(Europe’s peculiar approach to “human rights” laws have been previously discussed here, here, and here.)
The West didn’t lift a proverbial finger to help Rwanda during the 1994 genocide that left 900,000 citizens dead. Yet now the Paris prosecutor’s office has approved warrants for the arrest of Rwanda’s President Paul Kagame and other military and intelligence officials in connection with the shooting down of an aircraft that killed the presidents of Rwanda and Burundi, and triggered the 1994 genocide.
Once again, the indefensible universal application of European jurisprudence rears its ugly head where it has no business. The irony is revolting: Europe is determined to ignore human rights violations and real bad guys causing problems in the world right now (North Korea, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Burma, etc). But when it comes to exerting jurisdiction over what has already happened in foreign countries, especially when the national interest could be at stake (see below), the law lets the courts do whatever they damn well please. Not only is this morally indefensible, it converts the legal system into a political weapon.
Of course, Rwandan Justice Minister Tharcisse Karugarama could have written this post for me:
It’s very absurd for a foreign judge in a foreign country to issue indictments against authorities in a sovereign state for alleged crimes committed in that sovereign state… We view this as political intimidation by a big power using judicial power to enhance a political programme.
Damn straight. But there are two possible hidden political motives in this legal proceeding:
- Although Rwanda was a Belgian colony, France gave financial and military support after independence from 1975 to 1994, and the Rwandan government launched a commission last month to probe France’s role in the genocide. This warrant may be designed to pre-empt the inquiry’s findings away from France and shift the blame to the incumbent government.
- The Paris prosecutor did not visit Rwanda or take any evidence outside of France—all evidence was based on information from Rwandans in Europe, many of whom are opponents of the Rwandan government living in exile. The warrant could be a way for the Rwandan opposition to attack President Kagame.
The other alternative is that European jurisprudence is simply insane. But you’ve heard that from me before.
ALSO: The added irony is that if you were a Rwandan in any position of power before the genocide, some court in Europe is coming to get you no matter what side you were on: France is after the Tutsis, and Germany is after the Hutus.
COMMENTS / 13 COMMENTS
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » Lest I be criticized for being soft on Nazis… added these pithy words on Feb 18 07 at 9:36 am[...] (More on Europe’s INSANE jurisprudence in regards to war crimes and more here, here, here, here… you get the point.) What say you? [...]
Joe added these pithy words on 22 Nov 06 at 6:25 amSo I guess you’re opposed to the Alien Tort Claims Act too?
(That’s a partly rhetorical question, the only point being that universal jurisdiction is hardly limited to Europe. But I’d like to hear your opinion anyway.)
Eddie added these pithy words on 22 Nov 06 at 12:46 pmThe grave difference being that there are still Hutu Power elements working everday within Rwanda and along its wartorn borders to bring down the hated Tutsi Kagame and finish the genocide.
If I was Rwanda, I’d respond by issuing warrants for the French civilian and military leadership that armed and supported Hutu Power during the 1994 genocide.
The Marmot added these pithy words on 22 Nov 06 at 3:03 pmCurzon, I had to literally do a double take when I read the headline. The French are issuing warrants for Paul Kagame? It’s almost like a bad joke.
Maybe Kagame’s just a bit too Anglophone for their tastes? After all, he and a good deal of the Rwandan leadership grew up in Uganda…
elambend added these pithy words on 22 Nov 06 at 6:02 pmJ.K. Marmot,
The assetion that anglophonic tendancies would make Kagame more of a target would be laughable if there wasn’t a kernal of truth to it; or atleast past French action in Africa that lends credence to the though. It’s shameful.
MikeS added these pithy words on 22 Nov 06 at 9:07 pm“So I guess you’re opposed to the Alien Tort Claims Act too?”
That law has extremely limited reach and has been twisted by the modern Supreme Court to mean anything and everything it wants. The Alien Tort Claims Act would not apply to this situation.
