Transcript of a brief speech I gave on the role of the International Criminal Court (ICC) based in The Hague

By Jan Masila,

USA

THE ROLE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT (ICC)

Introduction:

We tend to think it was all in the past. Hitler said that he was going to wipe out the Jews. We saw what happened in Yugoslavia during the reign of Slobodan Milosevic; we saw what happened in Rwanda not so long ago where the ruling Hutu tribe sought to wipe out the minority Tutsi tribe. These society evils continue to be perpetrated by selfish leaders who only think about their survival in power and that of their cronies. Look at what is happening right now in Darfur; this is enough evidence that these evils are not about to go away. Having said that, I urge you to ask yourself what kind of monster can want to wipe out a generation of people? And my submission is that any one who seeks to wipe out another is a monster who needs to go to the ICC.

Today, I will give a speech concerning the role of the International Criminal Court (ICC). As I discuss this, I am going to talk about genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes which form the hallmark of the jurisdiction of the ICC.

Now, let me get to the main points

Crimes against humanity

Crimes against humanity are international crimes that cry out for justice.

What are crimes against humanity?

Crimes against humanity are crimes that are committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population.

They include acts such as:

• Murder

• Enslavement

• Deportation

• Forceful transfer of population

• Imprisonment

• Torture

• Rape

• Sexual slavery

• Enforced prostitution

• Forced pregnancy

• Enforced disappearance of persons

• The crime of apartheid

My next point will be war crimes

War crimes

War crimes are international crimes that cry out for justice; one would rightfully ask, what are war crimes?

War crimes are grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts.

The Geneva Conventions are international agreements defining the rules of war. They set international standards for the protection of the civilian population and the treatment of combatants in international and internal armed conflicts.

War crimes are committed in the context of armed conflict. Some war crimes are specifically linked to internal armed conflict – such as civil war – and others are linked to international armed conflict. But most war crimes can occur in both situations.

War crimes in international armed conflicts consist of acts such as:

• Willful killing

• Torture or inhuman treatment including biological experiments

• Willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health

• Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly

• Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power

• Willfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial

• Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement

• Taking of hostages.

War crimes in internal armed conflicts include acts such as

• Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds

• Mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

• Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment

• taking of hostages

• conscripting and enlisting children under the age of fifteen years

In addition to the Geneva Conventions, other violations of the laws and customs of war can also be war crimes.

Examples include:

• Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population;

• Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects;

• Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission;

• Killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no further means of defense, has surrendered..

Under international law, such acts can be war crimes even if they are not committed as part of a systematic or widespread attack on civilians.

However, if they are only rare or sporadic, the authority of the International Criminal Court is more limited.

My next point will be genocide

Genocide

Genocide is an international crime that cries out for justice; The question is, what is genocide?

This definition of genocide is based on the definition found in the 1948 U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which confirmed genocide as a crime under international law in the aftermath of the Holocaust.

Genocide occurs when acts are committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Such acts of genocide can be carried out by:

• Killing members of the targeted group;

• Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

• Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

• Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

• Forcefully transferring children of the group to another group.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I have talked about the scope and mandate of the ICC and its importance

Summary statement:

It is in this regard that I urge those of you who hold the view that the ICC is a court that does not serve the interests of the world community at large to change your attitude as it has been strongly in the fore front of trying and if found guilty punishing any one involved in crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide. This important court goes for the culprits without regard to color, gender or position in society. Before the ICC, all are treated equally

Concluding remark:

If this court was not in place, the perpetrators of these heinous crimes most of whom are presidents of dictatorial regimes, rebel leaders and senior military officers would go scot free as they would have no one to account their actions to.

Zuma driving South Africa to the dogs

By Jan Masila,
USA

On January 4th, the honorable president of the Republic of South Africa Jacob Zuma stunned the world by staging what his office called a private ceremony which was in effect a traditional event to solemnize his marriage to Tobeka Madiba.

Members of the press were barred from covering the event but this did not prevent them from accessing images of the president clad in his Zulu traditional regalia showing his dancing prowess. President Zuma like any other citizen of the world has a right to live his life the way he deems right, but he seems to have failed to realize that he is not any other villager in Kwazulu Natal but the president of South Africa.

When one runs for a public office and especially that of the presidency, they have a duty to the public and one of such duties is to live responsibly and account for their behaviors in private and public. If this be a test, then it is a test president Zuma has failed miserably for he has continued to be associated with bad behavior something many believed he would abandon after assuming the presidency.

