A group of 100 U.S. military advisors was deployed last fall to locations in the Central African Republic, the DR Congo, South Sudan, and Uganda.  Kony had been traveling in and out of northern Uganda for quite some time, and any attempt to detain him could very likely take place in any one of its neighbors.  However, it would appear that none of the American contingents will find their man without crossing into Sudanese territory.

Minni Minawi’s faction of the Sudan Liberation Movement, which withdrew from the Darfur peace agreement early last year, asserts that Kony’s forces have moved from the Western Bahr el Ghazal province of South Sudan into the North’s territory within Darfur.  This larger area converges with the eastern border of the Central African Republic, the commander’s longtime rumored hideout.  Testimony from escaped LRA victims and mounting intelligence received by the Ugandan People’s Defense Force (UPDF) indicate that Joseph Kony and his senior command are moving freely from country to country, and moving their operations ever further north.

Sudan has a history of supplying and supporting the insurgency in northern Uganda, dating back to its decades-old conflict with the SPLM.  A strengthened LRA wreaking havoc in Salva Kiir’s backyard is exactly the kind of destabilizer that put the odds in favor of Khartoum.  Bashir and his administration firmly deny any renewed ties with the indicted warlord, fully understanding the diplomatic headache this news could spawn.  With the two Sudans on the brink of war with one another, discretion is Khartoum’s best bet of avoiding further entanglements.  Bashir has conceded to talks with the Ugandan government and, despite Yoweri Museveni’s insistence that the UPDF will triumph Kony’s Sudanese support, such dialogue could be promising.

They are not the first to experience such a political lockdown.  Darfur has been under a state of emergency for the last decade, which became the ridiculous justification for its genocide in 2003.  Blue Nile state became the next in line last year in response to reignited ethnic conflict.  Bashir’s decree has also cemented the trade embargo across the border and granted him the mandate to establish special courts in the area.

Since its initial capture of Heglig, South Sudan has withdrawn its forces from the site, restoring the original truce.  After claiming victory, Sudan responded with a counter-attack miles deep into the South’s territory, ensnaring the two in further conflict through this unnecessary provocation.  The North has continued its aerial bombardments, which not only target existing oil structures, but have made isolated villages fair game.  There is absolutely no reason to suggest Sudanese territory is in jeopardy of its neighbor’s aggression, or lack thereof.  Bashir has been nothing but belligerent, orchestrating violence which has led to far greater losses for his enemies than among his own forces.  The state of emergency is a farce, and could be a dangerous tactic for perpetrating further war crimes.

Bashir refuses, on a matter of principle, to engage in any dialogue with Juba, further enabling all-out war.  His willfulness is rationalized by, what he claims, is the South’s inability to understand any diplomacy beside that of the gun.  Most disconcerting is the language the indicted president has used when speaking of his rivals.  He prefers the term “insects” for the governing body of South Sudan, insisting that the nation needs to be “liberated” from its current ruling class.

These words may not be subtle, but could easily be overlooked if we don’t consider the past uses of dehumanizing labels such as this.  A little over 18 years ago, the word inyenzi, or “cockroach” was spoken profusely throughout Rwanda in the build-up to its genocide, stripping the Tutsi of their humanity.  The simultaneous ethnic cleansing in Bosnia was fueled by the notion of liberation, a key weapon in Slobodan Milosevic’s arsenal for extricating Bosnian Serbs from the incumbent Muslim administration.

The SPLM and the rest of South Sudan’s government are dominated by ethnic Dinka, which could potentially serve as the rationale for a more widespread campaign of violence against the population.  Bashir has consistently categorized political belligerents together with the ethnic groups whom they claim to represent.  Such assumptions were responsible for the genocide in Darfur, and could prove to be hazardous for the south if violence were to escalate.  The AU needs to be aware of the ethnic implications of this impending, yet not inevitable, war.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) may have just found an unlikely ally in the president, as they’ve been seeking Bosco’s capture since May of 2008.  He faces charges of war crimes for his use of child soldiers during the 2002-03 conflict in Ituri, but continues to shamelessly boast his impunity through luxury living and ordered killings in Goma.

Bosco Ntaganda began his career in the Rwandan Patriotic Army fighting alongside current president Paul Kagame and fellow Tutsis in a campaign to regain Rwanda from the Hutu-led regime of Juvénal Habyarimana.  The post-genocide exodus of Rwandan Hutus into neighboring Congolese provinces sparked years of conflict, perpetrated by ethnically-aligned militia and international actors.  In 2006, Ntaganda joined the ranks of now-captured General Laurent Nkunda’s National Congress for the Defence of the People (CNDP), a Congolese pro-Tutsi militia with ties to the Kagame administration across the border.

