You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Africa’ tag.

In this edition of the Auschwitz Institute podcast, Jared Knoll speaks to Dr. James Waller, Academic Programs Director for the Auschwitz Institute, as well as Curriculum Coordinator and Instructor for the institute’s Raphael Lemkin Seminar for Genocide Prevention. He currently holds the position of Cohen Chair of Holocaust and Genocide Studies at Keene State Collge. In 2002, he published the first edition of Becoming Evil: How Ordinary People Commit Genocide and Mass Killing and he is now working on his next book, titled Genocide: Ever Again? anticipated for publication in 2014. He has conducted fieldwork in Northern Ireland, the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Argentina.

 

Welcome, I’m Jared Knoll with the Auschwitz Institute for Peace and Reconciliation. So far in these podcasts we’ve spoken with individuals doing amazing things in the field of genocide prevention. Today I’m taking a look inward at the Auschwitz Institute itself. Why it’s here, what it does in the field of genocide prevention, and how it uses the tools available to effect positive impacts. Speaking with me is Dr. James Waller, author of the book Becoming Evil, coordinator for the Raphael Lemkin Seminar for Genocide Prevention, and the Academic Programs Director for the Auschwitz Institute. Thanks for talking to me today, Jim. It’s good to have you with us.

 Thanks, Jared, it’s great to be with you. I appreciate you giving me the opportunity.

So how was it, Jim, that you first got involved with the Auschwitz Institute?

My first connection with the institute came in 2007. I was at a conference of the International Association of Genocide Scholars in Sarajevo, and before the conference Fred Schwartz had sent out a note to everyone who was going to participate at the conference, explaining a little bit about his vision for the Auschwitz Institute for Peace and Reconciliation. And it happened that Fred and his wife, Allyne, came to a presentation where I gave a talk on my work on perpetrators of genocide and mass atrocity, and immediately after my talk Fred came up, and Allyne, and asked me to join them for dinner that evening with John Evans, and Deborah Lipstadt, and Tibi Galis, and a few other people, and at the dinner Fred talked a bit more about his vision for the institute.

And in some subsequent conversations over the next few months, he and I chatted about my work, and how it might fit within the institute itself. And I think really, for me, Fred opened up the next chapter for my work in perpetrator behavior, to think about it from a standpoint of how it might apply itself to prevention. And at the inaugural seminar, the Raphael Lemkin Seminar for Genocide Prevention we had in May 2008, I was honored to be one of several different instructors of that seminar. And since that time I’ve been able to participate in every single seminar we’ve had, with kind of increasing responsibilities that today have led up to the position of academic programs director.

 So it sounds like, in starting with the institute, it changed you as much as a person as it changed your work.

Yeah, I think it did very much. I think I really had not made a connection of what I did with issues of prevention. I think in my courses I talked about the need to make “never again” a reality, but I really didn’t know what that meant in practice, or even in theory. And so I think Fred’s great challenge, and I think really the genius of the institute, is to say that we have to marry all of the great work being done in academic research, with fieldwork, and policymaking, policy implementation, that we need to get this information outside of academia to the people who matter more than academics in this area, and that’s people who make policy and implement policy at governmental levels. And Fred’s push, and I think really the institute’s push to have that cross-boundary conversation, has really been the key to the success of the institute to this point.

What sorts of things has the institute done so far, in that sort of respect, in fieldwork and in effecting policy change. What has it done so far, do you think, that has contributed most to preventing genocide?

You know our legacy to this point, just about five years into it, is pretty remarkable in terms of the couple of hundred policymakers that we’ve trained through the Raphael Lemkin Seminars for Genocide Prevention, the several dozen U.S. military personnel that we’ve trained through the Fort Leavenworth program that has come through Auschwitz as well, I believe in three different seminars. So I think what we’ve done is bring to people who might not otherwise have had access to this information, some of the cutting-edge information on genocide prevention. And really, what I think broadly about what we’ve tried to accomplish at these seminars, it really is trying to help people understand what genocide and mass atrocity crimes are, from a legal perspective, from a ground perspective.

