Foreign Policy: Defenders of Human Rights Are Making a Comeback

Yet there was also considerable pushback against authoritarianism. Malaysian voters ousted their corrupt prime minister, Najib Razak, the latest representative of a ruling coalition that had been in power for almost six decades, in favor of a coalition running on an agenda of human rights reform. In the Maldives, voters rejected their autocratic president, Abdulla Yameen. In Armenia, whose government was mired in corruption, Prime Minister Serzh Sargsyan had to step down amid massive protests. Ethiopia, under popular pressure, replaced a long-abusive government with a new one led by Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, who has embarked on an impressive reform agenda. And, of course, U.S. voters in the midterm elections for the House of Representatives seemed to rebuke Trump’s divisive policies.

In many cases, particularly in Central Europe, the public led the resistance in the streets. protested Orban’s moves to shut Central European University, an academic bastion of liberal inquiry and thought, and to impose a “slave law” to compensate for workers fleeing Large crowds in Budapest Orban’s “illiberal democracy” by authorizing extended overtime with pay delayed up to three years. Tens of thousands of Poles repeatedly took to the streets to defend their courts from the ruling party’s attempts to undermine their independence. Czech and Romanian leaders also faced large anti-corruption protests. [...]

The Human Rights Council made some major advances. For example, the possibility of a Chinese, Russian, or even American veto at the U.N. Security Council appeared to doom any effort to refer Myanmar to the International Criminal Court for its army’s crimes against humanity that sent 700,000 Rohingya fleeing for their lives to Bangladesh. In response, the Human Rights Council, where there is no veto, stepped in to create an investigative mechanism to preserve evidence, identify those responsible, and build cases for prosecution once a tribunal becomes available. That effort won overwhelmingly, with 35 countries in favor and only three against (seven abstained), sending the signal that these atrocities cannot be committed with impunity.[...]

For the first time, the Human Rights Council condemned the severe repression in Venezuela under President Nicolás Maduro. A resolution led by a group of Latin American nations won by a vote of 23 to seven with 17 abstentions. The U.S. government’s departure from the council made it easier for resolution sponsors to show they were addressing Venezuela as a matter of principle rather than as a tool of Washington’s ideology. A group of Latin American governments led by Argentina also organized in the context of the Human Rights Council the first joint statement, signed by 47 countries, on the worsening repression in Nicaragua, as President Daniel Ortega responded with violence to growing protests against his repressive rule.

read the article

Jacobin Magazine Israel’s Mask Slips Off

There are two ways to look at this event. In one respect, it simply enshrines long-standing Israeli practices in law. Yet it also signals the abandonment of any pretense that Israel is, as it has long claimed, a democracy.

The Nation-State Law defines Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people and asserts that “the realization of the right to national self-determination in Israel is unique to the Jewish people.” Similarly, it promises that “Israel will ensure the safety of the Jewish people” but mentions the protection of no other group.

Adalah attorney Fady Khoury puts it plainly: “In Israel, the new law explicitly defines the Jewish people as the only group with the only right to self-determination, while negating the rights of the indigenous people. This creates a system of hierarchy and supremacy.”[...]

For example, it is now impossible to say that the International Criminal Court’s definition of apartheid does not apply to Israel. According to the ICC, apartheid is “an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.” The new law establishes precisely such a regime.

read the article

Al Jazeera: The ICC is reaching out to victims of war crimes in Palestine

In an extraordinary move, the Pre-Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Court recently issued a decision ordering its registry "to establish, as soon as practicable, a system of public information and outreach activities for the benefit of the victims and affected communities in the situation in Palestine". [...]

The decision came at a time when state representatives gathered in The Hague to mark twenty years since the adoption of the Court's founding treaty, the so-called Rome Statute. Those participating in the celebrations reminisced at the landmark decision to establish the first permanent international criminal institution capable, in theory, of holding world leaders to account for their role in the commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. The novelty of the decision by the Pre-Trial Chamber on the situation in Palestine reminds us, however, of the court's shortcomings in engaging with victims and affected communities in a timely, continuous, and valuable manner as well as ensuring their early participation in the proceedings so that their unique views and concerns are taken into consideration from the beginning until the end.  

The Rome Statute put victims at the heart of the court's work and gave them the right to participate in the proceedings and ultimately receive reparations for harm suffered. It also gave them the right to provide information to the court. As is rightly pointed out by the Pre-Trial Chamber, in order to exercise these rights, victims must be made aware of them and the work of the court. It is in this light that the decision on information and outreach for Palestinians should be praised. [...]

