The Best Court for Justice for Darfur (2 Letters)
To the Editor:
Re "Court of First Resort," by Samantha Power (Op-Ed, Feb. 10):
Fear that the International Criminal Court will prosecute those responsible for the killing in Darfur extends well beyond the Sudanese militia leader Ms. Power describes. Sudanese government leaders whom I met during a recent visit to Khartoum were also visibly concerned about the court.
The Bush administration, disliking the court, has proposed instead a new, temporary tribunal for Darfur. But the shorter start-up time of the International Criminal Court, an existing institution, would allow it to begin deterring the killers more quickly. And as a permanent court, it has greater staying power that would better allow it to pursue fugitives.
When the International Criminal Court treaty was negotiated, the United States government feared politicized prosecutions by a prosecutor selecting targets on his own. It favored having the Security Council, where the United States exercises a veto, determine the court's docket.
Because Sudan has not ratified the treaty, the court can gain jurisdiction over Darfur only by Security Council referral. That's an approach the Bush administration should support.
Kenneth Roth
Executive Director
Human Rights Watch
New York, Feb. 10, 2005
•
To the Editor:
The refusal of the Bush administration to support and participate in the International Criminal Court in The Hague serves only to cripple efforts to secure justice and relief for the millions suffering and dying at the hands of unrestrained attackers and corrupt brutal regimes.
The unchecked catastrophe occurring now in the Sudanese region of Darfur is only the latest in a series of genocides to which the world community has shamefully borne witness without adequate intervention.
Have we learned nothing after Rwanda and Bosnia? At least in Bosnia, military action by the United States and NATO belatedly brought an end to years of ethnic cleansing and led to the prosecution of war criminals. Are we to allow the Sudanese government to continue to condone the massacre of its own people?
After months of diplomatic bickering, the United States finally acknowledged that genocide was indeed occurring in Darfur, as if labeling war crimes would make them go away.
Dorothy Robbins
Cleveland, Feb. 10, 2005
To the Editor:
Re "Court of First Resort," by Samantha Power (Op-Ed, Feb. 10):
Fear that the International Criminal Court will prosecute those responsible for the killing in Darfur extends well beyond the Sudanese militia leader Ms. Power describes. Sudanese government leaders whom I met during a recent visit to Khartoum were also visibly concerned about the court.
The Bush administration, disliking the court, has proposed instead a new, temporary tribunal for Darfur. But the shorter start-up time of the International Criminal Court, an existing institution, would allow it to begin deterring the killers more quickly. And as a permanent court, it has greater staying power that would better allow it to pursue fugitives.
When the International Criminal Court treaty was negotiated, the United States government feared politicized prosecutions by a prosecutor selecting targets on his own. It favored having the Security Council, where the United States exercises a veto, determine the court's docket.
Because Sudan has not ratified the treaty, the court can gain jurisdiction over Darfur only by Security Council referral. That's an approach the Bush administration should support.
Kenneth Roth
Executive Director
Human Rights Watch
New York, Feb. 10, 2005
•
To the Editor:
The refusal of the Bush administration to support and participate in the International Criminal Court in The Hague serves only to cripple efforts to secure justice and relief for the millions suffering and dying at the hands of unrestrained attackers and corrupt brutal regimes.
The unchecked catastrophe occurring now in the Sudanese region of Darfur is only the latest in a series of genocides to which the world community has shamefully borne witness without adequate intervention.
Have we learned nothing after Rwanda and Bosnia? At least in Bosnia, military action by the United States and NATO belatedly brought an end to years of ethnic cleansing and led to the prosecution of war criminals. Are we to allow the Sudanese government to continue to condone the massacre of its own people?
After months of diplomatic bickering, the United States finally acknowledged that genocide was indeed occurring in Darfur, as if labeling war crimes would make them go away.
Dorothy Robbins
Cleveland, Feb. 10, 2005
posted by Aki at
1:02 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home