War Crime: Call for AFP to investigate war criminals
Source: PM - Wednesday, 11 February , 2009 18:38:00
Reporter: Mark Colvin
MARK COLVIN: How many war criminals are living among us?
Probably quite a few, according to a paper unveiled at the Lowy Institute today.
Its author Fergus Hanson says more needs to be done to find, convict and if necessary, extradite war criminals.
I asked him about Australia's historical record on war criminals.
FERGUS HANSON: We've had no successful prosecutions, no successful extradition and no revocation of citizenship in any war crimes case in Australian history. So, and that I think is not necessarily an indication that there aren't any suspects here, it's more a case of how many resources, how much, how many resources we dedicate to this issue.
MARK COLVIN: You say that we've failed repeatedly. You mean, since the Second World War?
FERGUS HANSON: Immediately following the Second World War, it's a little bit of an obscure point of history, but quite interestingly we ran about 800 trials of Japanese defendants. And that resulted in about 500 convictions and over 100 executions, in and outside of Australia.
But since then there really hasn't been any attempt to deal with domestic war crimes suspects except for the Special Investigations Unit which ran in the late 1980s and early 1990s and looked at Nazi, accused Nazi war criminals.
MARK COLVIN: And even that didn't have a very high strike rate.
FERGUS HANSON: No, you're right. There was charges laid against three individuals, but no convictions. And the unit was disbanded in 1992. Now, we've set up border screening processes about seven years ago, but the international experience really demonstrates that no matter how good your border screening processes are, you're always going to get suspects slipping through. There's just too many people going through the doors to really stay on top of it.
MARK COLVIN: Do you think there were Nazi war criminals who lived here in obscurity and died in obscurity?
FERGUS HANSON: The evidence would seem to suggest that. If you look at the report, the final report of the Special Investigations Unit it concluded there was 27 cases where it was satisfied that suspects had committed serious war crimes, but there was insufficient evidence to launch a prosecution.
MARK COLVIN: But to bring it close to date, the Balkans obviously provided a lot of immigration to this country. Is it possible that war criminals from the Balkans Wars of the 1990s are living here undetected?
FERGUS HANSON: In my paper I've tried to steer away from identifying a single region where war crimes suspects might have come from. But I think certainly anywhere where there's been a serious conflict in the last few decades there would quite possibly be the case that there were suspected war criminals living here.
I mean, there was the Yugoslav conflict, there's enormous genocide that took place in Rwanda in 1994, there's a conflict that's ongoing in the Democratic Republic of Congo where millions of people have been killed. And a similar problem on an enormous scale in Sudan at the moment.
MARK COLVIN: The ones you haven't mentioned would be, for instance, from Vietnam and Cambodia.
FERGUS HANSON: Afghanistan, Chile, there's a number of conflicts I think. There's, I mean there's been dozens and dozens of international conflicts, and pretty much any of them are potential sources of suspected war criminals.
MARK COLVIN: So what should the authorities do? It seems to me that it's a real looking for a needle in a haystack situation. Looking as an outsider, I mean, how do you go about finding an Iraqi war criminal or a Cambodian war criminal in Australia?
FERGUS HANSON: Yeah, you're right, it has really, I mean, because it is very difficult it's always tended to be put in the too-hard basket and it's something that just gets pushed, pushed back and pushed back. But there's been some recent experience from other countries that really demonstrates that it is possible to take measures that are relatively modest and that are very successful.
MARK COLVIN: What kinds of things?
FERGUS HANSON: The first, the first and most important is really to have dedicated resources to look into this issue. It's never going to be a priority issue to look into because it's very difficult to get results, so you need to have dedicated resources.
MARK COLVIN: By which you might mean, say, a unit of the Australian Federal Police?
FERGUS HANSON: Exactly. A small unit within the Australian Federal Police. And we're not talking on a grand scale here, the SIU (Special Investigations Unit) was quite large, I'm talking about something that is relatively modest, a few staff to conduct investigations, raise awareness in local, key communities, and conduct a small number of investigations each year into the most appropriate cases.
MARK COLVIN: What are the consequences of inaction? I mean, I remember a story, I think it was last year, about a woman who found herself in the same English language class as a man who had allegedly raped her.
FERGUS HANSON: Yeah, I mean, on the grass roots level it's obviously very painful for the victims of these atrocious crimes to be left having to face, you know, the people who have perpetrated these crimes against them, or allegedly have. So I think on that level there's a very strong reason why these allegations should be investigated and resources should be given to allow that to occur.