The meaningful implementation of the decision on the situation in Palestine is dependent on the allocation of adequate human and financial resources to information and outreach activities. It is also dependent on a mindful engagement between the court and civil society. But most importantly, it requires that the court itself directly and immediately interacts with Palestinian victims and affected communities. The responsibility to reach out to victims and include them in the work of the court lies primarily with the organs of the court.

read the article

Haaretz: That Roaring Sound? It’s Palestine Unleashing a Legal Tsunami Against Israeli War Crimes

Palestine joined Interpol, the international police organization, in September 2017; filed an inter-state complaint against Israel for breaches of its obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in April; and just last week,the UN Human Rights Council decided to send a commission of inquiry to examine Israel’s killing of Palestinians along the Gaza border, which was supported by almost all of the Council’s members, except for the U.S. and Australia. [...]

The Palestinian leadership could still take further steps at other international courts and tribunals, such as the International Court of Justice, by calling on the UN General Assembly to request an Advisory Opinion from that Court, if it sees any political advantage in doing so.

Although Israel does not recognize the State of Palestine, over 130 states do; because Israel is occupying the territory of a member state, the ICC has, in principle, jurisdiction. [...]

The U.S., on Israel’s behalf, could make this appeal to international law uncomfortable for the Palestinians. In 2015, the U.S. Congress passed the Omnibus Appropriations Act to bar the provision of economic support funds to the Palestinian Authority if it initiates "an International Criminal Court judicially authorized investigation, or actively support such an investigation, that subjects Israeli nationals to an investigation for alleged crimes against Palestinians." 

read the article

Quartz: It’s not just Trump. The US has always broken its treaties, pacts and promises

According to the US national archives, 374 treaties (pdf, p.4) signed between the US and Native American Tribes from 1772 to 1867 were ratified. Of these, many were not respected: Only one article of the Pickering Treaty, or Treaty of Canadaigua of 1794, for instance, has been observed. Many others (18 in California alone, signed during the Gold Rush) were not even ratified. These include Treaty K, or the California Treaty, which promised reservations to American Indians within the state.

The oldest treaty currently pending ratification in the Senate is an international recognition of the freedom of association and protection of the right to organize. The agreement was signed by 154 countries, including the US, and entered in full effect in 1950. However, the US never ratified it (pdf). [...]

By signing CEDAW in 1980, the US become one of 156 signatories of a landmark agreement to end gender discrimination. Shortly after signing, then-president Jimmy Carter submitted the agreement for ratification to the Senate. It’s still waiting.

read the artilce

openDemocracy: Prosecuting ISIS crimes against women and LGBTIQ people would set a crucial precedent

War-time abuses against people who are marginalised within their societies are rarely documented. As a result, such violations are excluded from human rights discourse and from justice processes. In effect, they are left out of history.

For this reason, Iraqi activists, at great personal risk, have been documenting such crimes committed by ISIS but also by Iraqi government forces, and other militias. They have preserved critical information about perpetrators and larger criminal networks. Many have also provided shelter and safe passage to those at imminent risk of sexual slavery or murder. [...]

Knowledge of egregious crimes committed against women and perceived or actual LGBTIQ persons, for transgressing gender norms during an armed conflict, is not new. But this is the first time the world has seen this kind of robust documentation of such crimes. The petition currently before the ICC therefore offers a new opportunity to challenge this type of violence.

At the world’s first international criminal prosecutions in Nuremberg, Germany, rape and sexual slavery of women and torture of LGBTIQ persons were acknowledged but never prosecuted. It was only in the 1990s, with the ICC’s creation, that gender-based forms of violence were first recognised as violations of international law.

read the article

Al Jazeera: What is behind Sudan's 'rapprochement' with Russia?

In an exclusive interview with the Russian news agency Sputnik, Bashir blamed the US for the secession of South Sudan in 2011, and claimed that Washington was now planning to split the rest of Sudan into five countries. Bashir also told Sputnik that he discussed the establishment of military bases on the Red Sea coast with President Putin and his defence minister. He also revealed that he was interested in purchasing Russia's S-300 air defence system as well as Su-30 and Su-35 jets. [...]

Bashir may have initially assumed that US President Donald Trump, who appears to have little interest in human rights and democracy, would help him to escape the ICC charges and allow him to run for office in the 2020 elections, in return for cooperation on issues such as counterterrorism efforts. [...]

Bashir was further disappointed when John Sullivan, the US Deputy Secretary of State did not meet him in person during his visit to Sudan in mid-November. Moreover, Sullivan indicated that Washington would expect the regime to accept far-reaching reforms, including the repealing of the apostasy punishment, and improvements in its human rights record in return for removal from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. [...]

