War Crimes

The war crimes tribunal prosecuting members associated with the former Yugoslavia sentenced a former Bosnian Serb general to a 33 year prison term. The U.N. tribunal transmitted the sentence to Dragomir Milosevic, no relation to Slobodan Milosevic, for atrocities committed in Sarajevo during the Bosnian war.

Milosevic, 65, oversaw the killing of more than 10,000 people in the Muslim enclaves of Sarajevo using shelling and sniper attacks against civilians. “The evidence discloses an horrific tale of the encirclement and entrapment of a city,” the judge in the trial said. “There was no safe place in Sarajevo, one could be killed or injured anywhere and anytime.”

The tribunal found Milosevic guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Milosevic was a commander of the Sajajevo Romanija Corps unit of the Bosnian Serb Army. The unit employed snipers and mortar attacks to deliberately target civilians, the judge said. In one instance, mortars killed nearly 80 civilians queuing for bread, and in another, a sniper killed a woman’s baby after a bullet went through her stomach, striking the infant in the head.

Milosevic surrendered to the United Nations in 2004. This is one of the toughest sentences the tribunal handed down since its inception in 1993.

Reuters

The international peacekeeping effort authorized for Darfur may come unraveled as officials in Sudan continue to block key components of the force necessary for a viable mission.  The United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1769 in July authorizing a 26,000 unit peacekeeping force to protect civilians in Darfur and humanitarian groups operating in the region.  The effort is further hampered by the failure of NATO members to supply the peacekeeping forces with military equipment required by the United Nations – African Union hybrid force.  The lack of military support by capable nations as well as the demands by the Sudanese government curtailing most of the peacekeeping force’s capability suggests the deployment of peacekeepers to Darfur will not make a difference.

The U.N. Undersecretary for Peacekeeping, Jean-Marie Guehenno, on Nov. 26 suggested that the U.N. backed peacekeeping force in Darfur is facing redeployment if Sudanese officials continue to rein in its military capability.  Guehenno asked the Security Council: “Do we move ahead with the deployment of a force that will not make a difference, that will not have the capability to defend itself and that carries the risk of humiliation of the Security Council and the United Nations and tragic failure for the people of Darfur?”

The answer to that question may be a resounding “no.”  The U.N/A.U. mission in Darfur faces severe limitations as NATO members refuse to supply the mission with several requests for military equipment, including helicopters used for medevac operations and other humanitarian missions.  The failure of NATO members to step into the fray suggests the international concern for Darfur is minimal.

Sudan rejects many of the countries contributing to the hybrid peacekeeping operation, refusing access to the Port of Sudan, refusing to grant humanitarian access to Darfur, refusing night flights over the region and barring the landing of heavy transport aircraft desperately needed to support any peacekeeping force standing a reasonable chance of success. Sudanese officials also made the extraordinary demand of enforcing a blackout of the peacekeeping force’s communications when Sudan conducts military operations.

A handicapped peacekeeping force paralleled by a lack of international political will to contribute to the cause of peace in Darfur releases any realistic constraints on the Sudanese to continue its onslaught against its own people.   The military blackout means Sudan may continue its actions unfettered.  If the Sudanese government refuses most of the measures that stand any chance of relieving the crisis in Darfur and NATO and the international community refuse to provide peacekeeping operations with the support they need, the failure in Darfur may be a failure of peace.

IHT

The driver for Osama bin Laden faced a Combatant Status Review Tribunal to determine his eligibility to face the war crimes tribunal at the U.S. naval detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Salim Ahmed Hamdan was portrayed by government prosecutors as a loyalist to the al Qa’ida leader who swore an oath to bin Laden, carried and transported weapons and was enthusiastic in his support for the terrorist group’s ideology. His lawyers, however, portrayed him as a low-level operative trying simply to make a meager living in war-torn Afghanistan. While the United States Supreme Court examines a package of cases involving the civil rights of the detainees, Hamdan’s CSRT is the latest twist in the conflict over detention policies.

(more…)

The chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Court asked the U.N. Security Council to ramp up its effort to persuade Sudan to arrest and surrender two officials indicted for war crimes in Darfur. Luis Moreno-Ocampo added that one of the wanted officials, Ahmad Haround, the Sudanese humanitarian affairs minister, may be orchestrating continued violence against civilians and suggested Sudanese authorities were protecting him. Ocampo noted the irony of naming a war crimes suspect to the post of humanitarian affairs minister – a post charged with overseeing human rights complaints from victims in Darfur and the joint African Union – United Nations peacekeeping force that deploys in Darfur in January.

(more…)

The Supreme Court Wednesday will hear oral arguments in a package of cases concerning the rights of detainees held at the U.S. naval detention center at Guantanamo bay, Cuba. The cases, Boumediene v. Bush, and Al Odah v. U.S, mark the third time the Bush administration has faced the Supreme Court regarding the rights of Guantanamo detainees. The court justices ruled in opposition to the Bush administration in two of those cases.

(more…)

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a speech Tuesday with legal officials from several Islamic countries said there should be an international Islamic court using Sharia law to prosecute war criminals and violators of humanitarian rights. Ahmadinejad failed to elaborate on the logistics of the court, but said the proposed body would serve as an alternative to the United Nations and the two international courts, which Ahmadinejad sees as a tool of the West.

“Today it is necessary to create an international Islamic court for pursuing and following international criminals, those who violates the rights of nations, war criminals and governments.” Ahmadinejad said. “In this council, some members with special rights are the complainant, the prosecutor and the judge all at the same time … They enjoy complete immunity,” the Iranian president said.

Ahmadinejad’s proposal comes on the heels of a new National Intelligence Estimate conclusion that Iran halted research on nuclear weapons in 2003, a conclusion in stark opposition to the rhetoric of President Bush. Washington has long expressed hawkish rhetoric in support of an aggressive foreign policy against the Iranian regime to thwart what it sees as a potential World War III among nuclear nations. But the White House used the findings as a symbol of an effective U.S. policy toward the Iranian regime.

“On balance, the estimate is good news,” the national security advisor Stephen Hadley said. “On one hand, it confirms that we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons. On the other hand, it tells us that we have made some progress in trying to ensure that that does not happen. But it also tells us that the risk of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon remains a very serious problem.”

AP/Reuters

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon addresses the International Criminal Court Monday, opening its annual two-week meeting which many see as chance to examine the credibility of the first permanent international war crimes tribunal. Ban addresses the 105-nation ICC as the court faces international criticism for its failure to prosecute Sudanese war crimes suspects. Analysts say that without a strong message from Ban emphasizing the need to bring suspects before the scrutiny of the international community, the Sudanese and other governments may walk away with the impression they can defy the world bodies without consequence.

The U.N. Security council referred the Darfur case to the International Criminal Court, charging a Sudanese cabinet minister and a Janjaweed military chief with war crimes and crimes against humanity. The 2005 resolution requires the Sudanese government to cooperate with the court by handing the suspects over to face prosecution. The Sudanese made moderate gestures of cooperation by agreeing to establish its own special court to examine the atrocities, but has so far refused to submit to international inquiry.

(more…)