|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Oct 28, 2013 3:53:56 GMT 3
Shortly before the start of Ruto's trial, the anti-ICC industry went into overdrive. The Kenyan parliament showed "leadership": a motion was passed to start the process of pulling Kenya out of the "Rome Treaty". According to that motion, a bill was to brought within 30 days to ... The gesture/threat having been made, the matter was soon forgotten, and it is now well past the 30 days. They better withdraw again ... Uhuru being the Top Dog requires much more "action": continental threats; all sorts of hacks (some paid, some just sucking up) scribbling on what the UNSC must do, what Uhuru must do, what the ICC must do; "elders" and all sorts directing Uhuru or even demanding that he not show up for his trial; ... a "leading" senator has even threatened to flood JKIA with 10 million youths to physically stop Uhuru from flying out! Clearly, these are not dull days, and they can only get more exciting. The first piece of the excitement is the bizarre attempt to con the UN Security Council into deferring the Kenyan cases, under Article 16 of the Rome Statute. We next briefly look at this oddity, which appears to be addressed to Martians and not to anyone on Planet Earth who has been following things. * GoK's long-running attempted con started with its Admissibility Challenge after the ICC (and, naturally, after Kenya's parliament had done its we-will-withdraw! bit). After having done absolutely nothing for quite some time, GoK now claimed that it had woken up: the ICC was given a list of about 4,000 names; investigations were proceeding; prosecutions would start in Sep 2011; the ICC would receive regular progress reports; etc. "Unfortunately", the judges are not Martians; they saw through all that, and there the matter ended. All forgotten. So it must have been quite startling for Kenyans to hear from the AU Chairperson (at the Extraordinary Withdrawal Summit) that
"work is ongoing on investigations and prosecutions of the 2007- 2008 post-election violence"During the PEV: over 1,000 people were brutally murdered; tens of thousands were seriously injured, with many maimed for life; hundreds of thousands were displaced, with their homes and means of livelihood destroyed. Numerous, horrific crimes that must have been committed by a large number of people. So how many of the criminals have been dealt with? Early this year, I spent quite a bit of time trying to find out. The number appears to be less than 20, and only for minor crimes. So what will the Martians at the UNSC believe? * Following from the above, one of the most bizarre, stupid, and insulting ideas being promoted is that Kenya has a new and reformed judiciary that is capable of dealing with the ICC cases if they are "brought home". Really. Uhuru and Ruto can be properly tried in a Kenyan court. And that's without taking into account that the new-and-reformed judiciary is, at its highest levels, mired in corruption and mindless infighting. I encourage those peddling this idea to take some time and come up with something that is a little better than what I would expect from my beagle.The current line won't sell. Not even on River Road. * Keen to "upgrade" the funny statements made at the Extraordinary Withdrawal Summit, the AU submission to the UNSC has another bizarre bit: the TJRC is proof that Kenya and GoK is committed to truth, justice, and reconciliation! Never mind that in Kenya itself the TJRC report has been given the "standard" treatment---buried on arrival. Another fundamental problem with such nonsense is that it has nothing to do with sufficient grounds for an Article 16 deferral. The submission to the UNSC has several such irrelevant bits, but I suppose people have to work with whatever they have. More below on this point. * So what exactly are the basis on which the Article 16 deferral is being sought? - GoK's first two requests for deferral failed because there was no "threat to peace". It was inevitable that there would be a third go, and that this time there would be a "threat to peace": jukwaa.proboards.com/thread/8601And then! Lo and behold: Westgate. Amazing, incredible, and timely event that now features prominently all over the place. So will it be enough? It surely does not help that CCTV records show 4 terrorists aimlessly wandering around the mall while at the very same time those "engaging them in a fierce firefight" are shown busy filling bags. Makes it awkward to argue that this threatens peace in the region ... But enough of Lootergate. The question has to be whether or not it constitutes a serious enough "threat to peace". According to the Kenyan submission by Macharia Kamau, the trials should be deferred so that GoK can focus on the "continuing terrorist threat". (In fact, Macharia stretches it to "national, regional, continental, and international peace and security". Really. Pity he missed "galactic".) That won't do. The continuing terrorist threat is called continuing because it is always continuing. One instance cannot suffice to start what could be an endless series of deferrals. (One senior Western diplomat has remarked that if that could suffice, then it would be in GoK's interest to always maintain "a state of light siege".) There is another thing that must be stated, and it is difficult to state it without sounding crude and insensitive. Rather than rack my brains for soft words to say what must be said, I will simply state it, because I know it is in the minds of many: The events at Westgate were very nasty and traumatic to those involved in any way and to many others. Nevertheless, they hardly constitute a threat to regional or national peace. We need not get too emotional over that point because that is how the hard heads at the UNSC will look at it: they routinely hear of far worse atrocities. - The Kenya/AU letters also dwell on "peace, national healing, and reconciliation" and go on at length on such issues. (On "reconciliation, see above comments on the TJRC.) First, it is not clear why these have not been going on at the same time as the "investigations and prosecutions" have been going on. Second, the letters do not state precisely why and how deferral would help. Third, they are largely irrelevant to the issue of the "serious threat to peace" that would be required for a deferral. (I refuse to consider, as Macharia Kamau claimed in May, that the natives could again go at it if the cases continue.) - On the whole, the Kenya/AU letters are very badly done. It is impossible to locate any exact justification for the request for a deferral. In