The
Sunday Times International
- Comment
|
||||
60th
anniversary of the Internatioal Court of Justice "The Court has never been more in demand. It has also never been more productive and efficient," Mr. Annan said at a celebration marking the 60th anniversary of the court in The Hague. But in reality, hardly any major international dispute has been referred to the World Court for settlement. If the World Court is what it ought to be, then this world would be free of conflict and countries would be behaving like civilized members of the global system. The Palestinian crisis and the Kashmiri dispute — two world problems that have eluded a peaceful settlement for 60 years-would have been solved and hundreds of thousands of lives saved, if the parties to the conflict had gone to the World Court at the first signs of the problem surfacing. As the UN officials blow 60 candles on the ICJ cake with Mr. Annan's icing on it, peace-loving people could only wish for the wider acceptance of the World Court's jurisdiction. Since its inception in 1946, only 67 of the 191 U.N. member states have accepted the court's compulsory jurisdiction. Of the five permanent members of the UN Security Counicl, only one, Britain, is on this list. Judging
by the court's chequered history, one could conclude that the international
system is based on power not on justice. A cursory glance at the
courts' records show that the United States has been involved in
more than 20 disputes and the United Kingdom in 16. The fact that
these two countries top the list of cases could make one to conclude,
albeit erroneously, that states with military and economic clout
have a tendency to stretch their compliance with the international
law to its extreme limit or beyond it. But
the Reagan administration, which was found guilty of mining the
Nicaraguan harbours, years after the ICJ ruling agreed in a joint
statement with the Soviet Union to abide by and respect the rulings
of the World Court. Sri Lanka is one such country which has given the United States assurance that American soldiers will never be brought before the ICC even if they commit genocide in Sri Lanka. It is true that in spite of the shameful sagas surrounding the Guantanamo Bay, the Abu Ghraib prison and the Bagran airbase in Afghanistan, the US democratic system and the constitutional guarantees do not allow the Commander-in-Chief to go to Hitlerite levels. But systems and constitutions are subject to change and therefore checks are necessary not only at domestic levels but also at international levels to keep the ambitions of big powers within the bounds of civilized behaviour. The International Criminal Court system is one such check and it is disheartening to note that countries driven by short-term goals such as economic benefits and military aid accede to superpower demands. Coming back to the International Court of Justice, one cannot dismiss its role as insignificant in this power-driven international system. From disputes over land and maritime boundaries to treaty violations and genocide, the court has played a significant role. In the absence of such a court, most of these disputes would have led to armed conflicts. "The fact that member states have, year after year, repeated their desire to see more use of the court in settling disputes between states is strong evidence of the confidence member states have in this world court," said U.N. General Assembly President Jan Eliasson during a speech at the festivities in the Netherlands. That Sri Lanka has not invoked the ICJ jurisdiction to settle its disputes of international nature bears testimony to its commitment to the non-aligned principle of friendship with all and enmity with none and its belief that disputes could be solved through bilateral discussions rather than through litigation and conflict. Sri Lanka’s records show it has in a friendly manner successfully negotiated with India disputes such as the Kacchathivu issue and the problem over stateless persons. There is another reason for Sri Lanka to be happy: It has produced a judge for the 15-member bench - Chris Weeramantry , an internationally respected judge whose views may have sometimes earned him the displeasure of big powers. If the international community is in the habit of referring all and every problem that they cannot solve bilaterally or multi-laterally to the ICJ, the world will be a nicer place today. It is still not too late. For instance, the countries which are clamouring to punish Iran for its nuclear programme, could refer the case to the ICJ for an advisory opinion whether Teheran has violated any of its obligations under international treaties that govern nuclear programmes. But the countries that are gunning for Iran will not do so, because the Islamic republic has not violated the Non-Proliferation Treaty or the statutes of the International Atomic Energy Agency. So when justice is not on their side, it appears that might becomes right. ICJ
at a glance Functions
of the Court Composition It
may not include more than one judge of any nationality. The composition of the Court has also to reflect the main forms of civilization and the principal legal systems of the world. US
allies are behind death squads and ethnic cleansing He is not the first US overlord in Iraq to spot the danger. Shortly before the formal transfer of sovereignty to Iraqis, America's then top official Paul Bremer ordered all militias to disband. Some members could join the new army. Others would have to look for civilian work. His
decree was not enforced and now, two years later, this failure has
come back to haunt Iraq. "More Iraqis are dying from militia
violence than from the terrorists," Khalilzad said recently.
