Nipate
Forum => Kenya Discussion => Topic started by: Omollo on June 14, 2015, 02:48:18 PM
-
JOHANNESBURG
A South African court on Sunday issued a temporary ban on Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir leaving the country after the International Criminal Court called for him to be arrested at a summit of African leaders in Johannesburg.
The court statement said that it was "compelling respondents to prevent President Omar Al-Bashir from the leaving the country until an order is made in this Court."
The hearing is set to take place later Sunday.
http://www.nation.co.ke/news/africa/South-Africa-Court-Omar-al-Bashir-ICC/-/1066/2751574/-/mhashiz/-/index.html
-
Bashir actually went to RSA. Well nothing will happen to him. He'll be spirited out.
-
He could be spirited out yes.... but again its not Kenya or Ethiopia. The South African institutions are fiercely independent and they work. When Mbeki tried to use them to box Zuma, they rebelled and later exposed him.
The next few hours will be crucial.
Bashir actually went to RSA. Well nothing will happen to him. He'll be spirited out.
-
A South African court has issued an interim order preventing Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir from leaving the country.
It says Mr Bashir will have to stay until the court hears an application later on Sunday on whether he should be handed over to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague.
Mr Bashir is in Johannesburg for an African Union (AU) summit.
He faces ICC war crimes and genocide charges over the Darfur conflict.
The ICC has called on South Africa to arrest him. However he was welcomed by South African officials when he arrived in Johannesburg on Sunday.
Treaty obligation
There are tensions between the ICC and the AU, with some on the continent accusing the court of unfairly targeting Africans.
The AU has previously urged the ICC to stop proceedings against sitting leaders.
The warrants against Mr Bashir, who denies the allegations, have severely restricted his overseas travel.
He has, however, visited friendly states in Africa and the Middle East.
The ICC has issued two arrest warrants against Mr Bashir. The court relies on member states to carry out arrests.
However correspondents have said the South African government - a signatory to the treaty establishing the ICC - is unlikely to move against the Sudanese leader.
The AU has previously refused to co-operate with the ICC, accusing it of bias against African leaders.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-33125728
-
A South African court has granted an interim order to prevent Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir from leaving South Africa, where he is attending an African Union summit, until it hears an application calling for his arrest.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant in 2009, accusing Bashir of war crimes and crimes against humanity related to the conflict in Darfur. He denies the charges.
An application reportedly lodged by a human rights group was set to be heard in the Pretoria High Court at 3pm local time on Sunday to decide whether Bashir should be arrested.
The judge said the court will decide whether a South African government cabinet decision to host Bashir would trump the ICC arrest warrant.
Bashir boarded a flight on Saturday to Johannesburg to head Sudan's delegation at the summit which starts on Sunday, presidential sources and the state Sudan News Agency said.
Bashir dominates Sudan elections
The South African Broadcasting Corporation reported that Bashir was later "welcomed by South African officials and Sudanese diplomats on his arrival in the country".
South Africa is a member of the ICC, which does not have its own police force and relies on member states to detain suspects.
Since the arrest warrant was issued, most of Bashir's trips abroad have been to non-ICC states such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt. But he has also been to member states that have declined to arrest him, such as Nigeria, which hosted him in July 2013.
"Allowing President al-Bashir into South Africa without arresting him would be a major stain on South Africa's reputation on promoting justice for grave crimes," Elise Keppler, acting international justice director at New-York based advocacy group Human Rights Watch, said in a statement on Friday.
A South African government spokesman declined to comment.
Bashir cancelled a trip to Indonesia for a summit in April at the last minute. The plan to attend an Asian-African leaders conference in Jakarta sparked protests among rights groups, who want the president to be arrested.
Al Jazeera's Fahmida Miller, reporting from the South African capital Johannesburg, said that an increasing number of African countries have been displeased with the ICC and want to move away from it.
"The chances that South Africa will act on the ICC's request are very low. However, it is in an awkward position as it is a signatory to the Rome Statute, which established the ICC," Miller said.
Read more: Africans push UN to call off 'racist' court
"At the same time, an arrest by South Africa, any possibility of it, may further tarnish the image of South Africa in the African Union. In recent months, a sentiment within the African Union has been growing against the ICC, especially after Kenyan Vice President William Ruto’s and Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta’s appearances at the court."
