Posts
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Chief sees democratic 'ray of hope' with Legco vote likely in the bag
There is a "ray of hope" for democracy in Hong Kong, according to the chief executive, with Legco now likely to approve a revised constitutional reform package tomorrow.
Donald Tsang Yam-kuen made the comment yesterday when announcing that the Executive Council had approved in principle a Democratic Party proposal to revise the package.
The party's "one-person, two votes" proposal, which would see the public returning the five new district council functional constituency seats in the 2012 Legislative Council elections, will be added at the domestic legislation stage if the reform package is passed tomorrow.
The revision is crucial for swinging the vote in the government's favor.
Tsang, appealing to all lawmakers to back the package, said: "We believe this proposal will make our elections more democratic and will pave the way for universal suffrage."
The motions to be voted on in Legco - regarding constitutional amendments on 2012 chief executive and Legislative Council election methods - will remain unchanged.
"The political reality is that our original package falls short by a few votes to meet the 40-vote threshold for its passage in Legco," Tsang said. "But we did not give up ... I am very happy that we have made a major breakthrough."
He added: "After discussions with various political factions in Legco recently, I am very happy to see a ray of hope in progress in democracy."
Tsang said room for negotiation arose after the Democratic Party no longer insisted that all demands it raised last month had to be met.
Political groups including the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, Federation of Trade Unions, Economic Synergy, Liberal Party and Professional Forum have pledged to support the revised package "in the best interest of the community," Tsang said.
Under the latest proposals, candidates for the five new functional constituency seats will be nominated by elected district councillors and then elected by 3.2 million registered voters who do not have a vote in functional constituencies, on a one person, one vote basis. The existing Legco district council seat will be returned through a vote among elected district councillors.
That means every voter will have two votes in the 2012 Legco elections, one for the geographical constituencies, and the other for functional constituencies.
Secretary for Justice Wong Yan- lung said the revised method is in line with the Basic Law and the National People's Congress Standing Committee decision in 2007.
Xinhua News Agency quoted a spokesman for the central government liaison office as saying the office eagerly supports the government's decision in accepting the proposal.
In Beijing, NPC Standing Committee member and former Legco president Rita Fan Hsu Lai-tai said this proposal has set a precedent for the way of electing Legco district council seats.
Donald Tsang Yam-kuen made the comment yesterday when announcing that the Executive Council had approved in principle a Democratic Party proposal to revise the package.
Chief Secretary Henry Tsang has a word with Donald Tsang at a press conference yesterday
The party's "one-person, two votes" proposal, which would see the public returning the five new district council functional constituency seats in the 2012 Legislative Council elections, will be added at the domestic legislation stage if the reform package is passed tomorrow.
The revision is crucial for swinging the vote in the government's favor.
Tsang, appealing to all lawmakers to back the package, said: "We believe this proposal will make our elections more democratic and will pave the way for universal suffrage."
The motions to be voted on in Legco - regarding constitutional amendments on 2012 chief executive and Legislative Council election methods - will remain unchanged.
"The political reality is that our original package falls short by a few votes to meet the 40-vote threshold for its passage in Legco," Tsang said. "But we did not give up ... I am very happy that we have made a major breakthrough."
He added: "After discussions with various political factions in Legco recently, I am very happy to see a ray of hope in progress in democracy."
Tsang said room for negotiation arose after the Democratic Party no longer insisted that all demands it raised last month had to be met.
Political groups including the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, Federation of Trade Unions, Economic Synergy, Liberal Party and Professional Forum have pledged to support the revised package "in the best interest of the community," Tsang said.
Under the latest proposals, candidates for the five new functional constituency seats will be nominated by elected district councillors and then elected by 3.2 million registered voters who do not have a vote in functional constituencies, on a one person, one vote basis. The existing Legco district council seat will be returned through a vote among elected district councillors.
That means every voter will have two votes in the 2012 Legco elections, one for the geographical constituencies, and the other for functional constituencies.
Secretary for Justice Wong Yan- lung said the revised method is in line with the Basic Law and the National People's Congress Standing Committee decision in 2007.
Xinhua News Agency quoted a spokesman for the central government liaison office as saying the office eagerly supports the government's decision in accepting the proposal.
In Beijing, NPC Standing Committee member and former Legco president Rita Fan Hsu Lai-tai said this proposal has set a precedent for the way of electing Legco district council seats.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Museveni to Mengo: I’ll cut off your head
President says Buganda caused 1966 crisis
HOIMA - President Museveni has accused the Kabaka of Buganda, Ronald Muwenda Mutebi II, of attempting to divide Ugandans along ethnic lines. This is the first time the President has openly accused the Kabaka of ethnic hatred – another indication of how wide the rift between his NRM government and Buganda Kingdom is growing.
Speaking during the 16th coronation anniversary celebrations of the Omukama of Bunyoro-Kitara Kingdom, Solomon Gafabusa Iguru, in Hoima on Friday, Museveni warned that he “will cut off” the head of any kingdom that oversteps its mandate and takes sides in partisan politics.
The President, speaking two days after two top advisors of the Kabaka, Joseph Mulwamyamuli Semwogerere and Dan Mulika, joined a coalition of opposition parties seeking to unseat him in next year’s elections, said kingdoms should stick to cultural issues and avoid politics.
“I have never baptised anyone, though I know how they baptise. I am a Christian but I do not baptise—that is not my role. We left that role to the clergy; so, cultural leaders should [also] play their roles,” he said.
“If the Kabaka thinks he can disunite our people, he is just dreaming; he should wake up; we cannot allow him even for a minute,” Museveni added.
“Kingdoms should play their roles outlined in the Constitution, Buganda inclusive. If any kingdom crosses its boundaries and interferes with my roles, I will cut off its head and there will be no case to answer,” Museveni said.
Delegations of Banyala from Bugerere and Baruli from Nakasongola clapped and cheered every time the President attacked the Buganda monarch. The Banyala and Baruli have declared autonomy from Buganda Kingdom—a move opposed by Buganda, which accuses the central government of propping up separatist groups in its territory.
The leader of the Banyala (Sabanyala), Baker Kimeze, attended the function during which he was recognised as a cultural leader by Bunyoro with rituals performed on him by Bunyoro’s chief prince, Albert Kasaija Okwir.
Buganda Kingdom, the biggest and best organised in Uganda, was not represented.
1966 CRISIS
The President said the 1966 Buganda crisis was caused by the kingdom itself when the Kabaka started interfering with the role of political leaders. He warned of a similar crisis if Mengo, the seat of Buganda Kingdom, does not stick to cultural issues.
