Another [previous] head of state in trouble, but this time not from Africa

Radovan Karadzic, former President of Bosnia Serb, was finally arrested, 13 years after the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) issued a warrant of arrest against him. I have to admit that he was a bit of a smart one. Hiding in Serbia and pretending to be a orthodox priest is much better than living in an underground hole, like his Iraqi counterpart. Karadzic's arrest should definitely send a strong message out to everyone else who is planning to commit one of the international crimes, that one can run (even for 13 years), but one cannot hide.

I am interested to see the effects this case will have, on the already heavy case load of the ICTY. The ICTY's mandate comes to an end in 2010 and should Karadzic plead not guilty, his trial will probably continue way beyond 2010. Also, should his partner in crime, Ratko Mladic, be apprehended before 2010, will this tribunal then ask for an extension of its mandate? Alternatively, would the case load be handed over to the International Criminal Court (ICC), considering that both Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia are state parties to the ICC Statute?

On the other hand, presuming that this trial is finished before the tribunal's mandate comes to an end, it will be interesting to see the jurisprudence created by this tribunal, especially with regards to the genocide charges against Karadzic. Although this tribunal has the competency to hear cases involving genocide, it has only once convicted an accused (Jelisic) of committing genocide. Although 'ethnic cleansing' is not seen as another form of genocide, the academics have critised and indirectly placed pressure on the ICTY to convict ethnic cleansing as a form of genocide. Should Karadzic be found guilty of committing genocide, then such a verdict and the consequential jurisprudence thereof will definitely be welcomed.

The arrest of Karadzic and previous arrest of Milesovic really shows that its not just Africa's presidents or previous presidents that are always in trouble for committing war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. This statement is not meant to defend African leaders who committed these crimes, it is meant to show that its not just Africa's leaders who commit these crimes.

Just as another point of interest (that has nothing to do with legal/ political/ international relations issues), who of my readers have ever watched a movie of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia? I have watched one, but it was not directly on the atrocities committed, but more on capturing a 'war criminal' in the aftermath of the conflict, which was solely based on fiction. Now, who of you have watched a movie on atrocities in Africa? I have seen 'The last King of Scotland, Hotel Rwanda, Shooting Dogs and Blood Diamond' which was movies that tried to stick to facts as far as possible. The latter were really good movies, but if the people are made more aware of the atrocious conflict that also happened in the former Yugoslavia, they will be able to truly understand the positive development the arrest of Karadzic has on the victims of this war (being mostly Muslim people).

Is the USA justified in throwing its weight around to impose sanctions against Mugabe?

If you are a true follower of my blog, you would probably think that I have this immense hatred towards the USA. Surprisingly, that is wrong. I consider the USA as my second home. A beautiful country with so much different character. Miami is definitely not the same as Greenfield, NH or even Huddleston, VA. The only 'problem' (this word portrays too much emotion) I have is with the failing foreign policy of the Bush administration and the war on terror, which includes the way in which Guantanamo Bay is run.

After reading an interesting editorial in today's (21 July 2008) New York Times called 'Failing Zimbabwe' I thought about the USA involvement in international peace and security, especially relating to the situation in Zimbabwe. The author of this article states that the USA's suggested sanctions against top officials is definitely the route to go and that although the Bush foreign policy is a failure, that he (Bush) is justified in asking for sanctions against Mugabe and his top Zanu PF officials. I have to admit, that I still do not see how increased pressure for sanctions against Mugabe would aid such a wonderful country like Zimbabwe and its people. Robert Mugabe is really not concerned about Western efforts to put pressure on him. Thus, sanctions might not serve as an effective tool towards getting Zimbabwe out of the crises it is currently in. Even though Mugabe is to blame for the current state Zimbabwe is in, I think that the USA Government and especially the UN should rather place more focus on Zimbabwe and not so much on Mugabe.

The editorial in the NYT also highlighted the 'cunning' ways in which President Bush tried to persuade Russia and China not to veto future resolutions against its proposals to place sanctions against Mugabe. I think that it will take a bit more than getting friendly with Dmitri Medvedev and agreeing to attend the opening of the Beijing Olympics for Russia and especially China not to veto against such proposals. China has more to lose by allowing sanctions against Mugabe, as one of the proposed sanctions include an arms embargo. China provides arms to the Zimbabwe Defence Force, therefore such sanctions would directly affect its dealings with Zimbabwe.