their entirety, they consist of "noble" but vague phrases strung together in not-too-smart a manner. And people are getting paid big bucks to knock off this sort of stuff! I am decided: in my next life, I want to be an African diplomat, or a member of the Kenyan parliament, of a member of the Kenyan JSC, or a hack with some newspaper ... The fundamental questions for those pushing the deferral (and those supporting the push) are these: (i) The deferral will not make the cases go away. So what exactly is it that you need to accomplish in the 12 months? (ii) If it is fighting terrorism, what do you expect to change in the 12 months and why? (iii) The national stuff is irrelevant, since Article 16 envisages "peace and security" on a broader scale than people losing it at the national level. But let us suppose that it is not. What exactly do you think you will achieve in the next 12 months? Whatever it is, on the basis of your past record, why should we believe you? ALRIGHT. The above has largely been written for the odd Martian who might have been downloading signals from Planet Earth and accidentally stumbled upon those from Kenya. But you and I know Kenya quite well. So let's be honest amongst ourselves and, in the kienyeji style, discuss it for what it really is: the push for a deferral has nothing to do with terrorism, peace, security, reconciliation, national healing, or whatever. The driving idea is to kill the ICC cases. If GoK can get them to buy this one, that's it; smooth sailing all the way. As for the UNSC's reaction, it is entirely possible that all its members just arrived from Mars (or Jupiter). In which case, we cannot tell what they will make of this this deferral request that elsewhere would be considered a bad joke. Me myself, I say that if the request for a deferral is granted, then, surely, I can teach my dog to speak Esperanto. Woof, woof. So to "speak". Among the Earthians, many expect His Excellency to do a runner, and I would be very surprised if he did not. I think he ought to get on with making that clear and reduce all this unnecessary tension. The endless, clueless, and vicious attacks on the ICC, by his supporters and flunkies, serve little purpose. Time to learn from His Deputy Excellency and show a bit of brass. Balls not neck. |
|
|
|
Post by Onyango Oloo on Oct 28, 2013 18:08:55 GMT 3
OtishOtish:
I could NOT have stated it more eloquently.
Kudos!
Onyango Oloo
|
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Oct 31, 2013 12:12:35 GMT 3
Aah, otishotish! Great piece yes, but the argument you have missed, is that this is not really about justice. Nor about facts about crimes over the humanities of others. The ICC is a boy meet girl and ask 'let us have coffee', but coffee couldn't further from his mind! But it is the way the game is played.
I told you there many important matters that warrant excusals, once you go that way, apart from running countries or kissing wives. Sang just applied he has '..... obligations' to his six year old daughter, and he wants his ritual attendances waivered!
Now let me hear that Nigerian charlatan and his sidekicks reason how Uhuruto's [state] obligations are far more material and thus outweigh Sang's [familial] obligations, such that they refuse Sang his much-earned excusal!
Me says a court that by political action of the UNSC can suspend its proceedings that are already far underway, is Kafkaesque!
|
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Oct 31, 2013 12:35:05 GMT 3
Aah, otishotish! Great piece yes, but the argument you have missed, is that this is not really about justice. Nor about facts about crimes over the humanities of others. The ICC is a boy meet girl and ask 'let us have coffee', but coffee couldn't further from his mind! But it is the way the game is played. I told you there many important matters that warrant excusals, once you go that way, apart from running countries or kissing wives. Sang just applied he has '..... obligations' to his six year old daughter, and he wants his ritual attendances waivered! Now let me hear that Nigerian charlatan and his sidekicks reason how Uhuruto's [state] obligations are far more material and thus outweigh Sang's [familial] obligations, such that they refuse Sang his much-earned excusal! Me says a court that by political action of the UNSC can suspend its proceedings that are already far underway, is Kafkaesque! Jakaswanga Apart from the nigerian, the other white boys by majority did not think obligations to a child are an important thing hence poor Sang will not be with his daughter tomorrow as she graduates from Kindergaten to Primary school.......but again the white boys cannot see any significance to such a milestone in a child's life!!! |
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Oct 31, 2013 12:36:25 GMT 3
Me says a court that by political action of the UNSC can suspend its proceedings that are already far underway, is Kafkaesque! Njakip cannot seem to see the political side of the case once it hits the UNSC! |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Oct 31, 2013 14:20:14 GMT 3
Njakip cannot seem to see the political side of the case once it hits the UNSC! No, if anyone cannot see anything, it's you. And what you cannot see is this: there will be no deferral. Eventually, when the UNSC makes it clear and the Reality hits you in the head, you will fly back in from the Alternate Universe and perhaps seek to understand what happened. For that, you should read what I've written here and on other threads. |
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Oct 31, 2013 16:54:42 GMT 3
Njakip cannot seem to see the political side of the case once it hits the UNSC! No, if anyone cannot see anything, it's you. And what you cannot see is this: there will be no deferral. Eventually, when the UNSC makes it clear and the Reality hits you in the head, you will fly back in from the Alternate Universe and perhaps seek to understand what happened. For that, you should read what I've written here and on other threads. I am sure you know the extent of my patience. I am willing to wait for the decision of the UNSC and whilst you think the deferral will not be granted, at the moment I really do not care even if it is not granted and am looking beyond the UNSC. Following the failure of the ICC to see sense due to their legal view of the matter, the UNSC is now seized of the political aspect of the matter so why not wait for their decision? |
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Oct 31, 2013 17:45:49 GMT 3
In the meantime the Uhuru case has been pushed to 5th February 2014.