On a bigger level, on a larger scale, I think it really, Australia will find itself increasingly at odds with the international trends. We've seen dedicated war crimes units set up in the US, in Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, and trials are taking place in other countries, especially in Europe. So I think if Australia continues with its current approach it will increasingly find itself at odds with the, with international trends. And that doesn't speak well, I don't think, in terms of its good international citizenship, especially in the context of the UN Security Council bid, or its commitment to end impunity for war crimes globally.
MARK COLVIN: Fergus Hanson of the Lowy Institute.
Showing posts with label War Crime. Show all posts
Showing posts with label War Crime. Show all posts
13 February, 2009
30 January, 2009
Respect for International Humanitarian Law, in the Security Council
Statement by Ambassador Susan E. Rice, US Permanent Representative, on Respect for International Humanitarian Law, in the Security Council, January 29, 2009
Mr. President, thank you for your kind words of welcome.
As this is my first appearance in the Security Council, allow me to start by saying it is a deep honor to represent the United States at the United Nations. I look forward to working with all Security Council members on the full range of challenges and opportunities that confront us.
President Obama is committed to building strong international partnerships to tackle global challenges – in particular, enhancing global peace and security; combating terrorism and proliferation; addressing climate change; preventing genocide; alleviating poverty and promoting sustainable development; and supporting respect for human rights, democracy and human dignity.
These are shared challenges that no single nation can successfully tackle alone.
They require common action based on a common purpose and a vision of shared security, even when we have differences.
The United Nations is indispensible for advancing these goals and making our world a better, safer place.
Mr. President, I want to thank you for hosting this important meeting. And, I want to thank today's speakers for their briefings to the Security Council and more importantly for the work they do every day to promote adherence to international humanitarian law and the protection of civilians.
The challenge I want to focus on is how the United Nations can better protect the millions of vulnerable civilians who are caught in the crossfire of conflicts worldwide.
Mr. President, the United States is deeply committed to supporting and advancing international humanitarian law – both as a matter of national policy and as a basic precept for the entire international community.
In his inaugural address, President Obama rejected the false choice between our security and our values. He acted quickly, and in his first week in office signed Executive Orders to close the Guantanamo detention facility within one year, to ensure compliance with the treaty obligations of the United States, including the Geneva Conventions, and to guarantee the safe, lawful, and humane treatment of individuals in custody during armed conflicts, including by providing access to all detainees by the International Committee of the Red Cross. He ordered the CIA to close all existing detention facilities. President Obama has made clear that the United States will work with the international community to defeat violence and terrorism in a manner consistent with our values and ideals.
Civilian protection is not just a moral duty; it must be a core element of military operations. The United States government understands that protection of civilians is a vital priority – indeed that it must be an essential part of our missions. In Afghanistan, an international coalition continues to combat Taliban forces that deliberately employ tactics designed to increase the number of innocent civilian deaths. U.S. forces serving in Afghanistan operate under rules and orders designed to prevent such casualties, and we will continue to review them to improve their effectiveness.
The United States is deeply concerned Mr. President about the loss of Palestinian and Israeli life in recent weeks and the tragic suffering of Palestinian civilians, who require urgent humanitarian and reconstruction assistance. Violations of international humanitarian law have been perpetrated by Hamas through its rocket attacks against Israeli civilians in southern Israel and the use of civilian facilities to provide protection for its terrorist attacks. There have also been numerous allegations made against Israel some of which are deliberately designed to inflame. We expect Israel will meet its international obligations to investigate and we also call upon all members of the international community to refrain from politicizing these important issues.
Mr. President, we must find more effective means to protect innocent civilians around the world.
In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the fighting rages on and is reported to have resulted directly or indirectly in more than 5 million deaths, as well as countless rapes, sexual assaults, recruitment of child soldiers, and other major human rights violations.
The Uganda Lord's Resistance Army has for many years terrorized civilian populations and is responsible for a major humanitarian crisis today in the region. In Sudan, the genocide in Darfur continues. More than two and a half million persons have fled their homes and hundreds of thousands have died in the conflict to date. Recent fighting between rebels and government forces have put countless civilian lives at risk and the Government of Sudan continues its campaign of bombing innocent civilians. In both the Congo and Sudan, all parties to the conflict must stop the killing and abide by their obligations under international humanitarian law.
