal in Berlin surpassed a simple explanation of U.S. foreign policy. I was far more eager to articulate a fundamental truth that seldom makes it past the alienating foreign policies our government enforces in the IJ world: when it comes to the American public, there is majority support for the ICC. There is recognition of our moral backsliding, in particular in the years following September 11, 2001. And above all else, in the moving and eloquent words of ICC Judge Hans Peter Kaul on the last day of the Berlin Conference, there is a hunger for justice.

As I said in Berlin, I believe the American people are not only passionate but equally compassionate. We too are showing a ferocious appetite for peace, justice, and accountability. Engage us on the crises Darfur or Northern Uganda and you will experience our resolve and compassion. Galvanize us through targeted advocacy and you see our empathy and action. Challenge us and behold a people who are not willing to give up on their country’s once proud commitment to the rule of law. After trekking through the political analysis, I wanted the audience to know that if our current Administration has thus far failed to grasp the common goals and values that the United States has historically shared with those of the ICC, this has been far less the case with the American people, and increasingly, members of the 110th Congress who represent them.

Washington, D.C.—November 2007

Fall is by far the most beautiful season in Washington, D.C. One need only take in the rich colors of falling leaves amidst the dizzying aesthetic juxtaposition of national monuments, quiet, rowhouse-lined streets, a bustling downtown, and an ever calm Potomac River to see why this short lived season beats a universally admired, cherry blossom-adorned spring.

Never has there been a more exciting fall in D.C. for an IJ advocate. In Berlin I had announced to the audience that the 110th Congress was on fire. Upon my return to D.C., I was happy to see I had not overstated the case to my European peers. All year we have seen Congressional leaders push for a number of bills including but not limited to the Child Soldier Prevention Act, the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act, and the Genocide Accountbility Act; introduce and co-sponsor a resolution calling for the recognition of the Armenian Genocide (more on this soon); and hold a slew of Congressional hearings tackling questions such as, why are such a large number of war criminals (that’s right—war criminals) living and prospering in the U.S.? (my guess: palm trees + no domestic laws to end impunity = great place to retire).

Regardless of which side of the Atlantic we’re on, it looks like this fall the prevailing trend is a renewed call to fight the good fight: the fight against impunity. In the equally eloquent words of Senator Dick Durbin who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Human Rights and the Law Subcommittee,

“Repressive regimes that violate human rights create fertile breeding grounds for suffering, terrorism, war, and instability. In our time, the world is a much smaller place, and the social ills caused by human rights abuses know no borders. We will never be truly secure as long as fundamental human rights are not respected.”

New York, New York—December 2007

Comprised of one delegation from each country that has joined the Court, the Assembly of States Parties (ASP) currently boasts 105 ICC member states and serves as the Court’s oversight body. Since the Court’s inception in 2002, the annual ASP meeting has been held in The Hague, Netherlands, where the Court sits. This year it’s being held in right here in the U.S., at the United Nations (U.N.) in another seminal IJ city: New York. For the next two weeks, my IJ colleagues and I will join government delegates from over 150 countries to participate in an ambitious agenda adopted by this 6th ASP. From the election of three new judges to kick-starting the work of the Trust Fund for Victims, preparing for the highly anticipated Review Conference to take place in 2009, and fittingly, addressing US-ICC relations, this ASP embodies the urgent energy we all feel as the Court grows, Americans prepare to vote, and the world waits to welcome a new year with the greatest promise of justice yet.

Before the holiday rush sets in and dinner parties take precedence over political will, I hope you take a moment and reflect on the significance of this past year. With the imminent arrival of 2008, we will once again have the opportunity to demand our voices be heard on Capitol Hill and at the White House. If we are sincere in our efforts to end the genocide in Darfur—if we are genuine in our outrage when we see children with amputated limbs in war-torn Congo—if we truly believe that the U.S. must contribute to future IJ successes, not challenges, then we need to ensure that this hunger for justice we feel does not fall to the wayside amidst the frenzy of elections and party politics next year. Many of the presidential candidates have made positive and promising references to justice, accountability, and the ICC—let’s make sure these references turn into an unwavering resolution to reunite us with the rest of the world on a cause that we should have been championing all along.

I wish you all a safe, peaceful, and beautiful fall.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I’m taking you to Berlin

Berlin, Germany, that is (apparently there is also a Berlin, Pennsylvania).