I sometimes wonder what if sanctions from another country in the Security Council, except the USA and the UK, were proposed against Mugabe. A country like Russia for example. Would the reaction have been different? Would Mugabe have responded more positively (not that one can ever respond positively to sanctions against you)? In other words, Mugabe would then not have been abled to justify himself by blaming the West for the situation the country is in. His current reasoning is that its the West's fault for the situation the country is in and therefore he will not consider any proposal coming from West. However, Russia is not governed by a 'neo liberal capitalist' regime. In fact the opposite, Russia is governed by way of Communist principles. So therefore, if the West (the USA and UK) is really to 'blame' (and I mean this in the lightest possible form, as we all know that its not true) for the crises in Zimbabwe, would they be justified in imposing further sanctions against Robert Mugabe?

As the eternal optimist that I am, I do hope for a better outcome after the talks which started this week in Pretoria between Zanu PF and the MDC party leaders. Transition takes place in stages, therefore I do hope that a lot of thought is placed into South Africa's option for the future of Zimbabwe, by allowing for a Prime Minister to be included in the Constitution of Zimbabwe and for Tsvangirai to fill that position. I certainly also hope that by now other regional political bodies (like SADC and the AU) have seen the seriousness of constantly monitoring elections, to make sure that its free and fair. Let us hope that its the case of 'third time lucky' and that the next elections in Africa does not end in violence.

A Birthday Tribute to South Africa's hero!!

Tomorrow (18 July 2008) old President Nelson Mandela will celebrate his 90th birthday! A man who dedicated his life and sacrificed 27 years of that same life (in detention) to fight for freedom in South Africa, deserves more than just a Nobel Peace Prize. Nelson Mandela strived to create utopia, even though it seems as a completely relative concept and foolish ideal. He deserves the world's praise!

I have seen countless examples (especially in Africa) where heroes turned into villans. Leaders who have done wonders in liberating their country from European colonial ties and today they are remembered as power hungry dictators. Idi Amin and Robert Mugabe are but two examples of this.
However, even though he was quite old when elected as South Africa's first democratic president, he still upheld the Constitution in all its progressive glory. He led South Africa into a peaceful transition from Apartheid and by signing the Truth and Reconciliation Bill into a Act, he painted the wonderful picture of forgiveness. Nelson Mandela surely portrays an excellent example of what the spirit of Ubuntu is all about.

May the Gods, where-ever they might be, keep signing their light on you!
Happy Birthday Madiba! Happy 90th Birthday!

"You can't arrest Bashir. Who's going to arrest him?"

This was the South African Ministry of Foreign Affairs response to the arrest warrant that the ICC prosecutor is seeking for Sudan's president, Omar al-Bashir. This statement by the deputy minister of foreign affairs, Aziz Pahad, does not do anything to boost South Africa's image (in the international world) especially as far as prosecuting prominent political leaders.

Firstly, it should be noted that the UN Security Council instructed the ICC prosecutor to investigate the atrocities and crimes committed in the Darfur region of Sudan. By way of the Security Council, the ICC obtained the jurisdiction to deal with Sudan, even though Sudan is not a state party to the ICC statute. The Sudanese government has stated that they will give their full cooperation to the UN, but they do not recognise the ICC as a court having jurisdiction over their nationals. What constitutes full cooperation? It was the UN who in the first place gave the ICC a mandate to investigate. Therefore by supporting the UN, does that not mean that the Sudanese government must also cooperate with the ICC, should they issue a warrant of arrest against al-Bashir? In the past the Sudanese government refused to cooperate by not delivering two prominent government ministers to the Court, for whom warrants of arrest have already been issued. The likelihood that they will cooperate now, is wishful thinking.

Back to the South African Ministry of Foreign Affairs' response. Firstly, it should be noted that this response portrays a bad picture of South Africa's response to the prosecution of high government officials. This is not surprising, considering that the leading political party of the country (the ANC) wants fraud, corruption and money laundering charges dropped against their party leader, Jacob Zuma. It should be remembered that in all probability Jacob Zuma will be elected the country's next president. This paints the picture that South Africa is in support of full immunity against criminal prosecution for prominent political leaders, even if they committed crimes which could taint their reputation in negative light, as president.

Secondly, who's going to arrest him [al-Bashir]? As stated above, the Sudanese government does not recognise the jurisdiction that the ICC holds over it as far as international criminal law is concerned. They refuse to deliver to other accused for whom warrants of arrest has been issued. However, I want to respond with another question, which could possibly open the floor for debate: Who arrested Slobodan Milosevic? Who arrested Charles Taylor? Who arrested Jean-Pierre Bemba?