Secondly, trying to help them understand what the risk factors are for genocide and mass atrocity prevention. And thirdly, and this is most important whether it’s military or policymakers, trying to help them understand what leverage and responsibility they have in their unique positions, where they can make a difference in the face of this. And I think we’ve built a network of people who have some really fairly nuanced understanding of the challenges of genocide and mass atrocity prevention, who I think draw on each other for information as much as they draw on us. And I look at the development even of our Latin American Network for Genocide and Mass Atrocity Prevention, which developed from one of the participants in our very first seminar, who went back and recognized that the strength of what genocide prevention could be, would lie really in strong regional efforts. And the opportunity we have to work on that in Latin America, and now in an emerging program in Africa, to build capacity for regions, and states within regions, to make a difference here. I think that’s really been the legacy, an incredible legacy, of just the five years of this institute.

What do you think the biggest challenges are in achieving those missions as we currently define them?

Jared, I think the biggest challenge is that prevention isn’t as appealing as intervention. Intervention kind of has a heroic “something’s going on, we come in, we stop it.” Clear, concrete stuff that you can use for a newscast or a video clip. I mean it’s just something, for lack of a better word, heroic, about that kind of heroic, about that type of intervention that makes news. Prevention doesn’t have that same focus. When we do good prevention, people never hear about it. People never know about it because we’ve prevented something from occurring, or we’ve prevented a conflict from escalating into genocide and mass atrocity. So it doesn’t quite capture peoples’ imagination as much, simply because we’ve stopped something from occurring, as opposed to something like intervention.

So I think our challenge is trying to rise above that and say that the costs of prevention are so much less, in every way, than the costs of intervention. And while prevention may not seem quite as heroic an effort as intervention, that it just makes economic sense, it makes sense in terms of life and loss of life, it makes sense on every level for us to invest in prevention, rather than stepping in to stop conflict, once it’s escalated to this point.

Do you think that as a society, and especially as a Western society, we run up against the same sorts of hurdles, where we understand that it’s better to educate than to imprison, it’s better to have nutrition than to have open heart surgery. Do you think that we’re going to run up into those same issues where we just don’t want to think about the hard work that has to be done beforehand, and we prefer to just wait and see?

 Yeah, no, I think you’re exactly right. I think with some of the biggest problems, for instance, facing American society, we tend to focus on them once they become a problem, and we want to somehow stop the problem with some direct intervention, when much of the groundwork could have been done ahead of time. But again, it just isn’t easy if you’re a politician to get funding, for instance, to do things that are preventive. It’s easier to get funding to do things that intervene and stop a problem as it’s ongoing. But the question is, can we have a longer-range vision to help us understand the tremendous benefits of preventing these problems before they start, rather than responding to them once they’re in place. And I think we’re seeing changes in that. I think we’re seeing changes certainly at the UN level, and understanding issues of genocide prevention. Certainly in the U.S. with the Atrocities Prevention Board, that’s a positive step forward as it starts to develop. Other regions, other countries have started to take prevention seriously. So I think we’ve got to the point where people are starting to get the message. We just now need to keep reinforcing what do prevention policies and practices look like.

So if we could overcome all of the challenges, and if you could imagine the best possible outcome in five years, where would the Auschwitz Institute be, and what might it achieve?

 That’s a great question. I think that for anyone that works in the field of genocide studies or genocide prevention, part of your hope is that one day your field is obsolete, it’s no longer needed. I guess in some ways I think about that when I think about the work of the institute. I hope one day this institute’s not needed any longer, because we simply aren’t facing this problem. I don’t think we sit anywhere close to a world, though, where that’s a reality. I mean the pressing population growth, scarcity of resources, the increase in number of nation-states and contested boundaries, all of these things just lead us, unfortunately, to some pretty dire predictions about what the world will be like and continue to be like in terms of conflict, and also in terms of escalation into genocide and mass atrocities. So I think unfortunately the work of the institute is absolutely still going to be needed five years from now.

I think, for me, our greatest successes will be what capacities have we built for regions and nation-states. In other words, our seminars that they get involved in are meant to empower them to go back and make differences in their own communities and in their own regions. The more that we can enable people to do that work, rather than people coming to us for that work, or coming to the UN for that work, the more that states can build the capacity to do this work in their own state, I think the better off we’d be. So it is, for me, that would be a great point for us to be at five years from now, is to continue to point to programs like in Latin America, like in Africa, where we’ve built capacities for states and regions to engage in genocide and mass atrocity prevention.

You wrote a book called Becoming Evil: How Ordinary People Commit Genocide and Mass Killing. Would you like to tell us a little bit about that book, and about the next book you’re working on?