Burundi crisis
Leaders meet in Johannesburg on Sunday for an African Union summit which will be dominated by the political unrest in Burundi and the migration crisis in the continent.
Burundi has been plunged into a period of instability sparked by President Pierre Nkurunziza's push to run for a third five-year term.
Talk to Al Jazeera: 'Bashir the only person trusted'
Violent protests have left around 40 people dead and 100,000 people have fled the country, raising peace and security concerns in the region.
Other crises like the threat posed by armed groups are also on the agenda in Johannesburg.
"The situation in Burundi is still unresolved ... and Nigeria, which is supposed to be an important player, still has challenges around Boko Haram," said Tjiurimo Hengari, research fellow at the South African Institute of International Affairs.
"I see the next two years being very challenging, especially in light of a new threat that is emerging on the horizon - the issue of constitutional revisions to allow sitting heads of state third terms and fourth terms."
Source: Al Jazeera and agencies
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/06/sudan-bashir-travels-africa-icc-warrant-150614045917841.html
-
Indeed he will be escorted by Zuma....
ICC kitu gani :):):)
Bashir actually went to RSA. Well nothing will happen to him. He'll be spirited out.
-
Politically South Africa is now fully African or Negroid as vooke would put it. They will do what they do best. Institutions are at best a nuisance to be tolerated.
-
Politically South Africa is now fully African or Negroid as vooke would put it. They will do what they do best. Institutions are at best a nuisance to be tolerated.
I can't rule the institutions out so fast. Bashir made a blunder. He can leave immediately ahead of the court order being served on the Air-Controllers.
-
Bashur long left. Personally there are many treaties that countries have signed that conflict. ICC is one of them. The respect of sovereignty of another nation is a treaty far more important than any other. It is the reason Bashir or anyone else can today attend UN meeting in New York without as much as whimper from DC.
-
Bashur long left. Personally there are many treaties that countries have signed that conflict. ICC is one of them. The respect of sovereignty of another nation is a treaty far more important than any other. It is the reason Bashir or anyone else can today attend UN meeting in New York without as much as whimper from DC.
Yes he might have already left. Either way, the AU club simply cannot enforce such laws against fellow big men. Still I think he would be promptly arrested, no questions asked, if he set foot in New York. And they might not even hand him over to ICC.
-
Bashur long left. Personally there are many treaties that countries have signed that conflict. ICC is one of them. The respect of sovereignty of another nation is a treaty far more important than any other. It is the reason Bashir or anyone else can today attend UN meeting in New York without as much as whimper from DC.
Yes he might have already left. Either way, the AU club simply cannot enforce such laws against fellow big men. Still I think he would be promptly arrested, no questions asked, if he set foot in New York. And they might not even hand him over to ICC.
Pundit's claim in red is a funny one. As along as the ICC wants him, Bashir is one president who won't be seeing much of New York, even during the times when all his fellow national leaders are there.
As it is, this matter has already been put to the test. In Sep 2013, Bashir applied for a visa to attend the UN General Assembly meeting. Washington was not amused, but Bashir himself apparently was:
But Bashir at a press conference on Sunday night challenged the US to deny him entry or arrest him adding that his flight and lodging plans for New York have already been made.
"Those people [US government] we put them in a corner….We [can] go to the US and no one can do anything to us because there is no law in America that affords US authorities the right to take any action against me because it is not a member of the Rome Statute. "Attending the [UN] General Assembly [meeting] is our right" the Sudanese president told reporters.
http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article48195
His ambassador in the US also emphasized his right to a visa:
http://www.sudanembassy.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=943:-president-bashir-has-an-unquestionable-legal-right-to-a-visa-to-attend-the-un-general-assembly&catid=13:news-and-events&Itemid=207
And, sure enough he was right: under the UN headquarters agreement, it appears he was entitled to a visa. (He did not fit the "exceptions" that would have allowed the US to do otherwise.)
A few days after Bashir's public display of African Big-Man bravado, his Foreign Minister had this to say to the UN:
“It is with deep regret that I inform you of the refusal of the authorities of the United States, the host government, to give an entry visa to President Bashir and his delegation,” Sudanese Foreign Minister Ali Karti told the U.N. General Assembly, according to Agence France Presse
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/africa/2013/09/28/
So, why wasn't there a huge diplomatic flap over that? Wapi African Union or anybody to complain? Well, his Foreign Minister took some liberties with the truth. Bashir himself changed his mind in light of the "offer" he was given: Stay at home, or insist on travelling to the New York with the US government stating that it was "unable to guarantee that he will not be arrested".