Of self-incrimination by way of torture and national security: Next [challenge] for the Guantanamo detainees

I read an interesting article on today's 'Weekender' media site. This article reported on the admissibility of evidence obtained through torture against the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. It is a known fact that detainees are tortured for information to convict others and themselves as taking part in terrorist activities and also providing information to the USA government on other detainees that are taking part in such heinous activities. However, should this evidence be admissible in a competent court?

The Bush regime seems to be of the view that in the interest of national security such evidence should be admissible against detainees. However, when comparing national security to international humanitarian law principles against torture, what should take preference?

This blog will deal with the situation where an accused incriminated himself, because he was tortured to give such evidence.

Surprisingly, when it comes to national security, the USA seems to forget about the precedence the Supreme Court set in the famous case of Miranda v Arizona. This case dealt with the constitutionality of the privilege against self incrimination. The court stated: "We hold that when an individual is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom by the authorities in any significant way and is subjected to questioning, the privilege against self-incrimination is jeopardized. Procedural safeguards must be employed to protect the privilege... no evidence as a result of interrogation can be used against him". If the USA wants to deal with these detainees domestically, they should either (1) uphold the values placed within their Constitution, especially those relating to the rights to a fair trial or (2) uphold basic international human rights law, which also provides for fair trial rights. Self-incriminating evidence obtained by way of torture should not be admissible in court, according to the precedence set in the Miranda case.

On the other hand, any court of law that deems itself as an institution that upholds justice would not admit evidence obtained by way of torture, unless some valid evidential exclusion can be deemed justified to admit such evidence. I am still not convinced that 'national security' serves as an appropriate measure to admit evidence against others and the 'accused'. The International Tribunals have not admitted such evidence against accused persons who have actually committed of the most heinous crimes in the world, similar to that of 9/11.

My next question is thus the following: Is the Bush Regime exploiting the detainees and robbing them of their basic fair trial rights, because according to this regime 'They are criminals that do not deserve these rights'? That's the question I leave open to debate!

Another African head of state in trouble

I might seem a little late on this one, as speculation around the possible prosecution against the Sudanese President, Omar al-Bashir for war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity has been publicised since Friday past. However, as a good researcher, I first waited for the International Criminal Court (ICC) to make a media statement on this one before I go ahead and write a blog about it.

Today the prosecutor of the ICC presented evidence to this establishment which would be reasonable enough to indict the current president of Sudan for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide committed in three regions (Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa respectively) of Sudan by militia and the Janjaweed, which he had, allegedly, ordered them to do. The court will now study this evidence and find if there indeed is a probable case against Omar al-Bashir, then a warrant of arrest will be issued against him.

It should also be noted that the court had previously issued two warrants of arrest against two militia leaders from Sudan who committed war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in the Darfur region. However, the government of Sudan refuses to hand these accused over to the court. If a warrant of arrest is issued against al-Bashir there is a good chance that he will refuse to be handed over to the court.

This case has also sparked a debate around the prosecution of a national of a state party who is not a signatory to the ICC Statute, like Sudan. Does this mean that the ICC has no jurisdiction to deal with cases emanating from The Sudan? Not necessarily. The principle of 'universal jurisdiction' for (1) grave violations of international humanitarian law; (2) crimes against humanity and (3) war crimes forms part of the ius cogens which means that the violation of these crimes (which forms part of customary international law) can be tried by any domestic court (in the world) where the accused might be found. Normally in these cases state parties to the ICC Statute would ensure that the accused be delivered/ extradited to the ICC in The Hague, Netherlands. In other words, should al-Bashir find himself in another country that is known to cooperate with the ICC he might then be turned over to the ICC by that country. This is obviously all subject to a warrant of arrest being issued against him.

I have to admit though that I am still concerned about the security situation in The Sudan should al-Bashir be delivered to the ICC facility. Even though the country finds itself in peace right now, the security situation in this country is still volatile and the arrest of the President might just light the fuse to the conflict continuing again.

On the other hand, the ICC is quite brave to seek a warrant of arrest against a sitting head of state at this early stage of cases being brought to this court. The Court was established in 2002 and yet still not one judgment has been delivered. With the possible striking off the roll of the Lubanga case, the ICC has not really established itself as a noteworthy institution. Therefore, the case against al-Bashir will definitely 'make or break' this court.

