All bark and no bite?

[Sarcasmo]

So the ICC has been around for a few years now, and we see that there is an arrest warrant for a sitting president; responsible for one of the worst genocides in the last 15 years (and no, it's not Bush.)

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/07/14/darfur.charges/index.html

My understanding of this is: The ICC special prosecutor thinks that Sudan's president/dictator is a really bad guy, and someone that should be tried at the Hague. However, the only people authorized to arrest him are the Sudanese. Which is kinda like saying, "We're going to try you for war crimes and genocide, which you're more than likely guilty of, after which we're going to strip you of power and stuff you in a tiny jail cell for the rest of your natural life...just as soon as you turn yourself in."

Maybe it's just because I've had a rough weekend, but this makes me laugh, kind of: the UN and ICC thumping their chests and screaming empty threats to anyone who will listen...which is almost no one.

[Sean]

Yep. I'd say that's a pretty glaring flaw in the system.

[cacophony]

^ there is no system. if everyone doesn't participate and recognize its legitimacy, there's no system in which a flaw can appear.

[chuck]

There I was thinking you were talking about the International Cricket Council - which is also pretty much ineffective and pointless in the face of self-policing strategies and a dominant partner. In the case of cricket, it's India - which has all the money, the population and pretty much has the rest of the world (the cricket playing world) by the balls.

In the case of the great game - with regards to Sudan and Darfur - it's China that has the money, the military presence, the economic presence in the area isn't it? So it has the rest of us by the short and curlies.

Darfur and Africa are sort of like what Southeast Asia was in the 1950s - 1970s, 'cept we're not giving it a fancy name like 'the domino theory' - we're just chucking the human rights/genocide meme around.

When in fact - as usual it's about wants and needs. In this case (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21143-2004Dec22.html) - China (http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/sudan1103/26.htm)wants oil (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21143-2004Dec22.html) - and the US/Western powers are bogged down in Iraq/Iran - and there's not much anyone can do really (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0626/p01s08-woaf.html).

Is that the "systems" fault? Nah - not really.

Unfortunately - due to blatant disregard and open hypocrisy to power plays over the last 10 years ie. Iraq, Zimbabwe, North Korea - and an inability to engage meaningfully by the main members of the Security Council (who are the only players with the military capability to do anything in cases like Darfur) - the system is non-existent.

And I'm not just pointing fingers at the US here - the African political leaders as a group have been spectacular in their ability to ignore the very people they profess to represent.

At least someone in the ICC is screaming a threat - it's not like Bono's efforts did much good.

But wait - weren't the G8 mob discussing something in Japan? World food prices or some such fancy pants horseshit (http://www.g8summit.go.jp/eng/info/theme.html)?

Basically - I'm even more cynical than you Sarc - and I've had a pretty chilled out week. The ICC is a reflection of the non-system - but also a symbol of the hope and belief that we can do something better about it. Like cacophony says though - until we all start giving it a go, this systems a non-starter.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

...by the short and curlies...




Does this still apply if one shaves?

You get more whistling that way. ;)

[cacophony]

until we all start giving it a go, this systems a non-starter.


so if the ICC demanded the US turn GWB over for his role in killing thousands of iraqis, do you think the US would comply? would the US let anyone have the authority to come and get him?

what if they did the same of tony blair for his role in the iraq catastrophe while he was in power? would the UK have just rolled over?

it's all fine and good to talk about an international criminal court as long as we're comfortable that we're not going to be on the receiving end of its prosecution. that's what ultimately dooms the system to failure.

[chuck]

so if the ICC demanded the US turn GWB over for his role in killing thousands of iraqis, do you think the US would comply? would the US let anyone have the authority to come and get him?

No.

Are you saying he had a role in the killing of thousands of Iraqis?

what if they did the same of tony blair for his role in the iraq catastrophe while he was in power? would the UK have just rolled over?

Quite possibly.

The ICC is a court - so they'd have to make a case and provide evidence. And direct links between the accused and the said atrocity/genocide.