|
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Oct 31, 2013 22:45:49 GMT 3
This morning's "interactive dialogue", a meeting about a meeting, ended as one might have expected: there might be more meetings about meetings. For how those might go, refer to the outcomes of the previous "interactive dialogues" on Kenya's deferral quests. It appears that Rwanda and Togo (on the UNSC) have been sufficiently hopeful that they have shown "initiative", been "proactive", and had already concocted a "draft deferral resolution". See jukwaa.proboards.com/thread/8734/breaking-half-njakips-trial-ice  They were unable to sell it today, but they could well continue pestering people. Naturally, Westgate was milked. The common-sense view seems to be that the 3-month adjournment by the ICC should give Uhuru sufficient time to deal with its aftermath. Ambassador Samantha Power, representing the USA, was very "enthusiastic" about the 3-hr meeting: she left before the 2nd hour was over. |
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Nov 1, 2013 11:43:41 GMT 3
Jakaswanga Apart from the nigerian, the other white boys by majority did not think obligations to a child are an important thing hence poor Sang will not be with his daughter tomorrow as she graduates from Kindergaten to Primary school.......but again the white boys cannot see any significance to such a milestone in a child's life!!! These white guys of course come from 'separate development family units', what we used to refer to as 'broken homes'. One or more parents disappeared, and single parentage normal. From such a background, the niceties of a father present during a birthday or graduation of a kid, are totally lost in translation! |
|
veri
Junior Member
Posts: 77
|
Post by veri on Nov 1, 2013 17:04:13 GMT 3
They seem to be throwing everything in their arsenal at the ICC without much strategic thought. This is new ground so legalistically it seems they're experimenting with anything that would delay and frustrate the process. This just exposes how desperate and guilty the accused are and will certainly not fare well with the verdict.
|
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Nov 3, 2013 0:40:17 GMT 3
Next is the Annual Session of the Assembly of States Parties (ASP), later this month. This ought to bury the matter ... at least for some time to come.
* This is a good approach because it gives African/AU signatories an opportunity to vent and perhaps claims some sort of dubious victory ... that they have been "listened to".
It is also good because after the majority of 122+ countries make it clear that they do not think much of the AU nonsense, it will be harder to argue that it's just the ICC and a bunch of "imperialist" countries that are the problem.
* Notwithstanding the standard noise-making at AU meetings and the signing of random documents, quite a few African countries will not sacrifice their interests to those of two criminals in some place they have no real interest in. That should become clear during the ASP session, if it's not already clear.
* The ASP cannot directly interfere with ongoing judicial processes. At "best" what it can do is make changes to the Rome Statute and the accompanying Rules. Any such changes, even "minor" ones, would require lengthy "consultations" of at least some years.
* The most African/AU countries can expect from the ASP session is that their "concerns" will be assigned to a "working group" that will annually report back until ...
|
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Nov 15, 2013 18:38:19 GMT 3
As expected, not enough Martians on the UN Security Council. The deferral business is dead. Final vote:
8 Abstentions
7 Martians
|
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Nov 15, 2013 21:20:39 GMT 3
Next is the Annual Session of the Assembly of States Parties (ASP), later this month. This ought to bury the matter ... at least for some time to come.* This is a good approach because it gives African/AU signatories an opportunity to vent and perhaps claims some sort of dubious victory ... that they have been "listened to". It is also good because after the majority of 122+ countries make it clear that they do not think much of the AU nonsense, it will be harder to argue that it's just the ICC and a bunch of "imperialist" countries that are the problem. * Notwithstanding the standard noise-making at AU meetings and the signing of random documents, quite a few African countries will not sacrifice their interests to those of two criminals in some place they have no real interest in. That should become clear during the ASP session, if it's not already clear. * The ASP cannot directly interfere with ongoing judicial processes. At "best" what it can do is make changes to the Rome Statute and the accompanying Rules. Any such changes, even "minor" ones, would require lengthy "consultations" of at least some years. * The most African/AU countries can expect from the ASP session is that their "concerns" will be assigned to a "working group" that will annually report back until ... See red above. It would actually he helpful if Kenya & the AU pulled back a bit. The anti-ICC crusade, which has so far had two peaks---Uhuru's demented rant at the "Extraordinary Summit" and the push for a deferral that was never going to be granted------has gone to extremes that have thoroughly poisoned the "atmosphere". And it doesn't help that much of the latest fuel in this bizarre exercise has come from the AU, a very cheeky lot, given that over 55% of its budget is financed by "nasty foreigners". Having "balls"--- really having them---is not something that can be outsourced or a matter where support from a large and noisy (but largely impotent crowd) is of much help. Nothing that happens at this year's session of the ASP is likely to be of much help to Uhuru. Therefore, instead of unnecessarily increasing all sorts of tension, he should grow a pair and get on with whatever he intends to do. If, as many expect, he intends to do a runner, then the sooner he makes that clear, the better for all concerned. On the other hand, if---and it's an "if" with a probability of 0.00000000001---he intends to show up, then he should start on a path of more humility. There, he would do well to look at the well-behaved schoolboy that His Deputy Excellency has been while in the dock. Also, in light of the recent polls showing that most of "his" citizens would prefer that he take the proper legal path to clearing his name, GoK, AU, etc. should take the time to re-calibrate. Forget the nonsense about "Africa Rising", turning East, and reafy to take on the world. |