Even though there are so many odds against the possible prosecution of al-Bashir (the fact that Sudan is not a state party to the statute and the fact that Sudan has refused to deliver two accused for whom warrants of arrest have been issued), I still have faith that the prosecution indeed have a good case against him. In his submissions made to the court today, Moreno-Ocampo (the head prosecutor) seemed quite sure of himself that they have enough evidence against al-Bashir.

China and Russia says no!

The New York Times reported on the happenings at the UN Security Council [SC] on voting for sanctions against Robert Mugabe and other leaders of his Zanu PF party. Both, China and Russia exercised their veto rights against sanctions for these leaders. They argue that these sanctions would go beyond the SC's prerogative powers and China added that sanctions would impede on South Africa's efforts of negotiation between the two opposing parties.

Needless to say, the USA seemed furious at this decision, as it was the one who proposed sanctions against Mugabe in the first place and worked hard to get the backing of other countries in the SC.

Even though China might have a conflicting interest when voting (as they supply Zimbabwe with arms and ammunition) I have to agree with them and Russia. As I have argued in my previous blog, negotiations for a unity government seems as the better option for Zimbabwe's future. Sanctions only serve as a temporary resolution and does not address the violation of human rights effectively in this country.

Yes, violence has erupted in the country preceding the run off election. This can be addressed in the aftermath of the negotiations either by way of criminal trials or by establishing a truth and reconciliation commission. Yes, the run-off election was highly suspicious and reeked of fraud, but this is currently being addressed by the negotiations in Pretoria.

I also have to admit that the USA government's reactions to Zimbabwe has not surprised me at all. They are the first to call for the international community's aid and the SC's help, because according to them Zimbabwe's situation constitutes a serious threat to "international peace and security". However, when it comes to waging the war against terror (which includes invading Afgahnistan and Iraq) and detaining nationals of other countries in Guantanamo Bay (without any charges), they want to circumvent the international community's involvement. Talk about hyprocracy.

Guantanamo Bay detainees finally gets their day in a legally recognised court

The San Franciso Chronicle reports that judge Hogan stated that the trials against detainees in Guantanamo Bay should receive priority over the other cases that are heard in the USA Courts. Considering that some of these detainees have been imprisoned for over 6 years without a trial, I would say that's reasonable. Even though judge Hogan is considering whether the detainees are being held lawfully in Guantanamo Bay, we all know as a fact that in most of those cases, the USA Government does not have a legal standard case against most of the detainees. Most of the evidence is based on hearsay from unidentifiable sources and unconstitutionally obtained evidence, which was obtained via torturing and other despicable means.

I still sometimes wonder what the Bush Administration actually intended to do with these detainees. Was it their plan just to keep them in Guantanamo Bay forever or until a new President would take over and deal with them? I have to admit, George Bush Jnr seems to have shown more nature of a populist leader, instead of one upholding human rights. Populist in the sense that he wanted to show the American nation that his administration is making progress in the war against terrorism after 9/11. Even though this populist tendancies came at the violation of many people's human rights.

My ultimate question still remains. What happens if no legally admittable evidence can be found against a particular detainee? Will he just be deported to the country the Bush Administration decides? What about compensation? Compensation for: (1) being unlawfully detained; (2) the trauma associated with being detained without a trial; (3) Loss of income for work the detainee would have done had he not been detained; (4) Loss of income to provide for his family; (5) the trauma of the family not having contact with the detainee; etc. The detainees should rightfully be able to bring a civil law suit under the USA Tort Laws for unlawful detention.

Another legal question that arises out of these facts are: Was the detention without trial so grave that there is no way possible that the detainee can receive a fair trial, even by a USA recognised court? In other words, was the constitutional violation of a right to a fair trial so grave that it would even illiminate any charges against an accused, even though there might probable evidence that the detainee had links to terrorism? Has the Bush Administration thus dig a hole for themselves by not allowing any court appearances to the detainees, 6 years after being captured? That is the next question up for debate!

What to do with good ol' Mugabe?

Sorry readers, but you can forget about an introduction for this one. The title says it all. OK OK, maybe a small introduction. The world is at up and arms with regards to the situation in Zimbabwe and Mugabe's 're-election' as president of this crisis ridden country. The G8 has called for stronger sanctions against Mugabe and his Zanu PF leaders. These sanctions would include financial and travelling restrictions.