This is the first time the President has accused Buganda of causing the crisis that led to the abolition of kingdoms and forced Kabaka Edward Mutesa II, the father of reigning monarch Ronald Muwenda Mutebi II, into exile. Previously, the President has accused the late former president, Apollo Milton Obote, of igniting the problem by abrogating the constitution. Analysts say the 1966 crisis is partly responsible for Uganda’s troubled history.
“It was not easy to convince my colleagues [in NRM] to have these kingdoms restored. We thought that kingdoms could work with modern governments if well handled, so they play their constitutional roles,” Museveni said.
He added that the Kabaka of Buganda has crossed his boundaries and warned that he might cause gloomy days for his kingdom.
Museveni accused Buganda, his major ally in the Luwero bush war that brought him to power in 1986, of doing nothing to develop the country but only promoting ethnic hatred.
“Mengo has used all [its] time dividing and disuniting people. What has Buganda helped Uganda [to achieve]? We shall isolate them,” Museveni warned.
DONATION
The President donated Shs 200 million to Bunyoro Kingdom for the construction of a perimeter wall around the palace. He said that since the country’s revenue base had grown, he would increase funding to cultural institutions.
The government currently gives cultural leaders Shs 5 million per month. He added that he has already tabled a proposal in Cabinet, seeking to approve increased funding to cultural institutions.
But the host, Solomon Gafabusa Iguru, called for the amendment of the laws governing the sharing the revenue from the newly discovered oil to enable the hosting cultural institutions get a share.
“Article 244 of the Petroleum Bill 2010 should be amended to give us, the cultural institutions, oil share.
The bill shares oil proceeds between the central and the local government, but this should be changed,” Iguru said.
Most of the two million barrels of oil so far discovered in Uganda is to be found in Bunyoro.
According to the king, the bill provides that 85% of the oil proceeds should go to the central government and 15% to local governments, yet cultural institutions that will shoulder environmental and other burdens have been left out.
SABANYALA ON BUGANDA
During the same function, Sabanyala Captain Baker Kimeze said the Banyala have their roots in Bunyoro and not Buganda.
“Our roots are in Bunyoro and not Buganda; so, we are home,” Kimeze said.
“We are the prodigal sons of Bunyoro and not Buganda; so, we have come home,” Kimeze added.
His declaration didn’t go unrewarded, as Bunyoro Kingdom handed him a traditional robe and the head of the Babito (royal clan) in the kingdom wrapped a barkcloth around the Sabanyala, saying it is a ritual that Bunyoro performs for all kings who have ties with Bunyoro.
Top Stories
Written by EDWARD SSEKIKA
Monday, 14 June 2010 05:49
HOIMA - President Museveni has accused the Kabaka of Buganda, Ronald Muwenda Mutebi II, of attempting to divide Ugandans along ethnic lines. This is the first time the President has openly accused the Kabaka of ethnic hatred – another indication of how wide the rift between his NRM government and Buganda Kingdom is growing.
Speaking during the 16th coronation anniversary celebrations of the Omukama of Bunyoro-Kitara Kingdom, Solomon Gafabusa Iguru, in Hoima on Friday, Museveni warned that he “will cut off” the head of any kingdom that oversteps its mandate and takes sides in partisan politics.
The President, speaking two days after two top advisors of the Kabaka, Joseph Mulwamyamuli Semwogerere and Dan Mulika, joined a coalition of opposition parties seeking to unseat him in next year’s elections, said kingdoms should stick to cultural issues and avoid politics.
“I have never baptised anyone, though I know how they baptise. I am a Christian but I do not baptise—that is not my role. We left that role to the clergy; so, cultural leaders should [also] play their roles,” he said.
“If the Kabaka thinks he can disunite our people, he is just dreaming; he should wake up; we cannot allow him even for a minute,” Museveni added.
“Kingdoms should play their roles outlined in the Constitution, Buganda inclusive. If any kingdom crosses its boundaries and interferes with my roles, I will cut off its head and there will be no case to answer,” Museveni said.
Delegations of Banyala from Bugerere and Baruli from Nakasongola clapped and cheered every time the President attacked the Buganda monarch. The Banyala and Baruli have declared autonomy from Buganda Kingdom—a move opposed by Buganda, which accuses the central government of propping up separatist groups in its territory.
The leader of the Banyala (Sabanyala), Baker Kimeze, attended the function during which he was recognised as a cultural leader by Bunyoro with rituals performed on him by Bunyoro’s chief prince, Albert Kasaija Okwir.
Buganda Kingdom, the biggest and best organised in Uganda, was not represented.
1966 CRISIS
The President said the 1966 Buganda crisis was caused by the kingdom itself when the Kabaka started interfering with the role of political leaders. He warned of a similar crisis if Mengo, the seat of Buganda Kingdom, does not stick to cultural issues.
This is the first time the President has accused Buganda of causing the crisis that led to the abolition of kingdoms and forced Kabaka Edward Mutesa II, the father of reigning monarch Ronald Muwenda Mutebi II, into exile. Previously, the President has accused the late former president, Apollo Milton Obote, of igniting the problem by abrogating the constitution. Analysts say the 1966 crisis is partly responsible for Uganda’s troubled history.
“It was not easy to convince my colleagues [in NRM] to have these kingdoms restored. We thought that kingdoms could work with modern governments if well handled, so they play their constitutional roles,” Museveni said.
He added that the Kabaka of Buganda has crossed his boundaries and warned that he might cause gloomy days for his kingdom.
Museveni accused Buganda, his major ally in the Luwero bush war that brought him to power in 1986, of doing nothing to develop the country but only promoting ethnic hatred.
“Mengo has used all [its] time dividing and disuniting people. What has Buganda helped Uganda [to achieve]? We shall isolate them,” Museveni warned.
DONATION
The President donated Shs 200 million to Bunyoro Kingdom for the construction of a perimeter wall around the palace. He said that since the country’s revenue base had grown, he would increase funding to cultural institutions.
The government currently gives cultural leaders Shs 5 million per month. He added that he has already tabled a proposal in Cabinet, seeking to approve increased funding to cultural institutions.
But the host, Solomon Gafabusa Iguru, called for the amendment of the laws governing the sharing the revenue from the newly discovered oil to enable the hosting cultural institutions get a share.
“Article 244 of the Petroleum Bill 2010 should be amended to give us, the cultural institutions, oil share.
The bill shares oil proceeds between the central and the local government, but this should be changed,” Iguru said.
Most of the two million barrels of oil so far discovered in Uganda is to be found in Bunyoro.