I will shortly be off to speak at a conference titled, The International Criminal Court at Work: Challenges and Successes in the Fight Against Impunity, hosted by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the German Red Cross, and the Unite Nations Association of Germany. Over the last few months I’ve thought long and hard about my speech, the topic of which is “shifts in U.S. attitudes toward the International Criminal Court(ICC).” As you may have noticed, I have a view or two on this topic. But I’d like to hear your views as Americans on the ICC and take them with me to Berlin. So take a moment to email me and stay tuned…

Goose Bumps

We seem to hear the word “prosecutor” all the time here in the U.S. and our connotation of the word is seldom a positive one. Maybe it’s because names like Johnny Cochran, Kenneth Starr, and Mike Nifong end up on the six o’clock news on a far too frequent basis. But the often controversial reputations of individual prosecutors here in the States aside, being in charge of “putting the bad guys away” is not exactly easy. It’s even more challenging if, say, you’re a prosecutor in your early twenties and your very first case involves trying a group of war criminals for genocide. Or if you can’t picture that, imagine you know who the bad guys are, you have evidence of their crimes, and witnesses are eager to testify, but you don’t have a police force to actually arrest them. That would be like a Law and Order episode ending with the characteristically somber investigators walking away from the suspects they tried so hard to nab because the NYPD doesn’t answer to them. Tough job indeed.

Henry T. King Jr. is both an extraordinary and ordinary American.  He is extraordinary in that at 88 years of age, he is still the embodiment of the kind of fierce idealism that keeps us in humbling awe and admiration. And yet Mr. King is also incredibly ordinary—he is like every American who believes that rule of law, justice, and accountability are not just side issues that come and go with terms in office, but rather a core set of values upon which this country was built. Mr. King reminds all of us that sixty two years after the Nuremberg Trials, Americans still champion justice and accountability. This remarkable man is one of three surviving prosecutors who made history by trying Nazi criminals for the horrors of the Holocaust during World War II. That should get the hair on the back of your neck raised. Get ready for the rest of you.

Luis Moreno-Ocampo must wonder why a country that can boast of its Nuremberg legacy has taken such a bizarre, hyper-sensitive position vis-à-vis the International Criminal Court (ICC), where he’s employed as the Chief Prosecutor. A native Argentinean and the ICC’s first Prosecutor, Mr. Moreno-Ocampo has spent the last five years building cases against the leaders of the Lord’s Resistance Army in Northern Uganda, rebel warlord Thomas Lubanga Dyilo of the Democratic Republic of Congo, and two Sudanese suspects accused of perpetuating the Darfur genocide.

And Mr. Moreno-Ocampo remembers, like many international justice (IJ) advocates, a different (yet equally political) era where the U.S. didn’t make undermining the existence and functioning of the first ever international criminal court an actual foreign policy objective. But Mr. Moreno-Ocampo’s job is particularly hard—not because it’s a little difficult to gather evidence and interview survivors in four different countries. Or because the ICC is still young and there is too much to do with too little time, money, and staff to do it (notwithstanding their laudable efforts). No, Mr. Moreno-Ocampo faces a far greater challenge that would probably make most prosecutors retire to private practice: he doesn’t have a police force to execute the arrest warrants he issues.

What do I mean, you ask? Put simply, when the ICC’s treaty was negotiated back in 1998, the majority of countries (the U.S. included) decided that giving the ICC a police force would be conceding too much power. Instead, the ICC relies on member states and the international community at large to carry out arrest warrants of the world’s worst criminals. What happens if countries don’t step up or are committing the atrocities themselves? Well, then you get the sickening story of Ahmad Harun, the Sudanese Minister (of Humanitarian Affairs!), strolling through the same Darfur villages that he orders burned and their inhabitants raped, tortured, and killed.

Being an international justice nerd, I always wondered what it would be like if the world’s prosecutors—past and present—came together and said enough. Enough to genocide. Enough to pre-adolescent kids being forced to fight on the front lines as child soldiers. Enough to rampant sexual violence against women in conflict. And enough to time ticking as we all watch and do nothing. This past week, nine remarkable men with the toughest job in the IJ world did just that—they gathered at the First Chautauqua Conference in New York and issued the Chautauqua Declaration. So as to ensure my promise of goose bumps, I’ve taken the liberty of pasting (and bolding) the Declaration below (courtesy of the American Society of International Law(ASIL)).

The Assembled International Prosecutors, both Past and Present

Celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Hague Rules of 1907;

Remembering the legacy of our Nuremberg colleagues;

Recalling the principles of Nuremberg;

Noting the importance of the rule of law in facing down impunity;

Understanding the need for a family of nations united for peace;

Appreciating that the legal tools are now in place to prosecute those who bear the greatest responsibility;

Aware of the need to seek justice efficiently and effectively;

Noting that international humanitarian law still remains the cornerstone to controlling international and internal armed conflict;

Recognizing that both truth and justice create sustainable peace;

Highlighting that justice is not an impediment to peace, but in fact is its most certain guarantor;

Now do solemnly declare to the world  

That ending impunity by perpetrators of crimes of concern to the international community is a necessary part of preventing the recurrence of atrocities.  

