Full Version: Catch 22 what to do
I don't predict a lot of traffic on this thread (not much interest in Africa these days), but I'm throwing it out there because this issue is important, particularly due to setting potential precedents and the ICC.
In a nutshell, the Ugandan government and LRA have signed a series of documents leading up to a final peace agreement.
The article states that the Uganda government appeared unwilling to comply with the LRA’s demand for the removal of ICC indictments on LRA members, but that isn't the full matter. The Ugandan government actually cannot lift the ICC arrest warrants. Only the ICC can do that. Should they do so if the Ugandan government requests it?
1) Is peace worth giving in to a murderous madman like Kony?
2) Should the ICC lift the arrest warrants if it is the only obstacle to peace?
3) What's the better option?
Other related thoughts on this matter?
In a nutshell, the Ugandan government and LRA have signed a series of documents leading up to a final peace agreement.
QUOTE
But only hours later, the LRA delegation, led by David Matsanga, stormed out of a meeting held after the signing ceremony late friday. The walkout spells the fragility of the peace efforts.
LRA leader Joseph Kony, who has been indicted, by the international criminal court (ICC), has said he will never sign the final agreement unless the indictment is lifted.
*snip*
He said “…our signing all these small blocks is to enable the Ugandan government to go to the United Nations Security Council and to the ICC to have them remove the case that has been fixed upon our people” Matsanga said.
Matsanga accused the Ugandan government of playing a game of lies. “The Ugandan government for the last two years has been telling us it will go to the ICC, it will go to the ICC…The time of lies came to a head when we caught them - we caught them red-handed – they were in catch 22 - they had no alternative but to tell another big lie…”
LRA leader Joseph Kony, who has been indicted, by the international criminal court (ICC), has said he will never sign the final agreement unless the indictment is lifted.
*snip*
He said “…our signing all these small blocks is to enable the Ugandan government to go to the United Nations Security Council and to the ICC to have them remove the case that has been fixed upon our people” Matsanga said.
Matsanga accused the Ugandan government of playing a game of lies. “The Ugandan government for the last two years has been telling us it will go to the ICC, it will go to the ICC…The time of lies came to a head when we caught them - we caught them red-handed – they were in catch 22 - they had no alternative but to tell another big lie…”
The article states that the Uganda government appeared unwilling to comply with the LRA’s demand for the removal of ICC indictments on LRA members, but that isn't the full matter. The Ugandan government actually cannot lift the ICC arrest warrants. Only the ICC can do that. Should they do so if the Ugandan government requests it?
1) Is peace worth giving in to a murderous madman like Kony?
2) Should the ICC lift the arrest warrants if it is the only obstacle to peace?
3) What's the better option?
Other related thoughts on this matter?
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Mar 3 2008, 07:44 AM) 
1) Is peace worth giving in to a murderous madman like Kony?
2) Should the ICC lift the arrest warrants if it is the only obstacle to peace?
3) What's the better option?
2) Should the ICC lift the arrest warrants if it is the only obstacle to peace?
3) What's the better option?
1.) Peace has to start somewhere. Wounds take time to heal and it seems like the road to recovery can finally be had, so I think this is a great thing for Africa.
2.) Yes, but with the proviso in the question that the ICC is the only thing hindering the process.
3.) Right now I think this is the best option for all parties involved. In the United States, we've let war criminal leaders... thrive. Africa is trying its hardest.
The first thing to say is that the removal of indictments doesn't have to be permanent. There's no double-jeopardy involved, because they are only indictments and not a verdict of "not guilty". And there is no statute of limitations on war crimes.
As such, I'd say they are more useful right now as a tactical bargaining chip than as a tool of justice; there is nothing to stop a peacetime Ugandan government from reapplying for the indictments in five or ten years' time; until those suspected of war crimes have been tried and found not guilty (which is unlikely) the indictments could very easily be reinstituted.
This would be the case even if Kony were to play a mature and responsible part in the future government of Uganda. Sooner or later he'll be vulnerable, and the delay in justice to hasten a peaceful settlement is worth the tens of thousands of ruined and ended lives that will be the result if the LRA goes back to war.
Even if Kony gets a legislative guarantee that further ICC indictments will not be sought, laws in Uganda are not binding on future governments (since they have inherited a common law system from their former colonial occupiers, the UK). So the laws guaranteeing immunity could be overturned at some point to enable prosecution.
1) Is peace worth giving in to a murderous madman like Kony?
Yes, with the above provisions and justification.
2) Should the ICC lift the arrest warrants if it is the only obstacle to peace?
Yes, with the above provisions and justification.
3) What's the better option?
I think - while it is clearly not the ideal of immediate ICC prosecution - there is little other choice than to agree to LRA demands, since the Ugandan government has not been able to defeat them militarily and since the rest of the UN, African Union, etc. has not seen the defeat of the LRA as a pressing enough issue to intevene and ensure that defeat.
In these circumstances, the best (peace AND justice) is the enemy of the good (peace), because pursuit of justice will only result in the indefinite absence of peace.
As such, I'd say they are more useful right now as a tactical bargaining chip than as a tool of justice; there is nothing to stop a peacetime Ugandan government from reapplying for the indictments in five or ten years' time; until those suspected of war crimes have been tried and found not guilty (which is unlikely) the indictments could very easily be reinstituted.