According to the king, the bill provides that 85% of the oil proceeds should go to the central government and 15% to local governments, yet cultural institutions that will shoulder environmental and other burdens have been left out.
SABANYALA ON BUGANDA
During the same function, Sabanyala Captain Baker Kimeze said the Banyala have their roots in Bunyoro and not Buganda.
“Our roots are in Bunyoro and not Buganda; so, we are home,” Kimeze said.
“We are the prodigal sons of Bunyoro and not Buganda; so, we have come home,” Kimeze added.
His declaration didn’t go unrewarded, as Bunyoro Kingdom handed him a traditional robe and the head of the Babito (royal clan) in the kingdom wrapped a barkcloth around the Sabanyala, saying it is a ritual that Bunyoro performs for all kings who have ties with Bunyoro.
Top Stories
Written by EDWARD SSEKIKA
Monday, 14 June 2010 05:49
Friday, June 4, 2010
Briefing on the International Criminal Court Conference in Kampala, Uganda
Stephen J. Rapp
Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues
Harold Hongju Koh
Legal Advisor U.S. Department of State
Via Teleconference
Kampala, Uganda
June 2, 2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPERATOR: Welcome. And I would like to thank you all for holding and inform you that your lines are in a listen-only during today’s conference until a question-and-answer session. At that time, to ask a question, you’ll press *1 on your touchtone phone.
And I’d now like to turn it to Gordon Duguid. Sir, you may begin.
MR. DUGUID: Thank you very much and welcome, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you all for calling in today. We are on the record today with the State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh and Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues Stephen J. Rapp. They are in Kampala, Uganda working on the International Criminal Court Conference and are happy to take your questions on that subject. As the question comes to you, please remember to identify yourself and your media organization.
We have just about 25 minutes, so please limit your questions to one and that way we can try and get everyone in. Our participants will make a brief statement and then we’ll go to questions.
Professor Koh, would you like to begin, please?
MR. KOH: Yes, hi. It’s Harold Koh and Steve Rapp here from Kampala. We are the co-heads of delegation for an interagency group from the U.S. Government that’s attending the Review Conference for the International Criminal Court. It started on May 31st and it runs through June 11th.
For those of you who are not familiar with the history of the U.S. relationship with the court, in 1995, President Clinton endorsed the concept of an international criminal court. In 1998, in the first conference at Rome, the United States did not sign the statute that was developed there, the charter of the court. But by 2000, President Clinton had signed the Rome statute. In 2002, the Bush Administration sent a document, so-called, unsigning that acceptance. And then in 2005, the United States decided to allow the adoption of a resolution at the Security Council referring the situation in Darfur to the ICC prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo, who’s an Argentinean national. By 2008, the Bush Administration had accepted the reality of the court – that’s their term – and steered away from, what they called – quote – “unnecessary wrangling over the issues that divide the ICC supporters and opponents.” And in 2009, Secretary Clinton said – quote – “We will end hostility toward the ICC and look for opportunities to encourage effective ICC action in ways that promote U.S. interests by bringing war criminals to justice.”
So we are here as part of three broader U.S. foreign policy initiatives. First, a broader diplomatic agenda of principled engagement with international institutions which you’re familiar from – with from our relationship with the Human Rights Council, the Copenhagen climate change talks, and a number of other multilateral diplomatic settings.
Secondly, we’re here as part of our long-term commitment to promoting accountability by supporting the responsible development of international mechanisms of criminal justice, the Yugoslav tribunal, the Rwanda tribunal, the Sierra Leone tribunal, and the Cambodia tribunal.
And third, we are here because of our awareness, as the President said in his Nobel Prize lecture, that at times the use of force must be lawful and necessary in the 21st century and, therefore, the discussion of the crime of aggression, which is being proposed as part of the amendment package, is of particular interest to us.
There are two items on the agenda essentially. There are some other amendments as well, but the key is stocktaking, evaluating the strength of the court in – after 12 years of history. The second is the crime of aggression and whether that crime ought to be adopted by – in whole or in part.
Yesterday, Ambassador Rapp gave an intervention on behalf of the delegation. It was our first intervention. We had previously attended introductory meetings in the Netherlands last November and in New York in March. And I’ll let Stephen talk about the presentation that he gave.
AMBASSADOR RAPP: And our presentation at all of those sessions emphasized the strong support of the United States Government for accountability for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity; our strong support of the Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone courts and other courts in which I myself and so many other Americans were involved; and a recognition that in the future, when it comes to situations where mass atrocities are committed and where there’s no possibility of achieving justice at the national level and you need to go to an international level to have accountability, it is the ICC where that will happen, that the rest of the world is unlikely to create sort of stand-alone institutions, which is the pattern from the 1900s.
For that reason, we want to look for ways to engage with the ICC to make sure that it’s effective. And the four cases that it’s taken on in Africa, through the end of March when we spoke at the conference in New York, in the DRC, in Uganda, in Sudan, in the Central African Republic, are situations that involve mass atrocities against civilians, situations in which it was far more dangerous to be an innocent woman or child than it was to be a soldier.
As the President said last week – and I quoted this in my speech yesterday – in signing bipartisan legislation to assist northern Uganda in recovering from the effects of Joseph Kony and the Lord’s Resistance Army, we support efforts to bring Joseph Kony and the leaders of the LRA to justice. That means for those that are indicted at the ICC that they need to be brought to trial in The Hague. For others, and there are many others and there are some that have been brought here from Congo to Uganda, they need to face justice at the national level. And through our aid and assistance programs, not just now but for the last several years, we’ve been providing assistance to their national justice systems here and elsewhere.
And so the message that we’ve been delivering is support for international justice when it’s focused on atrocity crime and, at the same time, a renewed focus on making sure that our aid and other aid is coordinated so that justice can be delivered at the local level, at the national level where it will have, at the end of the day, a better effect and be closer to the victims and the affected communities.
Harold. Or I guess we’re ready for questions.
MR. KOH: We’re ready for questions.
MR. DUGUID: Thank you, gentlemen. And operator, we are ready to take questions. May I remind our journalists to please identify yourself and your media organization just before you ask your question. Thank you.
Operator, we’re ready.
OPERATOR: Thank you. Again, at this time, if you’d like to ask a question, please press *1 on your touchtone phone. You’ll be prompted by the automated service to state your name to help with pronunciation. Again, it’s *1 to ask a question, *2 to withdraw your question. And one moment, please.
The first question comes from Matthew Lee. Please state your affiliation, sir.
QUESTION: Hi, this is Matt Lee. I’m with the AP. Harold, if I could, can I ask you about this report on drone – on the targeting – targeted killings that’s come out today from this NYU professor, the UN expert? I apologize for this being slightly off topic, but I know you’ve talked about this.