It's not a court of kangaroo - or a court of talkback - or god forbid - the court of Fox - because all of those courts have tried, acquitted and executed the defendants.

it's all fine and good to talk about an international criminal court as long as we're comfortable that we're not going to be on the receiving end of its prosecution. that's what ultimately dooms the system to failure.

So not taking responsiblity for the actions of our elected leaders is what dooms the system to failure?

Yes. I do agree with that.

No-one's accountable for anything - occasionally in the movies - and occasionally at an election - but no-one really holds anyone accountable. For blow-jobs, for blatant lies, for pissing on the constitution. It's all the same game.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

OK, what about MY question?!?

[chuck]

OK, what about MY question?!?

Yes.

A close shave is best.

Unless you prefer humming.

[cacophony]

Are you saying he had a role in the killing of thousands of Iraqis?

i'm saying there are many in both the american population and the international community who could easily make a logical connection between bush's agenda, his deliberately misconstrued facts, and the current conflict which has cost thousands of innocent iraqis their lives.

i'm not making MY argument. your whole response seems based on an assumption that i'm arguing my personal opinion. i'm talking in broader terms.

Quite possibly.

*snort* yeah. right. quite an unrealistic perspective you have there.

The ICC is a court - so they'd have to make a case and provide evidence. And direct links between the accused and the said atrocity/genocide.

sure. and they can do that all they want. and they could make an airtight case and proclaim all the guilt they want. but it's going to be the minority of the population who will be willing to have an international body pass judgment on their government and leaders and invade their borders to remove the accused. don't forget, even saddam hussein had thousands of vehement supporters.

i recall the iraqi public opinion after saddam hussein was chased out of baghdad and the big statue came down. there seemed to be a shared sentiment that those who detested saddam were happy he was gone, but that there was an anger and a shame that someone came in uninvited to do the job for them. no, i'm not saying everyone, i'm saying there was a prevalent emotion there that was expressed over and over and over. not everyone wants to be judged by the international community.

it's like how you can bitch about your parents but god forbid someone else do so.

So not taking responsiblity for the actions of our elected leaders is what dooms the system to failure?

wrong perspective. it's not about taking responsibility for the actions of our leaders. it's that the evaluation of those actions is a subjective task and every individual makes his or her own determination of guilt, and decides whether "responsibility" is necessary. thus my point about GWB. many people would make the argument that he is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands and thousands of innocent iraqi civilians. and many people would argue that he is not. if an international court decides that GWB should be accused, that's all fine and good. but no one has any right to demand his extradition or that those who agree with his actions should roll over and accept that judgment.

No-one's accountable for anything - occasionally in the movies - and occasionally at an election - but no-one really holds anyone accountable. For blow-jobs, for blatant lies, for pissing on the constitution. It's all the same game.

i'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here. the world is an unjust place. big revelation there. regardless of whether international accountability is tops on our wish list, it's highly unlikely that it's an attainable goal. it's an unrealistic expectation of the diverse populations of the world. sorry i'm not an idealist. i'm a realist. and that's the reality.

[Sarcasmo]

It makes no difference at all whether or not the ICC issued a warrant for Tony Blair, or GWB, or anyone, really. Sure, tell the world that you support the ICC, but what happens when your head of state is on a wanted poster? There's no provision for invading a country to capture him, and I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for his own country to turn him in. Then again, it's not like he can leave his home country, because then the host nation could capture him and turn him in, but that leads to a whole 'nother pile of shit to wade through. The only way to get them to trial is to have the authorities within said suspect's country give them up. Is it just me, or does that make the whole process moot, no matter how much legitimacy and support you give it?

[cacophony]

^ that's my point exactly.

[chuck]

First: This is debate - not personal - not antagonistic - very much in the broad/theoretical sense - at least that's what I'm aiming for. I get told off for being to glib - so I'll try hard to make sense.

i'm saying there are many in both the american population and the international community who could easily make a logical connection between bush's agenda, his deliberately misconstrued facts, and the current conflict which has cost thousands of innocent iraqis their lives.

i'm not making MY argument. your whole response seems based on an assumption that i'm arguing my personal opinion. i'm talking in broader terms.

