Genocide

HAPPY NEW YEAR, BUT NOT FOR THE CHILDREN OF THE CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

arengel

_71347957_central_african_republic_624map

According to UNICEF at least 16 children have been killed and 60 seriously injured since last month’s outbreak of violence in Bangui, the capital of the Central African Republic (C.A.R.). At least two of these children were beheaded and one child was severely mutilated.

According to the UN, 1,000 people have been killed and about 370,000 have been displaced in armed conflict in Bangui in December. More and more children are being recruited into armed groups, and they are also being directly targeted in atrocious revenge attacks. During the past month, the UN said the number of child soldiers in C.A.R. had more than doubled to 6,000 as fighting escalated.

The armed conflict in the Central African Republic started in December 2012 and led to the overthrow of President Francois Bozize in March by Séléka (also called the Séléka CPSK-CPJP-UFDR). The armed group is comprised of an alliance of several militia groups that were active in the C.A.R. The coup plunged the C.A.R. into chaos. Looting and attacks became widespread; state buildings, ministries, and schools were looted and in some cases destroyed altogether.

Former Séléka rebel leader Michel Djotodia, who is now president, has not been able to control ex-rebel militias, who were not incorporated into the army after the coup of March 2013. These former Séléka rebels, who are Muslim, are battling Christian self-defense groups known as Anti-Balaka.

Since the coup of March 2013 overthrowing President Francois Bozize, uncontrolled elements of Séléka and unknown armed groups have been carrying out attacks against the civilian population. By September 2013 fighting had extended to other parts of the country including Bouar in the west towards Cameroon and to the east of the capital in Damara. By October 2013 the UN Security Council approved logistical support to the African Union peacekeeping force (AFISM-CAR) on the ground and permitted French troops to control the airport. By November 2013, peacekeeping forces reported having witnessed summary executions and mass displacement as whole communities, terrified by the brutality of the armed groups, fled their homes.

During the last few months the fighting has been relentless, and according to UNICEF, the results are grim:

Over 1000 people dead

495,000 internally displaced people

1 million people are food insecure

1.6 million people in need of assistance (total number of inhabitants: 4.6m)

60% of health structures have been destroyed since December 2012

90% of medical facilities have no more stock

And now the children are being targeted.

Targeted attacks against children constitute an obvious violation of international humanitarian, human rights law, as well as the laws of armed conflict.

So, what to do?

Should the international community intervene?

If so, how should it be done?

TO INVADE, OR NOT TO INVADE: IS THAT THE QUESTION?

arengel

By: Ivan E. Mercado (guest writer to the blog)

Since August 21 2013, when chemical weapons were purportedly used in Syria on the civilian population in the rebel-controlled Ghouta area on the outskirts of Damascus, the world has been witness to an international joust between old Cold War enemies. Alost immediately after the first reports of the use of chemical weapons, President Barack Obama called it a “big event of grave concern” that would significantly alter the US calculation with regards to the conflict. By August 24, President Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron jointly stated that the attack, which they were placing at the feet of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s forces, merited a “serious response.” And the drum beat for military action continued to grow with each passing day.

On August 29, Mr. Cameron took his case for military intervention in Syria to the British Parliament and in a stunning reversal his motion for authorization to use force was defeated. Mr. Obama, however, seemed unfazed and thereafter turned to another Cold War ally, France. President Françoise Holland manifested France’s willingness to take affirmative action to make sure such attacks did not occur again.

The White House made public a U.S. Government Assessment on the use of chemical weapons in Syria which stated that it had “high confidence” that the Syrian government was responsible for the use of chemical weapons. Secretary of State John Kerry, in an address that coincided with the release of the report, also said that the Syrian regime had used chemical weapons “multiple times” during the course of the past year. Kerry went on to repeat that planning for military action was underway.

However, on August 31, 2013, President Obama told the American people in a televised address that he would seek Congressional approval for a limited but significant military strike against the Syria government. Obama said that the attacks would be limited to deterring additional chemical weapons strikes and that ground forces would not be used. Obama would ultimately agree not to seek a vote in Congress, apparently fearing a defeat similarly to David Cameron’s in Great Britain.

Sensing an opportunity to help its ally Syria in the shifting sands of public and international opinion, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov announced a Russian proposition whereby Syria would agree to place its chemical weapons under international control and dismantle them, and the United States would agree not to conduct a military strike on the country. Prior to the Russian announcement, Secretary of State Kerry, speaking in the United Kingdom, suggested that if the Assad regime turned over all of its chemical weapons to the international community “without delay,” a military strike could be averted. Speaking to media outlets after Secretary Kerry, President Barack Obama said that the United States would consider the plan.