Yeah, sure. Becoming Evil was first published in 2002 and a second edition in 2007, and basically the central thesis of the book is that it’s ordinary people like you and me who commit the vast majority of genocide and mass killing. And what I’m trying to look at there is how is it that ordinary people become transformed into people capable of committing these atrocities. And I argue in this book that very few perpetrators are born.

In other words, we don’t have people waiting to perpetrate these atrocities just as soon as they’re given permission. I think these are people who, by and large, could never envision themselves committing the type of atrocities we see in genocide and mass killing, but over time become involved by their own choice, by some limited circumstances, in situations that begin to transform their view of the other, the target group, begin to transform their sense of responsibility to their society. Begin to transform their view of the worth and sanctity of human life. And over time they come to think that it’s not just right to do the killing they do, but that it’s wrong to not do the killing. And so as a psychologist I try to understand, or lay out a model, for what are the forces that kind of transform, and influence, and shape people in this direction. While at the same time absolutely saying that these people still hold personal, legal, moral, philosophical accountability for the crimes they’ve committed.

So that’s the work in Becoming Evil. The next book I have contracted with Oxford University Press is a book on partly the history of genocide, but also a thematic book on themes like justice, truth, memory. There’ll be a large chapter on genocide and mass atrocity prevention, that’s part of the book as well. So really it’s a book to introduce educated readers, policymakers, college or university students, to what genocide has looked like historically, and then from that very specific picture to step back and say, what does the study of genocide tell us about justice, how a society rebuilds itself, about the role of truth in rebuilding, about the role of memory? What does it push us to to understanding prevention? And really it’s a book that, had I not been involved with the Auschwitz Institute, I don’t think I would have had that broad a view of understanding genocide, so really it’s in large part my work with the institute that’s led to this book, in many ways.

Do you think that it’s more helpful and more useful, when dealing with that sort of thing, to focus more on the beliefs and the ideological factors that come from things like ethnicity or ethno-symbolic identification, or do you find it’s more effective in finding the roots and causes to focus on economic and political factors?

Yeah, you know I’m going to follow in this book what I followed in Becoming Evil, which is to say that I’m very suspicious of monocausal explanations, or explanations that focus on one thing particularly, or maybe two things. I think in anything as complex as this there’s a variety of explanations, and the question is how do they go together, how do they influence each other? Is ideology a part of it? Absolutely so. I mean, belief systems, worldviews, cultural models are incredibly important to perpetrator behavior and understanding the outbreak of genocide and mass atrocity. But I do think there are other structural factors that put societies at risk that we need to understand, poverty being one of those, one of many of those factors. So I’m not wanting to reduce it to say that this is it, there’s just one or two things here we need to focus on. I’m really wanting to understand that multiplicity of factors, and then how those factors interact in these societies. And part of that is understanding that there are a lot of societies on the verge, possibly of genocide and mass atrocity, that don’t take that step. That don’t have that trigger that brings a society into that type of large-scale atrocity. So understanding the things that put a break on genocide and mass atrocity, I think, can be just as important as understanding the things that start to compel a society to think this is their only possible political, social, economic solution, is to exterminate a large group of its population.

Well, I think you’ve given us a lot of reasons for optimism. I hope you’ll come back soon and share a few more.

Thanks Jared, very much appreciate it.

Photo: http://www.keene.edu/news/stories/detail/1345061541160/

Part 10 in a series by Marissa Goldfaden as she works her way through “Introduction to minority rights, regional human rights mechanisms, and minority rights advocacy,” a new online course offered to the public free of charge by Minority Rights Group International. The course’s stated objectives are to introduce concepts of minority rights and discrimination, develop awareness and understanding of international and regional mechanisms for minority rights, and improve practical skills in lobbying and advocacy.

By MARISSA GOLDFADEN

Topic 8: Taking up individual cases

MRG defines strategic litigation as an advocacy technique used to achieve legal, political, and social change via the judiciary. The goal of strategic litigation is to set precedents that have a broad impact beyond the individual case.