That it is no longer about whether individuals agree or disagree with the pursuit of justice in political, moral or practical terms; now, it is the law.

That the challenge for States and for the international community is to fulfill the promise of the law they created; to ensure the arrest and surrender of individuals sought; and in that light;

That Ratko Mladic, Radovan Karadzic, Felician Kabuga, Joseph Kony, leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda, Ahmed Harun,  the Sudanese Minister who organized the system of persecution and attacks against the civilians in Darfur, and all others not listed here and are sought by international justice, be arrested and  surrendered to the appropriate court, tribunal or chamber;

That States are reminded of the words of Martin Luther King Jr. that “the arc of moral justice is long but it bends towards justice.”

That the world community take note of the words of Justice Robert H. Jackson at Nuremberg: “We are able to do away with domestic tyranny and violence and aggression by those in power against the rights of their own people only when we make all men answerable to the law.”

You’d have to be made out of stone not to feel the singular weight of this Declaration. It is the culmination of a century of international justice norms, mechanisms, and advocates. It captures the voices of three generations of hope, idealism, and an unwavering commitment to making “Never Again” a reality. True, the Declaration won’t make the Ahmad Haruns of the world appear in a cell in The Hague tomorrow. But something tells me if these nine men have anything to do with it, judgment day for the world’s most violent war criminals is a lot sooner than we think.  

But as remarkable and committed as the prosecutors are, they alone cannot fight and win against the kind of evil that leaves millions of innocent civilians in conflict displaced, starving, or dead. Thousands of miles away from the ICC and other international tribunals, we have to do our part too—it’s September and school isn’t the only thing back in session. The U.S. Congress will resume its legislative activities after the Labor Day weekend, and this fall is bound to be a flurry of activity on Capitol Hill. To that end, here are two quick and easy things you can do to stay informed, push for more constructive IJ policies, and make sure your voice is heard in D.C.:

1. Check out the website(s) of your presidential candidate(s) of choice and see if they support the ICC and core IJ laws such as the Geneva Conventions. If they don’t, send them an email—now is the time to get their attention on issues that matter.

2. Call your Representatives in the House and ask them to support the passage of the Genocide Accountability Act of 2007—a bill that will (finally) allow the U.S. to prosecute those who have committed genocide in other countries and are currently on U.S. soil. Click here for Senator Durbin’s summary of the Act and its implications if passed.

Some of these prosecutors are in their eighties. Some of them have stared into the eyes of the world’s most brutal war criminals. All of them still fight for a world free of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. So should we.

For news articles on the Chautauqua Conference and Declaration as well as Mr. King’s criticism of counterproductive U.S. policies on key IJ issues, check out IJ Wire.

Listen to Kate, people

Every once in a while I find myself reading an opinion piece that possesses the rare but very precious three C’s: clear, conscise, and compelling. Kate Karacay’s article on our Presidential candidates and the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Des Moines Register today was just that.

While I fine-tune Part II of Air or Water (also known as my commentary on the peace vs. justice debate in Northern Uganda), check out Kate’s piece, also available on IJ Wire. As Kate points out, now is the time to let the candidates know that across party lines, we support justice and accountability for the world’s worst crimes. And if you’re not a resident of Iowa, you’re not off the hook—doing our part to let the Presidential hopefuls know that Americans want a more constructive, cooperative, and good-faith U.S. policy on the ICC is one more concrete step toward promoting justice and accountability for the world’s worst crimes. 

And if you come up with another “C” adjective (crisp? cogent? clarifying?)—let me know.

  

Time to Follow Brian on Darfur

When I met Brian Steidle in late 2005 at a conference in Santa Fe, New Mexico, I was struck by the singular gravity in his countenance. It seemed as if the collective anguish of an entire population thousands of miles away was etched in his quiet, earnest face. Brian had good reason to be somber: he had witnessed the Darfur genocide firsthand the year before.

Located in the Western part of Sudan, the Darfur region was once home to six million inhabitants known as the Fur people. By 2004, this previously unfamiliar place gained international infamy as an area devastated by a relentless, state-sponsored campaign of ethnic cleansing. Since January 2003, gangs of militia called the Janjaweed (meaning “men on horseback” in Arabic) have razed thousands of villages, systematically raped women and girls, stolen livestock and other forms of livelihood, and mutilated and killed men and boys. As many as 500 Darfurians die each day. Since the violence began, 400,000 Darfurians have been killed by the Janjaweed and 2.4 million have been displaced (often in neighboring and equally fragile Chad). Millions more are vulnerable to starvation and disease. Add up all the numbers and you’re left with nearly every person in an area the size of Texas affected by the violence.

