I just published this oped on the Huffington Post:

Our nation is blessed with a conscience that demands an end to unjust wars. During the wars in Vietnam and Iraq, tens of thousands of protesters chanted in the streets, crashed the phone system of Congress, and creatively made their collective shout of "No More War" heard.

Unfortunately, the anti-war movement was AWOL last month during one of the greatest opportunities humanity has ever had to put an end to war. During the first two weeks of June, representatives from 84 nations and more than 600 civil society groups met in Kampala, Uganda and took an historic first step towards criminalizing aggression. Imagine the impact on future tyrants and misguided leaders if the reward for planning and carrying out an offensive war was a trip to the slammer...  Read More

Take Action

Abdallah Banda Abakaer Nourain	Saleh Mohammed Jerbo Jamus

Their names are Abdallah Banda Abakaer Nourain and Saleh Mohammed Jerbo Jamus and they have both voluntarily surrendered to the International Criminal Court. The two individuals are each charged with three counts of war crimes as a result of attacking African Union peacekeepers in September 2007 in Haskanita, in northern Darfur.  Both men are currently staying at an undisclosed location and they will remain there until the close of the legal proceedings. The case against Jerbo and Banda is the fourth case dealing with genocide taking place in Darfur that has been handled by the International Criminal Court.

Facts of the Haskanita Attack

• Both men led armed groups which carried out the attack in September 2007
• Abdallah Banda Abakaer Nourain led splinter forces of the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM)
• Saleh Mohammed Jerbo Jamus led troops from a breakaway faction of the Sudanese Liberation Army/Movement
• Approximately 1,000 men were armed with anti-aircraft guns, artillery and rocket-propelled grenade launchers
• 12 peacekeepers died, 8 others were severely wounded
• Additionally, peacekeepers' communications installations, dormitories and vehicles were destroyed and computers, cell phones, uniforms, ammunition and money were stolen by the attackers
• The attack led by Banda and Jerbo constituted the deadliest single attack on the peacekeepers since the peacekeepers began their mission in 2004

SUPPORT the International Criminal Court! Click Here

Our friend, John Washburn, Convener of the American NGO Coalition for the ICC, seated at lunchtables in Kampala where delegates gather to share their meals.

In any good relationship, you must stop along the way and assess what is working and what needs to be fixed. That was the intention behind a

 substantial amount of the focus of week one, to discuss the Court and the concept of international justice’s progress since its inception.  I was pretty skeptical coming here about this portion of the Review Conference. Sitting in New York at the Assembly of State Parties meetings in preparation of Kampala, when it became clear that instead of the usual speeches or “interventions” as they are referred here, of states, IGO’s and NGO’s would be replaced by several hours of moderated panels set up for delegates to watch, but not necessarily participate in.

The topics covered this week include peace and justice, complementarity, cooperation, and the impact of the Rome Statue system on victims and affected communities. The reports of the working group can be found on the official website of the ICC Review Conference. 

Above: CGS Director of Policy and Programs Ariela Blatter at an event hosted by the Coalition for the International Criminal Court. Below: Osvaldo Zavala Giller, Legal Officer at the Coalition for the International Criminal Court at the same event.

Within the two professional fields that I am surrounded by in Kampala, diplomacy and advocacy, there is one constant; the precise and careful use of words. Of course there are many fields that this applies to, but none with such careful craftsmanship and double entendres as you experience with the double whammy of a room full of lawyers and diplomats working towards the goal of amending the Rome Statute of the ICC.  In some cases here, words are used literally, like the use of the term “deterrence.” 

Listening closely to the statements made on the floor by States, Prosecutor Ocampo, President Song and others here, I was struck by the breadth of the use of the term “deterrence” in describing the impact of the ICC to date.  I had recently heard the ICC Prosecutor speak eloquently in Washington DC about the deterrence effect of the Court, most recently at the Council of Foreign Relations when he spoke of his idea of the “shadow of the court” impacting the actions of intended criminals. But it was very interesting to see state parties to the ICC embracing this concept so warmly. Although the Court has been plagued with the normal teething problems associated with setting up a judicial body, one of the most basic principles of criminal law, deterrence, is becoming widely accepted as extending to The Hague as well.  Having the meetings here in Uganda reinforced this idea, not because there are not abuses still happening in this country, which there are, but because Kampala will be the host of the upcoming African Union Summit and has made clear that Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir is not welcome here.  Bashir, as you know, is being sought by the Court for crimes against humanity, war crimes, and potentially genocide.  His travel and livelihood have recently been severely curtailed by travel bans being issued by African members of the ICC. 