Minority rights activists can use strategic litigation to:

  • Challenge laws or policies that violate constitutional protections or human rights, and ensure that laws are interpreted and applied properly
  • Expose injustice and provide redress for victims
  • Educate the judiciary and legal community about human rights, and expose institutionalized prejudice
  • Promote government accountability by making the international community aware of a government’s actions
  • Raise public awareness and encourage public discussion about minority rights

According to MRG, a good strategic litigation case will involve a legal issue that relates to a broader social problem, so that the precedent set by the case can be used to win other cases with different facts. A precedent is a legal decision that can be used as a standard in future similar cases. Before starting a case, all potential applicants must be carefully evaluated.

Characteristics of a good applicant

  1. They must not only have strong claims, they also must be strong individuals willing to endure the scrutiny of the opponent, the court, media, and general public.
  2. Strategic litigation cases take a long time to work their way through the domestic and international legal systems. The applicant must understand that it may be years before the case is finished.
  3. Applicants should be articulate and credible, and their stories should elicit sympathy.
  4. They must understand that the case is designed to achieve a significant impact beyond their individual claim, and be willing to take a back seat to the lawyers and organizations bringing the case.

Since courts use previously decided cases in order to determine the outcome of the current case, it is helpful to have rulings from courts in the same country, other comparative jurisdictions, or international courts that support the case. The more similar the facts of the prior cases are to those of the current case, the more helpful the cases will be.

Before filing a case, it is important to gather and assess all the evidence that supports its claims. Witnesses, defined as people who saw the alleged violation or were otherwise involved in the events in the case and can testify in court about their experiences and knowledge, should be contacted and interviewed well in advance of the court case. Expert witnesses, defined as people with specialized knowledge about a particular field, such as university professors, scientists, and doctors, who can provide their opinion about the case to the court, may also be hired. When bringing a case, it is important to find a lawyer who is committed to the cause and knowledgeable about strategic litigation and the law relating to the claims.

International mechanisms can only hear cases over which they have jurisdiction (the right, power or authority to interpret and apply the law) and which meet their admissibility requirements. Anyone who believes their rights have been violated can apply to have their case heard before an international mechanism. However, the right that the victim claims has been violated must be protected by the treaty in accordance with which the mechanism operates, and the respondent state must be a party to that treaty.

Before a case can be brought, all domestic remedies must be exhausted. This means using all the procedures available to a person in their own country to seek protection of their rights or to seek justice in respect of a past violation of their rights. These procedures include taking a case to court or making a complaint to the police. One must submit their case to the international mechanism soon after exhausting local remedies.

The international mechanism will require submitting an initial document explaining the case and why the mechanism can hear it.

a) One must show that the case meets the mechanism’s admissibility requirements by detailing the facts of the violation and noting which provisions of the relevant treaty are applicable.b) It may also be helpful to cite pertinent case law and to provide evidence of the violation and one’s attempts to exhaust domestic remedies.c) One will also need to verify that their case has not already been decided by, or is currently pending before, another international mechanism.

Five UN human rights treaty bodies have a mandate to consider individual complaints:

  1. Human Rights Committee, for alleged violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
  2. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, for alleged violations of the International Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)
  3. Committee Against Torture, for alleged violations of the Convention Against Torture (CAT)
  4. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, for alleged violations of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (ICERD)
  5. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, for alleged violations of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)

An individual whose rights under the relevant treaty have been violated by a state that is party to the treaty can file a complaint with a UN treaty body, so long as the state has recognized the competence of the committee to hear complaints. Third parties may complain on behalf of other individuals provided they obtain written consent.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) hears cases concerning alleged violations of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Any individual or organization can bring a case against a state that is party to the ECHR alleging that the state has violated his or her rights under the Convention. The individual or organization need not be a citizen of one of the states party to the Convention, but the violation must have occurred within the jurisdiction of a state that is party to the Convention.

The African Commission on Human and People’s Rights (ACHPR) hears cases concerning alleged violations of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Any individual or organization can bring a case against a state that is party to the African Charter alleging that the state has violated his or her rights under the Charter. Third parties can bring cases on behalf of others.

Photo: interights.org

Part 9 in a series by Marissa Goldfaden as she works her way through “Introduction to minority rights, regional human rights mechanisms, and minority rights advocacy,” a new online course offered to the public free of charge by Minority Rights Group International. The course’s stated objectives are to introduce concepts of minority rights and discrimination, develop awareness and understanding of international and regional mechanisms for minority rights, and improve practical skills in lobbying and advocacy.