President Zuma heads Africa’s most powerful nation with a leading economy and international respect. With such credentials, South Africa is always seen as the super power of Africa and that focuses a lot of attention to anything that happens to this great country within International media. It is no wonder that Zuma’s marriage has caused so much stir across the globe and in the continent to the effect that it brought the debate of polygamy back on the table.

The question is; was this genuine case of polygamy or was it a selfish act of self gratification? Analysts are divided as to what is the right answer but when reliable sources indicate that Mr. Zuma has engaged at least two more brides, the answer is obvious.

South Africa does not need a president like Zuma, the challenges of this African power need to be addressed by a leader who is ready to shed tribal loyalties for the sake of spearheading a unifying agenda for the nation the way Nelson Mandela did after assuming power straight from detention.

Presidents are role models for the young generation; they motivate and shape the views and ideals of the society. President Zuma has not been a good role model to the youth of South Africa, a country with one of the highest rates of HIV infection in the world. While many governments around the world and specifically their leaders have been in the fore front of fighting the AIDS pandemic president Zuma has been attracting the headlines with stories about his sexuality and morality. It would be right to say that he has not yet shed his populist image to embrace statesmanship a dubious distinction since he was elected on a platform of shaping the politics of South Africa and promoting national integration.

It is not clear what agenda Zuma has in store for South Africa, since taking office in May 2009, unemployment has been on the rise and tensions continue to build between indigenous South African and immigrants from the rest of the continent whom they accuse of taking their jobs. Animosity continues to grow between people of different races and there is a fear of blood bath if these concerns are not addressed. All these are vital national issues that require leadership and intervention which president Zuma has completely failed to provide.

It is a shame that instead of putting the interests of the struggling poor in South Africa as per his campaign manifesto, Zuma has been basking in the glory of occupying the presidency and high on his to do list is to marry all his girlfriends. This is shameful and despicable. A president of South Africa or any other nation should rise above cheap publicity, tribal affiliations and promote an agenda that addresses the needs of the whole country.

It is in this regard that I observe just like many other people that Zuma is dragging South Africa and the whole continent to the dark ages of primitive practices and it is a shame we can’t afford in the 21st century

China not good for Democracy

By, Jan Masila,
USA

The emergence of China as an economic power is a big credit to the hardworking people of the Peoples Republic of China; it is a culmination of efforts by the communist government to showcase its prudence in management of economic affairs in. There is no doubt that the Chinese deserve to be recognized and applauded for this rare achievement.

Thirty years ago, the economy of China was in tatters, the army poorly equipped with old fashioned hardware, poorly planned cities and bad infrastructure. Today the story is different; China has emerged as a world player with a lot of influence especially in the minerals rich Africa.

African leaders shunned by the west for undemocratic leadership have found solace in China. This emerging power had flooded the continent with no strings attached aid which has provided a lifeline to regimes which would have collapsed a case in point being the unpopular government of Zimbabwe led by Robert Mugabe who is known for his characteristic style of bashing the west at every opportunity.

A stable and economic stable China is a good thing not only for the world’s most populous nation but for the whole world as a whole. Problem comes in when this wealth is used to subvert democracy and propelling dictatorial regimes. It is no coincidence that China has continually associated itself with rogue governments like Sudan, Angola, Zimbabwe, Iran, North Korea and Myanmar. Looking at this list one will note that these are governments which have been associated with gross violation of human rights.

While western countries have for long attached demands to any aid they have provided to third world countries, China has virtually been providing them with blank checks with no demands for accountability in terms of democratic practices. This style has been hailed as a good gesture of not interfering with another country’s internal affairs but what those who hail this style have failed to notice is the fact that for the most part, these funds are used to suppress opposition and fatten the bank accounts of the ruling class.

Governments come and go but the citizens remain, it is only fair that any funds advanced to any government be used to uplift the standards of living for the citizens of the land. China has not been a good advocate of this cause and as such it has indirectly contributed to undemocratic practices around the world.

Unfortunately, the leadership of Communist China does not seem to be keen in changing this policy. They seem to be more interested in resources than governance and this is setting a bad trend around the world. In the twenty first century, the world should be getting rid of dictators but with a fat wallet, China seems to be dialing the clock backwards, reducing any gains in terms of democratic principles.

Corrupt regimes will always think they have a chance to survive as long as they know China will bail them out when shunned by the west. A world leader should lead by example and China is not living to this standard.