The United States is determined to act to prevent such violations of international humanitarian law. This means, in practical terms, preventing conflicts in the first place, keeping existing conflicts from escalating to mass atrocities, acting early and decisively when they occur, and ensuring that peacebuilding and post-conflict assistance consolidates peace durably once conflict ends. As agreed to by member states in 2005 and by the Security Council in 2006, the international community has a responsibility to protect civilian populations from violations of international humanitarian law when states are unwilling or unable to do so. But this commitment is only as effective as the willingness of all nations, large and small, to take concrete action.
The United States takes this responsibility seriously, and I look forward to the General Assembly's upcoming discussion of the Secretary-General's report on the responsibility to protect.
Mr. President, the United Nations is at the center of our collective efforts to promote respect for international humanitarian law.
Through peacekeeping, the United Nations protects vulnerable populations and helps to end violent conflict. Through the promotion of accountability, the United Nations helps to end impunity. Through the provision of humanitarian assistance, the United Nations reduces human suffering.
Yet, more needs to be done to clarify the role of UN peacekeepers with regard to civilian protection, to ensure that they have the resources necessary to accomplish their mandates and to accelerate their effective deployment in times of urgent need.
Furthermore, UN peacekeepers must respect international humanitarian law themselves and abide by the highest standards of conduct.
The United States supports the efforts the Secretariat has taken to address the problem of sexual exploitation and abuse by peacekeepers, but additional work is required to develop doctrine, standards, and training for peacekeepers so they adhere to and promote the highest standards of international humanitarian law and conduct in all missions, and in all their activities.
Anything less is unacceptable.
The ad hoc war crimes tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and the hybrid tribunals in Sierra Leone and Cambodia, are actively prosecuting crimes involving violations of international humanitarian law. The International Criminal Court, which has started its first trial this week, looks to become an important and credible instrument for trying to hold accountable the senior leadership responsible for atrocities committed in the Congo, Uganda, and Darfur.
UN humanitarian agencies, such as OCHA, UNHCR, WFP and UNICEF, are performing vital and life-saving services for the most vulnerable populations. Similarly, the International Committee of the Red Cross has been active in providing assistance and protection to victims of conflict, often in places where other humanitarian actors are unable to operate.
The United States has long been a leading supporter of the ICRC's efforts to promote and strengthen international humanitarian law in countries around the world. We are proud to be the largest financial contributor to its essential work.
Mr. President, we call on all parties and all governments to live up to their commitments under international humanitarian law, abide by all Security Council resolutions, and cooperate with international investigations to end impunity for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The United States is steadfast in its commitment to safeguard human rights and end violations of international humanitarian law, both in conjunction with the United Nations, and through our other efforts throughout the world. Beyond this commitment, however, is a pledge by the United States to work together with the United Nations and international organizations such as the ICRC, in a new era in support for international humanitarian law. It is in this spirit of cooperation and determination that we will seek to use this body of international law to minimize human suffering and protect vulnerable populations.
Thank you Mr. President.
view original source
Mr. President, thank you for your kind words of welcome.
As this is my first appearance in the Security Council, allow me to start by saying it is a deep honor to represent the United States at the United Nations. I look forward to working with all Security Council members on the full range of challenges and opportunities that confront us.
President Obama is committed to building strong international partnerships to tackle global challenges – in particular, enhancing global peace and security; combating terrorism and proliferation; addressing climate change; preventing genocide; alleviating poverty and promoting sustainable development; and supporting respect for human rights, democracy and human dignity.
These are shared challenges that no single nation can successfully tackle alone.
They require common action based on a common purpose and a vision of shared security, even when we have differences.
The United Nations is indispensible for advancing these goals and making our world a better, safer place.
Mr. President, I want to thank you for hosting this important meeting. And, I want to thank today's speakers for their briefings to the Security Council and more importantly for the work they do every day to promote adherence to international humanitarian law and the protection of civilians.
The challenge I want to focus on is how the United Nations can better protect the millions of vulnerable civilians who are caught in the crossfire of conflicts worldwide.
Mr. President, the United States is deeply committed to supporting and advancing international humanitarian law – both as a matter of national policy and as a basic precept for the entire international community.
