It’s Only a War Crime if You are Black

[McCamy Taylor]

scape•goat
1 : a goat upon whose head are symbolically placed the sins of the people after which he is sent into the wilderness in the biblical ceremony for Yom Kippur
2 a : one that bears the blame for others b : one that is the object of irrational hostility

I. Heart of Darkness in the 21st Century

Before I proceed with this indictment of the International Criminal Court, here is some necessary background. If you did not read my DU Journal Dear Mr. President: Only YOU Can Stop the World’s Longest, Bloodiest War...And It's NOT Iraq here is your chance.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4904803

Important point to take away---the conflict in the Congo is a proxy war being waged by various industrialized nations including the U.S. and France. The spoils are the abundant natural resources of the Congo. Western nations greedy for gold, diamonds, cobalt, copper and the rest could invest in the infrastructure of these African countries in exchange for access to their mineral riches. But hey, it is so much more sporting to 1)demand that African countries cut wages and jobs, 2) ship in lots of arms for the unemployed and underemployed, 3)stir up regional hostilities and then 4) sit back and reap the rewards as the armed citizens attack their neighbors in a never ending war for survival funded by “blood diamonds” and other natural treasures.

When the conflict gets too ugly, the same western powers that control the war look for a convenient scapegoat. They use the power of the UN and the International Criminal Court to indict the war lords they helped create. There is a method to this madness. By pointing their fingers at a handful of (Black) war criminals, they tell the world The Congo is so chaotic. We must intervene for the sake of the children creating a justification for their continued colonial exploitation of the region.

II. How to Spot a War Criminal

Since its inception in 2002, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has indicted some war criminal and given others a free pass. How do they decide whom to indict?

Indicted!

Joseph Kony indicted for “21 counts of war crimes which include murder, cruel treatment of civilians, intentionally directing an attack against a civilian population.” (Wiki).



Not Indicted…

Mikheil Saak'ashvili president of Georgia, whose government started the 2008 war by attacking its own civilians.

After a visit to Tskhinvali - the capital of South Ossetia - the BBC reported on Tuesday (28 October) evidence including a heavily bombed apartment building that suggests Georgia used indiscriminate force and may have targeted civilians - an action that qualifies as a war crime under international law.

http://euobserver.com/9/27008

The difference? Maybe the ICC can’t prosecute the elected leader of a country for crimes committed by his troops. But wait! What about...?

Indicted!

Omar al-Bashir president of the Sudan.

On 14 July 2008, the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Luis Moreno-Ocampo, alleged that al-Bashir bore individual criminal responsibility for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes committed since 2003 in Darfur.<8> The prosecutor accused al-Bashir of having “masterminded and implemented” a plan to destroy the three main ethnic groups.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_al-Bashir

Not Indicted….

Ehud Olmert prime minister of Israel during the war against Gaza.

A genocide is engulfing the people of Gaza while a silence engulfs its bystanders. "Some 1.4 million people, mostly children, are piled up in one of the most densely populated regions of the world, with no freedom of movement, no place to run and no space to hide," wrote the senior UN relief official, Jan Egeland, and Jan Eliasson, then Swedish foreign minister, in Le Figaro. They described people "living in a cage," cut off by land, sea and air, with no reliable power and little water and tortured by hunger and disease and incessant attacks by Israeli troops and planes.
Egeland and Eliasson wrote this four months ago as an attempt to break the silence in Europe whose obedient alliance with the United States and Israel has sought to reverse the democratic result that brought Hamas to power in last year’s Palestinian elections. The horror in Gaza has since been compounded; a family of 18 has died beneath a 500-pound American/Israeli bomb; unarmed women have been mown down at point-blank range. Dr. David Halpin, one of the few Britons to break what he calls "this medieval siege", reported the killing of 57 children by artillery, rockets and small arms and was shown evidence that civilians are Israel’s true targets, as in Lebanon last summer. A friend in Gaza, Dr. Mona El-Farra, e-mailed: "I see the effects of the relentless sonic booms and artillery on my 13-year-old daughter. At night, she shivers with fear. Then both of us end up crouching on the floor. I try to make her feel safe, but when the bombs sound I flinch and scream..."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=4580

Hmm. Maybe the difference is a matter of degree.

Darfur…



Gaza…



Yes indeed! The difference is clear.

Who else has been prosecuted by the ICC?

Indicted!

Germain Katanga

On 24 February 2003, Katanga allegedly led an attack on the village of Bogoro in which rebels under his command went on an "indiscriminate killing spree",<2> killing at least 200 civilians, imprisoning survivors in a room filled with corpses, and sexually enslaving women and girls.<1> It has also been alleged that Katanga helped lead other crimes, including the massacre of more than 1,200 civilians in an attack at Nyakunde Hospital in September 2002.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germain_Katanga

It is only right to hold military leaders responsible for the crimes committed by those under their command. Armies exist to protect the civilians of their own country, not to kill them. But how does the ICC explain this?