The Sudanese government has long denied any involvement in the Darfur atrocities, but the international community knows otherwise. Still, for the first few years of the crisis, there was no solid proof of collaboration between the Sudanese government and the Janjaweed. That all changed this past spring—the International Criminal Court (ICC), which has been investigating the Darfur atrocities, has made a critical evidentiary link between Janjaweed leaders and the Sudanese government officials who support their crimes.

A U.S. Marine at the time, Brian went to Darfur in 2004 as one of three unarmed American observers accompanying the African Union’s (AU) understaffed and overstretched monitoring force on the ground. Once there, Brian took hundreds of pictures to document what he was witnessing: everyday Darfurians killed, maimed, or haunted by the death, mutilation, and murder of neighbors and family members. When he came back to the States, Brian brought the images with him and set out on a nationwide campaign to show his pictures and compel his own people and government to act. Last week a new documentary by Annie Sundberg and Ricki Stern of Break Thru Films was released, aptly titled “The Devil Came on Horseback”(you absolutely m.u.s.t. click on this link). The film captures Brian Steidle’s remarkable journey and shows audiences why Brian’s countenance is far more serious than most people his age. As for the rest of us, the film serves as a stark reminder of just how little has been done to stop a genocide that has gone for longer than a U.S. Presidential term.

Many Americans have followed in Brian’s footsteps. American students, journalists like Nicholas Kristof, activists, actors such as George Clooney, Mia Farrow, and Don Cheadle, and even officials like New Mexico’s governor (and Democratic Presidential candidate) Bill Richardson have traveled to Darfur and continue to galvanize American support to end the Darfur genocide. There are also grassroots organizations such as the Genocide Intervention Network (GI-Net) that work tirelessly to raise Americans’ awareness and push for concrete action on Darfur. With so many Americans seemingly engaged, why has the once emphatic promise of Never Again been reduced to over and over again in Darfur?

President Bush has referred to the ongoing atrocities in Darfur as genocide. But neither he nor his Administration has matched efforts such as Brian’s in the fight to end the Darfur crisis. In fact, some Administration actions have seemed downright shameful in the face of such violence and suffering.

In March 2005, over two years after the violence started, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), on which the U.S. has a permanent seat, was preparing to consider referring the Darfur situation to the ICC under Chapter VII of the UN Charter and Article 13 of the ICC’s Rome Statute. A recently obtained Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request suggests that the Administration went out of its way to keep the ICC referral option off the table due to its opposition to the Court. When its efforts failed to pay off with both its European and African counterparts, the Administration was faced with either vetoing the resolution or putting its dislike of the ICC aside long enough to give Darfurians a real shot for justice and accountability at the Court. In the end, the U.S. abstained from the vote altogether, along with permanent member China and rotating members Algeria and Brazil. Resolution 1593 passed on March 31, 2005, enabling the first-ever permanent international criminal court to do what no one has thus far done for Darfur: go after those most responsible for the worst atrocities.

Since the March 2005 referral, the ICC has conducted a painstaking investigation of the Darfur atrocities, often from refugee camps in neighboring Chad (the Sudanese government won’t allow Court officials in Darfur for obvious reasons). This past spring marked a milestone for Darfur as the ICC issued two arrest warrants for Ahmad Harun, a Sudanese Minister (of humanitarian affairs, no less) and Janjaweed leader Ali Kushayb. The men are accused of committing 51 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity against the people of Darfur. And the investigation has just started gaining momentum. Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo has made clear that he will go wherever the evidence takes him. Most importantly, Mr. Moreno-Ocampo has presented evidence that clearly links Harun and Kushayb in crimes committed between 2003 and 2004, meaning that the Sudanese government is complicit, if not outright orchestrating, the Darfur genocide.

Notwithstaning public declarations of the Darfur atrocities as genocide, senior Administration officials have failed to prioritize Darfur in U.S. foreign policy. A case in point: In 2006, U.S. officials met with Senior Security Minister Salih Gosh at least once on U.S. soil to discuss Sudanese cooperation with the Administration’s “war on terror” abroad. Mr. Gosh lucked out—the Genocide Accountablity Act that would have likely allowed for his capture and prosecution by U.S. courts was only introduced this year and has yet to pass the House of Representatives. Mr. Gosh is widely believed to be the No. 2 in command in Sudan and deeply involved in the ongoing campaign of ethnic cleansing in Darfur.