MR. KOH: Yeah, it is. I haven’t read it yet because I’m over here. I think you’ll get a press statement from Washington.
QUESTION: There is – you don’t want to repeat what you said in your speech to the American Society of International Law?
MR. KOH: You can go and quote that if you want. That was on the record, too.
QUESTION: All right, okay.
OPERATOR: Again, if you’d like to ask a question, please press *1. At this time, I show no further responses. I do have one that just came in. One moment, please.
It comes from Lachlan Carmichael. Your line is open. Please state your affiliation.
QUESTION: Hi, it’s Lachlan Carmichael from AFP. And I just wanted to ask what are the obstacles remaining for the U.S. joining the court, and doesn't the fact that you’re not part of – a full-fledged member of the court, doesn't that undermine your support for calls to bring to justice people like Joseph Kony?
MR. KOH: Well, what are the obstacles? Our signature remains on the statute. There is a letter that was filed in the name of John Bolton in 2002, which said the U.S. didn’t have an obligation to act consistently with the object and purpose of the treaty. To become bound by the treaty, we would need to submit it for advice and consent. Nevertheless, a number of important countries are observer nations, including three members of the Security Council – the United States, Russia, and China – and it’s possible for us to make pledges of support. And indeed, we did yesterday. We’re an important observer nation and our cooperation with the ad hoc tribunals has been very critical to their success.
So it’s obviously a process that will take some time. We should make clear that there is no legal decision involved in our being here. It’s not a decision about whether to change any law, to ratify any treaty, or to change any statute or change any other agreement. But it is part of a broader policy, as I said, for closer engagement with this important international institution.
AMBASSADOR RAPP: Yeah, let me go ahead and talk about our pledges, and keep in mind this is just the beginning of the process of engaging with the court. The first was on this important issue of complementarity. And the ICC is only a court of last resort. In fact, it was one of the issues on which the United States was very persuasive in Rome to understand that what we really want is to strengthen national systems and to have these cases prosecuted close to the victims and the affected communities; and only when there’s no will or capacity should they go to the international level, and then only the most serious offenders with the national system being reinforced to handle the rest of the accountability issue. So in that regard, we renewed our commitment to the rule of law and capacity-building projects in which we have ongoing in each of these – in each of the situations that we discussed earlier.
Tomorrow evening, we’re holding a session here that we’re sponsoring with our Norwegian friends and with the Democratic Republic of Congo Government about strengthening accountability in the DRC, which is a high priority of Secretary Clinton. We visited Goma in August with the thousands of rapes a month being committed in two small provinces of Eastern Congo. The need for decisive action at the national level against these crimes has never been stronger. And we want to reinforce that message with our aid and assistance coordinated with other countries.
We also – in terms of political and diplomatic support for the court, in the President’s statement on the 25th of May called for the indictees in the LRA case, Joseph Kony and his key lieutenants to be brought to justice. And we’ll be following up now with the prosecutor and with the registrar of the court to search for other ways in which we can contribute to justice in these cases.
As Harold said, when you look at what’s happened at the ad hoc tribunals, at the Yugoslavia tribunal, obviously, America was a dues-paying member of the UN and was paying about a quarter of the overhead at those courts and had a lot of Americans on staff, but of critical importance was the assistance that we provided with the law enforcement agencies and intelligence sharing and assistance to victims and other things. Whether we can provide all of that in regard to the ICC is a matter of study under our law, but we’re going to work to try to find ways that we can, consistent with our law, support these prosecutions to make sure that people that are committing these mass atrocities are held to account.
MR. KOH: One thing that I should just add, Lachlan, is that it’s hard to emphasize how happy countries are to see us here. They felt very distressed at the period of U.S. hostility to the court. They’re very excited about the Obama Administration and its renewed commitment to international law and engagement, and they’re just thrilled that we’re here as an observer country.
AMBASSADOR RAPP: And at peril of being accused not to answer the question directly, I mean, if you read what President Obama said during the campaign and Secretary Clinton, they recognize that the United States takes a long time when it comes to international treaties and conventions and studies these things very carefully and a long track record before presidents of either party put these matters forward in terms of U.S. ratification. And we’re nowhere near that point. What we’re here talking about is ways that we can support this court constructively when it works in our interests. And so far, in the cases that it’s taking on, they are in our interest and the interest of all of humankind.
QUESTION: Well, thank you.
OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Charley Keyes. Your line is open. State your affiliation, please.
QUESTION: Hi, Charley Keyes, CNN. Thanks very much. Gentlemen, I was wondering what the response was when you spoke out against the adoption of the crime of aggression, and also whether you could speak to that earlier point about how one of your roles was to evaluate the strength of the criminal court overall. Thank you.
MR. KOH: I think our view, Charley, has been widely shared, not just by many other states parties – many of the states parties, but also by many human rights nongovernmental organizations. What we have analogized this to is the court as a wobbly bicycle that’s just starting to get its legs and roll forward, and the question is whether to add a crime of aggression at this moment might put too much weight on it and transform the nature of its mandate. A lot of other countries have a similar reaction, and many human rights groups, Human Rights Watch, Open Society, a letter that was written by about 40 nongovernmental organizations made clear that this is not the moment, in their judgment, to expand the court’s jurisdiction to include this issue. There’s an op-ed in today’s LA Times that makes that point again, which I think is called a jurisdiction that the court doesn't need.
AMBASSADOR RAPP: Yeah, I mean, the question for this court is a very stark one. At the moment, it has 13 arrest warrants out. It’s only been able to arrest four people. It has a real challenge when it comes to obtaining state cooperation to bring people to justice that are charged with heinous crimes. It needs to have those arrest warrants executed. People accused it of politics, I think unfairly in Africa. Usually, it’s the people who themselves are subject to its indictments that are trying to make this argument, but its indictments are supported by the broad range of the general population.
But when it comes to the crime of aggression, as proposed here and what’s come out of this working group, it would open the floodgates potentially, at least to request to prosecute in all sorts of situations, that could come up of border crossing, of incidents without even significant loss of life but that affected national honor, borders that are ill-defined, non-international, non-state actors crossing borders and attacking and being given hot pursuit. A variety of situations could come to us and, depending on what the prosecutor did, he would find himself alienating one group of countries or another and making cooperation even more difficult.