How's that for a whimper?
-
Legally he is allowed to visit UN. Of course his case is a UNSC referral. So that is complicated. But point is very clear. There are many treaties that makes arresting Bashir nothing short of declaration of war with Sudan. Which is why US had to explain or deny Bashir entry...not for example trick him and arrest in while in NY. That would set a very bad precedent.
Countries who intend to arrest Bashir should not invite Bashir.
Bashur long left. Personally there are many treaties that countries have signed that conflict. ICC is one of them. The respect of sovereignty of another nation is a treaty far more important than any other. It is the reason Bashir or anyone else can today attend UN meeting in New York without as much as whimper from DC.
Yes he might have already left. Either way, the AU club simply cannot enforce such laws against fellow big men. Still I think he would be promptly arrested, no questions asked, if he set foot in New York. And they might not even hand him over to ICC.
Pundit's claim in red is a funny one. As along as the ICC wants him, Bashir is one president who won't be seeing much of New York, even during the times when all his fellow national leaders are there.
As it is, this matter has already been put to the test. In Sep 2013, Bashir applied for a visa to attend the UN General Assembly meeting. Washington was not amused, but Bashir himself apparently was:
But Bashir at a press conference on Sunday night challenged the US to deny him entry or arrest him adding that his flight and lodging plans for New York have already been made.
"Those people [US government] we put them in a corner….We [can] go to the US and no one can do anything to us because there is no law in America that affords US authorities the right to take any action against me because it is not a member of the Rome Statute. "Attending the [UN] General Assembly [meeting] is our right" the Sudanese president told reporters.
http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article48195
His ambassador in the US also emphasized his right to a visa:
http://www.sudanembassy.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=943:-president-bashir-has-an-unquestionable-legal-right-to-a-visa-to-attend-the-un-general-assembly&catid=13:news-and-events&Itemid=207
And, sure enough he was right: under the UN headquarters agreement, it appears he was entitled to a visa. (He did not fit the "exceptions" that would have allowed the US to do otherwise.)
A few days after Bashir's public display of African Big-Man bravado, his Foreign Minister had this to say to the UN:
“It is with deep regret that I inform you of the refusal of the authorities of the United States, the host government, to give an entry visa to President Bashir and his delegation,” Sudanese Foreign Minister Ali Karti told the U.N. General Assembly, according to Agence France Presse
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/africa/2013/09/28/
So, why wasn't there a huge diplomatic flap over that? Wapi African Union or anybody to complain? Well, his Foreign Minister took some liberties with the truth. Bashir himself changed his mind in light of the "offer" he was given: Stay at home, or insist on travelling to the New York with the US government stating that it was "unable to guarantee that he will not be arrested".
How's that for a whimper?
-
Spirited out via military airport
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-33135562
-
Legally he is allowed to visit UN. Of course his case is a UNSC referral. So that is complicated. But point is very clear. There are many treaties that makes arresting Bashir nothing short of declaration of war with Sudan.
Which treaties did you have in mind?
Which is why US had to explain or deny Bashir entry...
As far as recall, the US did neither.
Countries who intend to arrest Bashir should not invite Bashir.
It is not that simple. In the UN General Assembly case, his invitation would have come from the UN Secretary-General; nothing to do with the US. In other cases, a country might not have a choice. For example, when Denmark hosted the UN Climate Change conference in 2009, it was obliged to invite all national leaders. So Bashir was invited. He was also told that he would get arrested if he showed up.
-
Spirited out via military airport
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-33135562 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-33135562)
If that is true, and I think it is, that is one more nail in the credibility of South Africa's institutions. The institutions function only when the Boss is okay with it.
-
AU treaty for once. Treaties are dime a dozen. Deciding which one is bigger than one...AU treaty versus ICC treaty....versus even East Africa treaty...really depend on the country's interest. If Bashir came to kenya...Kenya will use the AU treaty to welcome him. Of course some countries have zero interest with Sudan or Bashir..and will promptly arrest him..like Denmark..mmmh..but why tell Bashir before hand. Why not invite him and then arrest him.
ICC treaty as long as it's voluntary can be switched on and off. Like South Africa just did.