Last week the UNSC finally passed a long overdue resolution authorizing a 26,000 member strong hybrid UN/AU force to be deployed to Darfur. The catch? No cooperation with the ICC on executing its arrest warrants against Harun, Kushayb, and any perpetrators identified in the future. While the much stronger hybrid UN/AU force is sorely needed on the ground, the resolution has come at a maddeningly slow pace and has lacked any strong leadership from the Administration. Indeed, the Administration has dragged its feet on Darfur for so long that the use of the G-word by President Bush rings hollow and seems terribly disingenuous in light of the ongoing violence. Even as the Darfur case is at the ICC, the U.S. has done little to assist the Court and show a true commitment to ensuring peace, justice, and accountability for Darfurians. Simply put, the Administration’s largely discounted, highly counterproductive policy toward the ICC has resulted in a mind-boggling “come to us approach” executed in large part by the Department of State. Of course this isn’t the official Administration position—after all, Mr. John B. Bellinger III, the Legal Advisor to the Secretary of State, has recently been credited with expressing U.S. “openness” to Darfur-related U.S. assistance to the ICC. But in between the lines is the unofficial truth when it comes to U.S. support (of which there has been none thus far) on the ICC’s Darfur case. Pay close attention to the words I’ve bolded in an excerpt from a recent speech Mr. Bellinger gave in The Hague, the Netherlands:

“We did not oppose the Security Council’s referral of the Darfur situation to the ICC, and have expressed our willingness to consider assisting the ICC Prosecutor’s Darfur work should we receive an appropriate request.”

Mr. Bellinger, Darfurians don’t owe us a thank you for not vetoing the ICC referral. By abstaining from the vote, we only succeeded in showing the world that we are more paranoid about an ill-conceived threat from the ICC than we are committed to universal principles of justice, fairness, and accountability. And Darfurians definitely don’t have time for the “come to us” approach we’re favoring these days. This is a genocide, not a game of political strategery. The ICC is a legal body, not a political institution. That means that we should assist the ICC investigation in any way we can—from turning over satellite imagery of the Janjaweed’s aerial bombardments of Darfur villages with Sudanese government gunships to re-prioritizing the conflict as a whole in our foreign policy.

Even the staunchest ICC opponents must concede that specific assistance on the Darfur case is not the same as blanket approval for the ICC as an institution. With the Sudanese government transplanting new populations in place of the ones it has slaughtered in Darfur, time and evidence is running out. Did we not swear Never Again after World War II and the Rwandan and Bosnian genocides? How many more deaths must there be before our government’s inaction makes us complicit in genocide?

Thankfully, Congress has been much more proactive in addressing and redressing the Darfur crisis. Last week, with the help of groups like GI-Net, the House of Representatives passed the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act (DADA) with 152 co-sponsors and a vote of 418 to 1 (don’t ask about the lone dissenter—(s)he gets to stay anonymous). GI-Net summed up the Bill best in its July 31st press release:

[…]this bill will authorize and protect states that divest from the culpable companies that support the genocidal government of Sudan and refuse to change their behavior..Despite existing bans prohibiting U.S. companies from conducting business operations in Sudan, institutions and even individuals throughout the United States are indirectly fueling the genocide by investing in foreign companies complicit in the bloodshed. The Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act will establish a federal list of the culpable foreign companies to better inform Americans regarding their investments. Furthermore, the bill forbids the U.S. federal government from entering into or renewing contracts with companies included on that list and authorizes state and local governments to do the same. H.R. 180 also protects these state and local governments and asset managers who divest. Since the government of Sudan relies heavily on foreign investment to fund its military, divestment is an effective strategic move against the crisis.”

DADA is now in the Senate and it’s time for us–everyday Americans like Brian Steidle—to take a stand. The dedicated folks at GI-NET have set up a hotline for us to call and tell our Senators to pass DADA: 1-800-GENOCIDE.

Brian Steidle has done his part ten times over to push for an end to the Darfur violence, but he is still one American. There are 300 million of us in this country, and we can’t afford to drag our feet. I’m not asking you to go to Darfur. I’m asking for a one-minute phone call. Never Again starts with us, and it starts now. After you call your Senator, check out the listings for Brian’s documentary. As they say, a picture is worth a thousands words. In Brian’s case, these pictures may be worth a thousand lives. Since the time you started reading this blog posting, three Darfurians have died from violence, starvation, or disease.

For the latest news on Darfur, check out my IJ Wire.

For my briefing paper, “No Peace without Justice: U.S. Must Cooperate with ICC on Darfur,” co-authored with colleague Julia Fitzpatrick, click here.