And what we saw – and obviously, I was involved in the Sierra Leone court where it was eventually possible to get Charles Taylor to trial; we experienced with Slobodan Milosevic – when people commit mass atrocities, it’s eventually possible to build up a level of international pressure and also domestic pressure. People are ashamed of having a leader that’s committing atrocities. Eventually, they’re pushed aside and they’re brought to justice. But someone who’s defending their nation’s borders, if the ICC were to proceed with cases like this, it would end up with indictments that it would be impossible to serve and to affect. So I think a lot of people see that, at this stage, this court doesn’t need it.
Additionally, we’re concerned about the fact that there are sometimes situations where actions are needed to protect people from genocide and war crimes and crimes against humanity, and want to be sure that when nations join together to do that they don’t find themselves being prosecuted for those acts.
So a number of issues that were – I raised yesterday in my intervention. Harold will be speaking on Friday. We’re receiving a very, let’s say, positive reaction from a great many people. And some of those that have – without reflecting on this very long – have been coming up to us and saying these are very good questions; these need to be resolved. And there’s no rush for this conference to go ahead and do this. There will be other positive news coming out of the conference. A great session today on resolving peace and justice, on what needs to be done with victims in affected communities; tomorrow, on what can be done with aid and assistance, the national justice systems, and for the cooperation the court needs to get some more people arrested who’ve been accused of atrocity crimes. And a high-level declaration has gone through, calling for a variety of action, so this conference doesn’t need to finalize aggression. And I think everyone is now saying it’s not critical that it be done at any cost. It’s important to study this matter further.
So that’s the kind of reaction we’re getting. On the other hand, the decision has yet to be made. We don’t have a vote. Others are talking about it and talking with us and we’ll be there through the duration.
MR. DUGUID: Thank you, Ambassador. Operator, I believe we have time for one final question.
OPERATOR: Yeah, our next question comes from Andrei Sitov. Your line is open. State your affiliation, please.
QUESTION: Thank you. My name is Andrei Sitov. I’m with the Russian news agency, ITAR-TASS in Washington, D.C. And thank you, gentlemen, for doing this. I apologize for joining the call a little late. If this already has been raised, the issue that I want you to talk about, I apologize, but please answer it anyway.
Two questions: There was this instance where a journalist, a reporter from Reuters, was killed by American forces in Iraq and – my question is do I understand you correctly that in this situation, the aggrieved party needs to file claims with American courts? And what if they do not believe in the impartiality of the American court in a situation like this, which probably is understandable? What other recourse do they have?
And secondly, I don’t know if it’s been raised or not, but we have a situation now where two countries, Turkey and Israel, are disputing the same set of circumstances. Again, what is the legal mechanism here, if it exists at this point, that should be able to resolve this situation? Thank you, gentlemen.
MR. KOH: Harold Koh. Without addressing the specifics of those two cases, I think the delicate fact that you raised highlights two points. The first is if there is an accountability process available in domestic law, the principle of the court of complementarity, as it’s called, suggests that you should seek relief in a domestic court, only bringing crimes of the gravest international concern to the international criminal court.
The second part is that there are uses of force on a regular basis, some lawful, some unlawful, and the real question is in highly-charged political situations. When is it helpful to the situation, and to restoring peace and security, to have that matter prosecuted before an international criminal tribunal? Take the example of the recent sinking of the South Korean ship, the Cheonan. I think most observers believe that to be a lawless act. But most would also agree that in this very volatile political environment, the introduction of a criminal prosecution and an independent actor in that dialogue would not settle the situation down; it could well inflame it.
MR. DUGUID: And Andrei, Gordon here. (Inaudible) will be addressing the flotilla and Israel and Gaza later on in today’s briefing.
QUESTION: Mm-hmm.
MR. DUGUID: And I think I have to thank everyone for their participation at this point. Thank you, Ambassador Rapp and Legal Advisor Koh. Colleagues in the media, thank you for dialing in. That is all the time we have. We were on the record, just to repeat, and I hope we will see you all later in the daily press briefing.
With that, we shall sign off.
OPERATOR: At this time, that will conclude today’s conference. You may disconnect. Thank you for your attendance.
Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues
Harold Hongju Koh
Legal Advisor U.S. Department of State
Via Teleconference
Kampala, Uganda
June 2, 2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPERATOR: Welcome. And I would like to thank you all for holding and inform you that your lines are in a listen-only during today’s conference until a question-and-answer session. At that time, to ask a question, you’ll press *1 on your touchtone phone.
And I’d now like to turn it to Gordon Duguid. Sir, you may begin.
MR. DUGUID: Thank you very much and welcome, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you all for calling in today. We are on the record today with the State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh and Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues Stephen J. Rapp. They are in Kampala, Uganda working on the International Criminal Court Conference and are happy to take your questions on that subject. As the question comes to you, please remember to identify yourself and your media organization.
We have just about 25 minutes, so please limit your questions to one and that way we can try and get everyone in. Our participants will make a brief statement and then we’ll go to questions.
Professor Koh, would you like to begin, please?
MR. KOH: Yes, hi. It’s Harold Koh and Steve Rapp here from Kampala. We are the co-heads of delegation for an interagency group from the U.S. Government that’s attending the Review Conference for the International Criminal Court. It started on May 31st and it runs through June 11th.
For those of you who are not familiar with the history of the U.S. relationship with the court, in 1995, President Clinton endorsed the concept of an international criminal court. In 1998, in the first conference at Rome, the United States did not sign the statute that was developed there, the charter of the court. But by 2000, President Clinton had signed the Rome statute. In 2002, the Bush Administration sent a document, so-called, unsigning that acceptance. And then in 2005, the United States decided to allow the adoption of a resolution at the Security Council referring the situation in Darfur to the ICC prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo, who’s an Argentinean national. By 2008, the Bush Administration had accepted the reality of the court – that’s their term – and steered away from, what they called – quote – “unnecessary wrangling over the issues that divide the ICC supporters and opponents.” And in 2009, Secretary Clinton said – quote – “We will end hostility toward the ICC and look for opportunities to encourage effective ICC action in ways that promote U.S. interests by bringing war criminals to justice.”
So we are here as part of three broader U.S. foreign policy initiatives. First, a broader diplomatic agenda of principled engagement with international institutions which you’re familiar from – with from our relationship with the Human Rights Council, the Copenhagen climate change talks, and a number of other multilateral diplomatic settings.
Secondly, we’re here as part of our long-term commitment to promoting accountability by supporting the responsible development of international mechanisms of criminal justice, the Yugoslav tribunal, the Rwanda tribunal, the Sierra Leone tribunal, and the Cambodia tribunal.
And third, we are here because of our awareness, as the President said in his Nobel Prize lecture, that at times the use of force must be lawful and necessary in the 21st century and, therefore, the discussion of the crime of aggression, which is being proposed as part of the amendment package, is of particular interest to us.
