The great debate human rights NGOs.

For the next several months, New African will open up its pages to a debate between our readers on the one hand and international human rights NGOs such as the UK-based Amnesty International, the US-based Human Rights Watch and the French-based International Federation for Human Rights on the other hand, on why the NGOs often appear to pick on African personalities and causes that are disliked by Western governments. In other words, why don't we see the NGOs campaigning for the prosecution of Africans seen as darlings of the West even if they commit the same human rights violations as the Africans disliked by the West? Here, Osei Boateng presents our opening statement. We will publish the responses we receive from the NGOs and readers in subsequent issues. We hope to have an invigorating debate.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

James Kitongo of Nairobi, Kenya, makes a telling point on our Letters Pages (see p. 6 of this issue, "Just the tip of a huge iceberg"): "In everything we Africans do these days, if you have a powerful Western mentor, you can get away with anything. If not, and God help you if you preach African self-reliance, self-confidence or independence, you are blacklisted forever ... Why are some [of our] leaders selected for censure by the West while others are treated like demigods?"

Nothing could have summed it up better. Let's look at the facts. Since March this year, when the International Criminal Court (ICC) announced its indictment against the Sudanese president, Omar al-Bashir, the London-based Amnesty International, the New York-based Human Rights Watch (HRW), and the Paris-based International Federation for Human Rights (IFHR) have been among the organisations vigorously campaigning for the arrest and prosecution of the Sudanese president. On 26 March, Amnesty issued a statement "calling on all members of the international community to ensure full accountability for crimes under international law committed in Sudan and wherever else they occur". The statement criticised the African Union and the Arab League for "shielding" President Bashir from international justice. "By declaring that President Bashir has immunity from the arrest warrant for war crimes and crimes against humanity, the [two organisations have] undermined international law which provides no such immunity for anyone, even a serving head of state, for such grave crimes," Amnesty added for good measure.

For its part, the International Federation for Human Rights (IFHR) has been arguing that "Article 27 of the ICC applies to everyone equally, regardless of their official capacity. The capacity as head of state, in particular, cannot exempt a person from criminal responsibility. This principle is based on the idea that there can be no impunity for the most serious crimes." Yet the IFHR insists that the ICC "has currently no jurisdiction to investigate the Israel-Palestine conflict or the war in Iraq since Israel and the United States have not ratified the ICC statute."

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

"It is true," the IFHR goes on, "that Sudan is [also] not a state party [of the ICC] either, but the Court has jurisdiction there through Security Council Resolution 1593, adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, on the basis that this conflict constitutes a threat to international peace and security".

One would be hard pressed to find such twisted argumentation anywhere else. Israel and the US cannot be investigated by the ICC even if they commit the same crimes as listed in Bashir's indictment because they are not members of the ICC or have not ratified the ICC statute. Sudan too is not a member, and yet the IFHR accepts that the ICC "has jurisdiction over Sudan through Security Council Resolution 1593". But who controls the Security Council? Not its five permanent, veto-wielding members--America, Britain, France, Russia and China--who use their political clout (especially the US, UK and France) to get their way at the Council?

And why wouldn't the Security Council pass an Article VII resolution on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or the war in Iraq so the ICC could investigate the leaders of Israel and the US over "the most serious crimes" committed in Palestine and Iraq? As the IFHR has pointed out, President Bashir has been indicted because he is the "commander in chief" of the Sudanese Armed Forces and is responsible for the crimes his armed forces have committed in Darfur. "As president and commander in chief," says the IFHR, "Bashir is accused of having ordered, planned and encouraged the commission of the most heinous crimes."

In the same vein, George W. Bush was the commander in chief of the US Armed Forces during the war in Iraq, and despite the "most heinous crimes" committed there by the Americans, none of the international human rights NGOs is campaigning for the arrest and prosecution of George W. Bush. If, according to Amnesty, "the international community [must] ensure full accountability for crimes under international law committed in Sudan and wherever else they occur", and if indeed it is true that "international law [does not] provide immunity for anyone, even a serving head of state, for such grave crimes", why can't the Security Council pass a resolution making it possible for the ICC to investigate the leaders of America and Israel? And why are the human rights NGOs not campaigning for this when as the IFHR says: "Article 27 of the ICC applies to everyone equally, regardless of their official capacity"?

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Case study

Before we go further, and for the avoidance of doubt, let's make it clear here that we at New African do not support wrongdoing or the violation of human rights by anybody--African, Euro-American, a serving head of state, a retired head of state, or commoner. If such people can be proven to have committed crimes against humanity, they should be made to face the music under national and international law. It is as simple as that. But what we are arguing for is that principle is principle and must be applied equally without favour.