"The militias need to be under control." Khalilzad's
denunciation of the militias was an extraordinary turnaround, given
that the focus of US military activity since the fall of Saddam
Hussein has been the battle against foreign jihadis and a nationalist
Sunni-led insurgency. Suddenly the US faces a greater "enemy
within" — militias manned by the Shia community, once
seen by the US as allies, and run by government ministers. A third militia, the Badr organisation, was also tolerated. It is the armed wing of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a leading Shia political party which supported the invasion and is Washington's main interlocutor in the Shia coalition. US officials paid lip service to the need to disband the militias, but never showed any sense of urgency. As a Pentagon report to Congress put it last year: "The realities of Iraq's political and security landscape work against completing the transition and reintegration of all Iraq's militias in the short term." Iraqi leaders praised the militias, claiming they were subordinate to the defence and interior ministries, and therefore in no way a rogue element. The Badr organisation has even been put in charge of defending the home of the Shias' revered religious leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. The prime minister, Ibrahim Jaafari, described the Badr organisation last summer as a "shield" defending Iraq, while the president, Jalal Talabani, claimed the Badr organisation and the peshmerga were patriots who "are important to fulfilling this sacred task, establishing a democratic, federal and independent Iraq". The flaw in the picture was that while the Kurds and Shias had two militias each, the Sunnis had none. Sunni chiefs could rustle up a few gunmen from extended family ranks, when necessary, as had been done for centuries, but there was nothing on the scale of Badr, the Mahdi, or the peshmerga. Many Sunnis welcomed the anti-occupation insurgents as a kind of surrogate militia. Sunni anger increased with evidence of secret prisons, run by the interior ministry, where hundreds of men and boys, mainly Sunnis, were tortured, and of "death squads" operating against Sunnis. In response, Baghdad's Sunni neighbourhoods have started to form vigilante groups to defend their turf. US officials now view the militias differently. Phasing them out by integrating their members into the official forces of law and order is seen as risky, unless the leadership changes. In February this year the new Pentagon line was that integration could result in security forces that "may be more loyal to their political support organisation than to the central Iraqi government", according to a new study, Iraq's Evolving Insurgency and the Risk of Civil War by Anthony Cordesman, an Iraq expert at Washington's Centre for Strategic and International Studies. Now the US is trying to ensure that political control over the interior and defence ministries is jointly managed by an all-party security council. The encouraging signs are that Iraqi leaders are denouncing sectarian violence. Provocations such as last week's suicide attack on a Shia mosque in Baghdad appear to be the work of "outsiders". No one has claimed responsibility, but they were probably planned by agitators, foreign or Iraqi, who want to split Iraq's fragile society for their own political ends. There is also comfort in the fact that sectarian street murders stem from militias who are controllable rather than from unorganised mobs. Just as generals do, diplomats and journalists tend to refight the last war. Schooled in Bosnia and Kosovo, Washington's officials came to Iraq with the notion that because some Iraqis were Shia and others Sunni, these identities were bound to clash. This simplification was accepted by much of the media, influenced by their own Balkan experiences. It gathered weight when people watched the sectarian behaviour of Iraq's religious leaders, particularly among the Shia. They had led the resistance to Saddam and saw no reason to retreat from politics once he was gone. In fact Iraq has no history of Balkan-style pogroms where neighbour turns against neighbour, burning homes and shops. But it could develop now. The rampaging by Shia militias and the rise of defensive Sunni vigilantes have launched a low-intensity ethnic cleansing. Up to 30,000 people have left their homes in the last few weeks. The crucial question is whether the militias can be rolled back at this late stage. Having allowed them to defy their initial banning orders, as well as Iraq's new constitution, which outlawed them, can the US persuade or force its Iraqi allies to disband them? Confronting the Sunni insurgency means, in crude terms, confronting an enemy. Confronting the biggest militias, Badr and the Kurdish peshmerga, means the US must confront its friends.- The Guardian, UK Thai
water festival washes away political turmoil Bangkok seems to have effortlessly shifted gear from the political protests that forced out Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra into celebratory mood, with tens of thousands of people armed with water pistols taking to the streets for this year's festival. Songkran, which commemorates the Buddhist New Year, is traditionally a time of renewal and involves pouring water over shrines and other people as a sign of cleansing. But recently the festival has become a free-for-all water fight, when total strangers douse each other with water and spread white paste on their faces. For three days in Bangkok, people take to the streets armed with water pistols. Restaurant
owner Somsak Butrdee, 39, said Songkran was a welcome respite from
the political tension that had embroiled the country for months. On
Khao San Road, with music pumping, kids dancing and vendors throwing
cold water at passersby, politics seemed to be far from people's
minds. In addition to the water fights, a beauty pageant, parades and contests are also on the schedule. At Sanam Luang, the site of the largest political protests, the mood was festive but more ceremonial. Families and tourists flocked to the royal grounds as traditional music floated in the air and vendors touted their wares. The glowing Grand Palace was the backdrop for the celebration, which included carnival games, kite-flying and concerts. In the city's Buddhist temples, Songkran is still a solemn event, with people lining up to pour water over statues of Buddha. This year, temples also set out books where people wrote messages of congratulation to King Bhumibol Adulyadej, who celebrates his 60th year on the throne in June. "It looks like good fun," said Andy Muller, 43, a tourist from Dusseldorf, Germany, who had seen protest coverage on TV. "Everyone has their political problems, so it's no big deal." Songkran is one of the biggest and most anticipated celebrations in Thailand -- not the least because it brings a four-day weekend. "Thais have lots of festivals but they don't have a lot of work holidays," said Philip Cornwel-Smith, an expert on Thai pop culture. "It's the most time Thais can get away from work, so they want to make the most of it." "Songkran is an annual festival that we look forward to, and that has nothing to do with the political situation," Manus Ngiamdee, a 49-year-old driver from Bangkok said. Bangkok housewife Chanchanok Arpakaweepoj agreed. "The Bangkok scenes, especially at the Royal Plaza, have changed dramatically from last week," she said. "But I think the people can separate the political issues from the celebrating mood." - AFP |
||||
Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers
Ltd. All rights reserved. |