In some cases in the world of advocacy and diplomacy, words are not necessarily as clear, and it is important that you peel back the layers of meanings to get at what the delegates here are really saying. An example is the use of the word “consensus” by diplomats. Consensus is commonly defined as an opinion or decision agreed upon by the whole.  But consensus here means something different depending upon who is saying it. The non-aligned movement, represented by Egypt, uses the term consensus as a means of reminding everyone that agreement, on issues such as the crime of aggression, have been made before Kampala; no measure of interference by the larger states, particularly the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, should disrupt it. Long-term member countries that are part of the “friends of the ICC” group led by Finland are seeking to use the term consensus as a bridge - such as “can’t we just all get along” -  to promote agreements between diverging groups here while in Kampala. Then you have the US, other members of the UN Security Council, and often their state allies (eg. Germany is currently serving as a “proxy” for the US here in Kampala), who don’t use the term “consensus.” Instead they use the term “real consensus.” Meaning, “let’s not fool ourselves folks, we may have agreement on issues prior to arriving in Kampala, but now the heavy hitters are here and we need an agreement that reflects our national self-interest.”  Despite the US repeatedly acknowledging that they were absent in the consensus-building proceedings on aggression for the eight years leading up to the meeting in Kampala, it has insisted that very little consensus existed to date. As Harold Koh said in a remark that did not go over well here in Kampala, “the only consensus that exists in the room is that there is no consensus.”

Finally, I’ll mention that by the end of Week one, there was an interesting shift from the use of the word “consensus” or “real consensus” to delegates saying that State parties need to come together and “compromise.”  You will just need to wait, as I am, to see if compromise is possible here in Kampala. For some P5 and other heavy-hitting countries, compromise involves sacrificing what they perceive as their national self-interest.  For other states, compromise involves abandoning their principled approach in order to get to the finishing line. In the interests of protecting the future of the ICC, all countries may need to be willing to adopt a “lose, lose” strategy for the court to actually win. 

Earlier this month, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Luis Moreno Ocampo, visited Kenya where he met with victims of Kenya’s 2007-2008 postelection violence. Hundreds of thousands of Kenyans were displaced and more than 1,300 Kenyans lost their lives as a result of the postelection violence. While in Kenya, Ocampo not only met with victims of the postelection violence but also with senior government officials, civil society groups and the business community.

Powerful politicians and wealthy business men were accused of organizing and fueling attacks on civilian after the vote. Even though rival politicians signed a peace agreement and established that they would set up a local tribunal to investigate the election and prosecute the individuals responsible for the violence, the International Criminal Court believed that it was appropriate to become involved in the court proceedings because politicians were obstructing the investigations. Essentially, the International Criminal Court is fulfilling its duty to exercise its jurisdiction over perpetrators of the most serious crimes of international concern when national courts are unable to ensure the preservation of integrity, accountability and credibility while guaranteeing that justice is served.

With the upcoming Kenyan elections in 2012, witness protection for the witnesses that Ocampo will be calling to testify is a huge concern. Ocampo was made aware of this concern and stated “My witnesses will be protected. We are talking about 30, 40, 50 or 60 people”. The protection of witnesses is also important because those victims of violence are essential to Ocampo fulfilling his duty “to understand the views of the victims”. Ocampo also stated “It was a short visit and we saw just a little group but this is the beginning. It is important for us to understand what happened to them and how they feel.”

On May 12, 2010 the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court confirmed that that it has requested Judge Baltasar Garzon of Spain to assist the office in improving its investigation methods. Judge Garzon is a slightly controversial figure. Judge Garzon, in 2008, investigated the execution or disappearance of more than 100,000 Spanish civilians. These executions and disappearances are a reflection of the crimes committed during Spain's 1936-39 Civil War and under General Francisco Franco’s rule. In 1977 the Spanish Parliament granted amnesty over these crimes in an effort to move the county towards reconciliation. But as a result of Judge Garzon investigating these crimes which are covered by an amnesty he has been charged with knowingly going beyond the limits of his jurisdiction.

Despite Judge Garzon’s history, the Office of the Prosecutor has chosen to focus on the more positive aspects of Judge Garzon’s career. Judge Garzon is respected for targeting international figures which include the late Chilean military ruler Augusto Pinochet and al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden, among others.

Additionally, Prosecutor Moreno-Ocampo stated “Judge Garzon’s extensive experience in investigating massive crimes committed by States and non state organizations will be a great contribution to my office.”

Will Judge Garzon join Prosector Moreno-Ocampo at the ICC? The answer is still up in the air. Judge Garzon asked Spain’s Judicial Oversight Board if he could take a seven month leave of absence to join the ICC, but Spain’s Judicial Oversight Board has yet to make a decision to either grant or deny Judge Garzon’s request.

Act Now in Support of the International Criminal Court

"We may allow ourselves a brief period of rejoicing…." These words were spoken by British Prime Minister Winston Churchill on May 8th, 1945, immediately after he announced the German surrender that marked the end of the Second World War in Europe.  Sixty-five years later, the legacy of World War Two still exerts a powerful impact, particularly on issues such as genocide prevention and the International Criminal Court (ICC) which are fundamental to the mission of Citizens for Global Solutions.