|
|
|
Post by deyiengs on Nov 15, 2013 22:58:49 GMT 3
As expected, not enough Martians on the UN Security Council. The deferral business is dead. Final vote: 8 Abstentions 7 Martians This is very telling: Seven of the members who abstained are all International Criminal Court members - France, Britain, Guatemala, Argentina, South Korea, Australia and Luxembourg. The United States is not a member. The seven who voted yes are not court members - China, Russia, Togo, Azerbaijan, Rwanda, Morocco and Pakistan. |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Nov 16, 2013 0:30:15 GMT 3
As expected, not enough Martians on the UN Security Council. The deferral business is dead. Final vote: 8 Abstentions 7 Martians This is very telling: Seven of the members who abstained are all International Criminal Court members - France, Britain, Guatemala, Argentina, South Korea, Australia and Luxembourg. The United States is not a member. The seven who voted yes are not court members - China, Russia, Togo, Azerbaijan, Rwanda, Morocco and Pakistan. Indeed, it is. And what a motley crew Kenya has for friends! China is busy milking Africa, to such an extent that a senior Chinese government official had to tell his compatriots that they should be "more ethical" and that "catching fish by draining the pond" is not a sustainable method of fishing. There was a story here about some draft resolution that would let Uhuru off the hook: jukwaa.proboards.com/thread/8734/breaking-half-njakips-trial-ice . Actually, it was Rwanda and Togo who were at it on the draft resolution; some hack who was eating to spread a "positive message" got carried away. (Watch out for said hack; on spare days, he hacks at The Economist & elsewhere. In general, these days one should be "cautious" about any correspondent who's based in Nairobi.) And there's Russia. The USSR and the USA were for along time engaged in a Cold War. African countries, for whatever reason, chose to fight a Hot (Proxy) War on their behalf. Look around the African continent. The most fwacked-up countries were most likely on the USSR side. China is now doing all the fwacking, and I wouldn't be surprised if Russia is a bit unhappy and would like to find a way back in. Morocco is not a member of the African Union, having left on the grounds that the AU is a joke. Polisario stuff and that sort of thing. There has recently been plenty of renewed unfriendliness towards Polisario. So I can see where Morocco could be headed. Still, there's a reason for the phrase "Sub-Saharan Africa" ... for the most part, north of the Sahara might as well be on Jupiter. Pakistan: Has for quite a few years been one of the biggest importers of Kenyan tea (generally in the top 3) and they like what they get from the Rift Valley. (They have been known to complain about lesser but more expensive teas from elsewhere.) Working with the USA to have drone-missiles rained on their people is one thing. But good tea! Must have, definitely must have. With a good cup to start the day, who cares about drones. I feel that way about my morning coffee. And then there's Azerbaijan. One never knows with all these " an" countries (especially the " stan" ones), but they definitely understand Kienyeji Democracy and so would support the Great AU. The current president took over from his daddy and has been very popular (if that's the word). Slight problem with the election results this year: the media started to announce them before any voting actually had taken place. But so what? It was inevitable that he would win with close to 90% of the votes. Like his daddy. .... Recall that the much-expected mass withdrawal did not happen because the African signatories to the Rome Statute balked at being expected to take any action (beyond words) that might hurt their interests. I expect GoK to get plenty of African support at this month's session of the Assembly of States Parties---precisely because it will be a zero-cost exercise for the African countries and whatever happens at the session will not affect the Kenyan cases in any meaningful way. Win-win, as the Americans would say. |
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Nov 16, 2013 10:00:30 GMT 3
Several sides to every story. On the simple presumption of innocence, Uhuru and Kenyatta should have been given the opportunity to stay away from their cases as they run and that would not have created a need for application for deferral.
There is the case for the victims of PEV (rather than the victims of the election of Uhuruto) and this can never be ignored. They deserve justice. The big question continues to be whether the people on the dock are the ones responsible for the plight of the victims. I suggest a big NO. But there is nothing we can do about it apart from follow the proceedings which continue to inspire little hope that the court can actually get a conviction. Should this happen, who will have let down the victims?
The court itself is on the dock. The statement made by the Rwandese that it would appear a western country was aware of the decision to postpone the Uhuru case to February even before the decision had been made public was a serious indictment which I hope the African countries will follow.