Bashir is said to be disappointed that he has not received the financial rewards he thought he would from his Gulf allies after moving quickly to cut diplomatic ties with Iran in early 2016, and sending thousands of Sudanese soldiers to fight with the Saudi-led coalition against the Houthis in Yemen. Bashir previously signalled his dissatisfaction with Riyadh when he refused to back the Saudi-led blockade against Qatar. So far, Sudan has tried to remain neutral in the ongoing crisis and has claimed to be supporting Kuwaiti attempts to mediate. [...]

Some observers, on the other hand, think that Bashir's recent rapprochement with the Russian-Iranian axis is nothing more than a tactical manoeuvre to blackmail the US and Saudi Arabia into providing political and financial support to his presidency. It is indeed possible that he is using the Russian-Iranian card merely as a way to pressure the US to support his regime and his Gulf allies to loosen their purse strings. If so, it is certainly a very high-risk gamble. His offer of a Red Sea military base to the Russians will certainly not be well received in Washington.

read the article

Slate: What Is Going to Happen to Zimbabwe Now?

Michelle Faul: It came as a shock. It came as a shock to everybody, even though I was home for three weeks last month, and everyone was saying, “Something’s got to happen. It cannot continue. People are suffering so much.” People are starving in my country. It’s disgraceful. Mugabe inherited, when we finally got independent black rule in 1980, a country that was self-sufficient. Five thousand white farmers, whatever their politics—and I am black—produced enough food to feed more than 8 million people, and food for export. And he has reduced our nation to one in which one-third of the people need food aid. Another third of the nation has left. We are scattered all over the world. [...]

I said Emmerson Mnangagwa is evil because he is considered the mastermind or what we called, or Mugabe called, Gukurahundi. This means the cleaning of the chaff—when you have wheat and clean it. That was a project to try and wipe out the minority Ndebele people. Nobody knows how many people were killed between 1984 and about 1988. I had to leave the country. I was forced to leave my country as a result of my reporting on Gukurahundi. Perhaps 20,000, perhaps 30,000 people were killed, and Emmerson Mnangagwa is considered the mastermind of those killings. [...]

I think Mnangagwa realizes that for the country to have any kind of positive future it can’t continue in the way it has been ruled. Mnangagwa has indicated that he would be willing to allow white farmers to return to Zimbabwe and farm the land. What happened with that project was that Mugabe accused the white farmers of supporting the opposition MDC party, which we believe has won at least two out of three of the last elections. He said the white farmers were supporting his opponents, which is when he began his program of violently forcing them from the land. The real reason, we think, was that his moneybags—an Indian chap who had done all his laundering of money for him—had taken off with all the veterans’ pension money. Mugabe no longer had money to pay veterans; the veterans were getting angry. So instead he said, “I will give you land. You can go take the farms.” [...]

I would suspect that they will be allowed to retire in disgrace. What I would like to see is someone like Mugabe being sent to the International Criminal Court to face trial for all the killings that occurred and other human rights abuses. Nobody knows how many people have died because of Mugabe’s destruction of everything he built up. He built up a fabulous education system. He was a teacher. He then destroyed it.

read the article

Al Jazeera: Duterte: International Criminal Court 'cannot stop me'

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has said he would not be intimidated by the prospect of the International Criminal Court (ICC) putting him on trial over his bloody war on drugs, promising that his campaign would continue and would be "brutal". [...]

More than 8,000 people have died since Duterte took office on June 30 last year, and began his anti-drugs campaign.

A third of the fatalities were killed in raids and sting operations by police who say they acted in self-defence, while the rest were killed by unknown gunmen. [...]

Two men, including the one who is expected to file the ICC case, have testified before the Philippine Senate saying they were part of an alleged "death squad" in Davao that killed at Duterte's behest.

But Senate members found no proof of extra-judicial killings and death squads.

The "death squad" and allegations of drugs-related extrajudicial killings were also among the reasons for an impeachment complaint filed by an opposition lawmaker in Congress against Duterte on Thursday.

read the article 

Foreign Affairs: Securing Somalia

Despite the so-called Somali New Deal Compact of September 2013, in which the country’s government pledged to international donors and its people that it would hold an inclusive election by the end of 2016, the process was highly imperfect in both design and execution. Once again, insecurity stemming from the jihadist al Shabab insurgency, clan rivalries, tensions among newly formed subfederal states, and violent criminality prevented a broadly participatory national election. Instead, the vote was left to 14,000 elders and influential political figures who, over the course of several months, elected 275 members of the Parliament and 54 senators. These officials went on to pick the new president. Extensive corruption and vote buying tainted the process. To secure support from the elders and influentials, potential parliamentarians were reputed to have paid tens of thousands of dollars for a vote. Intimidation and clan politics also marred the process. But the fact that the incumbent President Hassan Sheik Mohamud accepted defeat and stepped down is an important win, not just for Somalia itself but in the continent more broadly.