Legally he is allowed to visit UN. Of course his case is a UNSC referral. So that is complicated. But point is very clear. There are many treaties that makes arresting Bashir nothing short of declaration of war with Sudan.
Which treaties did you have in mind?
Which is why US had to explain or deny Bashir entry...
As far as recall, the US did neither.
Countries who intend to arrest Bashir should not invite Bashir.
It is not that simple. In the UN General Assembly case, his invitation would have come from the UN Secretary-General; nothing to do with the US. In other cases, a country might not have a choice. For example, when Denmark hosted the UN Climate Change conference in 2009, it was obliged to invite all national leaders. So Bashir was invited. He was also told that he would get arrested if he showed up.
-
AU treaty for once. Treaties are dime a dozen. Deciding which one is bigger than one...AU treaty versus ICC treaty....versus even East Africa treaty...really depend on the country's interest. If Bashir came to kenya...Kenya will use the AU treaty to welcome him. Of course some countries have zero interest with Sudan or Bashir..and will promptly arrest him..like Denmark..mmmh..but why tell Bashir before hand. Why not invite him and then arrest him.
ICC treaty as long as it's voluntary can be switched on and off. Like South Africa just did.
I was specifically interested in this part:
"There are many treaties that makes arresting Bashir nothing short of declaration of war with Sudan."
-
Of course. Arresting Bashir is declaration of war. Bashir is president of Sudan and the Chief of Staff (Commander in Chief). My bet is you'll violate so many treaties in the process. Given your have plenty of time...you can go through all the vienna treaties..and if you don't find one..I'll step in. For starters Bashir enjoys diplomatic immunity against any proceedings.
"There are many treaties that makes arresting Bashir nothing short of declaration of war with Sudan."
-
Of course. Arrest Bashir is declaration of war. Bashir is president of Sudan and the Chief of Staff. My bet is you'll violate so many treaties in the process. Given your have plenty of time...you can go through all the vienna treaties..and if you don't find one..I'll step in.
Please feel free to step in. I'm keen to know more, but I can't find what you have in mind.
-
Start by defining
1) What is a treaty.
2) What is declaration of war.
3) When can war be declared.
Please feel free to step in. I'm keen to know more, but I can't find what you have in mind.
-
Of course. Arresting Bashir is declaration of war. Bashir is president of Sudan and the Chief of Staff (Commander in Chief). My bet is you'll violate so many treaties in the process. Given your have plenty of time...you can go through all the vienna treaties..and if you don't find one..I'll step in. For starters Bashir enjoys diplomatic immunity against any proceedings.
"There are many treaties that makes arresting Bashir nothing short of declaration of war with Sudan."
I don't think it would be a declaration of war. I am no expert, but I think treaties and their enforcement are generally incompatible with war. Kababe might have more to say on that.
Would arresting Bashir engender feelings of war among some Sudanese? Possibly. But my hunch is he would have been replaced before the prison van arrives at his jail.
-
Start by defining
1) What is a treaty.
2) What is declaration of war.
3) When can war be declared.
He, he, he ... That is very funny! Still, not as funny as the claim that "Arrest Bashir is declaration of war".
-
Bashir as commander in chief is legally the one to declare war. Of course what follows will depend on the loyalty of the ground force and the practicality of war. If Kenya was to arrest Bashir coz somebody rushed to our courts...definitely the prospect of Sudan-Kenya war would be very high.
Bottomline: Arresting Bashir is NOT easy. It just won't happen.
I don't think it would be a declaration of war. I am no expert, but I think treaties and their enforcement are generally incompatible with war. Kababe might have more to say on that.
Would arresting Bashir engender feelings of war among some Sudanese? Possibly. But my hunch is he would have been replaced before the prison van arrives at his jail.
-
I don't think it would be a declaration of war.
It would be ... if, say, you throw out you throw out the UN Charter, all post-1945 international understanding of "declaration of war", etc. :D
-
What will stop sudan from forcing down a south african plane flying Zuma and arresting him for arresting Bashir. They are treaties that define the respect each nation has for another. One of such is not to arrest the head of state of another country.
He, he, he ... That is very funny! Still, not as funny as the claim that "Arrest Bashir is declaration of war".
-
UN treaty is a treaty as good as AU or East Africa depending on circumstance. Did Bush and US congress use your narrow UN treaty definition when they declared war against Iraq.