But most curious was the reasoning behind the abstentions rather than straight forward No or veto where applicable. Claims of solidarity with Kenya and Africa or excuses to avoid confrontation with the AU simply do not make sense! But this must have been driven by not understanding why Rwanda decided to force a vote rather than continue the deliberations that they wanted to stall the vote until the ASP summit. African countries now have the ASP as their last hope to get their bidding before the matter of warrants becomes the final avenue to beat the court.
|
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Nov 16, 2013 17:34:25 GMT 3
Kamale: Abstaining makes a great deal of sense. It achieves the desired end goal of defeating the idea of deferral and at the same time it allows the abstaining country to state that its not voting "no" shows something positive or whatever. Some might considered that two-faced, but that's diplomacy! For the next step, as you know I supported Ruto's initial excusal on the basis that it would avoid the "need" for anyone to do a runner and thus bring the proceedings to a halt. Along those lines, I think a good approach would be for the Dynamic Digital Duo to work with the court to find a reasonable arrangement. For example, the Appeals Chamber did not explicitly state what should be considered "exceptional circumstances" in allowing absence. That allows the trial chamber considerable flexibility, which it has already shown in Ruto's case. As for the AU, it should be more reasonable and not continually set itself up for failure. Consider, for example, the following from the "Extraordinary Summit" "That to safeguard the constitutional order, stability and, integrity of Member States, no charges shall be commenced or continued before any International Court or Tribunal against any serving AU Head of State or Government or anybody acting or entitled to act in such capacity during their term of office;" www.au.int/en/sites/default/files/Ext%20Assembly%20AU%20Dec%20&%20Decl%20_E.pdfThat simply isn't going to fly, and one hopes that they do not bring up that sort of thing at the session of the ASP. |
|
|
|
Post by podp on Nov 17, 2013 0:15:04 GMT 3
Several sides to every story. On the simple presumption of innocence, Uhuru and Kenyatta should have been given the opportunity to stay away from their cases as they run and that would not have created a need for application for deferral. There is the case for the victims of PEV (rather than the victims of the election of Uhuruto) and this can never be ignored. They deserve justice. The big question continues to be whether the people on the dock are the ones responsible for the plight of the victims. I suggest a big NO. But there is nothing we can do about it apart from follow the proceedings which continue to inspire little hope that the court can actually get a conviction. Should this happen, who will have let down the victims? The court itself is on the dock. The statement made by the Rwandese that it would appear a western country was aware of the decision to postpone the Uhuru case to February even before the decision had been made public was a serious indictment which I hope the African countries will follow. But most curious was the reasoning behind the abstentions rather than straight forward No or veto where applicable. Claims of solidarity with Kenya and Africa or excuses to avoid confrontation with the AU simply do not make sense! But this must have been driven by not understanding why Rwanda decided to force a vote rather than continue the deliberations that they wanted to stall the vote until the ASP summit. African countries now have the ASP as their last hope to get their bidding before the matter of warrants becomes the final avenue to beat the court. The ICC trials demonstrate Kenya’s inability to deal with its historical, social economic and political injustices, which is precisely why all the measures to redress the anomalies have failed. National reconciliation has faltered as ethnic divisions and rivalry thrive. The National Cohesion and Integration Commission that was created to forge peace has since folded. The Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission fumbled and collapsed without any impact. Parliament has gone rogue, while the Executive is fixated with solving the Hague question at all costs. Resettlement of the internally dispossessed was hyped but the state bottled it up with a selective criteria for compensation. Today the country is as divided as it was in January 2008, only that this time it’s grimmer because the leadership and the citizenry have shamelessly refused to learn from history. www.nation.co.ke/oped/Editorial/-/440804/2074912/-/12dxrkq/-/index.html |
|
|
|
Post by podp on Nov 17, 2013 1:34:25 GMT 3
Shortly before the start of Ruto's trial, the anti-ICC industry went into overdrive. The Kenyan parliament showed "leadership": a motion was passed to start the process of pulling Kenya out of the "Rome Treaty". According to that motion, a bill was to brought within 30 days to ... The gesture/threat having been made, the matter was soon forgotten, and it is now well past the 30 days. They better withdraw again ... Uhuru being the Top Dog requires much more "action": continental threats; all sorts of hacks (some paid, some just sucking up) scribbling on what the UNSC must do, what Uhuru must do, what the ICC must do; "elders" and all sorts directing Uhuru or even demanding that he not show up for his trial; ... a "leading" senator has even threatened to flood JKIA with 10 million youths to physically stop Uhuru from flying out! Clearly, these are not dull days, and they can only get more exciting. The first piece of the excitement is the bizarre attempt to con the UN Security Council into deferring the Kenyan cases, under Article 16 of the Rome Statute. We next briefly look at this oddity, which appears to be addressed to Martians and not to anyone on Planet Earth who has been following things. * GoK's long-running attempted con started with its Admissibility Challenge after the ICC (and, naturally, after Kenya's parliament had done its we-will-withdraw! bit). After having done absolutely nothing for quite some time, GoK now claimed that it had woken up: the ICC was given a list of about 4,000 names; investigations were proceeding; prosecutions would start in Sep 2011; the ICC would receive regular progress reports; etc. "Unfortunately", the judges are not Martians; they saw through all that, and there the matter ended. All forgotten. So it must have been quite startling for Kenyans to hear from the AU Chairperson (at the Extraordinary Withdrawal Summit) that