Not indicted…

Burma’s Military Dictators

A human rights report released by Harvard Law School criticized the United Nations for failing to take effective actions against the Burmese regime and urged the Security Council to set up a commission to investigate crimes against humanity and war crimes in Burma.

The report, titled Crimes in Burma, by five of the world’s leading jurists said the UN has not done enough to take action against the Burmese regime for its human right abuses and crimes compare to actions taken in Darfur and Rwanda and called for the UN Security Council to establish a Commission of Inquiry into crimes against humanity and war crimes in Burma.

Snip

“As our research shows, UN documents clearly and authoritatively suggest that the human rights abuses occurring in Burma are not isolated incidents—they are potential crimes against humanity and war crimes. Failure by the UN Security Council to take action and investigate these crimes could mean that violations of international criminal law will go unchecked,” Giannini said.

http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=15711

Here is a photo essay about Burma’s war against its own civilians:

http://www.dictatorwatch.org/phshows/school.html

Some other folks who have not been indicted:

George W. Bush…



….for the 2004 attack on Fallujah which was scheduled after Grand Theft Election 2004 in order to distract the new media from the many election irregularities committed in Ohio. Unlawful weapons including white phosphorus abd depleted uranium were reportedly used against a civilian population. Here is a photo essay:

http://www.thewe.cc/weplanet/news/americas/us/war_crimes_fallujah.html

More here:

The destruction of Falluja inevitably calls to mind the words attributed to a U.S. officer in Vietnam at the time of the Têt offensive: “we had to destroy the village in order to save it.”

http://www.internationalist.org/fallujarape0412.html



III. Heroes and Villains

Don't get me wrong. The crimes which those whom the ICC has indicted are accused of are horrific. But so are the war crimes which have been committed by many people outside Africa. Why is it a crime when an African does it and "self defense" if an Israeli, Burmese, Georgian or American does it?

Could it be that the ICC does not exist to deter war crimes, but rather is a tool being used in the ongoing effort to stigmatize Africans as violent, criminal, savage in order to justify continued colonial exploitation of the continent? Are the people who wield the weapons really more guilty than the ones who put the weapons in their hands and tell them "Go kill for us"? According to the ICC, those who plan the war crimes are just as guilty as those who commit them. Some will argue that businessmen and corporations which fan the flames of war for their own profit are not as culpable as those who wage war for ideological reasons. However, there is a precedent for criminal trials against businessmen who profit from war crimes.



Indicted!

The Directors of IG Farben

The charges consequently centered on preparing to wage an aggressive war, but also on slave labor and plundering.

Imagine! Once upon a time plundering was seen as something bad, something criminal. But not anymore. Now, plundering another country is downright patriotic!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IG_Farben_Trial

This is all money," says a Western mining executive, his hand sweeping over a geological map toward the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). He is explaining why, in 1997, he and planeloads of other businessmen were flocking to the impoverished country and vying for the attention of then-rebel leader Laurent Kabila. The executive could just as accurately have said,
"This is all war."

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Africa/Business_War_Congo.html

Joseph Kabila, whom the west adored, had committed his own share of war crimes.

In this second war, Kabila's forces, like those of Rwanda, Uganda, and the Congolese rebels allied with them, have all engaged in indiscriminate attacks on civilians, extrajudicial executions, rape, and destruction of property, with the result of massive displacement of population.

During his nearly four years in power, Kabila regularly and ruthlessly violated the human rights of the Congolese people, killing, torturing, imprisoning, and causing the "disappearance" of any who he thought threatened him or his regime. Among those who suffered most were political opponents, leaders of civil society, human rights activists, and journalists.

However, he is one of the "good guys" in the conflict, because...

Kabila handed out rights to exploit the vast mineral riches of the country to his commercial and military cronies while the economy as a whole disintegrated and ordinary people lacked food, medicine, and other basic needs of life, particularly in Kinshasa and other urban areas.

http://www.afrol.com/html/Countries/DRC/backgr_kabila_hrights.htm

That made him a real hero in the eyes of the west.

IV. Before We Go Patting Ourselves on the Back...

For taking a stand for the slaughtered innocents in Africa, maybe we should ask ourselves where the guns are coming from and how much profit our country makes from all that spilled blood.

[alfredo]

1. We know the guns for the drug wars in Mexico come from us.

[bluestateguy]

2. Well there are the Serb thugs

I don't recall them being black.

[ohiodemocratic]

3. The Nazis too. Some of rhem were convicted of war crimes

In the Nuremberg trials.

[BeFree]

5. Actually...

... its only a war crime if you lose the war or you are not on the big money side.

What? Yall thought the UN was really just a bunch of commie pinko peaceniks?
I used to think so, but its clear now that the UN exists to keep big money
safe from the people. Like they do in Haiti.

[DissedByBush]

4. We could

"invest in the infrastructure of these African countries in exchange for access to their mineral riches"

But then we'd be accused of exploiting them.