The international courts discussion grows


Posted by Helena Cobban
March 21, 2006 8:27 PM EST | Link
Filed in Appearances , War crimes etc , Writing and publishing

Well, my article in Foreign Policy on international war-crimes courts has been getting a gratifying amount of attention. My intention in publishing it was, after all, to open up the discussion on this topic to include the previously under-heard point of view that questions or even criticises the general social utility of such courts...

This Thursday, I'm doing a call-in show on the topic on the San Francisco-based radio station KALW-FM. It's an NPR affiliate there. It runs from 1-2 p.m. Eastern Time, so I guess that's 10-11 a.m. Pacific Time.

Tune on in, Bay Area readers. And call in with all your questions.

How many times can I mention JWN in one hour, I wonder?

Also, FP just sent me a bunch of letters that they'll be running in response to my article in, I think, their next issue. Seven letters including only one that's supportive of my argument. Of the six critics, five are law professors. Vested interests, anyone? Okay, I know this is not totally a valid case for me to make-- I realise that these people are also voicing some substantive criticisms of my argument that need to be addressed... And indeed, will be, since FP are giving me a princely 400 words to come back at 'em...

Good. Maybe I could stir things up a bit by mentioning Ramesh Thakur's term "judicial colonialism" in there, somewhere?

So I see that one of these letters is from David Scheffer, now a law prof, previously Pres. Clinton's "Special Ambassador for War Crimes Affairs". Actually, it was hearing David talk about the criminal prosecutions program in post-genocide Rwanda that got me started on that whole entire research project and now soon-to-be book on Transitional Justice.

I remember it as though it were yesterday. It was September 2000, at a conference the Hilton Humanitarian Foundation was holding in Geneva, where David and I were both speakers. I heard him say something like, "Well, the Rwandan government's plan to prosecute all the perpetrators of the genocide is going ahead very well indeed. We're most pleased with their diligence. However, there is a bit of a backlog there, with currently around 135,000 suspects in jail and awaiting trial... And so far, unfortunately, the government has very little capacity to try them, so some of them have been there for more than five years already without having the chance to get into a courtroom... "

And I thought, Oh my G-d, that's huge! Especially given that the whole population of the country was then somewhere under 8 million. So I came away from the conference determined to start looking into it... and... and...

So when do I get to write the mega-long piece about Palestinian politics that I've promised to Deb Chasman at Boston review, you may ask?

Erm... maybe on the 6-hour train-ride going up to NYC this Sunday? Alternatively, I could reframe the piece from being mega-long to being short, sharp, and elegantly composed? Nah. That sounds even harder... Don't worry, I'll think of something... (Maybe blogging less could be an option?)



Comments
Comment from... Henry James, at March 21, 2006 09:38 PM:

Thanks a lot for the great article! IMO, "Judicial colonialism" is an excelelnt term.

Comment from... Dominic, at March 22, 2006 12:24 AM:

I agree! "Judicial Colonialism, Out, Out, Out!"

I'm sure you are also right that short writing is more difficult than long. Brevity is the soul of wit but brevity is not a matter of "soul", only of hard work.

Please don't give up blogging. I would be surprised if your blog does not turn in a net surplus of ideas to feed into your other work. How can you move on without dialogue? Anyway, we need you now. You can't just abandon us.

Comment from... Salah, at March 22, 2006 06:25 AM:

Helena, wish you all the best.

Referring to David Scheffer, while I Google about his involvement with Iraq I found very interesting arguments he was made at a time of invasion of Kuwait.
It so amazing the similarity what Scheffer said and argued with what US did and doing in Iraq comparing to what Saddam did to Kuwaitis and state of Kuwait.

The question I wish to put to Scheffer what’s he will say with exactly same acts done by occupying force” power" or the US trained Iraqi forces for Iraqis, and State of Iraq???

