The Citizen (Dar es Salaam)
Chris Dolan
19 August 2008
opinion
On its own, the International Criminal Court (ICC) can never bring justice to war affected countries. If such justice is to be done and seen to be done, it requires a far broader effort. The conditions for sustainable peace do not just happen, they are created.
My starting point is a book written more than twenty years ago. This seminal work led to the development of a whole range of critiques of humanitarian assistance to refugees and the establishment of the whole field of Refugee Studies (which subsequently broadened to become known as Forced Migration Studies), and the beginnings of a capacity to hold one of the most important UN agencies, United Nations High Commissioner of Refuges (UNHCR), to account when it was failing to serve the needs and interests of those it is mandated to protect.
The book argues that the way in which international organisations delivered assistance to refugees in camps actually disempowered refugees, making it almost impossible for them to draw on the resources they still had and to create their own solutions to their problems. Humanitarian aid was thus undermining the independence of the supposed beneficiaries.
That book was called 'Imposing Aid' and was authored by Dr Barbara Harrell-Bond. The disempowered refugees she wrote about were Ugandan refugees in southern Sudan. The Refugee Law Project's experience of watching the relatively newly established International Criminal Court over the last few years suggest that in addition to imposed aid, what the 21st century is also bringing is imposed justice - and, once again, Ugandans have been at the receiving end.
When the ICC is looked at overall, a number of problems stand out; one is the way that by focusing all its attention on Uganda, Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic and Sudan (and continuing to ignore the numerous other situations which are crying out for justice - Burma, Sri Lanka and Iraq spring to mind), it perpetuates the idea that the world can be divided into Africa and the rest. In short, the ICC polarises the world.
The way in which many proponents of the ICC seek to argue that the practice of international justice by the ICC is totally separate from the reality of international relations and global power inequalities is paradoxical.
Only lawyers can really believe that law and politics are two discrete domains: the average person in the street is quick enough to make the connection between the two; during a talk show on KFM which looked at whether the ICC was a stumbling block or an opportunity to end impunity, the very first caller asked the question; "if they want to end impunity, why aren't they indicting George Bush instead of focusing only on Africans? Clearly for the ordinary citizen (who after all is more likely to be the victim of the kinds of violations international justice claims to address), the practice of international justice to date has already been tainted with the suspicion that there is something racist lurking within it.
The ICC in Uganda has created a false polarization between justice and peace. But such accusations rest on very shaky foundations. As students of conflict and peace know, a distinction is drawn between negative and positive peace.
Negative peace is said to be where there is no direct physical violence, but where the structures in place continue to oppress and exploit people such that, even if they are not victims of physical violence, their lives are less than what they should be due to what is called structural violence. Positive peace, on the other hand, is when, in addition to ensuring people's physical security, structural issues, or the underlying causes of war, are also addressed. The only question is when you should do it.
As the RLP has repeatedly said, it is a matter of getting the sequencing right. For most people in northern Uganda, desperate to get a clear and definitive signal that it is safe to return home, the ideal sequencing would involving ensuring that the guns are silent for good before pursuing the prosecution of criminals responsible for crimes against (their) humanity, war crimes and the like.
The failure to understand the intimate connection between the pursuit of positive peace and the pursuit of justice is part of the ICC's bigger failure to fully clarify its objectives.
Is it seeking justice for victims? To date most of its attention has been on pursuing the perpetrators, with only some minor gestures towards addressing the concerns of victims. Is it trying to reduce impunity by sending signals to other war criminals who are still out there doing what they do? And if so, is the primary focus on reducing impunity nationally or internationally? For many people in Uganda, the ICC's failure to investigate the UPDF is actually promoting a culture of impunity inside the country.
And what about bringing some peace - and again, if bringing peace is the objective, are we talking peace at national level or international level? Opinions are divided on whether or not the threat of arrest is what brought the LRA to the negotiating table. Personally I doubt it, just as I doubt whether the threat of arrest is the real reason for the LRA's withdrawal from the talks. And, looked at internationally, how can polarising the world into Africa vs. the rest be a contribution to world peace?
Turning now to what this all means for us in this workshop: Just as imposed aid does not in the long term help its beneficiaries, so imposed justice is not going to help bring about sustainable peace in Uganda. For that to happen requires the development of a far more comprehensive set of interventions, all of which can fall under the umbrella heading of transitional justice and the concept of national reconciliation.
This is not something which can be left to the negotiating team in Juba (although I think they have actually done a commendable job as reflected in much of the Juba accords). Nor can it be left with any one ministry or with civil society organisations, or with academics alone.
Be the first to Write a Comment!
Copyright © 2008 The Citizen. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