There are two items on the agenda essentially. There are some other amendments as well, but the key is stocktaking, evaluating the strength of the court in – after 12 years of history. The second is the crime of aggression and whether that crime ought to be adopted by – in whole or in part.
Yesterday, Ambassador Rapp gave an intervention on behalf of the delegation. It was our first intervention. We had previously attended introductory meetings in the Netherlands last November and in New York in March. And I’ll let Stephen talk about the presentation that he gave.
AMBASSADOR RAPP: And our presentation at all of those sessions emphasized the strong support of the United States Government for accountability for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity; our strong support of the Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone courts and other courts in which I myself and so many other Americans were involved; and a recognition that in the future, when it comes to situations where mass atrocities are committed and where there’s no possibility of achieving justice at the national level and you need to go to an international level to have accountability, it is the ICC where that will happen, that the rest of the world is unlikely to create sort of stand-alone institutions, which is the pattern from the 1900s.
For that reason, we want to look for ways to engage with the ICC to make sure that it’s effective. And the four cases that it’s taken on in Africa, through the end of March when we spoke at the conference in New York, in the DRC, in Uganda, in Sudan, in the Central African Republic, are situations that involve mass atrocities against civilians, situations in which it was far more dangerous to be an innocent woman or child than it was to be a soldier.
As the President said last week – and I quoted this in my speech yesterday – in signing bipartisan legislation to assist northern Uganda in recovering from the effects of Joseph Kony and the Lord’s Resistance Army, we support efforts to bring Joseph Kony and the leaders of the LRA to justice. That means for those that are indicted at the ICC that they need to be brought to trial in The Hague. For others, and there are many others and there are some that have been brought here from Congo to Uganda, they need to face justice at the national level. And through our aid and assistance programs, not just now but for the last several years, we’ve been providing assistance to their national justice systems here and elsewhere.
And so the message that we’ve been delivering is support for international justice when it’s focused on atrocity crime and, at the same time, a renewed focus on making sure that our aid and other aid is coordinated so that justice can be delivered at the local level, at the national level where it will have, at the end of the day, a better effect and be closer to the victims and the affected communities.
Harold. Or I guess we’re ready for questions.
MR. KOH: We’re ready for questions.
MR. DUGUID: Thank you, gentlemen. And operator, we are ready to take questions. May I remind our journalists to please identify yourself and your media organization just before you ask your question. Thank you.
Operator, we’re ready.
OPERATOR: Thank you. Again, at this time, if you’d like to ask a question, please press *1 on your touchtone phone. You’ll be prompted by the automated service to state your name to help with pronunciation. Again, it’s *1 to ask a question, *2 to withdraw your question. And one moment, please.
The first question comes from Matthew Lee. Please state your affiliation, sir.
QUESTION: Hi, this is Matt Lee. I’m with the AP. Harold, if I could, can I ask you about this report on drone – on the targeting – targeted killings that’s come out today from this NYU professor, the UN expert? I apologize for this being slightly off topic, but I know you’ve talked about this.
MR. KOH: Yeah, it is. I haven’t read it yet because I’m over here. I think you’ll get a press statement from Washington.
QUESTION: There is – you don’t want to repeat what you said in your speech to the American Society of International Law?
MR. KOH: You can go and quote that if you want. That was on the record, too.
QUESTION: All right, okay.
OPERATOR: Again, if you’d like to ask a question, please press *1. At this time, I show no further responses. I do have one that just came in. One moment, please.
It comes from Lachlan Carmichael. Your line is open. Please state your affiliation.
QUESTION: Hi, it’s Lachlan Carmichael from AFP. And I just wanted to ask what are the obstacles remaining for the U.S. joining the court, and doesn't the fact that you’re not part of – a full-fledged member of the court, doesn't that undermine your support for calls to bring to justice people like Joseph Kony?
MR. KOH: Well, what are the obstacles? Our signature remains on the statute. There is a letter that was filed in the name of John Bolton in 2002, which said the U.S. didn’t have an obligation to act consistently with the object and purpose of the treaty. To become bound by the treaty, we would need to submit it for advice and consent. Nevertheless, a number of important countries are observer nations, including three members of the Security Council – the United States, Russia, and China – and it’s possible for us to make pledges of support. And indeed, we did yesterday. We’re an important observer nation and our cooperation with the ad hoc tribunals has been very critical to their success.
So it’s obviously a process that will take some time. We should make clear that there is no legal decision involved in our being here. It’s not a decision about whether to change any law, to ratify any treaty, or to change any statute or change any other agreement. But it is part of a broader policy, as I said, for closer engagement with this important international institution.
AMBASSADOR RAPP: Yeah, let me go ahead and talk about our pledges, and keep in mind this is just the beginning of the process of engaging with the court. The first was on this important issue of complementarity. And the ICC is only a court of last resort. In fact, it was one of the issues on which the United States was very persuasive in Rome to understand that what we really want is to strengthen national systems and to have these cases prosecuted close to the victims and the affected communities; and only when there’s no will or capacity should they go to the international level, and then only the most serious offenders with the national system being reinforced to handle the rest of the accountability issue. So in that regard, we renewed our commitment to the rule of law and capacity-building projects in which we have ongoing in each of these – in each of the situations that we discussed earlier.
Tomorrow evening, we’re holding a session here that we’re sponsoring with our Norwegian friends and with the Democratic Republic of Congo Government about strengthening accountability in the DRC, which is a high priority of Secretary Clinton. We visited Goma in August with the thousands of rapes a month being committed in two small provinces of Eastern Congo. The need for decisive action at the national level against these crimes has never been stronger. And we want to reinforce that message with our aid and assistance coordinated with other countries.
We also – in terms of political and diplomatic support for the court, in the President’s statement on the 25th of May called for the indictees in the LRA case, Joseph Kony and his key lieutenants to be brought to justice. And we’ll be following up now with the prosecutor and with the registrar of the court to search for other ways in which we can contribute to justice in these cases.
As Harold said, when you look at what’s happened at the ad hoc tribunals, at the Yugoslavia tribunal, obviously, America was a dues-paying member of the UN and was paying about a quarter of the overhead at those courts and had a lot of Americans on staff, but of critical importance was the assistance that we provided with the law enforcement agencies and intelligence sharing and assistance to victims and other things. Whether we can provide all of that in regard to the ICC is a matter of study under our law, but we’re going to work to try to find ways that we can, consistent with our law, support these prosecutions to make sure that people that are committing these mass atrocities are held to account.