David Scheffer is US Ambassador for War Crimes.
DAVID SCHEFFER: Photographic evidence confirms torture by amputation or injury to various body parts including eyes, ears, tongues, noses, lips and genitals.
Electric shocks were applied to every sensitive body part. Electric drills were used to penetrate chests, legs, or arms of victims. Some victims were killed in acid baths. Women were sexually assaulted. Members of families were sometimes forced to watch as other family members were dragged from their homes and shot dead by Iraqi forces.
These new documents declassified by the US State Department point to not only human abuse but atrocities against the whole State of Kuwait. Ambassador Scheffer claims that Saddam Hussein was out to totally destroy the infrastructure of Kuwait.
DAVID SCHEFFER: Saddam Hussein's forces were forced to flee Kuwait in February 1991. He ordered his forces to destroy or release into the Gulf what turned out to be between 7 and 9 million barrels of oil. 590 oil well heads were damaged or destroyed. 508 were set on fire and 82 were damaged so that oil and gas flowed freely from them.
If ever there was a case of a gross violation of military necessity and wanton destruction, the oil fields of Kuwait was such a case.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/stories/s158952.htm

Comment from... Mike Furir 624, at March 27, 2006 03:26 PM:

Mike Furir Mike 547

Comment from... Mike Furir 799, at March 27, 2006 03:27 PM:

Mike Furir Mike 757

Recent Posts on JWN
• My IPS piece on dimming peace prospects (1)
• Rahm Emanuel's disturbing view of US role (26)
• Obama's peacemaking pledge-- to the world (35)
• Obama: Peace in US interest (5)
• Discussing Palestine, Israel, Iraq on Bloggingheads (0)
• Long knives, Washington, Afghanistan, part 2 (7)
• Long knives out in Washington over Afghanistan (3)
• Amal Saad-Ghorayeb responds (10)
• NATO and Lebanon (16)
• IPS piece on Obama-Netanyahu tussle over priorities (0)
• Gaza police and noncombatant immunity (46)
• Gaza, the Obama administration, and the present (4)
• Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, "benchmarks" (2)
• Barak: Iran not existential threat (0)
• Garlasco, suspended with full pay (15)
• Me, speaking Sept 24 at Middle East Institute (3)
• Goldstone Commission reports on Gaza-war war-crimes (23)
• Another blunt No from Netanyahu (30)
• Ramadan t.v. offerings, 2009 (2)
• I-P: Borders first-- and fast? (4)
• A testimony the world needs to hear (2)
• Garlasco, part 3 (32)
• Malley on refugees, settlers, etc (7)
• In 2009, as 2001: US needs Iran, Russia (3)
• IPS piece on the rights war over Gaza (3)
• Garlasco, part 2 (20)
• Continuing bad news for US/NATO in Afghanistan (4)
• Marc Garlasco's little "hobby" (71)
• Trashing one-staters with Hussein Ibish (12)
• 500 new settlement homes in Jerusalem... (12)
• When election results are disputed: Afghanistan, etc (6)
• B'tselem's figures on Gaza assault toll (8)
• American power has limits? Who knew? (13)
• Israel's assault on Gaza: The final toll (1)
• Hamas-related negotiations moving forward? (1)
• Sweden, and the Israel-linked organs story (18)
• Qtube-- what a resource! (2)
• Cook and Elam on Israel's organ-removal problems (48)
• "The White House regrets... " (48)
• Lessons from the Soviet experience in Afghanistan (9)
• IPS analysis of Iraq and related regional tensions (1)
• Visser goes 2.0 (8)
• More on Norway's targeted divestment (14)
• Pat Lang on the dangerous, continued rise of 'COIN'-mania (8)
• Bravo, Norway! (6)
• An exiled Palestinian visits "home" (20)
• Israel releases nine of 32 Hamas legislators (2)
• Why Blair wants Dahlan to retake Gaza? (0)
• Afghanistan debate: The missing international ingredient (9)
• State-building: Palestine (3)