"work is ongoing on investigations and prosecutions of the 2007- 2008 post-election violence"During the PEV: over 1,000 people were brutally murdered; tens of thousands were seriously injured, with many maimed for life; hundreds of thousands were displaced, with their homes and means of livelihood destroyed. Numerous, horrific crimes that must have been committed by a large number of people. So how many of the criminals have been dealt with? Early this year, I spent quite a bit of time trying to find out. The number appears to be less than 20, and only for minor crimes. So what will the Martians at the UNSC believe? * Following from the above, one of the most bizarre, stupid, and insulting ideas being promoted is that Kenya has a new and reformed judiciary that is capable of dealing with the ICC cases if they are "brought home". Really. Uhuru and Ruto can be properly tried in a Kenyan court. And that's without taking into account that the new-and-reformed judiciary is, at its highest levels, mired in corruption and mindless infighting. I encourage those peddling this idea to take some time and come up with something that is a little better than what I would expect from my beagle.The current line won't sell. Not even on River Road. * Keen to "upgrade" the funny statements made at the Extraordinary Withdrawal Summit, the AU submission to the UNSC has another bizarre bit: the TJRC is proof that Kenya and GoK is committed to truth, justice, and reconciliation! Never mind that in Kenya itself the TJRC report has been given the "standard" treatment---buried on arrival. Another fundamental problem with such nonsense is that it has nothing to do with sufficient grounds for an Article 16 deferral. The submission to the UNSC has several such irrelevant bits, but I suppose people have to work with whatever they have. More below on this point. * So what exactly are the basis on which the Article 16 deferral is being sought? - GoK's first two requests for deferral failed because there was no "threat to peace". It was inevitable that there would be a third go, and that this time there would be a "threat to peace": jukwaa.proboards.com/thread/8601And then! Lo and behold: Westgate. Amazing, incredible, and timely event that now features prominently all over the place. So will it be enough? It surely does not help that CCTV records show 4 terrorists aimlessly wandering around the mall while at the very same time those "engaging them in a fierce firefight" are shown busy filling bags. Makes it awkward to argue that this threatens peace in the region ... But enough of Lootergate. The question has to be whether or not it constitutes a serious enough "threat to peace". According to the Kenyan submission by Macharia Kamau, the trials should be deferred so that GoK can focus on the "continuing terrorist threat". (In fact, Macharia stretches it to "national, regional, continental, and international peace and security". Really. Pity he missed "galactic".) That won't do. The continuing terrorist threat is called continuing because it is always continuing. One instance cannot suffice to start what could be an endless series of deferrals. (One senior Western diplomat has remarked that if that could suffice, then it would be in GoK's interest to always maintain "a state of light siege".) There is another thing that must be stated, and it is difficult to state it without sounding crude and insensitive. Rather than rack my brains for soft words to say what must be said, I will simply state it, because I know it is in the minds of many: The events at Westgate were very nasty and traumatic to those involved in any way and to many others. Nevertheless, they hardly constitute a threat to regional or national peace. We need not get too emotional over that point because that is how the hard heads at the UNSC will look at it: they routinely hear of far worse atrocities. - The Kenya/AU letters also dwell on "peace, national healing, and reconciliation" and go on at length on such issues. (On "reconciliation, see above comments on the TJRC.) First, it is not clear why these have not been going on at the same time as the "investigations and prosecutions" have been going on. Second, the letters do not state precisely why and how deferral would help. Third, they are largely irrelevant to the issue of the "serious threat to peace" that would be required for a deferral. (I refuse to consider, as Macharia Kamau claimed in May, that the natives could again go at it if the cases continue.) - On the whole, the Kenya/AU letters are very badly done. It is impossible to locate any exact justification for the request for a deferral. In their entirety, they consist of "noble" but vague phrases strung together in not-too-smart a manner. And people are getting paid big bucks to knock off this sort of stuff! I am decided: in my next life, I want to be an African diplomat, or a member of the Kenyan parliament, of a member of the Kenyan JSC, or a hack with some newspaper ... The fundamental questions for those pushing the deferral (and those supporting the push) are these: (i) The deferral will not make the cases go away. So what exactly is it that you need to accomplish in the 12 months? (ii) If it is fighting terrorism, what do you expect to change in the 12 months and why? (iii) The national stuff is irrelevant, since Article 16 envisages "peace and security" on a broader scale than people losing it at the national level. But let us suppose that it is not. What exactly do you think you will achieve in the next 12 months? Whatever it is, on the basis of your past record, why should we believe you? ALRIGHT. The above has largely been written for the odd Martian who might have been downloading signals from Planet Earth and accidentally stumbled upon those from Kenya. But you and I know Kenya quite well. So let's be honest amongst ourselves and, in the kienyeji style, discuss it for what it really is: the push for a deferral has nothing to do with terrorism, peace, security, reconciliation, national healing, or whatever. The driving idea is to kill the ICC cases. If GoK can get them to buy this one, that's it; smooth sailing all the way. As for the UNSC's reaction, it is entirely possible that all its members just arrived from Mars (or Jupiter). In which case, we cannot tell what they will make of this this deferral request that elsewhere would be considered a bad joke. Me myself, I say that if the request for a deferral is granted, then, surely, I can teach my dog to speak Esperanto. Woof, woof. So to "speak". Among the Earthians, many expect His Excellency to do a runner, and I would be very surprised if he did not. I think he ought to get on with making that clear and reduce all this unnecessary tension. The endless, clueless, and vicious attacks on the ICC, by his supporters and flunkies, serve little purpose. Time to learn from His Deputy Excellency and show a bit of brass. Balls not neck. The Standard On Sunday established three key sources of friction between the Jubilee leaders. They include hiring of senior government staff, duties and resource