The new president, Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed, has some strong credentials, not the least of which is a reputation for not being corrupt. He is a dual citizen of Somalia and the United States, with technocratic experience from both countries. But Mohamed, known by his nickname Farmajo (derived from the Italian word for cheese), is facing many tough challenges. These include fractious politics and entrenched corruption, a stubborn insurgency and insecurity, and an increasingly challenging external environment. [...]

Somalia’s formal legal federalism and its implementation, including the establishment of new federal states, is one of the main achievements of the past four years. The upper house of the Parliament is now made up of representatives from these states. The hope was that such devolution would lead to a more peaceful Somalia, but the new ruling elites of the states are not necessarily more accountable to their people than politicians in Mogadishu. Meanwhile, the shape of the new states continues to be contested, sometimes violently, by clan and regional groups within the new states and among the states as well. The balance of power among the states and between the states and the federal government will remain a work in progress. [...]

Salaries or not, it will be a long time before the Somali army will be able to stand on its own. And yet it may soon have to, since the AMISOM mission is set to end by 2020. Although AMISOM suffers from numerous problems, its departure will be devastating for Somalia. More immediately, the current 21,000-member force, comprising soldiers from Burundi, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, and Uganda, will be decreased by 10,000 by the end of 2017. No one believes that the Somali army is ready to pick up the slack. A key priority for the new Somali president will thus be to halt the AMISOM exodus. When Ethiopia withdrew 4,000 soldiers who operated in Somalia separately from AMISOM (another 4,000 remain within the AMISOM framework), the vacated territories immediately came under al Shabab’s attack or influence.

read the article 

Al Jazeera: South Africa to quit International Criminal Court

South Africa is pulling out of the International Criminal Court (ICC) because its obligations are inconsistent with laws giving sitting leaders diplomatic immunity, according to government officials.

Justice Minister Michael Masutha said on Friday that the government will soon submit a bill in parliament to withdraw from the court in The Hague, a move that comes as several African countries express concerns over what they call the ICC's disproportionate targeting of the continent. [...]

Last year, South Africa said it planned to leave the ICC after it faced criticism for not arresting Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir, who is accused of genocides and war crimes, when he visited the country. Bashir has denied the accusations. [...]

Another African country, Burundi, appeared set to become the first county to withdraw from the Rome Statute, the 1998 treaty establishing the global court, after its parliament voted last week to leave.

Burundi's President Pierre Nkurunziza signed a decree on Tuesday, but the United Nations has not yet been officially notified.Other African countries have also threatened withdrawal, accusing the court of disproportionately bringing charges against suspected human rights abusers from the continent. 

read the article 

Foreign Affairs: Ukraine's Uneasy Justice

The definition of a crime of aggression as a so-called leadership crime and Ukraine’s domestic laws explain why Ukrainian officials have discussed prosecuting Valery Gerasimov, the chief of the general staff of the Russian Armed Forces, on charges of aggressive war. It doesn’t explain, however, why the prosecutor’s office chose to try Alexandrov, Yerofeyev, and other relatively low-ranking Russians for the same crime. The extent to which an individual must control the actions of a state to be found guilty of aggressive war remains a subject of debate among legal scholars. But no serious analysis could conclude that Alexandrov or Yerofeyev met the requirements necessary for a conviction: both men are mid-level officers, tasked with carrying out the state’s directives, not designing them. Nevertheless, in its verdict, the court argued that the section of Ukrainian law that criminalizes aggressive war was based on the 1974 UN resolution—an apparent attempt to ground the trial in international law. Clearly, Ukraine is picking and choosing the portions of international law that suit its domestic purposes [...]

The politicization of the trial should come as no surprise: in today’s Ukraine, the executive’s preferences often take precedence over the law. Less than two weeks before the prisoner exchange, for example, the Ukrainian parliament voted to amend a national law in order to allow candidates without legal qualifications to become Ukraine’s prosecutor general so that Poroshenko could appoint an ally to the post. [...]

That logic was echoed in February 2015 by Irina Lutsenko, a deputy in Poroshenko’s parliamentary faction, who offered a revealing explanation of Kiev's decision not to ratify the Rome Statute, which would have brought Ukraine under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Asked why Ukraine had not ratified the statute, Lutsenko responded, “for one, simple reason. Because Russia has the so-called ‘white book,’ [a widely disputed record of Ukrainian activity in the Donbas in which the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs] has fixated on the alleged crimes of Ukrainian soldiers, generals, and leaders… our soldiers will be called to The Hague to offer evidence, so that their morale will be somehow depressed.” (Although Ukraine still has not ratified the Rome Statute, in September 2015, the country accepted the ICC's indefinite jurisdiction over the conflict in the Donbas, exposing itself to potential prosecution at the court.)

read the article