For more information on the Darfur crisis, check out these organizations’ websites:

Genocide Intervention Network

Save Darfur Coalition

Enough Project

 

 

Move over, Gucci, here comes International Justice

When we think of Los Angeles and its inhabitants, many words come to mind. Granted most of them are based on stereotypes, but let’s face it: L.A. must be the only city in the country where grocery shopping requires Gucci loafers in addition to your Safeway Club Card. But stereotype no more—as of July 24, L.A. must now be associated with two new words: International Justice.

I wrote my first blog entry about International Justice (IJ) Day which is commemorated around the world each year on July 17. This day not only marks the anniversary of the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) founding treaty, the Rome Statute, it also reaffirms the global commitment to making sure atrocities like those raging in Darfur, Sudan don’t go unpunished.

Last week the 15 representatives of the Los Angeles City Council passed a resolution declaring July 17, 2007 IJ Day. I heard through the IJ grapevine that the ICC Alliance (ICCA) of Southern California was instrumental in getting IJ Day on the Council’s Agenda and securing its ultimate adoption. I gave a talk last year to the very dedicated, genuine folks who make up the ICCA, and I must say, in a city that is often accused of existing in a bubble, the ICCA has done a tremendous job of raising awareness and advocating for the ICC.

But L.A. wasn’t the only city to support the cause of international justice and the ICC this month. Thanks to local activism and the tireless efforts of Amnesty International, Columbus, OH, New Haven, CT, New York, NY, Peoria, AZ, Portland, OR, and Terre Haute, IN all issued proclamations declaring July 17 International Justice Day. Here’s an excerpt from the Peoria proclamation (goosebumps warning in full effect):

“Whereas, during this century millions of children, women and men have been victims of unimaginable atrocities that deeply shock the conscience of humanity, and

Whereas, grave crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes threaten the peace, security and well-being of the world, and

Whereas, those responsible for such crimes have largely gone unpunished throughout history, and

Whereas, efforts to hold those responsible for such crimes will contribute to prevention and serve as a catalyst for ending the armed conflicts in which such crimes are often committed, and [...]

Whereas, the ICC is today investigating those responsible for atrocities perpetrated in Northern Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic, and Darfur, Sudan, which together represent some of the most protracted, violent conflicts in the world, and,

Now, Therefore, I, Bob Barrett, Mayor of the City of Peoria, do hereby proclaim July 17, 2007 as International Justice Day in the City of Peoria and urge residents to recognize the important contribution of the International Criminal Court to the advancement of justice, peace and security throughout the world.“

If you’re not from L.A. or any of the other six U.S. cities that have embraced IJ Day, there’s no need to relocate—you have 352 days to work with your local community leaders, advocates, and representatives to make sure your city adopts IJ Day in 2008. Next year marks the 10th anniversary of IJ Day. Seven cities have paved the way. It’s time for the rest of us chip in and show unwavering support for laws, norms, and mechanisms like the ICC that work to prevent and punish the world’s worst crimes. It’s time to show the international community that justice and accountability are American values, too.

Girl, Interrupted

Put the movie and Wynona Ryder out of your head for a moment and try to remember what your life was like as a teenager here in the U.S…I can’t speak for the boys, but for us girls, it often consisted of loud music, shopping malls, fast food, and daily commiseration with BFFs (best friends forever) as to the generally sad state of adolescence.

I met someone in the course of my ICC advocacy this past spring—a fifteen year-old girl from an eastern village in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), in Central Africa. For security and privacy reasons, I’ll call her Shuku. She was vibrant and beautiful, with a noticeable grace and maturity that far exceeded her age. I don’t think Shuku has seen “Girl, Interrupted,” but if she had, I wonder what she would think of the challenges that the young American girls in that movie faced. I think she would laugh her contagious laugh and tell me something in French (her second language) that would remind me why she’s like no other girl I’ve met. Shuku’s experiences as a teenager haven’t consisted of shopping malls and fast food. Shuku is a former girl soldier.

The DRC is the third largest country in the continent of Africa. It shares its borders with Central African Republic (CAR), Sudan, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Tanzania, Zambia, Angola, and the Republic of the Congo (also known as Congo Brazzaville). The International Criminal Court (ICC) is currently investigating mass atrocities in three of these neighboring countries(Sudan, Uganda, and the Central African Republic). The ongoing violence in the DRC is also the subject of an ICC investigation; the trial of Congolese rebel leader Thomas Lubanga Dyilo is currently underway in The Hague. The charges? The use and recruitment of child soldiers.