MikeS added these pithy words on 22 Nov 06 at 9:17 pmHere you go:
“The primary opinion, written by Justice David Souter, made clear that only a very limited set of well-established, clearly defined violations of international law can be the basis for ATS suits. At the time the Congress enacted the ATS, this would have included only three crimes: violating safe conduct, infringing the rights of ambassadors, and piracy. As Souter noted, “It was this narrow set of violations of the law of nations, admitting of a judicial remedy and at the same time threatening serious consequences in international affairs that was probably on the minds of the men who drafted the ATS with its reference to tort.”
subadei added these pithy words on 22 Nov 06 at 9:56 pmFrance opposes UN Sudan sanctions
France says it does not support US plans for international sanctions on Sudan if violence continues in Darfur…
_Mr [Foreign minister Renaud]Muselier also dismissed claims of “ethnic cleansing” or genocide in Darfur.
“I firmly believe it is a civil war and as they are little villages of 30, 40, 50, there is nothing easier than for a few armed horsemen to burn things down, to kill the men and drive out the women,” he said…_
As was the case in Iraq, France also has significant oil interests in Sudan.
Once the janjaweed finishes mopping up I’m sure the mighty French will demand Bashirs head.
Curzon added these pithy words on 23 Nov 06 at 2:55 amJoe: as you and I discussed yesterday: the Alien Tort Claims Act is civil, not criminal, and allows private parties long-arm jurisdiction in US courts. What we see here is a state actor—a Paris prosecutor—issuing indictments against incumbent authorities in a sovereign state for alleged crimes committed in that sovereign state.
If a state does want to exert jurisdiction on civil or criminal matters outside its borders, it must make a case for its national interest. Some examples that come to mind are Japan’s criminal code that that grants it global criminal jurisdiction over the forgery of JPY notes; or US securities regulations laws and anti-Trust statutes that are extraterritorial; but these are based on the ground that the actions directly impact the homeland.
In contrast, the facts here represent no remote threat to the safety and security of France or its citizens and and should be seen as wholly illegitimate.
mark safranski added these pithy words on 23 Nov 06 at 8:30 pmThe French and Belgian governments are knowing accomplices of the radical Hutu movements and, I suspect but have no proof of, had prior notification of the intended genocide.
The French are engaged in covering their tracks and attempting to destabilize Rwanda’s government by initiating legal proceedings that will, potentially, someday make it very difficult for Rwanda’s Tutsi government to receive aid or loans
alec added these pithy words on 23 Nov 06 at 8:42 pmCurzon:
Definitely agree with you! Nothing is more frustrating the retrospective judgment, especially considering the inaction of the Europeans (and the West) during Rwanda, the Yugoslavian conflict, and other genocides. And, the current inaction in regards to Sudan and other conflicts that demand our attention.
One point of disagreement: I thought the main culprit in the Sudan conflict was China, not France. And, that the primary purchaser of Sudanese oil is (obviously) China. Are we positive about the motives behind France’s stance on Sudan?
subadei added these pithy words on 24 Nov 06 at 3:23 amalec,
And, that the primary purchaser of Sudanese oil is (obviously) China. Are we positive about the motives behind France’s stance on Sudan?
I assume you are referring to the BBC article I posted. My intention wasn’t so much to lay blame on France (or anyone else) for blocking UN sec.Coun. action in Sudan. Rather it was to demonstrate the shallow, self righteous and damn near duplicity of French foriegn policy in regards to Curzons’ article.
I suspect you’re right regarding China being the biggest (if not the only) roadblock to secCoun action in Darfur. If I recall correctly China maintains a 70% investment in Sudans largest (only?) petroleum company.
seleste added these pithy words on 24 Nov 06 at 8:24 pm# This warrant may be designed to pre-empt the inquiry’s findings away from France and shift the blame to the incumbent government.
I think you are right about that. French elections are coming up here in spring and there has been a fair amount of collective guilt, (among the Right and Left), expressed in the French press. Several politicians want to distance themselves from what happened, we’ll see if it works.