A treaty is a treaty is a treaty. There is no super treaty. That depend on the circumstances, the reality and practicality of each state or country.
It would be ... if, say, you throw out you throw out the UN Charter, all post-1945 international understanding of "declaration of war", etc. :D
-
If you cannot even arrest Sudan Ambassador..what makes you think you can arrest their president.
-
What will stop sudan from forcing down a south african plane flying Zuma and arrest him for arresting Bashir.
I don't know what would stop them. But, also, I don't know if they actually would do that. Do you?
I was primarily interested in the idea that "Arresting Bashir is declaration of war." and its basis. Speculations of how Sudan might act in such circumstances are not a very satisfying explanation. I expected you to follow up on this one:
you can go through all the vienna treaties..and if you don't find one..I'll step in.
-
UN treaty is a treaty as good as AU or East Africa depending on circumstance. Did Bush and US congress use your narrow UN treaty definition when they declared war against Iraq.
A treaty is a treaty is a treaty. There is no super treaty. That depend on the circumstances, the reality and practicality of each state or country.
Even if we accept that, I still don't see the basis on which you say that "Arresting Bashir is declaration of war."
I thought you'd give us something on this:
you can go through all the vienna treaties..and if you don't find one..I'll step in.
But I take it you won't be "stepping in" in that manner.
-
Your barely attempted to google before giving up.
I was primarily interested in the idea that "Arresting Bashir is declaration of war." and its basis. Speculations of how Sudan might act in such circumstances are not a very satisfying explanation. I expected you to follow up on this one:
-
I don't think it would be a declaration of war.
It would be ... if, say, you throw out you throw out the UN Charter, all post-1945 international understanding of "declaration of war", etc. :D
Hehehe...I don't doubt there would be some very hurt souls in Sudan. Especially those whose position in the food chain is entirely dependent on Bashir. But I doubt there is a legal basis for such a claim.
Lost in this discussion. The bazungu protecting their own by making sure Milosevic pays for the crime of slaughtering bazungu. The African protecting his own by making sure the criminal who kills his own people gets away with it.
-
When are George Bush and Tony Blair standing trial for illegally waging war in Iraq and killing millions. Perhaps if Bazungu did that..people would trust ICC as fair institution of law. Not a imperial tool.Compared to massacres and death that EU and US have visited countries all over the world..what Bashir is being accused of..is walk in the park. The US perhaps daily kill more people using their latest military gadget than Bashir ever did all his life.
Why should Bashir submit to UNSC tribubal when George Bush never cared to ask for permission to invade Iraq over dubious claims of WMD.
Lost in this discussion. The bazungu protecting their own by making sure Milosevic pays for the crime of slaughtering bazungu. The African protecting his own by making sure the criminal who kills his own people gets away with it.
-
When are George Bush and Tony Blair standing trial for illegally waging war in Iraq and killing millions. Perhaps if Bazungu did that..people would trust ICC as fair institution of law. Not a imperial tool.Compared to massacres and death that EU and US have visited countries all over the world..what Bashir is being accused of..is walk in the park. The US perhaps daily kill more people using their latest military gadget than Bashir ever did all his life.
Why should Bashir submit to UNSC tribubal when George Bush never cared to ask for permission to invade Iraq over dubious claims of WMD.
Lost in this discussion. The bazungu protecting their own by making sure Milosevic pays for the crime of slaughtering bazungu. The African protecting his own by making sure the criminal who kills his own people gets away with it.
I am one of those who will readily agree that W is a war criminal. I was saying that as far back as 2003. I don't know about Blair.
The Brits did invade Iraq, but I don't think they killed a lot of innocents where they could avoid it. Their military strategies have always taken into account minimizing civilian casualties.
The US on the other hand emphasizes minimizing US casualties before anything else. That means weapons like cluster bombs are a highly favored item in their arsenal.
Yes, US leaders have overseen the butchery of more people than any other nation since World War II. And they should be held accountable.
If you think it is impractical to nab Bashir, I am sure you would not have a problem seeing that it is even more impractical to nab W.
That said, I am for nabbing whichever crook you can whenever you can regardless of which one has not been nabbed. People like Bashir come on top of the list because they would have butchered me or you for not being an Arab.