The DRC gained its independence from Belgium in 1964. The years following independence were not free of violence. But the past twelve years have been particularly devastating for the people of the DRC. Since 1996 the DRC has been brutalized by two wars. The First Congo War took place from 1996 to 1997, when then President Mobutu Sese Seko was overthrown. The Second Congo War erupted in 1998 and “ended” in 2003 when the Transitional Goverment took over (I put ended in quotes because violence continues to break out in the DRC, particularly in the East). The Second Congo War was one of the deadliest in modern African history and has been called the “African World War.” The War engulfed eight different African countries and over 20 armed rebel groups. Nearly 4 million people died from violence, starvation, and disease. Millions more have been displaced and have set record (forced) migration numbers. The DRC is home to the largest United Nations peacekeeping mission in the world.

The DRC situation was the ICC’s first investigation and was initiated at the request of the DRC government in 2004. On January 29th of this year, Mr. Lubanga Dyilo was charged with three counts of enlisting, forcibly recruiting, and sending child soldiers into combat, all war crimes under the ICC’s Rome Statute. Some ICC opponents and proponents alike have criticized the Court for charging Mr. Lubanga Dyilo, the founder and leader of the rebel group Union de Patriotes Congolais (UPC), only with charges relating to child soldiers. Some rights activists argue (correctly) that these charges do not cover rape and other forms of sexual violence to which girl soldiers in particular have been subjected. The ICC can definitely do more to include gender-based crimes in charges against individuals like Mr. Lubanga Dyilo. Still, I’m compelled to point out that the lack of additional charges against Mr. Lubanga Dyilo in no way detracts from the singular heinousness of forcing an eleven year-old to fight, machete in hand, on the front lines.

I’m also encouraged by the fact that since the beginning of the case, the Court’s Chief Prosecutor, Mr. Luis Moreno-Ocampo, has made clear that the investigation in the DRC is ongoing and Mr. Lubanga Dyilo will likely not be the last suspect to face charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity in the DRC case (check out my IJ Wire for the latest story on forthcoming DRC indictments).

I am proud to say that the ICC is not alone in tackling the use of child soldiers in armed conflict. On April 19^th, Senator Richard Durbin (D-Il) introduced a Bill called the Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2007. The Bill has 19 Co-sponsors—both Democrat and Republican—and aims to limit U.S. military aid and training to governments that use children in hostilities. The week after the Bill was introduced, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law, which Senator Durbin chairs, addressed the issue of child soldiers and heard testimony from leading child rights groups. The Human Rights and the Law Subcommittee has shown commendable leadership on the issue of child soldiers. Now it’s our turn. Here are three things you can do in less than five minutes that will send a clear message: Americans will not stand for the use of children in armed conflict, anywhere.

1. Check out www.ajedika.org. AJEDI-Ka is a DRC-based non-profit organization that is dedicated to demobilizing and reintegrating child soldiers in DRC and neighboring countries. Make sure to click on the clip of the documentary, “Duty to Protect: Justice for Child Soldiers in the DRC” (produced by AJEDI-Ka Executive Director and filmmaker Bukeni Beck).

2. Find your Senators’ phone numbers at www.senate.gov and tell them to support the Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2007. It’s time we use our foreign aid leverage in a positive way. Click here for the latest status of the Bill.

3. Educate yourself: set up a Google News Alert with the keywords “child soldiers” and get the latest news and analysis from sources like Human Rights Watch, World Vision, and the Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers.

This blog is dedicated to Shuku, whose grace and bravery continues to humble an inspire me. Merci Beaucoup, Shuku.

 

U.S. and the ICC: Lukewarm is not warm

I’ve been an ICC advocate for almost seven years and there’s one question people ask that never seems to have a short answer: What’s the real deal with the current U.S. policy on the ICC? I am going to spare you the very long answer (in this blog, at least). But sufficed to say that characterizing U.S. policy on the ICC as one that is “warming up” these days would be, well, wrong. Don’t take my word for it though—take the word of the Secretary of State’s Senior Legal Advisor, John B. Bellinger III.

I gave a presentation on U.S.-ICC policy last November at the ICC’s fifth Assembly of States Parties in The Hague, and as tempting as it was to paint a rosy picture for the foreign officials, NGO representatives, and other stakeholders who were wondering about Washington’s mixed signals on the ICC, I refrained. When you’re a 29 year-old halfway across the world in a room full of diplomats and veteran ICC advocates, you remember your manners: Be attentive. Show respect by listening. Think before you speak. Don’t be overly confident. But I was there for a reason, and as one of (sadly) a handful of people who tracks U.S. policy on the ICC, I wasn’t about to misrepresent the facts on the U.S. side.