September 10, 2013: Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem said that the Assad regime welcomed discussion on Russia’s plan to give up Syria’s chemical weapons and join the Chemical Weapons Convention. President Barack Obama, French President François Hollande, and British Prime Minister David Cameron discussed how to implement the plan through the UN Security Council, with France beginning to draft a resolution based on the Russian proposal, but with stipulations that force be authorized under Chapter VII  of the UN Charter if Assad fails to implement the provisions of the resolution.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov appeared to reach an agreement on a comprehensive plan for the accounting, inspection, control, and elimination of Syria’s chemical weapons. The plan requires Syria to provide a full declaration of its stockpile “within a week” and provide the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and the UN access to all chemical weapons sites in Syria. The plan calls for the OPCW inspectors to complete their initial inspections by November and calls for the destruction of the stockpile of chemical weapons and chemical agents by the first half of 2014.

As of today, the main sticking point is the instance by the US and France to add language that the UN Security Council should impose measures under Chapter VII of the UN Charter for noncompliance with the agreement by Syria. The concern specifically relates to Article 42 which allows for “tak[ing] such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.” This Russians and the Syrians see it as an end-run toward UN authorization for military action, which presumably could not be obtained in the Security Council given the current situation. And here we sit, waiting to see how events continue to develop.

One question now is who has won this game of Cold War brinksmanship? Syria, Russia, the US, France, the Insurgents? In looking at this one must consider what prompted this month long saga—a heinous attack using the most barbaric of weapons nerve gas, Sarin Nerve Gas. As with the Cold War itself we may not know the losers and winners for many years to come and the people of Syria will likely not get justice for the war crimes committed in Ghouta and elsewhere by both sides. In any event, it does not seem like Assad’s political position has worsen after the attack.

Next, should the US and its allies have invoked Chapter VII without a UN resolution and simply attacked Syria immediately after 21 August 2013? I ask this in the context of how the world should respond in reaction to the most atrocious international crimes, e.g. genocide, mass killings, forced internments, etc. Are the negotiations a sign that the international community is headed in the right direction?  or are there any parallels to the appeasement of the Nazis or the inaction in Rwanda?

GUATEMALAN JUSTICE SHOWS THE WAY

arengel

Last week, in a historic decision, a Guatemalan court found 86-year-old former dictator Efrain Ríos Montt, guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity and sentenced him to 80 years in prison. He had been accused of being responsible for the massacre of 1,771 persons, the forced displacement of another 29,000, and the subjecting of the Mayan Ixil people to conditions designed to destroy it. The three-judge panel headed by Jazmin Barrios concluded that the evidence established that the systematic plan to exterminate the Ixil people as a race developed and executed by the Montt government satisfied the definition of genocide. Ríos Montt becomes the first head of state tried and convicted in a domestic court of genocide.

Ríos Montt took power in Guatemala after a coup in 1982, and was ultimately accused of implementing a scorched-earth policy in which troops indiscriminately massacred thousands of indigenous villagers. During the trial, prosecutors said that Ríos Montt, at a minimum, looked the other way as soldiers used arson, rape, and torture to try to rid Guatemala of leftist rebels during his 1982-1983 rule, the most violent period of a civil war that ran from 1960-1996 and which claimed the lives of as many as 250,000 Guatemalans. The conflict pitted several different insurgent groups against the Guatemalan state; however, the vast majority of those killed were civilians from amongst the country’s indigenous population.

Mr. Ríos Montt’s attorneys did not dispute the majority of the eyewitness’ testimony. They argued that any crimes committed during that time were the work of rogue elements and that Mr. Ríos Montt was not responsible for the criminal acts committed by the military. Even after the verdict, President Otto Perez Molina insisted that there had been no genocide in Guatemala, although his administration did issue a statement stating that it respected the court’s ruling and the independence of the judiciary. Such statements by the government, as well as the court’s own actions in this case, show the power of a strong independent judiciary in the face of government wrongdoing—even in cases of genocide or other human rights violations. In fact, Judge Barrios is quoted in the media as saying that the attorney general’s office has the responsibility to pursue justice against others involved in perpetrating crimes against humanity and genocide in Guatemala. Consequently, it is expected that there will be further investigations and prosecution in connection with the genocide and war crimes that resulted in Ríos Montt’s conviction.

The trial has been heavily watched as a test of the Central American country’s ability to bring its former leaders to trial on war crimes. Now, there is precedent that might encourage other prosecutions of war criminals. The verdict was not only important to the Maya-Ixil who have suffered so much and have finally achieved some justice, but also to society as it recognizes that wrongdoing will be punished even to those in positions of power in an effort to ensure that genocide and other crimes against humanity never happen again. Additionally, the trial demonstrates that even a small-impoverished Central American country can carry out its own war crimes trial effectively and successfully.