“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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Air or Water, Part II

Click here for Part I

Part II: Vital Voices

“Justice is an indispensable ingredient of the process of national reconciliation. It is essential to the restoration of peaceful and normal relations between people who have had to live under a reign of terror. It breaks the cycle of violence, hatred and extra-judicial retribution. Thus Peace and Justice go hand-in-hand.”

–Antonio Cassesse, former President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) , November 1995.

Fast forward twelve years and two continents since Judge Cassesse’s famous words at the signing of the Dayton Peace Accords. Northerners want justice for past atrocities. Victims continue to demand justice. Female victims demand justice. These were the news headlines after the release of two field studies conducted by the United Nations (U.N.) and the International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ) on Northern Ugandans’ attitudes toward peace and justice. Both reports found through interviews and other firsthand fact-finding that the vast majority of Northern Ugandans are not willing to go without justice as their government and the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) participate in on-again, off-again peace talks to end the twenty-year civil war. Let me repeat that for all of those well-intentioned folks who have been fueling the misleading and counterproductive peace versus justice debate: No peace without justice. And equally true, no justice without peace. Demanded by Northern Ugandans themselves. Perhaps now we can move on to a more nuanced debate, starting with what kind of justice do Northern Ugandans want?

Here again peace and justice advocates alike should pause before repeating the mistake of speaking on behalf of Northern Ugandans as we push for our respective agendas from our neat little offices in D.C., New York, and London. Any conflict resolution expert worth his/her salt will tell you that a sustainable, deep-rooted peace must first and foremost give voice to the affected population. The U.N. and ICTJ reports make this point clear and depict the painfully obvious need for peace and justice advocates to step outside of a black and white approach to this incredibly complex conflict and focus instead on the synergy between peace and justice (that’s and, not or). For an international justice (IJ) advocate, this means recognizing that nowhere in the reports does any one justice mechanism—from criminal prosecutions at the International Criminal Court (ICC) to traditional Acholi cleansing rituals—fully satisfy Northern Ugandans. The ICC has been investigating LRA atrocities for three years now and has issued arrest warrants for the LRA leadership, including founder Joseph Kony. According to the ICTJ report,

“Prosecutions were seen [by Northern Ugandans] as the best mechanisms to deal with those responsible for the [gravest] crimes, including domestic prosecutions (28%) and prosecution by the International Criminal Court (29%). Approximately 60% of respondents had previously heard of the ICC, and 67% believed that the ICC should be involved in responding to the atrocities that have been committed in Northern Uganda.”

But thanks to Ugandan President Museveni’s political craftiness and the LRA’s manipulation of the ongoing peace talks, a significant percentage of Northern Ugandans also worry that the ICC’s arrest warrants for the top LRA leadership will interfere with the current peace talks. This very real and understandable sentiment should not, however, be exploited by others to justify an anti-ICC stance—Northern Ugandans themselves have made clear that justice delayed is justice denied. The problem here is not an impartial international criminal court that is committed to making Northern Ugandans’ demands for justice a reality. The problem here is the brazen lack of genuineness with which both President Museveni and the LRA are “negotiating” peace on behalf of Northern Ugandans.

The LRA’s continued demands for the ICC arrest warrants to be dropped cannot come as a surprise to anyone. After all, which war criminal has ever wanted to end up in a jail cell for twenty years’ worth of amputated limbs, summary executions, and the mass terrorizing of an entire region??? But less obvious is President Museveni’s agenda—a former rebel turned leader whose presidential tenure is as long as his war with the rival LRA. Since the involvement of the ICC, President Museveni has pushed for the LRA’s prosecution at the ICC, then retreated to promising blanket amnesty to the LRA leadership, and now proposes domestic “courts” in lieu of the ICC to try the LRA. Why is that? Well there is the pesky little detail of Museveni’s own military, the Uganda People’s Defense Forces (UPDF), being just as complicit in the civil war in the Northern as the LRA has been. So much so that in both the U.N. and ICTY reports, Northern Ugandans overwhelmingly demanded UPDF perpetrators to be held accountable for their crimes as well.