This would be the case even if Kony were to play a mature and responsible part in the future government of Uganda. Sooner or later he'll be vulnerable, and the delay in justice to hasten a peaceful settlement is worth the tens of thousands of ruined and ended lives that will be the result if the LRA goes back to war.
Even if Kony gets a legislative guarantee that further ICC indictments will not be sought, laws in Uganda are not binding on future governments (since they have inherited a common law system from their former colonial occupiers, the UK). So the laws guaranteeing immunity could be overturned at some point to enable prosecution.
1) Is peace worth giving in to a murderous madman like Kony?
Yes, with the above provisions and justification.
2) Should the ICC lift the arrest warrants if it is the only obstacle to peace?
Yes, with the above provisions and justification.
3) What's the better option?
I think - while it is clearly not the ideal of immediate ICC prosecution - there is little other choice than to agree to LRA demands, since the Ugandan government has not been able to defeat them militarily and since the rest of the UN, African Union, etc. has not seen the defeat of the LRA as a pressing enough issue to intevene and ensure that defeat.
In these circumstances, the best (peace AND justice) is the enemy of the good (peace), because pursuit of justice will only result in the indefinite absence of peace.
Should they do so if the Ugandan government requests it?
1) Is peace worth giving in to a murderous madman like Kony?
2) Should the ICC lift the arrest warrants if it is the only obstacle to peace?
3) What's the better option?
Other related thoughts on this matter?
Since these questions all flow rather nicely I'll just answer them on the whole.
The ICC one of those organization that tend to have strong detractors and luke warm support. The Ugandan Government, however, mostly has strong detractors. With that the ICC should probably NOT simply do what the Ugandan Government requests simply because it's the Ugandan Government. Peace is a lofty goal and difficult to attain under the best circumstances. Kony is clearly working in his own best interests and isn't interested in peace either. It's more than likely that neither the Ugandan Government nor the LRA have any intention of sustaining peace and both are simply resting long enough to go back at each other's throats as soon as they "catch their breath".
Now the ICC shouldn't listen to the Ugandan Government and certainly shouldn't listen to the LRA so they're in something of a lurch because no matter what they do it will be seen as the wrong thing and ultimately if they give into the LRA through the Ugandan Government they will be responsible or showing that region there is no power in the ICC. They should, probably go ahead and prosecute Kony (et al) and show the world they have teeth and that region they will bite.
Isolationists can look away from this region and hope they get it together or annihilate each other but this is unrealistic and frankly pretty cold. However given the near constant unrest in the region one wonders how peace will ever be attained.
1) Is peace worth giving in to a murderous madman like Kony?
2) Should the ICC lift the arrest warrants if it is the only obstacle to peace?
3) What's the better option?
Other related thoughts on this matter?
Since these questions all flow rather nicely I'll just answer them on the whole.
The ICC one of those organization that tend to have strong detractors and luke warm support. The Ugandan Government, however, mostly has strong detractors. With that the ICC should probably NOT simply do what the Ugandan Government requests simply because it's the Ugandan Government. Peace is a lofty goal and difficult to attain under the best circumstances. Kony is clearly working in his own best interests and isn't interested in peace either. It's more than likely that neither the Ugandan Government nor the LRA have any intention of sustaining peace and both are simply resting long enough to go back at each other's throats as soon as they "catch their breath".
Now the ICC shouldn't listen to the Ugandan Government and certainly shouldn't listen to the LRA so they're in something of a lurch because no matter what they do it will be seen as the wrong thing and ultimately if they give into the LRA through the Ugandan Government they will be responsible or showing that region there is no power in the ICC. They should, probably go ahead and prosecute Kony (et al) and show the world they have teeth and that region they will bite.
Isolationists can look away from this region and hope they get it together or annihilate each other but this is unrealistic and frankly pretty cold. However given the near constant unrest in the region one wonders how peace will ever be attained.
Thought I'd post an update. Uganda has decided to defy the ICC. The Ugandan government won't turn over the rebels. Can't say I blame them, pragmatically, in the cost-to-gains equation, it is the right thing for them to do.
I think it would have been prudent for the ICC to come up with a graceful way to drop this and accept it as a 'delay of justice' (as Jules mentioned), rather than pressing the issue right now...though I think there are compelling arguments on both sides (also stated above). The biggest challenge for the ICC is to avoid appearing to be a tool of governments, and it does lose legitimacy if it doesn't follow the letter of the Rome treaty and the procedures prescribed. One of those cases where practicality and idealism clash. Probably more the rule than the exception in International politics. I think it weaves in to the current Kosovo issue as well.
I think it would have been prudent for the ICC to come up with a graceful way to drop this and accept it as a 'delay of justice' (as Jules mentioned), rather than pressing the issue right now...though I think there are compelling arguments on both sides (also stated above). The biggest challenge for the ICC is to avoid appearing to be a tool of governments, and it does lose legitimacy if it doesn't follow the letter of the Rome treaty and the procedures prescribed. One of those cases where practicality and idealism clash. Probably more the rule than the exception in International politics. I think it weaves in to the current Kosovo issue as well.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.