South Africa, with good reason, disagrees with stronger sanctions against the Mugabe regime. I would be so bold as to presume that the reason why the South African government does not want any sanctions against Mugabe is because it will cause that its proposed unity government (between and Mugabe and Tsvangirai) fail. South Africa proposes that Mugabe remains the president of Zimbabwe, with Tsvangirai as the Prime Minister. This sort of unity government worked for Kenya after its election twists and violence. However, thus far Tsvangirai refuses to speak to Mbeki and Mugabe (M&M?)

Looking at both options (the G8 and UN option of increasing santions and the South African and AU option of a unity government) I am of the opinion that sanctions against Mugabe would not be such a good idea. Mugabe seems to paint the picture that he does not care about the rest of the world out there. His attitude is that Zimbabwe belongs to him and if the rest of the world has a problem with it, its their problem. Sanctions against Mugabe would also not be effective when considering the future of a once prospering country. What the international community (the G8, UN, AU and SADC) should place their focus on is coming a solution that would take Zimbabwe's future into account. A unity government, as proposed by South Africa, could possibly be such a solution.

However, at the same time, I have to portray my disgust and shame in Bright Matonga (Deputy Information Minister of Zimbabwe) for saying that the proposed sanctions by the G8 and UN is racist and a insult to African leaders. This might sound really bad, but some people should just remain quiet and look suspiciously stupid, than say something and confirm the rest of the world's suspicion.

Does conjugal rights form part of basic human rights? The ICTR has their own opinion.

Today I read an article on the BBC news that stated that the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) has finally granted conjugal rights to detainees at their detention facility in Arusha, Tanzania. Even though I tend to be a very serious human rights lawyer, I couldn't help but be humoured at decision. It should also be noted that the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) has granted these conjugal rights to detainees a long time ago.

I visited the ICTR in 2006 and picked up on their immense respect for human rights, despite the fact that the Rwandan government were quite conservative in their interpretation for upholding human rights. I am bit surprised at the fact that it took the ICTR so long to grant conjugal rights to detainees. In the media coverage it was reported that the Registrar for the ICTR decided to uphold the basic human rights of the detainees and grant them conjugal rights. For those of you who are not aware of what this right entails, it means that the detainees can now have sexual relations with their spouses and/ or partners.

My question thus, does sexual relations between spouses and partners constitute a right? I guess if you prescribe to a progressive and liberal school of thought you would say yes and if you are a conservative thinker you might think the opposite (especially in relation to detainees).

Even though I consider myself to be a student of liberal thought, I still have doubts whether sexual relations between spouses can constitute a right. If its a right, it will definitely give less value to the reality of marital rape. I know that this was not the thought behind the ICTR and ICTY granting these rights to detainees. However, there is thus far no evidence of placing limitations on conjugal rights to detainees. So, if their spouses would come over for a visit and refuse them sexual relations, they can enforce this on them and claim that it is their right to have sexual relations, because the Court has granted them this right.

That is only in relation to spouses. What about those girl/boyfriends of detainees. If sexual relations cannot be theorised into a right for spouses, then it can definitely not be theorised into a right for partners.

It would probably be expected that the Rwandan population would voice their outrage against this decision by the ICTR, as they already claimed in the past that the detainees are living a life of luxury, as if they are in a hotel. I am not a conservative, so conjugal rights could be fine and well, as long as its termed in or around the following lines:

"The detainees are granted conjugal rights with their spouses/ partners, subject to the consent of their spouses/ partners." This would thus not make conjugal rights an absolute right, but rather conditional to consent.

A Truth Commission the answer to war crimes after 9/11?

I just read an interesting column in today's [6 July 2008] edition of the New York Times. In this column Nicholas Kristof suggests that a truth commission be set up to investigate the atrocities committed by the Bush Regime post 9/11. The question which I would like to debate is whether we can grant amnesty to people who have committed war crimes in the form of torture and detention without a trial or a charge?

Coming from South Africa, I witnessed the success of a truth commission, as we had one set up under the Truth and Reconcialition Commission Act. However, the commission had its cons as it never had enough time to address and grant redemption to all the victims and their families of the Apartheid regime.

A truth commission for the USA will only be effective if lessons can be learnt from it. Lessons not to go back to commit grave breaches of international humanitarian law. It should be remembered that torture and detention without trial was not the only violations that the USA defence force and Bush Administration committed. There is also the destruction of religious buildings and other property protected under the Geneva Conventions, which the military tore down. Truth and Reconcialition would be all fine and dandy, but who will pay for the restruction of these buildings? Who will pay for the countless innocent detainees who are still tortured and detained in Guantanamo Bay?