allocation to the Office of DP and the ICC question. www.standardmedia.co.ke/?articleID=2000097878&story_title=fixing-claims-spark-mistrust-in-jubileeso on ICC question one easy way to deal with it now that the witnesses are known is exactly the 1st and 2nd red high light The President’s defence team argues the 15 Mungiki members are ‘self confessed criminals’ and the prosecutor should turn over the evidence to Kenyan authorities so they can face the full force of the law. Bensouda had asked the three judge bench to grant the Mungiki courtroom protective measures, including voice and image distortion, use of pseudonyms and in camera sessions for identifying evidence. www.standardmedia.co.ke/?articleID=2000097563&story_title=clash-over-mungiki-icc-witnessesSecurity concern According to the Gambian born prosecutor, several top officials of the outlawed Mungiki sect were murdered after the post-election violence, a big security concern should their identities be disclosed. She alleges the slain Mungiki officials were instrumental in the sects’ participation in the violence that rocked the country. But Uhuru argues that denying the Kenyan authorities a chance to deal with the ‘criminal elements’ would contravene one of the reasons for the establishment of the ICC. In the application, Uhuru appeared to discredit the ICC evidence saying the level at which the prosecution has relied on the testimony of ‘self confessed criminals’ is unprecedented. |
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Nov 17, 2013 9:28:41 GMT 3
Kamale: Abstaining makes a great deal of sense. It achieves the desired end goal of defeating the idea of deferral and at the same time it allows the abstaining country to state that its not voting "no" shows something positive or whatever. Some might considered that two-faced, but that's diplomacy! For the next step, as you know I supported Ruto's initial excusal on the basis that it would avoid the "need" for anyone to do a runner and thus bring the proceedings to a halt. Along those lines, I think a good approach would be for the Dynamic Digital Duo to work with the court to find a reasonable arrangement. For example, the Appeals Chamber did not explicitly state what should be considered "exceptional circumstances" in allowing absence. That allows the trial chamber considerable flexibility, which it has already shown in Ruto's case. As for the AU, it should be more reasonable and not continually set itself up for failure. Consider, for example, the following from the "Extraordinary Summit" "That to safeguard the constitutional order, stability and, integrity of Member States, no charges shall be commenced or continued before any International Court or Tribunal against any serving AU Head of State or Government or anybody acting or entitled to act in such capacity during their term of office;" www.au.int/en/sites/default/files/Ext%20Assembly%20AU%20Dec%20&%20Decl%20_E.pdfThat simply isn't going to fly, and one hopes that they do not bring up that sort of thing at the session of the ASP. Njakip Sorry but I beg to differ! If the intention was to appease the african that they did not vote no but still defeated the desired result, then all you are suggesting is that the african is stupid, ignorant nincompoop who has to be appeased with sweets rather that food when he is hungry. I cannot blame you views on the matter however.... As for your suggestion that the duo can work with the court, I am unable to understand this statement from one that reads the Rome Statute better than how he reads the bible. You have told us that Ruto has no other recourse than to plead with the court for permission yet now suggest that they work something with the court. Surprisingly I have not read your view about the proposal by the British to get the two to ask the court for a videolink appearance......is it also another attempt at making the two or the African to look stupid making such an application?? I shall eagerly await your your legal views of this! I think it is fine for you to continue deriding the AU, but then you must be either too young to know that this is the first time in more than 15 years that the African continent has come together on a single issue involving the continent as it did in the fight against apartheid. Whilst you can say that the UNSC and ICC have had one on Africa, that continent of woes, the damage is that there will less and less of the 20 African countries not signatories to the ICC who will want to join. As for Kenya, I think the die is cast and the country will be moving out of the ICC...and yes it will claim that it has the internal capacity to deal with crimes relating to the ICC in Kenya. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 17, 2013 12:49:24 GMT 3
The first time the AU came together: to voice solidarity with the purveyors of murder, rape and plunder. What a shame!
|
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Nov 17, 2013 20:23:16 GMT 3
Njakip As for your suggestion that the duo can work with the court, I am unable to understand this statement from one that reads the Rome Statute better than how he reads the bible. You have told us that Ruto has no other recourse than to plead with the court for permission yet now suggest that they work something with the court. Pleading with the court is exactly what I meant. Ruto is already working with the court and asking for permission slips whenever he wants to go home for the weekend. Good lad. Perhaps they would let him out for slightly longer periods. Uhuru has already made a "trial-by-Skye" request to the court. What the British are offering is support for proposals to change the legal framework so that it would be easy to grant that request, and, by way of that, have put forward a similar proposal. Such support presumably makes them look good at zero cost, and before you know it the untidy deferral business at the UNSC will be forgotten. Already quite a few Kenyans are as excited as they were when they read this: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/kenya/10376302/Kenyan-president-Kenyattas-ICC-trial-set-to-be-suspended.html The proposals---one from Kenya, one from Botswana, Liechtenstein, and Jordan together, and a related (and in some ways similar) one from the UK---generally deal with "presence" and the use of video. Essentially, the proposals, put to the Working Group on Amendments (WGA), suggest adding a new Rule or changing one of the current Rules in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence that accompany the Rome Statute. Leaving aside the question of whether the WGA even has enough time to carefully consider it---it has scheduled only two short sessions---the proposals face a huge hurdle. Huge. The proposals run counter to the Appeals Chamber's decision on presence and, in particular, Article 63 of the Rome Statute. Kenya has therefore come up with