The reality was that I didn’t think the Administration was “warming up” to the ICC. Put another way, I didn’t believe that the recent congressional and presidential action was reflective of a deeper policy shift toward the ICC. Rather, the Administration was trying to triage the consequences of a policy that had been bad from the start: its Bilateral Immunity Agreement (BIA) campaign. More pragmatic voices inside the Administration had seemingly realized that the BIA campaign, which requires all ICC countries to sign blanket immunity agreements for Americans or face millions of dollars in aid cuts, was an ineffective policy at best. At worst (which in my view has come to pass), the BIA campaign has been a counterproductive policy that has burned much needed political capital with countries like Jordan (“our greatest Arab ally in the war against terror”), Kenya (“a linchpin of East African stability and security”), and a slew of Latin American countries (much to the delight of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez).

For the last eight months, I’ve been hoping my assessment at The Hague was overly cautious. But Mr. Bellinger’s June speech in The Hague and July 12 interview with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) here in D.C. confirmed how lukewarm the U.S. government is when it comes to the ICC.

On June 6, Mr. Bellinger gave a speech titled “United States and the Law” in The Hague, the Netherlands. He opened his speech with this memorable line: “Some of you may think it rather bold of me to come to a city renowned for its institutions of international peace, justice, and security and talk about the United States’ commitment to international law.” (It’s no secret that our European friends are dumbfounded by U.S. policy toward the ICC, not to mention other issues like Guantanamo). He mentioned U.S. opposition to the ICC, saying that “we believe it important that ICC supporters take a…practical approach in working with us on these [international justice] issues, one that reflects respect for our decision not to become a party to the Rome Statute. It is in our common interest to find a modus vivendi on the ICC based on mutual respect for the positions of both sides.” (I put in the bold).

There’s no question that the U.S. is a sovereign country and as such can choose not to join the ICC. But this fact is precisely where he loses me—why doesn’t the reverse hold true for the U.S. government? Surely other sovereign countries have the same right to choose to join the ICC without fear of reprisal or strong-arming from us. This would be the “mutual respect” that Mr. Bellinger mentioned. But this has not been our policy. Mutual respect would not leave a country like Peru with a 2005 per capita GNI of $2610 with millions of dollars in aid cuts from the U.S. simply because it joined the ICC and doesn’t want to violate its own laws by signing a BIA.

In his July 12 interview with CFR’s Robert McMahon, Mr. Bellinger finally set the record straight: “I understand that this has been the view of many ICC supporters all along—that as long as the ICC as an institution continues to behave reasonably, the United States will warm to it. I don’t think that’s an accurate characterization” (my bold).

By the way, if you’re wondering why the U.S. is so opposed to the ICC, Mr. Bellinger described the Administration’s chief concern as the ICC having “purported jurisdiction over us.” I’m glad he used the word “purported”—sounds like he’s read the ICC Chief Prosecutor’s detailed communique in February 2006 explaining exactly why the ICC does not have jurisdiction over U.S. actions in situations like the war in Iraq. The communique wasn’t an isolated occurrence, either—ICC officials have stressed at every turn that in accordance with its treaty, the ICC is a court of last resort. This means each country’s domestic legal system has primary jurisdiction over its own nationals accused of committing war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.

I understand Mr. Bellinger’s situation: to have a change of heart now would make the fiery rhetoric of opposition that the Administration and some members of congress have shown the ICC for the past seven years seem awfully silly. (My favorite is former Congressman Tom Delay’s characterization of the ICC as “Kofi Annan’s kangaroo court.” I should mention that the ICC is wholly independent from the U.N. and its Secretary Generals). Still, I really wish our officials were going about this differently. If the government has concerns about the ICC, which it has a right to do, it should go about expressing them in a much more constructive way. If you’re upset with someone, stewing in a corner and picking on others who speak to that person is only going to leave you angry and alone.

It’s recently been rumored that the State Department no longer views the BIA campaign as a priority. The reason? Apparently the Administration doesn’t consider the ICC as a threat anymore. Not exactly the warmth I was looking for. I’m having an increasingly difficult time letting Mr. Bellinger speak for me and other Americans. The fact is the majority of us in this country support the ICC—an international criminal court that is tasked with investigating and prosecuting the world’s worst crimes. The ICC isn’t about targeting the U.S. Characterizing the Court that way tells the millions of innocent civilians in Darfur, Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda, and countless other places that we don’t care about ending genocide and impunity. Mr. Bellinger says our Administration shares the “overall ends” of justice and accountability, just not the ICC. It’s time for other American voices to be heard.