His tenure with the CNDP has been marked by exploitation and violence against civilians.  Rwanda has asserted time and time again that Bosco furthers Rwanda’s goals of peace and stability in Kivu, and should only be the concern of Kabila’s government.  Outside his military operations, the general has a hand in the lucrative and controversial mining industry in the region.  He owns restaurants and nightclubs throughout Goma, ignoring his indictment through an open, public lifestyle.  However, assassinations and disappearances have accumulated throughout his territory, and his fighting force is quickly losing loyalty.  With smaller ranks and the Congolese government after him, Ntaganda is more vulnerable than ever.  As long as he doesn’t seek shelter in Rwanda, hiding in plain sight might finally earn him a trip to the International Criminal Court.

Recently, Sudan activist and actor, George Clooney, was arrested at the Sudanese Embassy in Washington D.C. for trespassing on what is officially Sudanese territory.  He was, with other activists and Congressman McGovern, protesting the Government of Sudan’s attacks on innocent civilians by bombing, shooting, raping, and starving them — in Sudanese territory, the Nuba Mountains of Southern Kordofan.

Clooney had just arrived from crossing into Sudan from Southern Sudan, risking his life, so that he could be a witness and bring attention to the horrors and the looming humanitarian catastrophe in the Nuba Mountains.  The man that is ultimately responsible for these attacks, and for what the U.S. has declared genocide in Darfur, is the President of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir, who is indicted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.

Clooney was handcuffed and arrested — for trespassing.  Omar al-Bashir is living in a mansion and travels with full honors to other countries as the President of Sudan — for the worst crimes that can be committed against other human beings.

As we anticipated in an earlier post, the hot ticket out of ICC this week is for none other than one Abdel Rahim Muhammed Hussein (no relation to that other Hussein) of Sudan. Hussein is charged on counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity for his work in the Darfur conflict.

The arrest warrant, issued on March 1, 2012 reads:

Mr. Hussein made essential contributions to the formulation and implementation of the common plan, inter alia, through his overall coordination of national, state and local security entities and through the recruitment, arming and funding of the police forces and the Militia/Janjaweed in Darfur

(Read the full announcement.)

At the time the alleged crimes were committed, Hussein held the title ‘Minister of the Interior of the Government of the Republic of Sudan’ in addition to being the “President’s Special Representative in Darfur.” Today he is the Minister of National Defense.

The warrant for Hussein comes almost three years to the day of the initial indictment of sitting Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir, for his role in the same conflict. Bashir remains in office today.

• Speak in complete sentences
• Walk
• Count to 10
• Play nicely with others
• Ride a tricycle

Well, it’d be doing a little better than Bashir on some of those counts, at any rate! What went wrong with him, anyway? He’s still riding his tricycle all over Sudan, kicking sand and terrorizing the other kids on the playground with no ramifications.

What indictments cannot do at any age is enforce themselves. If it takes a village to raise a child, it takes a global community to say no to murderous dictators. Let’s put an end to this before that indictment is still wetting the bed in its awkward teens, shall we?

This term is an official UN initiative created to bring swift action in response to mass atrocity crimes. It not only encompasses the use of military action, but also is the driving force behind NGOs and activist groups worldwide.

The concept of “Responsibility to Protect” is the glue that binds activists together. It is the idea that we are all responsible for one another and all responsible for the successful preservation of human rights. When one person’s rights are violated and no one responds, we have all failed in our mission as human beings.

The official UN initiative was enacted in 2005 in the wake of the Rwandan genocide. At its heart are three main tenants:

1. A state has a responsibility to protect its population from mass atrocities.

2. The international community has a responsibility to assist the state if it is unable to protect its population on its own.

3. If the state fails to protect its citizens from mass atrocities and peaceful measures have failed, the international community has the responsibility to intervene through coercive measures such as economic sanctions. Military intervention is considered the last resort.

Has the world done its duty in protecting those in need? We know End Impunity readers do what they can – yet End Impunity would not exist if this concept were consistently enforced. How do you feel the international community needs to step up and help where it has fallen short?