By MARISSA GOLDFADEN

Topic 7: Participation in international meetings

NGOs can participate in some UN bodies without any special registration, including the most relevant body for minorities – the UN Forum on Minority Issues. NGOs attending meetings of the Human Rights Council, including the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), must have consultative status with the UN Economic and Social Council, called ECOSOC status. According to MRG, “Minority NGOs have reported that obtaining ECOSOC status, although difficult, has resulted in them being taken more seriously by their Government and by international actors, and sometimes has had a positive impact on their ability to access donor funds.”

Any NGO can submit information to the treaty bodies and attend treaty body meetings to lobby committee members. They are only required to inform the secretariat in advance to arrange accreditation. Any NGO can submit information to special procedures and meet with mandate holders without ECOSOC status. Any NGO can submit information to the UPR. Attending the review in person requires a special registration; however, the debates can also be watched on the UN webcast.

Access to regional bodies

Africa

  • The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) grants observer status to NGOs, for which there is an application process.
    NGOs without observer status may attend meetings of the ACHPR but they are not allowed to speak. NGOs with observer status sometimes allow other NGOs to make statements under their name.

Europe

  • The Human Dimension Implementation Meeting of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) is Europe’s largest human rights conference. NGOs from OSCE member states can participate in the meetings. There is an online registration process where NGOs need to provide some details about their work. 

Asia

  • The Association of Southeast Asian Nationas (ASEAN) has arrangements for granting affiliation to NGOs; however few, if any, NGOs working on human rights have this affiliation.
  • There is no arrangement for NGO participation in the Summit of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC). However, some organizations have received official recognition by the Association.

Many states are especially sensitive about minority issues. As such, minority NGOs need to understand the political realities of international bodies so that they can develop strategies to advance their issues despite the difficulties that can be encountered. At most international meetings, formalities such as formal language, protocol for speaking, and time-keeping take place.

It is important for NGOs to devise strategy that links their work at home with the setting of an international meeting. The opportunities available at these meetings generally fall under four categories:

  • Dialogue with the government
  • Media relations
  • Networking
  • Structural or institutional issues

Writes MRG, “Minority rights is frequently a marginalized issue at the international level. Many states are either indifferent or hostile to efforts to improve minority protection.

It is therefore important that minority NGOs attending international meetings are visible, to remind states of the importance of the issue. This can be done by:

  • Making statements highlighting minority concerns under different agenda items and not only under the item specifically dealing with minorities
  • Speaking to a range of different government representatives about the importance of addressing minority rights (It may be easier to speak to representatives from neighbouring countries or the region)
  • Updating MRG and other NGOs working on minority issues about the discussions that have been had to help improve overall strategy on minority rights internationally.”

In summation, planning a strategy before attending an international meeting is very important. NGOs cannot expect attendance alone to have an impact. NGOs need to take advantage of all available opportunities. These opportunities include meeting your government representative to discuss issues, meeting representatives from other governments, publicizing your issues through the international media, networking with other NGOs, and meeting with other potentially useful contacts such as UN staff. Minority issues are frequently ignored or marginalized at the international level. This means it is important for minority NGOs to participate fully and remind states of the importance of addressing minority concerns. Taking time to get involved with institutional issues such as establishment or renewal of human rights mandates may lead to new or improved opportunities in the future.

Image: csonet.org

Widespread arrests of sub-Saharan Africans by Libya’s National Transitional Council (NTC) have become a cause of concern for human rights organizations.

“It’s a dangerous time to be dark-skinned in Tripoli,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “The NTC should stop arresting African migrants and black Libyans unless it has concrete evidence of criminal activity. It should also take immediate steps to protect them from violence and abuse.” After interviewing detainees, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International found that the majority of arrests were based on skin color, following from the fact that Muammar Gaddafi used sub-Saharan Africans as mercenaries. “The NTC has legitimate concerns about unlawful mercenaries and violent activity, but it can’t simply arrest dark-skinned men just in case they think they might be mercenaries,” Whitson said.

Amnesty International focused its study on the Tawargha tribe, in a town of the same name used as a Gaddafi stronghold. North Africa researcher Diana Eltahawy said there was no doubt that some Tawarghas fought alongside Gaddafi, “But anyone responsible should be brought to justice in fair trials; not dragged out of hospital beds on the assumption that all Tawarghas are ‘killers’ and ‘mercenaries’. The whole population should not have to suffer.”