-
Pundit
I think you should find time to look deeper in to the Darfur issue. We are letting down our African brothers and falling for Arab propaganda. I have constant run ins with my Muslim friends over Darfur. The people killed and thrown out are Black like you and me. They are Muslims.
This has nothing to do with the US. The US actually abstained during the Sudan referral. Africa was represented by Tanzania and Benin. Both voted for the resolution. Here is the vote:
The members of the Security Council that
voted in favour of the resolution
were:
- France - (State Party to the ICC Statute)
- The United Kingdom - (State Party to the ICC Statute)
- Benin -(State Party to the ICC Statute)
- Greece - (State Party to the ICC Statute)
- Denmark -(State Party to the ICC Statute)
- Argentina - (State Party to the ICC Statute)
- The United Republic of Tanzania - (State Party to the ICC Statute)
- Romania - (State Party to the ICC Statute)
- Japan - (State Party to the ICC Statute)
- The Philippines - (Non State Party to the ICC Statute)
- Russia - (Non State Party to the ICC Statute)
Abstaining:
- The United States,
- China,
- Algeria and
- Brazil
When are George Bush and Tony Blair standing trial for illegally waging war in Iraq and killing millions. Perhaps if Bazungu did that..people would trust ICC as fair institution of law. Not a imperial tool.Compared to massacres and death that EU and US have visited countries all over the world..what Bashir is being accused of..is walk in the park. The US perhaps daily kill more people using their latest military gadget than Bashir ever did all his life.
Why should Bashir submit to UNSC tribunal when George Bush never cared to ask for permission to invade Iraq over dubious claims of WMD.
Lost in this discussion. The bazungu protecting their own by making sure Milosevic pays for the crime of slaughtering bazungu. The African protecting his own by making sure the criminal who kills his own people gets away with it.
-
Bashir maybe crook to you but hero to some people. The same with Dubya. And then who decide who is a crook or not. Should Bashir have looked the other side as Darfur rebels declared war
That said, I am for nabbing whichever crook you can whenever you can regardless of which one has not been nabbed. People like Bashir come on top of the list because they would have butchered me or you for not being an Arab.
-
Bashir will be removed one day and tried. He cannot be tried when he is PORS. He cannot be arrested by another country. That will set a dangerous precedent where we arrest diplomats and presidents and end up causing wars all over.
Bashir will most likely be overthrown violently...and will pay for his sin.
Darfur folks have to choose to continue with war and pay the price...or cow under Bashir and live.
Pundit
I think you should find time to look deeper in to the Darfur issue. We are letting down our African brothers and falling for Arab propaganda. I have constant run ins with my Muslim friends over Darfur. The people killed and thrown out are Black like you and me. They are Muslims.
This has nothing to do with the US. The US actually abstained during the Sudan referral. Africa was represented by Tanzania and Benin. Both voted for the resolution. Here is the vote:
[/list][/list]
-
...people would trust ICC as fair institution of law. Not a imperial tool.
This idea of the ICC as an imperial tool is an interesting one. Let's review some facts:
(a) Most of people on trial or wanted for trial are Africans.
(b) That is because almost all of them have been sent there by their fellow Africans.
(c) During the period that the AU "leaders" (at its Extraordinary summits etc.) has been busy denouncing the court in terms similar to yours:
- Some of those places have engaged in (b). (A spectacular example being Museveni: after all his vitriol, he handed over Ong'wen. He has since then gone rather quiet on the ICC.)
- Numerous threats of withdrawal, individual (e.g. by Kenya) or mass (by AU "leaders") have turned out to be nothing but noise. On the contrary, more African countries have signed up.
- A guy like Ntanganda decided that he'd rather go there than face his fellow Africans.
(d) At the 2014 Assembly of States Parties, the keynote speech was given by the president of the CAR. She lavished praise on the ICC for "intervening" in the CAR. Everyone clapped and cheered.
(e) The Senegalese, Kaba, was elected president of the ASP. The African delegates were beside themselves with delight. No talk about imperial tools or mass withdrawals.
(f) As is standard practice with the AU, all that they resolved (especially in 2013) to do about the ICC has quietly been forgotten.
So, at a first cut, we may conclude that:
(1) All the noise about "imperial tool" is simple, manipulative bullshit by countries that most find that "tool" useful; or
(2) African leaders know when they are targets of "imperial tools", will make plenty of noise about it, but will then eagerly submit.