I get that you're talking in broader terms. Sorry - didn't state that clearly enough perhaps. I am cynical too - but I can also see the idealist position and stand by it. But fully understand the realities that Sarc states and you point out.

I'm fortunate enough to be on holiday and have the time to sit around and mull thoughts. And fortunate enough to live in a country that is insulated from having to make any real decisions.

*snort* yeah. right. quite an unrealistic perspective you have there. Again - I wasn't clear enough. I was being sarcastic - but slightly more accepting that the population of the UK - if their representatives here are anything to go by - would have freely dumped Blair. Brown taking over merely made it easier. And no - it wouldn't have happened obviously - I just don't see as many flag waving patriots in the UK. Unless Blair suddenly became and amazing holding midfield maestro who led the team to World Cup glory. Then he might have got some support.

sure. and they can do that all they want. and they could make an airtight case and proclaim all the guilt they want. but it's going to be the minority of the population who will be willing to have an international body pass judgment on their government and leaders and invade their borders to remove the accused. don't forget, even saddam hussein had thousands of vehement supporters.As I said - there's nothing wrong with arguing the idealist POV, and accepting the reality of the situation. I can do both. And yes - I agree the ICC is quite possibly a failed solution to a fucked up world. But we've got plenty of lawyers running around the planet - might as well give them something to do.

I see the ICC as stating a fact - and often it's a given that the stating of the fact won't bring justice, or restitution. But it's in the stating of the fact and the acceptance that new starts begin.

Too pious? Possibly.

But my case would be Australia. Where for years John Howard refused to apologise - to even say "Sorry" for what was done to Aboriginals as part of government policy (http://apology.west.net.au/). Would not in any official capacity say "Sorry".

One of Kevin Rudd's first steps was to do that - to apologise. And of course it's not going to make it all better - but it's a start. It's taking some responsibility for choices made by others in the system- as representatives of that same system - and starting again.

In NZ, we're working through a long process of restitution and making settlements with the many iwi (tribes) that were here before the Europeans arrived. We have the benefit of a formal document - the Treaty of Waitangi - and there are critics of the process. But as a country we're making the effort to settle and address long standing grievances.

I have a friend who works for the Tribunal, and in discussions with her, she's said that often the simple act of a written and/or verbal apology from the Crown to the iwi is huge. It is often part of a greater settlement, including cash, land and so forth - but the formal apology is a powerful statement. For both parties. It's an acceptance that mistakes were made, wrongs were done. It's a symbol of starting again.

And until you make a clean break, a clean start - nothing can be done really.

wrong perspective. it's not about taking responsibility for the actions of our leaders. it's that the evaluation of those actions is a subjective task and every individual makes his or her own determination of guilt, and decides whether "responsibility" is necessary. thus my point about GWB. many people would make the argument that he is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands and thousands of innocent iraqi civilians. and many people would argue that he is not. if an international court decides that GWB should be accused, that's all fine and good. but no one has any right to demand his extradition or that those who agree with his actions should roll over and accept that judgment.Who said anything about rolling over? If your view of reality means there is no point in making a choice either way - because none of it really matters - then what is the point?

I do take responsibility for the leaders of my nation. Not everyday - and I'm not being holier than thou here - but I helped vote them in for fucks sake. I'm not in there shouting at them in parliament. But I'm considering what policies they are putting in place during the upcoming election. And - yeah - i'm being selfish and considering those policies that will directly affect me. But I'll do what I can to be part of that process. Accepting the reality - but entertaining the possibilities.

i'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here. the world is an unjust place. big revelation there. regardless of whether international accountability is tops on our wish list, it's highly unlikely that it's an attainable goal. it's an unrealistic expectation of the diverse populations of the world. sorry i'm not an idealist. i'm a realist. and that's the reality.I'm confused again. Your reality is that unrealistic expectations should not be tolerated or held? And that makes you a realist?

Which expectations should we hold to then? In personal relationships? In international relations?

That's like me saying to my students: "I don't really think you can succeed this year - you probably won't get on with others in your class - and if some of the course work is difficult - you probably shouldn't bother."