Although the period of postwar rejoicing was to be "brief" because the war with Japan was not yet over (it would continue until August of that year), the British people and many others throughout Europe had good reason to rejoice on V-E Day.  The Second World War had been a human catastrophe unequalled in all of history.  However, despite the delirium of the crowds in London and other cities as they celebrated the end of the war, the reality was that much of the continent lay in ruins after the devastating six-year conflict.  Cities such as London and Berlin had suffered heavy bombing damage with many civilian casualties; others such as Warsaw were little more than smoking rubble.  In the former Soviet Union alone, a staggering total of approximately twenty-five million people had been killed during the war.  And the world’s attention was brought as never before to the horrendous problem of genocide in the aftermath of the murders of six million Jews and millions of others in the Holocaust at the hands of Nazi Germany.

Yet, despite the devastation the war had wrought, the conflict had also sown the seeds for positive changes in the world over the next several decades.  The horror of the Holocaust helped to spawn the genocide prevention movement, with its rallying cry of "never again."  Though the promise of ending genocide remains unfulfilled, as recent tragedies in countries such as Rwanda and Sudan remind us, the work to create a world free of mass killings continues, and Citizens for Global Solutions is proud to be a part of this effort.  Additionally, the Nuremberg trials which took place after the war to prosecute those who had carried out the Nazi genocide eventually led to the creation of the ICC, which works today to prosecute war criminals and hold them responsible for their actions and to seek justice for their victims.  CGS continues to advocate for U.S. support for the ICC and its crucial work around the globe.

Finally, the Second World War fundamentally transformed the relationships between the nations of Europe.  After centuries of conflict, countries such as Britain, France, and Germany at last recognized the necessity of coexisting peacefully with one another.  Beyond this, they realized the value of creating an entity which would tie their countries together politically and economically, and therefore prevent future wars from occurring.  In 1951, the movement towards unity began when six European countries signed a treaty to unite their nations’ coal and steel industries under common management.  By 1992, the modern European Union (EU) had been created.  Today, the EU consists of twenty-seven countries, ten of them formerly Communist nations which joined the Union in the "big bang" expansion of the mid-2000s.

Today, sixty-five years after V-E Day, Europe remains united and at peace—an achievement that not long ago would have seemed all but impossible.  As the world today continues to be plagued by violence, wars, and instability, post-war Europe shines as an example that ancient conflicts can be resolved and that former enemies can come together as allies and even friends—truly a cause for rejoicing.

Part III: This is the third post from Ariela Blatter, Director of Policy and Programs for Citizens for Global Solutions. Ariela is attending the 8th Resumed Session of the Assembly of States Parties in New York City this week.

Did the US delegation get unfairly singled out today, as the only country that feels that haste makes waste when it comes to the dash to finalize the crime of aggression? Not according to the UK, who stood up in the ICC Assembly to agree with the US concerns on the inclusion of the crime. The US remained silent in the session as the UK took on the Venezuelan delegation’s constant attempts to prove that the US stands alone. Today’s colorful closing session on the crime of aggression at the UN became an interminable he-said-she-said debate over the language used in the Chair’s summary report of the Assembly of States Parties. All of the fuss arose when the states parties were asked to approve the aggression working group report, drafted by Prince Zeid, which stated that “some [countries] cautioned the assembly that in so far as the Rome Statute, the crime of aggression should not be concluded hastily, and should be built on consensus.” So in the end, at least in diplomatic “speak,” the US may not be in good company with “some” countries in its position on aggression, but it can now return to DC knowing that that the final text reflects that it stands with “a few” countries. Phew- that was a close one!

TAKE ACTION to support the ICC

By: Ariela Blätter

This is the first of a series of updates you can expect from CGS's Ariela Blätter who is attending the resumed 8th session of the Assembly of States Parties at the UN in New York.

After nine years of absence from the ICC, the US came out fighting yesterday at the UN giving the world's delegates and ICC States Parties pause. Although couched in soft language or as 'mere' questions, the US position, reading between the lines, is uncomfortably harsh- a demand that the assembly of state parties not to take ANY steps that would cause the US pause, particularly on the crime of aggression. As a non-State Party this is really what you call "chutzpah"- especially in telling Prince Zeid, the chair of these proceedings, that he has not only not built consensus around this issue and hasn't sought answers to the right questions about the functioning of the court. So what to do? Start over? Carry on despite and without US support? Kick the question on aggression down the road five or ten years? Stay tuned till tomorrow...

CLICK HERE to support the ICC

Bangladesh ratified the Rome Statute today, becoming the 111th State to do so.  The Rome Statute was adopted by the international community on July 17, 1998 and Bangladesh signed it on September 16, 1999. This leaves twenty-eight states that have signed but not ratified the treaty.  As a State Party to the Rome Statute, Bangladesh now has a vote in the Review Conference which will begin in May in Kampala, Uganda. The Asian Human Rights Commission forwarded a Statement from Odhikar, a human rights organization, congratulating the government of Bangladesh for ratifying the Rome Statute: "Bangladesh has demonstrated its commitment to international justice."

ICC President, Judge Sang-Hyun Song, noted that "By ratifying the Rome Statute, Bangladesh will become the first State Party in South Asia. I applaud its decision to join the growing commitment of states to end impunity for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide."

CLICK HERE to see Citizens for Global Solution’s interactive ICC flash module.

CLICK HERE  to act in support of the ICC.