But Museveni has made no mention of accountability for his own forces. Rather, he has continued to portray the ICC arrest warrants—which he himself sought when he referred the case to the ICC—as the major obstacle now to securing a peace agreement with the LRA. And yet Article 16 of the ICC’s treaty expressly allows for a U.N. Security Council-invoked renewable suspension of any ICC investigation. So if President Museveni truly believes that the Court’s arrest warrants are impeding the peace talks, he is well within his legal rights to invoke Article 16. Instead, in the two years since the ICC’s issuance of the arrest warrants, President Museveni has never attempted to follow a simple legal procedure that would demonstrate his good faith to both the Ugandan people and the international community. These days Museveni has abandoned his rhetoric of amnesty and is instead suggesting the creation of domestic courts to try the LRA leadership and other lower-ranking perpetrators. Creating domestic Ugandan courts to try the LRA would be a welcome development–ideal in fact, given the limited mandate of the ICC. But in the words of Human Rights Watch’s Elise Keppler and Richard Dicker,

“[A]ny national alternative to an ICC trial must demonstrate a genuine ability and willingness to conduct the investigation or prosecution. There will also be a need for other mechanisms to ensure accountability: trials for lesser offenses, a truth commission, and, where appropriate, traditional justice measures.”

“Genuine ability and willingness” means putting the needs of Northern Ugandans first. It means recognizing that when it comes to those LRA leaders most responsible for the worst crimes committed during the civil war, the ICC is still the most viable (and impartial) venue. It means committing to investigating and prosecuting UPDF war crimes in addition to the slew of lower-ranking LRA rebels in any future domestic court. And it means special considerations for child soldiers and others forcibly recruited by the LRA. Simply put, it means good faith on the part of Museveni’s government to deliver its people both peace and justice. But my guess is that a government that can’t demonstrate its commitment to the rule of law—another cornerstone of peaceful societies—cannot be trusted to negotiate or honor a peace agreement, much less provide justice for a people who desire and deserve it most.

Last week, the State Department’s Assistant Secretary for African Affairs, Dr. Jendayi E. Frazer, remarked on growing U.S. impatience with the Northern Uganda peace talks and remarked that if the talks fail, then the U.S. will support the LRA leadership’s arrest and transfer to the ICC. I would like to humbly point out to Dr. Frazer that we should already be cooperating with the ICC to enforce the arrest warrants against four of the most brutal war criminals in the world—the LRA leadership is no less guilty of war crimes simply because it is humoring peace talks at the moment. Furthermore, President Museveni himself has repeatedly made the same “if no peace then ICC warrants” argument. But using the ICC arrest warrants as a stick when they suit you and discrediting them when they don’t isn’t doing anyone justice. Still, I commend Dr. Frazer for recognizing the significant role that the ICC arrest warrants can play in ending the violence in Northern Uganda—allowing Museveni and the LRA to exploit the peace talks for more time and bargaining chips would be tantamount to seeking Northern Ugandans’ voices only to have them fall on deaf ears.

If human beings are to survive and thrive, we must have our most basic needs: air, water, peace and justice. For the people of Northern Uganda, twenty years is too long to go without the last two. The peace versus justice debate is a classic red herring used by rebels and leaders alike who don’t find either peace or justice to suit their interests. It’s time to stop indulging them.

• Click here to read the full ICTJ Report, “Attitudes about Peace and Justice in Northern Uganda.”
• Click here to read the full U.N. Report, “Making Peace Our Own: Victims’ Perceptions of Accountability, Reconciliation, and Transitional Justice in Northern Uganda.”
• Check out IJ Wire for latest news on the Northern Uganda situation.

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.

Air or Water? The Fallacy of “Peace vs. Justice” for Northern Uganda

Part I

In an increasingly capitalistic world, sentences that start with “I need” start to sound awfully silly when they end with “those shoes (of which I admit full and repeated guilt),” “another drink,” or “a plasma TV.” Much to the chagrin of the gazillion ad agencies who exploit our every material whim, the simple fact is that what we actually require in order to survive can be counted on one hand. The top two? My guess is most of us would say air and water.