Sarcasmo said: "The only way to get them to trial is to have the authorities within said suspect's country give them up. Is it just me, or does that make the whole process moot, no matter how much legitimacy and support you give it? "

With the trial of Milosevic - wasn't he handed over to the ICC after the fall of his regime? I'm not saying here that Bush will be handed over by some vigilante hitsquad of Michael Moore devotees - but if the system works after the fact - maybe even years after - doesn't that give validity to it? And some meaning to the process?

[cacophony]

Again - I wasn't clear enough. I was being sarcastic - but slightly more accepting that the population of the UK - if their representatives here are anything to go by - would have freely dumped Blair. Brown taking over merely made it easier. And no - it wouldn't have happened obviously - I just don't see as many flag waving patriots in the UK. Unless Blair suddenly became and amazing holding midfield maestro who led the team to World Cup glory. Then he might have got some support.

see, i didn't pick up the sarcasm at all. i've run into the same problem more than once so now i try to play it safe by using smileys even though i really detest smileys.

and you're right, the UK doesn't seem to support the overt jingoism that america tolerates, but i think they would be equally reluctant to hand over a leader or ex-leader, regardless of whether they wear flag pins on their lapels.

in any country, even the most oppressive ones, you're always going to have people who disagree and people who agree with their leadership. the problem is, people are great at nodding vehemently when the world criticizes the leaders they disagree with. hell, i loathe GWB. if he were accused by the ICC of war crimes i would pound my fist and cry, "DAMN STRAIGHT!" but for every citizen who thinks like me, there's another who thinks he should be defended and would never stand for the outside criticism. you're going to run into that everywhere.

which is why ultimately you can't make the argument that people should be "responsible" for their leadership. because not everyone sees the ramification of decisions the same way. so while i agree that we need to be responsible for our elected leaders, i fail to see how an entire population will come to agreement over who needs to be responsible for what.

there are republicans in america who would string up bill clinton by his thumbs because they feel his failures during office led directly to the 9/11 disaster. and that's something that can be debated internally until we're blue in the face. but if an international organization made the same accusations it's doubtful that even those republicans would say, "well sure, let's extradite him."


I'm confused again. Your reality is that unrealistic expectations should not be tolerated or held? And that makes you a realist?

Which expectations should we hold to then? In personal relationships? In international relations?

That's like me saying to my students: "I don't really think you can succeed this year - you probably won't get on with others in your class - and if some of the course work is difficult - you probably shouldn't bother."

i don't see that as a direct analogy. what my point is, essentially, is that idealism is all fine and good but once you start asking "well why not" you have to start looking at the reality of the situation. as with any law or any definition of justice we absolutely have to look at the ways in which the law will be applied, especially the ways we might not agree with. so when we say, let's create an international system of justice that will have the authority to charge and prosecute and punish current and former leaders of independent nations, we have to look at what would make that proposal fail. it's not pessimism, it's working realism into an idealistic concept.

so we propose the idealistic idea of an international court that can hold everyone responsible for actions according to an agreed upon system of ethics. how might that go wrong? we can immediately say, "YES! that will bring horrible dictators to justice!" but beyond that how might that idea be applied in a way we wouldn't agree with? does it mean we would give this court the independent right to pass judgement on our own countries' internal policies? if so, would you be okay with that court passing judgement from the outside and imposing its system without your population's consent? what if the greater international community decided to write abortion into the ethical code that falls under the court's purview? isn't the point of independent nations that a population can decide its own standard of morality and living standards? i chose a deliberately far fetched topic there, but without going so far as to play the "slippery slope" game you have to look at the possibilities.

the problem with the ICC is that i just don't see a realistic scenario where populations would be okay with outside authority trumping their leaders' decisions. it really seeks to behave in more of a "globalized nation" way than the world is ready for.

so it's not about saying, "it's not realistic, so don't even try." it's about saying, "this version of the idea isn't realistic, let's identify why and see if there's a more realistic proposal we can put on the table."

i am sooooooooo rambling now.