The Human Rights Watch report, released September 1, said, “the sub-Saharan Africans were in overcrowded cells with a putrid stench; one cell had 26 people and six mattresses. The African men Human Rights Watch interviewed complained of inadequate water, poor sanitation, and not being allowed to make phone calls to ask family members to bring their documents.”

Photos (from top): africanspotlight.com, theatlanticwire.com

Rwanda: ICTR refers genocide case to Rwandan courts

On Wednesday, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) referred one of its cases to the Rwandan judicial system. The case is that of Jean-Bosco Uwinkindi, a Rwandan Pentecostal pastor charged with genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide, and extermination as a crime against humanity. He was arrested in Uganda in June 2010 and has been in the tribunal’s custody since July of that year.

Previous requests for referral to the Rwandan courts were rejected by ICTR judges on the basis that a fair trial could not be guaranteed. In this case, however, the court noted that “Rwanda had made material changes in its laws and had indicated its capacity and willingness to prosecute cases referred by the ICTR adhering to internationally recognised fair trial standards enshrined in the ICTR Statute and other human rights instruments.” Uwinkindi’s referral is the first one granted since Chief Prosecutor Hassan Bubacar Jallow filed three new transfer requests based on his determination that the legal climate in Rwanda had changed enough to allow fair trial for the accused.

In their ruling, the ICTR judges requested that the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights be appointed to monitor the Rwandan proceedings for fairness.

The ruling, which Rwandan pro-government daily The New Times labeled “a vote of confidence in the Rwandan judicial system,” follows the UN Security Council’s Resolution 1966 asking the tribunal to find ways to wrap up all cases by 2014.

Africa: Civil society groups urge governments to support ICC

A report by African civil society groups and international organizations working in Africa calls on African member states of the ICC to cooperate with and continue supporting the actions of the International Criminal Court. Titled “Observations and Recommendations on the International Criminal Court and the African Union,” the report criticizes AU requests for delays in ICC prosecution of Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir and in the investigation of Kenya’s 2007-08 post-election violence, and condemns AU reluctance to support Security Council Resolution 1970 on Libya.

The organizations, numbering 125 and based in more than 25 countries, make seven recommendations to Africa’s 32 ICC member states: 1) support the ICC at AU summits, 2) push for accountability for serious violators of international law in Darfur and Kenya, 3) voice objections on Kenya and Darfur to the Security Council rather than the ICC, 4) address concerns about plans to expand jurisdiction of the new African Court of Justice and Human Rights, 5) cooperate with ICC prosecution of crimes in Libya, 6) comply with obligations regarding people targeted by ICC warrants, and 7) take a more active role in selection of the next ICC prosecutor.

Currently the African Court of Justice and Human Rights is allowed to rule on general legal matters and human rights treaties. The AU has proposed widening its jurisdiction to criminal prosecution for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Noting the complexity of these cases and the region’s lack of experience in handling them, the report advises caution. If the African Court moves ahead, says the report, it must adhere to international legal and procedural standards, have access to adequate resources to conduct investigations, and clarify its standing to make sure it doesn’t undermine ICC authority.

The recommendation regarding the Bashir warrant appears to be a response to the AU call for members not to cooperate with the arrest, while the plea for cooperation with the ICC on Libya aims to ensure that African concerns about military action don’t obstruct justice for crimes against civilians.

Photo: Human Rights Watch

Libya set the stage for a full-blown test of the Responsibility to Protect principle, adopted by the UN in 2005. The Economist published an in-depth article discussing the positives and negatives of the application of R2P in Libya, and the power politics that accompanies it.

Ivory Coast president Alassane Ouattara has reiterated that his predecessor, Laurent Gbagbo, must be tried for crimes committed during the deadly standoff that followed last year’s disputed election. Ouattara told France 24: “Justice must be rendered. Impunity must be ended in Ivory Coast. Especially for war crimes; crimes against humanity. These are very serious matters.”

After a preliminary examination, the ICC Prosecutor concluded that there was a reasonable basis to believe that crimes within the jurisdiction of the court had been committed in Côte d’Ivoire since 28 November 2010. The case has been assigned to pre-trial chamber II.

Photo: justiceinconflict.com

A former bourgmestre (mayor) of Kabarondo Commune in Rwanda, Tito Barahira, has been arrested in France on six indictments, including genocide and conspiracy to commit genocide, AllAfrica.com reports. “We definitely commend this arrest, especially as we are going into the difficult days of commemorating our dear ones that were killed in cold blood during the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi,” John Bosco Siboyintore, the acting head of the Genocide Fugitives Tracking Unit, said.