In his inaugural address, President Obama rejected the false choice between our security and our values. He acted quickly, and in his first week in office signed Executive Orders to close the Guantanamo detention facility within one year, to ensure compliance with the treaty obligations of the United States, including the Geneva Conventions, and to guarantee the safe, lawful, and humane treatment of individuals in custody during armed conflicts, including by providing access to all detainees by the International Committee of the Red Cross. He ordered the CIA to close all existing detention facilities. President Obama has made clear that the United States will work with the international community to defeat violence and terrorism in a manner consistent with our values and ideals.
Civilian protection is not just a moral duty; it must be a core element of military operations. The United States government understands that protection of civilians is a vital priority – indeed that it must be an essential part of our missions. In Afghanistan, an international coalition continues to combat Taliban forces that deliberately employ tactics designed to increase the number of innocent civilian deaths. U.S. forces serving in Afghanistan operate under rules and orders designed to prevent such casualties, and we will continue to review them to improve their effectiveness.
The United States is deeply concerned Mr. President about the loss of Palestinian and Israeli life in recent weeks and the tragic suffering of Palestinian civilians, who require urgent humanitarian and reconstruction assistance. Violations of international humanitarian law have been perpetrated by Hamas through its rocket attacks against Israeli civilians in southern Israel and the use of civilian facilities to provide protection for its terrorist attacks. There have also been numerous allegations made against Israel some of which are deliberately designed to inflame. We expect Israel will meet its international obligations to investigate and we also call upon all members of the international community to refrain from politicizing these important issues.
Mr. President, we must find more effective means to protect innocent civilians around the world.
In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the fighting rages on and is reported to have resulted directly or indirectly in more than 5 million deaths, as well as countless rapes, sexual assaults, recruitment of child soldiers, and other major human rights violations.
The Uganda Lord's Resistance Army has for many years terrorized civilian populations and is responsible for a major humanitarian crisis today in the region. In Sudan, the genocide in Darfur continues. More than two and a half million persons have fled their homes and hundreds of thousands have died in the conflict to date. Recent fighting between rebels and government forces have put countless civilian lives at risk and the Government of Sudan continues its campaign of bombing innocent civilians. In both the Congo and Sudan, all parties to the conflict must stop the killing and abide by their obligations under international humanitarian law.
The United States is determined to act to prevent such violations of international humanitarian law. This means, in practical terms, preventing conflicts in the first place, keeping existing conflicts from escalating to mass atrocities, acting early and decisively when they occur, and ensuring that peacebuilding and post-conflict assistance consolidates peace durably once conflict ends. As agreed to by member states in 2005 and by the Security Council in 2006, the international community has a responsibility to protect civilian populations from violations of international humanitarian law when states are unwilling or unable to do so. But this commitment is only as effective as the willingness of all nations, large and small, to take concrete action.
The United States takes this responsibility seriously, and I look forward to the General Assembly's upcoming discussion of the Secretary-General's report on the responsibility to protect.
Mr. President, the United Nations is at the center of our collective efforts to promote respect for international humanitarian law.
Through peacekeeping, the United Nations protects vulnerable populations and helps to end violent conflict. Through the promotion of accountability, the United Nations helps to end impunity. Through the provision of humanitarian assistance, the United Nations reduces human suffering.
Yet, more needs to be done to clarify the role of UN peacekeepers with regard to civilian protection, to ensure that they have the resources necessary to accomplish their mandates and to accelerate their effective deployment in times of urgent need.
Furthermore, UN peacekeepers must respect international humanitarian law themselves and abide by the highest standards of conduct.
The United States supports the efforts the Secretariat has taken to address the problem of sexual exploitation and abuse by peacekeepers, but additional work is required to develop doctrine, standards, and training for peacekeepers so they adhere to and promote the highest standards of international humanitarian law and conduct in all missions, and in all their activities.
Anything less is unacceptable.
The ad hoc war crimes tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and the hybrid tribunals in Sierra Leone and Cambodia, are actively prosecuting crimes involving violations of international humanitarian law. The International Criminal Court, which has started its first trial this week, looks to become an important and credible instrument for trying to hold accountable the senior leadership responsible for atrocities committed in the Congo, Uganda, and Darfur.
UN humanitarian agencies, such as OCHA, UNHCR, WFP and UNICEF, are performing vital and life-saving services for the most vulnerable populations. Similarly, the International Committee of the Red Cross has been active in providing assistance and protection to victims of conflict, often in places where other humanitarian actors are unable to operate.