Neither is very "positive".
-
Bashir maybe crook to you but hero to some people. The same with Dubya. And then who decide who is a crook or not. Should Bashir have looked the other side as Darfur rebels declared war
That said, I am for nabbing whichever crook you can whenever you can regardless of which one has not been nabbed. People like Bashir come on top of the list because they would have butchered me or you for not being an Arab.
I think they are both crooks by international law. That is the only consistent way to look at it. Of course they are also dotting fathers and loving husbands.
-
ICC is 1/3 africa; 1/3 europe;1/3 Asia; Now why haven't they tried crimes elsewhere. Tony Blair is always available. We know of course ICC is European court that US uses. ICC will remain imperial court until they get the balls to try crimes outside bush wars of Africa.
...people would trust ICC as fair institution of law. Not a imperial tool.
This idea of the ICC as an imperial tool is an interesting one. Let's review some facts:
(a) Most of people on trial or wanted for trial are Africans.
(b) That is because almost all of them have been sent there by their fellow Africans.
(c) During the period that the AU "leaders" (at its Extraordinary summits etc.) has been busy denouncing the court in terms similar to yours:
- Some of those places have engaged in (b). (A spectacular example being Museveni: after all his vitriol, he handed over Ong'wen. He has since then gone rather quiet on the ICC.)
- Numerous threats of withdrawal, individual (e.g. by Kenya) or mass (by AU "leaders") have turned out to be nothing but noise. On the contrary, more African countries have signed up.
- A guy like Ntanganda decided that he'd rather go there than face his fellow Africans.
(d) At the 2014 Assembly of States Parties, the keynote speech was given by the president of the CAR. She lavished praise on the ICC for "intervening" in the CAR. Everyone clapped and cheered.
(e) The Senegalese, Kaba, was elected president of the ASP. The African delegates were beside themselves with delight. No talk about imperial tools or mass withdrawals.
(f) As is standard practice with the AU, all that they resolved (especially in 2013) to do about the ICC has quietly been forgotten.
So, at a first cut, we may conclude that:
(1) All the noise about "imperial tool" is simple, manipulative bullshit by countries that most find that "tool" useful; or
(2) African leaders know when they are targets of "imperial tools", will make plenty of noise about it, but will then eagerly submit.
Neither is very "positive".
-
Agreed.Bashir though should be left to finish him term. For practical reasons. George Bush should be airlifted from Texas to ICC. That is when American will convince us that their double standard era is over..
I think they are both crooks by international law. That is the only consistent way to look at it. Of course they are also dotting fathers and loving husbands.
-
ICC is 1/3 africa; 1/3 europe;1/3 Asia; Now why haven't they tried crimes elsewhere.
Interesting question. The answer is that* they are very busy with Africans cases sent there by Africans. I am not aware of Europe or Asia sending their people to the court.
* Apart from UNSC referral and Kenyan case (in which GoK has claimed, explicitly and in writing, that it asked Ocampo to step in.)
ICC will remain imperial court until they get the balls to try crimes outside bush wars of Africa.
Without Africans sending Africans to the court, one wonders how much business it would have. So much for fighting the "imperial tool". I
I don't see that it has anything to do with "balls", but if there is a lack of "balls", surely it has to be in those who keep denouncing the "imperial tool", forever threatening "mass withdrawal", but never actually doing anything concrete.
-
They have the power to self-invite themselves and find out why Tony Blair is still walking around when it obvious he committed ICC crimes. They also can investigate both side of Libya crisis for starters.
I am not aware of Europe or Asia sending their people to the court.
-
Those who thought it was a light issues. Sudan besieged 1,400 RSA peacekeepers and there was going to be war definitely.
http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2015/06/16/SA-soldiers-held-hostage-in-Sudan-as-guarantee-for-Al-Bashir%E2%80%99s-safe-return
-
Those who thought it was a light issues. Sudan besieged 1,400 RSA peacekeepers and there was going to be war definitely.
http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2015/06/16/SA-soldiers-held-hostage-in-Sudan-as-guarantee-for-Al-Bashir%E2%80%99s-safe-return
That story was denied by SA. I also don't see the logic if it were true. Because attacking UN troops is the kind of excuse Uncle Sam would use to get directly involved.