This January, I launched an End Impunity campaign at my university, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo.  The campaign consisted of three weeks of advertisement through a series of posters, and culminated in a screening of the documentary The Prosecutor by Barry Stevens.  The first poster that went up was a picture of Omar al-Bashir’s face covered by a QR link, with the words “Can you stop me?”  This poster is intriguing because it does not give much information and poses a challenge to the viewer.  People around my campus were confused by it at first.  I put posters up all around campus: in bathrooms, classrooms, elevators, hallways – so people became really curious to find out what it was all about.  After about a week of posting these around campus, I asked a few of my friends if they had seen and most said yes, and then asked me what it was all about.  I think a lot of people were very curious but many either didn’t realize that they are supposed to scan it with their smartphone (had never seen a QR before), or didn’t have a smartphone to scan it with.  This problem will disappear as QR and smartphones become more common.  The posters I put up in the graphic arts and computer science buildings received the most attention, as people there knew what to do with them!

After about 10 days of QR posters, I put up “wanted” posters.  I did not notice as dramatic of a response from the students from these posters as I did with the QR ones, but they did provide a clear message of the situation at hand.  I put the posters up side by side so that people would make the connection that they are the same person.  After another week, I put up flyers for the screening event, which was held on February 15.  The flyer for the event had a picture of the QR link with al-Bashir’s face so that people would connect this event to the original posters.  I also wanted to get members of the community involved, so I advertised in the local newspaper and on a San Luis Obispo events website.  I also got in touch with a local congregation in SLO, Congregation Beth David, who advertised for the event at their temple.  I also worked with the political science department and talked to most of the teachers in the major, who either announced the event in their classes or allowed me to come in and make a short announcement.  A few of the teachers offered extra credit, which was a major plus.  I talked to about 7 classes and clubs, which encouraged a lot of people to come.  They saw that this was a student-run event, rather than just a lecture their teacher thought they should attend.  I also saw students I knew in some of the classes I went to, which encouraged them to come to the event and support the cause.

Over 40 people turned out for the main event.  I was happy with this number, because I really had no idea what to expect.  I was a little surprised that more kids who were offered extra credit did not come.  I reserved a big room with comfortable chairs in our University Union, which is one of the central hubs on campus, so we had an ideal location.  Pizza was donated by Woodstocks.  I think the smell of pizza wafting down the halls might have drawn in a few last minute attendees!  I also bought soda, water, and chips, so that we had a little more food to offer.   One thing that was frustrating was several people left early.  Some left as early as 30 minutes into the 95 minute film.  I had people sign in at the door, so I think students who came for extra credit realized they had already signed in and decided to leave early.  I realize that there is nothing I can do about this but hope that the people who attend an event like this are truly interested in the cause.  By the end of the film there were about 20 left.

Following the film we had an open discussion about the film and the issues it touched on.  The Chair of the Political Science Department, who is very familiar with the workings of the ICC, helped me lead the discussion.  Many people ended up voicing their opinions.  The debate got quite heated and we ended up discussing how to ultimately achieve world peace!  We stayed until the maintenance man came to kick us out.  A few of the people who stayed until the end told me the next day how cool they thought the event was.  The discussion at the end definitely enhanced the experience, and next time I will focus on getting more people to stay for it.

I consider this event a success, as I learned that there is a network of people at Cal Poly who are interested in these causes, even though sometimes I feel very alone in my pursuits.  I think many students are aware of the situations in Sudan and Congo, but there is just currently no movement or outlet for these people to meet.  The success of this event, as well as the positive response I have received from those who attended, have motivated me to continue to pursue these causes that I feel are so important.  People seemed thankful for the opportunity to learn about what is going on in other parts of the world, which is very reassuring to me.  While I still feel like I have a lot of work to do to make Sudan and Congo topics of conversation here at Cal Poly, I think that the End Impunity campaign was a great start to achieving this goal.

Thanks so much to End Impunity, who walked me through every step of this campaign, and to Barry Stevens for creating such a wonderful and provocative film.

But that paints a rather gloomy outlook, doesn’t it? Almost five years away before anyone could be indicted for what the ICC calls a “most serious” crime?

Then again, take a look at our countdown and see just how long some of these offenders have operated after being indicted. While there clearly has been a wave of change in some parts of the world, others remain hopeless and ignored by the international community.

So what is a crime of aggression?

Also called a “war of aggression,” this term is used in cases of hostile acts for no apparent cause between different states. It is not used for civil conflict. An ICC document states a crime of aggression is:

“the planning, preparation, initiation or execution of an act of using armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State.”

What will the End Impunity roll call look like when “crime of aggression” becomes an indictable offense? Will anything have changed but the tally of days?