MR. KOH: One thing that I should just add, Lachlan, is that it’s hard to emphasize how happy countries are to see us here. They felt very distressed at the period of U.S. hostility to the court. They’re very excited about the Obama Administration and its renewed commitment to international law and engagement, and they’re just thrilled that we’re here as an observer country.
AMBASSADOR RAPP: And at peril of being accused not to answer the question directly, I mean, if you read what President Obama said during the campaign and Secretary Clinton, they recognize that the United States takes a long time when it comes to international treaties and conventions and studies these things very carefully and a long track record before presidents of either party put these matters forward in terms of U.S. ratification. And we’re nowhere near that point. What we’re here talking about is ways that we can support this court constructively when it works in our interests. And so far, in the cases that it’s taking on, they are in our interest and the interest of all of humankind.
QUESTION: Well, thank you.
OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Charley Keyes. Your line is open. State your affiliation, please.
QUESTION: Hi, Charley Keyes, CNN. Thanks very much. Gentlemen, I was wondering what the response was when you spoke out against the adoption of the crime of aggression, and also whether you could speak to that earlier point about how one of your roles was to evaluate the strength of the criminal court overall. Thank you.
MR. KOH: I think our view, Charley, has been widely shared, not just by many other states parties – many of the states parties, but also by many human rights nongovernmental organizations. What we have analogized this to is the court as a wobbly bicycle that’s just starting to get its legs and roll forward, and the question is whether to add a crime of aggression at this moment might put too much weight on it and transform the nature of its mandate. A lot of other countries have a similar reaction, and many human rights groups, Human Rights Watch, Open Society, a letter that was written by about 40 nongovernmental organizations made clear that this is not the moment, in their judgment, to expand the court’s jurisdiction to include this issue. There’s an op-ed in today’s LA Times that makes that point again, which I think is called a jurisdiction that the court doesn't need.
AMBASSADOR RAPP: Yeah, I mean, the question for this court is a very stark one. At the moment, it has 13 arrest warrants out. It’s only been able to arrest four people. It has a real challenge when it comes to obtaining state cooperation to bring people to justice that are charged with heinous crimes. It needs to have those arrest warrants executed. People accused it of politics, I think unfairly in Africa. Usually, it’s the people who themselves are subject to its indictments that are trying to make this argument, but its indictments are supported by the broad range of the general population.
But when it comes to the crime of aggression, as proposed here and what’s come out of this working group, it would open the floodgates potentially, at least to request to prosecute in all sorts of situations, that could come up of border crossing, of incidents without even significant loss of life but that affected national honor, borders that are ill-defined, non-international, non-state actors crossing borders and attacking and being given hot pursuit. A variety of situations could come to us and, depending on what the prosecutor did, he would find himself alienating one group of countries or another and making cooperation even more difficult.
And what we saw – and obviously, I was involved in the Sierra Leone court where it was eventually possible to get Charles Taylor to trial; we experienced with Slobodan Milosevic – when people commit mass atrocities, it’s eventually possible to build up a level of international pressure and also domestic pressure. People are ashamed of having a leader that’s committing atrocities. Eventually, they’re pushed aside and they’re brought to justice. But someone who’s defending their nation’s borders, if the ICC were to proceed with cases like this, it would end up with indictments that it would be impossible to serve and to affect. So I think a lot of people see that, at this stage, this court doesn’t need it.
Additionally, we’re concerned about the fact that there are sometimes situations where actions are needed to protect people from genocide and war crimes and crimes against humanity, and want to be sure that when nations join together to do that they don’t find themselves being prosecuted for those acts.
So a number of issues that were – I raised yesterday in my intervention. Harold will be speaking on Friday. We’re receiving a very, let’s say, positive reaction from a great many people. And some of those that have – without reflecting on this very long – have been coming up to us and saying these are very good questions; these need to be resolved. And there’s no rush for this conference to go ahead and do this. There will be other positive news coming out of the conference. A great session today on resolving peace and justice, on what needs to be done with victims in affected communities; tomorrow, on what can be done with aid and assistance, the national justice systems, and for the cooperation the court needs to get some more people arrested who’ve been accused of atrocity crimes. And a high-level declaration has gone through, calling for a variety of action, so this conference doesn’t need to finalize aggression. And I think everyone is now saying it’s not critical that it be done at any cost. It’s important to study this matter further.
So that’s the kind of reaction we’re getting. On the other hand, the decision has yet to be made. We don’t have a vote. Others are talking about it and talking with us and we’ll be there through the duration.
MR. DUGUID: Thank you, Ambassador. Operator, I believe we have time for one final question.
OPERATOR: Yeah, our next question comes from Andrei Sitov. Your line is open. State your affiliation, please.
QUESTION: Thank you. My name is Andrei Sitov. I’m with the Russian news agency, ITAR-TASS in Washington, D.C. And thank you, gentlemen, for doing this. I apologize for joining the call a little late. If this already has been raised, the issue that I want you to talk about, I apologize, but please answer it anyway.
Two questions: There was this instance where a journalist, a reporter from Reuters, was killed by American forces in Iraq and – my question is do I understand you correctly that in this situation, the aggrieved party needs to file claims with American courts? And what if they do not believe in the impartiality of the American court in a situation like this, which probably is understandable? What other recourse do they have?
And secondly, I don’t know if it’s been raised or not, but we have a situation now where two countries, Turkey and Israel, are disputing the same set of circumstances. Again, what is the legal mechanism here, if it exists at this point, that should be able to resolve this situation? Thank you, gentlemen.
MR. KOH: Harold Koh. Without addressing the specifics of those two cases, I think the delicate fact that you raised highlights two points. The first is if there is an accountability process available in domestic law, the principle of the court of complementarity, as it’s called, suggests that you should seek relief in a domestic court, only bringing crimes of the gravest international concern to the international criminal court.
The second part is that there are uses of force on a regular basis, some lawful, some unlawful, and the real question is in highly-charged political situations. When is it helpful to the situation, and to restoring peace and security, to have that matter prosecuted before an international criminal tribunal? Take the example of the recent sinking of the South Korean ship, the Cheonan. I think most observers believe that to be a lawless act. But most would also agree that in this very volatile political environment, the introduction of a criminal prosecution and an independent actor in that dialogue would not settle the situation down; it could well inflame it.
MR. DUGUID: And Andrei, Gordon here. (Inaudible) will be addressing the flotilla and Israel and Gaza later on in today’s briefing.
QUESTION: Mm-hmm.
MR. DUGUID: And I think I have to thank everyone for their participation at this point. Thank you, Ambassador Rapp and Legal Advisor Koh. Colleagues in the media, thank you for dialing in. That is all the time we have. We were on the record, just to repeat, and I hope we will see you all later in the daily press briefing.