The United States has long been a leading supporter of the ICRC's efforts to promote and strengthen international humanitarian law in countries around the world. We are proud to be the largest financial contributor to its essential work.
Mr. President, we call on all parties and all governments to live up to their commitments under international humanitarian law, abide by all Security Council resolutions, and cooperate with international investigations to end impunity for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The United States is steadfast in its commitment to safeguard human rights and end violations of international humanitarian law, both in conjunction with the United Nations, and through our other efforts throughout the world. Beyond this commitment, however, is a pledge by the United States to work together with the United Nations and international organizations such as the ICRC, in a new era in support for international humanitarian law. It is in this spirit of cooperation and determination that we will seek to use this body of international law to minimize human suffering and protect vulnerable populations.
Thank you Mr. President.
view original source
28 January, 2009
Rasmussen war crimes polling
by Jay McDonough, Progressive Politics Examiner
I write alot about torture here, or more specifically, the implementation of torture by the Bush Administration following 9/11. Military and intelligence personnel are on record asserting that torture is ineffective, yields unreliable information and places American troops at greater risk. As Major General Paul Eaton recently said:
“torture is the tool of the lazy, the stupid, and the pseudo-tough. It’s also perhaps the greatest recruiting tool that the terrorists have.” (Link)
But there's more to it than that for me. Anyone who speaks with authority argues torture is worthless and stupid, but I think it's shameful as well. I refuse to let go of my image of America as that whole shining beacon of light thing; a country grounded in fairness and justice and higher standards. A country we could always be proud and certain wouldn't resort to the kind of tactics used by the Nazis or KGB or Khmer Rouge. It was just unthinkable that, under any circumstances, the U.S. would stoop to that level of depravity. The Nazis and KGB and Khmer Rouge, of course, argued that they tortured prisoners because they had to - all in the interest of national security. The Bush Administration's use of similar justifications do nothing to differentiate the U.S. but, rather, just make the connections even more apparent.
So, I acknowledge there's an emotional component to my opposition to torture. And it's damn hard to even say out loud that my country tortured people in my name. And I suspect it's hard for a lot of Americans to acknowledge what's happened the last seven years - what we've allowed to happen in our name for the last seven years.
Having said all that, Rasmussen has a new poll on the subject:
Overall, among all voters, 25% believe war crimes were committed while 54% disagree.
Seventy percent (70%) of the nation’s voters say it would be bad for the United States if the former president and senior administration officials were brought to trial for war crimes. A majority of Democrats (53%) agree with that assessment.
Nineteen percent (19%) of all voters hold the opposite view and believe that bringing Bush Administration officials to trial for war crimes would be good for the nation.
Thirty-six percent (36%) of U.S. voters say Congress should hold hearing to investigate possible government wrongdoing during the Bush years. Democrats, by a 57% to 27% margin, believe such hearings should be held. Thirty-eight percent (38%) of unaffiliated voters agree as do nine percent (9%) of Republicans.
Twenty-eight percent (28%) believe Congress should hold hearings to investigate possible war crimes by the Bush Administration. Sixty-percent (60%) disagree.
Now, torture advocates might take heart in these numbers. Here's how I see them; one in four Americans believe the United States committed war crimes. (Honestly, I never imagined that in my life I would ever hear the terms war crimes and United States in the same sentence.) Notice also the large undecided numbers in each category. I would argue that as time passes and evidence becomes more available, the majority of those undecideds will conclude war crimes were, in fact, committed by U.S. forces.
On a related note, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture said yesterday he believes there is sufficient evidence to prosecute former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for war crimes.
"We have clear evidence," (Manfred Nowak) said. "In our report that we sent to the United Nations, we made it clear that former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld clearly authorized torture methods and he was told at that time by Alberto Mora, the legal council of the Navy, 'Mr. Secretary, what you are actual ordering here amounts to torture.' So, there we have the clear evidence that Mr. Rumsfeld knew what he was doing but, nevertheless, he ordered torture." (Link)
It may be that Bush Administration officials do escape investigation of war crimes charges in the United States, However, my prediction is that, in a couple years time, the majority of Americans will believe these crimes were indeed committed. I would also predict that while the international community may call for investigations, the U.S. will want to look the other way and not pursue full scale investigations.
I suspect that for many, just like me and all those undecideds in the Rasmussen poll, it's almost too shameful to consider and too difficult to aknowledge as true.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)