Auschwitz Institute instructor Sheri Rosenberg published an article in the Gulf Times of Qatar titled “The responsibility to protect: Libya and beyond.” Rosenberg, who is director of Cardozo Law School’s Program in Holocaust and Human Rights Studies and also its Human Rights and Genocide Clinic, writes that “it is unquestionably positive that the world powers have reacted to protect innocent lives, as the reality and threat of massacres in Libya was apparent to all,” but she is careful to emphasize that “the use of military force is a last resort and not the poster child of the evolving international policy doctrine known as the Responsibility to Protect.”

Nicholas Kristof, writing about the Libyan intervention in the New York Times, argued that the world must not forget that “Mr. Obama and other world leaders did something truly extraordinary, wonderful and rare: they ordered a humanitarian intervention that saved thousands of lives and that even Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s closest aides seem to think will lead to his ouster.” Kristof writes that it has been rare for major powers to intervene militarily for predominantly humanitarian reasons, but he hopes the Libya intervention will give more teeth to the Responsibility to Protect doctrine.

A humanitarian crisis is still looming in the Ivory Coast, the BBC reports. Continued fighting has resulted in necessary supplies decreasing for many civilians. Reuters Africa reported that after France’s intervention last week, Laurent Gbagbo, who refuses to step down as president despite having lost elections last year, has continued to negotiate his possible departure.

Photo: therealtimer.com

The intervention in Libya shows a shift in thinking about mass atrocities, Michael Abramowitz writes in the Washington Post. Abramowitz, director of the Committee on Conscience at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, argues that the decision to act in Libya followed reflection in the international community about the failures to prevent genocide in the 1990s in Rwanda and Bosnia-Herzegovina. “Over the past 20 years, new policies and mechanisms by civil society and governments that strengthen our collective capacity to prevent and respond to genocide include the creation of an office of genocide prevention.”

Rwanda applauded the life sentence given to former senior government official Jean-Baptiste Gatete for his involvement in mass killings during the 1994 genocide, Agence France-Presse reported. “He got a deserved sentence. Gatete is the symbol of death and destruction in this country. In eastern Rwanda he is known as the Butcher of Murambi,” Rwandan Justice Minister Tharcisse Karugaram said.

Amnesty International has warned of a “human rights catastrophe” in Côte d’Ivoire. “Côte d’Ivoire is facing a major humanitarian crisis. The parties to the conflict must immediately stop targeting the civilian population,” said Salvatore Saguès. “The international community must take immediate steps to protect the civilian population.” Forces loyal to Alassane Ouattara reached the commercial capital of Abidjan raising the alarm.

Photo: Amnesty International

The International Crisis Group has released an open letter to the UN Security Council on the situation in Côte d’Ivoire.  The letter expressed the deteriorating humanitarian and security situation in the country and urges the Council to “swift action to halt the fighting and prevent ethnic cleansing and other mass atrocity crimes”.

The United States Holocaust Museum has released a paper on speaking out against rape as a weapon of genocide. The paper noted that for the first time ever, following the conflict in Rwanda, an international tribunal handed down a judgement for genocide including the crime of rape. “Perpetrators assault women as a way to assault the past, present, and future of targeted groups.”  Women must continue for inclusion of a gendered perspective into efforts to respond to conflict, particularly genocidal violence the paper stated.

Ernest Gakwaya, alias Camarade, and Emmanuel Nkunzuwimye, two Rwandan men accused of taking part in the 1994 Genocide have been arrested in Belgium reports AllAfrica.com.

The Libya conflict has reopened the R2P debate on Burma, Irrawaddy.com reports.  Burma is ravaged with geopolitical problems and a mounting humanitarian crisis.  France and US warships with humanitarian aid were rejected from landing in Burma in 2008 by the Burmese regime.  At the time, many in the UN argued that a legitimate case of intervention under R2P was justified as the regime’s refusal fell under the loosely worded R2P mandate.  More recently though, in early 2010, UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights to Burma Tomás Ojea Quintana reported to the UN’s Human Rights Commission and called for a Commission of Inquiry into possible crimes against humanity and war crimes in Burma.

Photo: Guardian

Twitter Updates