Comments on: The Indictment of the ICC

By: steph

steph — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:13:22 +0000

@ antireptilian

China’s relationship with Sudan isn’t dependent on al-Bashir, so they won’t won’t block his arrest warrant before the Olympics and if they tabled a motion the transatlantic alliance would use their three vetoes.

By: steph

steph — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:07:55 +0000

@ heather

Clinton wanted America to sign up to it, even though he had could technically have been prosecuted for war crimes against Serbia if he did. He knew that was never going to happen – that is why the ICC is a bad idea – it was always going to be victor’s justice.

By: steph

steph — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:04:34 +0000

@ Alfie

I agree with you about more government never being a good idea. The problem with the ICC is that represents an abjuration of jurisdiction. Any state that signs up to it is signing away the civil rights and legal protections of their citizens but worse than that they are signing up to the judicial element of a world government.

America has been pressing for al-Bashir’s arrest, even though America doesn’t agree with the principle of the ICC. From Bush’s point of view the ICC isn’t a bad thing when it prosecutes people they don’t like.

By: Alfie

Alfie — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:37:33 +0000

@ Steph interesting post. Related but not fully -I’d love to know what China really thinks of all this . They benefit from a “stable” Sudan for sure but they have “hinted” on two occasions a willingness to secure there interests there.
I had questioned ,sort of anyway,(july 11th) the whole ICC v UN aspect of this. I wonder if it is a sign of things to come.I can’t agree that the US is a driver of this actually for some of the points you included. I really ddo wonder in the “post American World” if there is a clash of NGO’s,UN,EU/Hague kind of thing coming. Along some of that I ‘d agree with antireptilian comments.
@heather more government or power brokers etc is never a good idea.

By: Rob

Rob — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:34:25 +0000

I suppose Moreno-Ocampo’s got a good reason for not prosecuting Maryam Rajavi with genocide and war crimes?

By: antireptilian

antireptilian — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:01:59 +0000

I forgot to mention the old British imperialist methodology of creating, funding and energising two warring factions that will beat each other to death while the profits are sucked from the target country. The locals will see the factions as destructive, and look to the real invader as the saviour and bringer of stability. This also provides a valid excuse for troop deployment

The old divide and conquer.

By: antireptilian

antireptilian — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:54:09 +0000

The New World Order requires an example of “justice” from the ICC in order to ratify it’s mission and existence. Dafur has been a pogrom since the discovery of oil. The genocide began when the tribal leaders wanted profits from the oil revenues to enrich their people. This was not unreasonable at all, but the Sudanese government, acting on behalf of the oil men decided to force them from the land through force and terror.

On and on this has gone (geez, im a poet and didn’t know it)
despite calls from relief agencies and monitors. Not a whisper. Within the last few days we have seen massive coverage of this issue through the mainstream media. This indicates that the UN will send a force to take possesion of the oil rich region…. Umm i mean, help the poor africans.

The ICC have formed the justification, and no doubt, lucrative contracts are on the cards as the “sponsors” jostle for profits.

What then of the Chinese interest in the region?

By: heather

heather — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:54:55 +0000

I thought the ICC was a great idea at first but I think you’re right, it hasn’t done anything to stop Bush and the Israelis. I don’t know much about Sudan but it’s not fair that he should be indicted and Bush, Cheney, Blair and Olmert haven’t. They are the real war criminals.