-
Those who thought it was a light issues. Sudan besieged 1,400 RSA peacekeepers and there was going to be war definitely.
http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2015/06/16/SA-soldiers-held-hostage-in-Sudan-as-guarantee-for-Al-Bashir%E2%80%99s-safe-return
That story was denied by SA. I also don't see the logic if it were true. Because attacking UN troops is the kind of excuse Uncle Sam would use to get directly involved.
The UN too appears to know nothing about this; that is surprising, given that the Secretary General has had a few words to say on what happened in South Africa. News sources in Sudan too do not seem to be aware of it.
-
So the Union chair is lying. Of course Gov of RSA, Sudan and concerned will deny for diplomacy given nothing happen. Bashir went back. Arresting PORK of another country is not a joke. Even US of A has not dared...except maybe baby doc father or something like that.
That story was denied by SA. I also don't see the logic if it were true. Because attacking UN troops is the kind of excuse Uncle Sam would use to get directly involved.
-
So the Union chair is lying. Of course Gov of RSA, Sudan and concerned will deny for diplomacy given nothing happen. Bashir went back. Arresting PORK of another country is not a joke. Even US of A has not dared...except maybe baby doc father or something like that.
That story was denied by SA. I also don't see the logic if it were true. Because attacking UN troops is the kind of excuse Uncle Sam would use to get directly involved.
This event did not happen. Bashir was probably assured all along Zuma would defy the court order the African way. Why would Sudan risk creating conditions where SA could decide last minute to lock him up? It doesn't add up.
-
So the Union chair is lying. Of course Gov of RSA, Sudan and concerned will deny for diplomacy given nothing happen.
Yes, that's it. A huge cover-up conspiracy. So huge that the only place it can come from is a small South African source, with no corroboration from any other source. So huge that even the UN, which has always had very strong words on interfering with folks on UN peace-keeping missions, prefers to keep quite about this one.
The truth is out there.
-
So the Union chair is lying. Of course Gov of RSA, Sudan and concerned will deny for diplomacy given nothing happen.
Yes, that's it. A huge cover-up conspiracy. So huge that the only place it can come from is a small South African source, with no corroboration from any other source. So huge that even the UN, which has always had very strong words on interfering with folks on UN peace-keeping missions, prefers to keep quite about this one.
The truth is out there.
The notion that UN would keep it under wraps to be diplomatic towards Bashir flies in the face of all logic.
-
What would UN have said. Sudan did not violate any peacekeeping rules. They just made their presence known to the South Africans. UN peacekeepers in Sudan are there at mercy of Sudan Gov.UN is HQ of diplomacy if there was one. Bashir can kick out the UN peacekeepers any day as long as he has one veto from China or Russia. UN Commander job therefore is first and foremost kiss Bashir behind....so they can be allowed do their job...which is to protect civilians...with as less drama as possible.
The notion that UN would keep it under wraps to be diplomatic towards Bashir flies in the face of all logic.
-
What would UN have said.
Go through the UN Security Council records and find what has been said in the past whenever there was even a hint of a threat to UN peace-keeping troops.
Sudan did not violate any peacekeeping rules. They just made their presence known to the South Africans.
Really? That's it? The first we here heard of this was from one Pundit, who excitedly informed us that:
Sudan besieged 1,400 RSA peacekeepers and there was going to be war definitely.
But this doesn't seem to have even raised an eyebrow at the UN?
Bashir can kick out the UN peacekeepers any day as long as he has one veto from China or Russia.
Huh? Russia was one of the countries that voted to refer the Sudan/Bashir case to the ICC, and it had very strong words about punishing those responsible for the situation in Darfur. China abstained in that vote.
-
This story seems to be known only to an obscure website; everyone else is lying and involved in huge cover-up. The UN has now categorically stated that it did not happen, but Pundit will no doubt be able to tell us why they are lying.
Also, according to Pundit's source---the only one bold enough to tell the truth:
the Sudanese troops held about 1400 South African soldiers in Darfur “hostage,”
That number of 1400 is interesting. It seems to be quite different from the number of South African soldiers that the UN is aware of:
"South Africa currently has 802 members of an infantry battalion deployed in Kutum, Malha and Mellit team sites in North Darfur. We can confirm that the mission's South African troops were not held hostage or under any threat as reported in the media," U.N. spokesman Farhan Haq said in a statement.
http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFKBN0OX0MC20150617