Imagine the nonsensical scenario where someone actually makes us choose between our two most basic, interconnected needs. In all likelihood we would give them a quizzical look and politely point out that while neither air nor water is on its own sufficient to keep us alive, both are necessary to do so. We need both to sustain ourselves. We need both to grow. And we need both before we can even think about our other basic needs (still not shoes, ladies).

Now switch the words air and water with peace and justice. Imagine you are a civilian in war-torn Northern Uganda, ravaged by a twenty-year civil war that has left you and your family reeling from its effects. Imagine you are missing your hands, ears, and nose, and your children, desperate to avoid becoming child soldiers, commute miles at night to avoid abduction and forced recruitment. If your government/the United Nations/the international community gave you a choice between ending the violence tomorrow or letting the perpetrators of the crimes avoid criminal responsibility only to commit the crimes again, chances are you would think twice between choosing. But here too this “choice” is as nonsensical as choosing between air and water: we need both peace and justice to survive, heal, and ultimately, thrive after being subjected to such violence. Put in wonky academic terms (my apologies), peace and justice are integral elements of any sustainable resolution to conflicts that involve grave human rights violations against civilian populations.

The Republic of Uganda is a landlocked East African country with Kenya, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, and Tanzania as its neighbors. After being a British colony for almost 80 years, Uganda gained independence in 1962. After several coups and the violent rule of infamous dictator Idi Amin, National Resistance Army leader Yoweri Museveni overthrew then President Tito Okello in 1986 and has ruled Uganda ever since.

Notwithstanding early signs of a more stable government and notable progress with various domestic challenges such as HIV/AIDS, President Museveni cannot profess to have clean hands. Aside from involving Uganda in the Second Congo War and other violent conflicts in Africa’s Great Lakes region, Museveni’s government has been engaged in a devastating civil war with the cult rebel group the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) since the late eighties. The LRA is one of the most notorious rebel groups in Africa, operating out of Northern Uganda and increasingly, parts of Sudan. The LRA’s founder and current leader, Joseph Kony, considers himself a “spiritual medium,” claiming to draw on the Ten Commandments and his native Acholi traditions to “liberate” the Ugandan people. Yet the LRA systematically brutalizes the Acholi and other populations in Northern Uganda by using tactics such as maiming, mutilation, and rape. It also relies heavily on child soldiers who are forcibly recruited and ordered to fight and kill other soldiers, victims, and—in an effort to prevent their demobilization—their own family members. The Ugandan civil war between the government’s forces and the LRA is the longest running conflict in Africa with hundreds of thousands of lives, limbs, and childhoods lost.

If any of the names, dates, and events above sound familiar to you, it’s probably because you’ve heard recent news stories covering the peace talks (of which there have been many in the past) between Museveni’s government and the LRA. The latest round of the Juba Peace Talks come after a key event in the history of the violence: Uganda joined the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002 and President Museveni referred the LRA situation to the ICC to investigate in December 2003.

 

The ICC’s resulting investigation led to the landmark issuance of arrest warrants for Joseph Kony and four other senior LRA leaders accused of committing grave crimes and massacres since the Court’s establishment in 2002. Not surprisingly, the arrest warrants have become a source of great concern for the LRA leadership who have enjoyed rampant impunity for two decades now. In fact, since the commencement of the Juba Peace Talks, the LRA has threatened to abandon the peace talks if the ICC doesn’t withdraw its warrants. The LRA’s threats have precipitated a highly charged “peace vs. justice” debate in the context of Northern Uganda. Some advocates argue that peace must come at all cost, even if that means denying Ugandans long-overdue justice for the LRA’s heinous crimes. Others argue that justice and accountability must be a part of the greater plan for peace if the goal is a lasting, sustainable end to the ongoing cycle of violence. But what do Northern Ugandans want? The answer was unwavering and unequivocal last week—tune in for Part II, coming up next.

 

Hot off the Press

So much is happening in the world of IJ—are you up to speed on breaking IJ News? That’s what I thought. Check out my IJ Wire (conveniently located to your immediate right under “Pages”) for the latest news on a new Darfur film, Cambodia’s latest victory in the fight against impunity, the much-anticipated Victims Trust Fund at the ICC, new findings of sexual atrocities in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and much more.

You read, I write, we change. More soon.

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.