In 2003, Human Rights Watch (HRW) led a coalition of human rights groups (300 of them based in Africa) to campaign for the arrest and prosecution of the former Liberian president, Charles Taylor. Calling themselves the "Campaign Against Impunity", the HRW-led coalition pressed on regardless of the fact that Taylor had been given an immunity deal by the UN, AU, Ecowas and the governments of the UK and the US. In the end, Nigeria, which had given Taylor sanctuary as per the immunity deal, buckled under American pressure and handed Taylor over to the UN-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone where he is still standing trial at The Hague in The Netherlands.

If, as Amnesty International says, "international law [does not] provide immunity for anyone", then it follows that if Charles Taylor could be arrested and tried for the offences in the indictment issued against him by the Special Court, then anybody who commits the same offences in Africa and anywhere else in the world should equally be arrested and prosecuted under the same international law. If not, the human rights NGOs should mount vigorous campaigns for the arrest and prosecution of such people. But, sadly, this has rarely been the case. The human rights groups appear to choose and pick their prey according to how liked or disliked they are by the West. Here is an egregious example:

From 1996 to 2003, Rwanda and Uganda were used by the US--then under President Bill Clinton and supported by Tony Blair's Great Britain as usual--to fight a proxy war in DRCongo on behalf of American and Western interests. That war, according to estimates published by some American human rights groups, has claimed directly and indirectly the lives of five million Congolese people! Five million dear Africans dead!

Books and other investigations have been written or done by Western journalists, writers, groups, etc, to expose the American hand behind the two invasions of DRCongo by Rwanda and Uganda in 1996 and 1998-2003. Two UN expert panel reports have also documented the suffering of Congo at the hands of Rwanda, Uganda, and the Western companies that have been accessories to the horrendous deaths in that country.

But has anybody heard any human rights group--whether based in the West or Africa--campaigning vigorously for the arrest and prosecution of the leaders of Rwanda and Uganda and their powerful supporters in America and Britain, and the CEOs of the Western companies who helped them in the commission of the "heinous crimes" in Congo?

As our editor, Baffour Ankomah, asked in his column (Baffour's Beefs, May 2006): "If people are to be tried for supporting rebel groups in other people's countries, are Presidents Bill Clinton. George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair whose governments have supported, funded, and armed rebel invasions in Liberia (1999-2003) and DRCongo (1986-2003) going to be tried?... Somehow, the message being put about is that the African ceases to be a 'barbarian' when his atrocities are instigated and supported (or if he himself is approved) by Euro-America. Is this why the leadership in Rwanda and Uganda that presided over the two Congo invasions or encouraged the formation of splinter rebel groups in Congo to do their dirty work have not been investigated?"

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Courtenay Griffiths, Charles Taylor's lead lawyer, put it so well in a recent press statement: "The 'international community'--the code for Western interests--is promoting the idea that there can be no impunity for those who commit war crimes and crimes against humanity. It is somewhat curious that no one is calling with equal ferocity for either former President George W. Bush or former Prime Minister Tony Blair to stand trial for the atrocities instigated by them in Iraq ... The cruel reality is that impunity only becomes an issue if the perpetrator is a black African who does not enjoy the backing of the West, hence a Jonas Savimbi is safe."

The most disturbing aspect of it all is that the human rights NGOs who act as the conscience of the world appear not to see this abuse of international law. As James Kitongo points out in his aforementioned letter: "Charles Taylor did not have friends in the West, pure and simple; so he is being punished!"

New African has since learned that when Taylor turned down an American offer in 2002 to exploit Liberia's offshore oil reserves, a top executive of the American oil company that wanted the contract on the Liberian oil phoned Taylor and told him: "Mr President, having turned down our latest offer, I can no longer protect you. You are on your own now." If Taylor had allowed the Americans to exploit the oil, he would still be in power today irrespective of whatever crimes he might have committed in Sierra Leone or Liberia.

In effect, it is not about the protection of human rights as such, but more to do with settling political and economic scores by the powerful countries using international law as a smokescreen. Sadly, the human rights NGOs appear to lend themselves to this chicanery.

We shall stop here and await the responses of the human rights groups, and our readers. With all the hoo-hah over Bashir's indictment and Charles Taylor about to open his defence in The Hague, this is an opportune moment to consider this debate. It is time for all Africans to join in the effort to shed light on the misuse of international law.