Power And Dollar

How Will This Work For Dafur?

The arrest of Karadzic removes the condition for Serbia to join European Union.  This arrest is another evidence an individual cannot escape the will of a state.  Karadzic has been successful to remain free for 13 years (since 1995).  What makes arresting war crime suspect so difficult?  What does this arrest say about Dafur?


A NATO raid back in 2005 July could not capture Karadzic.  That is because one can only evade this long if state institutions are protecting him.  Once the incentives of arresting him, i.e. European Union membership for Bosnia, out weighs the incentives of protecting him, i.e. protecting the co-founder of Serbian Democratic Party and the intellectual advocate of Serbian nationalism. 


Of all the war crimes, genocide has the most difficulty to try because of the definition of the crime.  Genocide is defined as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”.   The difficulty lies with the word “intent”.  The wording “in part” also gives trouble to prosecutor. 


Karadzic will be tried by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), i.e. not International Criminal Court.  Why is that?  Well, the United States of America never supported the idea of Internal Criminal Court.  America favors courts appointed for a specific war conflict.  In doing so, America has a better control as to the scope of the trial, the suspects the court will try, the timing of court creation, budgeting, judge appointments and so on.  What risks do these items pose to America that America would want to assert so much control rather than simply control the funding of ICC?  America is involved in a lot of military conflicts.  It is only a matter of time that someone will fall under the definition of war crime.  Having a court that is originated from one military event makes the court to have defined end.  Thus, it is far safer than having a court that serves a never ending purpose (as long as there are military conflicts, there will be potential of war crime).  Besides, once an international court gets its own budget, it becomes institutionalized and it has own life that America can never truly end.  It has been said that Kissinger does not travel overseas because he wants to avoid being served for war crime arrest from individual countries (not ICC). 


The prosecution of Omar al-Bashir will make the Sudan government elite more insecure.  This in turn will make the government more inflexible in any peace negotiation.  If not, then what will happen to Dafur if indeed there will be no UN presence?  How bad will it be?  Who will then be responsible elevate the pain and suffering in that area?  There will not even be a third party to monitor and document the activities in Dafur.  How will the prosecution be helpful in elevating atrocities then?  If the purpose of trial cannot be achieved by this prosecution and this prosecution will serve as an impediment to peace process, then what purpose does it serve?


Exactly for that reason, African Union wants a delay in this prosecution.  So are Arab League and Organization of the Islamic Conference.  Of course the latter two have other motives as well, namely Sudanese government is run by Muslims. 


What, then, motivates the timing of this prosecution?  China’s veto against the resolution against Zimbabwe in UN.  Britain has a strong motive for this tick for tack in another African country where China has a strong interests, i.e. oil.  Zimbabwe serves the interest of Britain since British descents control majority of farm land in Zimbabwe and they continue to enjoy the rights to become British citizens.  This prosecution sets the stage for more embarrassing public relations episodes for China during this Olympics. 



July 22, 2008 Posted by | activism, advocacy, Africa, Current Events, 石油, 非洲, nonprofits, opinion, politics, wordpress-political-blogs | | Leave a comment

Zimbabwe Crisis: Is It About Democracy?

Zimbabwe crisis has been going on for months.  US is not interfering with force since Zimbabwe involves no strategic resources.  In a way, most of the African leaders are supporting Mugabe, even though an unstable Zimbabwe is not to their interests.  Whose interests are at stake?  What is this debate about?


The strongest voice against Zimbabwe’s Mugabe is Britain.  Why?  Since Mugabe started its land reform, Britain suffers the greatest risk in Zimbabwe.  Three quarters of the most fertile land Zimbabwe are held by British descent, who are citizens of Britain.  They control a great portion of the economy, as well as livelihood of the citizens.


A land reform is inevitable.  It was only a matter of time and approach to the reform.  Mugabe’s land grab was brutal.  However, most of the African nations see the reaction to Mugabe’s regime as a return to the colonial time and a refusal to wealth distribution from colonialists to Africans.   


That is why African Union says it is an African problem.  Even India will not boycott cricket against Zimbabwe.  China and South Africa both blocked the UN sanctions against Mugabe and his relations.  Some even considered him a hero.


This is not a debate about democracy promoted by the west and the corruption and dictatorships supported by third world countries like China.  This is a debate of former colonialists protecting their interests and developing countries’ elites choosing their own path to solve their problems.  

July 3, 2008 Posted by | activism, advocacy, Africa, Current Events, election, 非洲, India, opinion, politics, wordpress-political-blogs | 1 Comment