a "clever" idea: why not just ask for amendments to all those parts of the statute that are causing problems to the two Worthy Leaders Of A Great Sovereign Nation. So it has additionally submitted several proposals to amend the statute. These include proposals to amend Article 63 (on presence) and Article 27 (on immunity for heads of state). Excluding a fondness for comedy as a reason, is not clear why GoK has chosen this bizarre path that will lead to nothing; but, then, GoK is the GoK that we all know to be GoK! Looking at the drafting history and the lengthy debates that went on, it is extremely unlikely that anyone will be in a hurry to start tinkering of the type being requested. Also amending Article 27, so as to give immunity to Big People, is totally out of the question. But there are more immediate problems, as follows. Article 121(1)&(2) of the statute says that any proposal to amend the statute must first go through the Secretary-General of the UN (who passes it around) and that the States Parties cannot formally take up the proposal until at least 3 months have after they receive it from the Secretary General. (So, right off the bat, Kenya has missed the boat.) And even if a proposal is adopted, Article 121 (4)&(5) state that it cannot come into force until at least a year has passed. (A look at the history of the two amendments that have been made to date shows a protracted process of several years.) So we can pretty much forget the funny ideas about amending the statute to provide means for escape. The best that can be done at the coming session is an amendment to some Rule. However, if such amendment conflicts with the statute, then Article 51(5) of the statute says that the rule is to be ignored. How the 4 countries and their British friends plan to go about it is far from clear. The plan, as far as I can tell, seems to be to argue that "presence" can include an appearance by video and that the new-and-improved rule need only clarify that aspect. Hmmm. That would contrary to what appears to be the clear intent of the Appeals Chamber. All in all, I see little reason to be hopeful about the proposals. But who knows how the discussions will go and what compromise might be reached. I do, however, hope that some arrangement can be found (by the court itself) that will eliminate the "need" for a runner; it is important that we have the trials. By the way, the very idea of "Trial-By-Skype" brings up some interesting thoughts: Uhuru would spend 6 or 7 hours a day sitting in front of his laptop or looking at his TV screen. After that, to distress, he would hit the bottle. (And I understand that even in normal times he is not shy on that point.) What good would his presence in Kenya do the country? First, that was the OAU, not the AU. Second, I am astonished that you should mention the fight against apartheid in a thread that is mostly about Kenya. Kenya did next to nothing in that fight and, in fact, would sometimes work secretly with the apartheid regime. Third, that this is the "first time in more than 15 years that the African continent has come together on a single issue involving the continent" says a great deal about the AU. Fourth, a bunch of hopeless "leaders" coming together to help themselves is not much to brag about. I would rather hear about how they have come together to tackle the mayhem, poverty, diseases, ignorance, etc. that bedevil the continent. What is the AU's record on those things? Fifth, the "leaders" do not necessarily speak for the people. As you are aware, even in Kenya 67% of the people want Uhuru to go to the Hague, but his demented rant to the AU suggests that he is not very keen. (I imagine that the people of other African countries simply don't care.) |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Nov 19, 2013 21:14:55 GMT 3
And now Kenya's parliament completely loses it. Again. www.nation.co.ke/news/politics/Parliament-UK-ICC-Cases-Uhuru-Ruto/-/1064/2080044/-/baheevz/-/index.htmlParliament to discuss Kenya-UK relations over Uhuru, Ruto ICC casesThe National Assembly will on Wednesday suspend its business in order to discuss relations with the United Kingdom as leaders accuse the UK and United States of influencing the rejection of an Africa Union motion for sitting heads of state and government to be given immunity.
Defence and Foreign Relations committee chairman Ndung’u Gethenji has claimed the motion for exemption of the President and the Deputy President from trials has been removed from the agenda of the Assembly of State Parties to the International Criminal Court and was substituted with another by Britain seeking for trials by video link.
As has been noted: * The so-called exemption comes under Article 27 of the Rome Statute. The ASP session cannot formally consider Kenya's request to amend that article because the proper procedures have not been followed; in particular, the 3-month notice was not given. There might be discussions but only informal ones. That GoK has submitted its proposals (to amend the statute) in the manner it has shows a continuation GoK/AU's mistaken notion that the world will bend rules and laws merely because they demand it. All these proposals have been headed for definite failure since they were submitted, but that apparently won't stop people from shedding tears and howling foul. * The UK proposal, which has some similarities proposals by others, is not a substitute. What's more, the proposal is to the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, for which the process is quite different. Proposals to amend rules can and will be discussed at this ASP session. (It is however doubtful that there will be a decision on these recent rule-change proposals by Kenya, Jordan, Liechenstein, and the UK, because it is likely that there will not be sufficient time to discuss them properly.) It is a pity that a legislative body, such as Kenya's parliament, prefers to run on emotion rather than hard facts.. |
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Nov 19, 2013 21:45:12 GMT 3
* The UK proposal, which has some similarities proposals by others, is not a substitute. What's more, the proposal is to the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, for which the process is quite different. Proposals to amend rules can and will be discussed at this ASP session. (It is however doubtful that there will be a decision on these recent rule-change proposals by Kenya, Jordan, Liechenstein, and the UK, because it is likely that there will not be sufficient time to discuss them properly.) It is a pity that a legislative body, such as Kenya's parliament, prefers to run on emotion rather than hard facts.. I see you are hopeful discussion to changes of rules and procedures will fail on account of time as opposed to support! |
|
They were unable to sell it today, but they could well continue pestering people.