With that, we shall sign off.
OPERATOR: At this time, that will conclude today’s conference. You may disconnect. Thank you for your attendance.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
ICC prosecutor rejects Otunnu war case
PRESIDENTIAL aspirant Olara Otunnu yesterday failed to convince the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Luis Moreno-Ocampo, that the UPDF and President Yoweri Museveni are partly responsible for war crimes in northern Uganda.
Ocampo instead challenged Otunnu to produce concrete evidence, and not engage in “political debate”.
The two men had earlier met at the Speke Resort Munyonyo near Kampala, the venue of the ongoing ICC review conference, which started earlier this week.
After the meeting, Otunnu called a press conference and said he had asked the ICC to take action and investigate Museveni over crimes committed during the LRA decades-long war in northern Uganda.
“I had a meeting with Moreno Ocampo on his request and I asked him to investigate Mr. Yoweri Kaguta Museveni over crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide and aggression,” Otunnu told journalists.
He said he was disappointed that the ICC had not investigated Museveni, and that despite his protestation, the State Parties had instead selected Museveni to host the review conference.
“It is a travesty and a mockery of the ICC, that Museveni, who has the longest record of impunity, should be the host of the review. I fear that the ICC risks losing its way if it agrees to be used,” he said.
He said Museveni should be investigated for his role in UPDF operations in the DR Congo in 1998, the deaths in the Kampala riots last September and the creation of IDP camps in northern Uganda over the last two decades.
“I have provided all this information and he (Ocampo) has requested for more. I shall be providing more in regard to the atrocities against the people of northern Uganda and Congo,” he said.
Otunnu’s comments prompted Ocampo to call his own press conference at which he said his investigations had found the “LRA responsible for most atrocities”.
“We selected the gravest cases in northern Uganda and it’s a fact that thousands of these were committed by the LRA. It is clear Joseph Kony committed most of the crimes in northern Uganda.”
He described Otunnu’s remarks as “political debate”. “As the prosecutor of the ICC, my role is to ensure the control of massive crimes with tangible evidence,” Ocampo added.
“If he (Otunnu) has information he wants to submit, let him give it to me but I cannot follow political statements. I follow crimes committed after July 2002, which include crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide,” he said.
Ocampo, however, promised to assess Otunnu’s information, provided the alleged crimes were committed after July 2002 when the court was founded under the Rome Statute.
“If we see need to open new investigations we shall, but I will not be bothered with political debates. We are open to more information,” he said.
Ocampo further said he had received complaints against the UPDF, which he is analysing.
However, most of the issues pre-date 2002, meaning the court cannot handle them. In such a case, Ocampo advised, Otunnu should go to the High Court of Uganda.
He also advised Ugandans to only involve the ICC in cases which they feel the national legal system is inadequate to handle.
Otunnu’s remarks also prompted an impromptu press briefing by the deputy Attorney General, Freddie Ruhindi, who advised Otunnu to report the matter to the Police instead of the press if he had a strong case.
Otunnu is also wanted by the Police for alleging that Museveni funded Kony’s LRA rebels and masterminded the northern Uganda war for over 20 years.
The ICC has already issued arrest warrants for the top LRA commanders including their leader Joseph Kony, Dominc Ongwen, Vincent Otti (now dead) and Okot Odhiambo.
The effort, however, has failed since Kony and his rebels fled to the vast Congo jungles and lately to the Central African Republic, leaving a trail of massacres and devastation.
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Lawrence Mukasawrote:
Ocampo instead challenged Otunnu to produce concrete evidence, and not engage in “political debate”.
The two men had earlier met at the Speke Resort Munyonyo near Kampala, the venue of the ongoing ICC review conference, which started earlier this week.
After the meeting, Otunnu called a press conference and said he had asked the ICC to take action and investigate Museveni over crimes committed during the LRA decades-long war in northern Uganda.
“I had a meeting with Moreno Ocampo on his request and I asked him to investigate Mr. Yoweri Kaguta Museveni over crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide and aggression,” Otunnu told journalists.
He said he was disappointed that the ICC had not investigated Museveni, and that despite his protestation, the State Parties had instead selected Museveni to host the review conference.
“It is a travesty and a mockery of the ICC, that Museveni, who has the longest record of impunity, should be the host of the review. I fear that the ICC risks losing its way if it agrees to be used,” he said.
He said Museveni should be investigated for his role in UPDF operations in the DR Congo in 1998, the deaths in the Kampala riots last September and the creation of IDP camps in northern Uganda over the last two decades.
“I have provided all this information and he (Ocampo) has requested for more. I shall be providing more in regard to the atrocities against the people of northern Uganda and Congo,” he said.
Otunnu’s comments prompted Ocampo to call his own press conference at which he said his investigations had found the “LRA responsible for most atrocities”.
“We selected the gravest cases in northern Uganda and it’s a fact that thousands of these were committed by the LRA. It is clear Joseph Kony committed most of the crimes in northern Uganda.”
He described Otunnu’s remarks as “political debate”. “As the prosecutor of the ICC, my role is to ensure the control of massive crimes with tangible evidence,” Ocampo added.
“If he (Otunnu) has information he wants to submit, let him give it to me but I cannot follow political statements. I follow crimes committed after July 2002, which include crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide,” he said.
Ocampo, however, promised to assess Otunnu’s information, provided the alleged crimes were committed after July 2002 when the court was founded under the Rome Statute.
“If we see need to open new investigations we shall, but I will not be bothered with political debates. We are open to more information,” he said.
Ocampo further said he had received complaints against the UPDF, which he is analysing.
However, most of the issues pre-date 2002, meaning the court cannot handle them. In such a case, Ocampo advised, Otunnu should go to the High Court of Uganda.
He also advised Ugandans to only involve the ICC in cases which they feel the national legal system is inadequate to handle.
Otunnu’s remarks also prompted an impromptu press briefing by the deputy Attorney General, Freddie Ruhindi, who advised Otunnu to report the matter to the Police instead of the press if he had a strong case.
Otunnu is also wanted by the Police for alleging that Museveni funded Kony’s LRA rebels and masterminded the northern Uganda war for over 20 years.
The ICC has already issued arrest warrants for the top LRA commanders including their leader Joseph Kony, Dominc Ongwen, Vincent Otti (now dead) and Okot Odhiambo.
The effort, however, has failed since Kony and his rebels fled to the vast Congo jungles and lately to the Central African Republic, leaving a trail of massacres and devastation.
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Lawrence Mukasa
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