Another option that should also be investigated is the possibility of criminal and war crimes charges against the perpetrators and those who aided and abetted these crimes. However these also raise important questions as the USA is not a party to the ICC Statute and therefore the ICC does not have the jurisdiction to try those who were involved in committing war crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay. Would the USA courts be objective in trying these offenders?

These atrocities cannot be ignored. Therefore I do agree with Kristof that a Truth Commission would be a good option. However I will only agree subject to the consequence that the USA government learn an important lesson from this. One cannot take away peoples basic civil and political human rights, on the suspicision that they are a risk to national security. If they they are charged with terrorist activities and receives a due process, fair trial then such a consequence [like forming a Truth Commission] could possibly be negated.

What happens in Africa, stays in Africa

The African Union officially asked the USA and the UN to but out of Africa's business and leave to Zimbabwe alone. This was backed by the South African Department of Foreign Affairs.

I know this is a bad spot to be in, but I find myself somewhere stuck in the middle. Firstly, I do agree that the USA should but out of Africa's business, as (1) they first have to deal with their own matters of national security and (2) Zimbabwe is no threat to their national security. As for the UN butting out? I do not think that this a good idea. The AU does not have a good reputation when it comes to dealing with African issues effectively. SADC neither. South Africa has not suceeded to come to a stable resolution for Zimbabwe. So, when it comes to AU and SADC not being able to effectively dealing with Zimbabwe and the Mugabe regime, then the UN should definitely assist. However, will sanctions against Zimbabwe, Mugabe and Zanu PF officials be effective?

In the public Mugabe seems to be of the attitude that he does not care of sanctions or any interference from the neo-liberal, western capatalist world. Unless, that interference comes from Great Britain. Anyhow, this is a topic for another debate.

Here are the facts: South Africa failed to assist Zimbabwe with the elections and diplomatic negotiations. SADC failed to do the same. If the AU fails, then who will come to the aid of Zimbabwe? The USA will breach the fundamental principles of state sovereignty. The UN perhaps? So, how can the UN just sit back and but out of Africa's business? The UN did that in Rwanda and looked what happened. Zimbabwe is not far away from the same atrocity. So who should deal with Mugabe?? That seems to be the million dollar question!

Celebrating Independance Day with a guilty conscience?

So today is Independance Day in the USA. A day where the american citizens and nationals celebrate its break away from the Common Wealth system and ties of the British monarch.

However, I still need to ask, can the American folk truly celebrate this day without feeling a little guilty? The alleged war against terror has nothing but burnt the Bush Administration and placed so much pressure on its citizens in the international world. This blog intends to highlight why the American nation should actually feel guilty about celebrating independance day.

1) Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility:
I watched a documentary that tells the storty of three British Muslim citizens who were captured (in Afghanistan) and sent to Guantanamo Bay where they were tortured and interrogated as to their involvement with Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist organisation. No concrete evidence has ever been brought forward which would 'incriminate' them. However, this documentary made the Bush Administration out as the 'biggest losers' in the war against terror. Guantanamo Bay IS NOT complying to the Geneva Conventions or its additional Protocols as the Bush Administration is alleging. The so called detainees are not afforded their basic human rights nor their fair trial rights. That is if they ever go on trial. Thank goodness for the Supreme Court's ruling that these detainees have fair trial rights and that they are being violated by the Bush Administration.

The response of the Administration is quite noteworthy: "These people are criminals that do not enjoy the freedom of human rights". I wonder, criminal according to who? What proof does the Administration have that these people are criminals? If they were caught as a result of this war on terror, why are they not sent to the International Criminal Court for prosecution? Oh I forgot, the USA is not a state party to the ICC Statute. Why not? Is it because of Guantanamo Bay?

2) Iraq
This is where I feel like saying 'enough said'. Even though the USA is attempting to establish a better rule in this country they have miserably failed... 6 years later. Yes, Suddam was captured, had his day in court and rightfully executed. However, the Sunnis and the Shi'tes are still going at each other. The Administration should have possibly placed there focus on getting these two ethnic Muslim Groups at peace first, before placing its focus on Saddam Hussein.

These are only two examples why the USA government cannot celebrate Independance Day with as 'One nation over God' as they are robbing others of their independance.

Thus, before the USA government can ever ask for sanctions again President Mugabe and his regime in Zimbabwe, they first have to clean up on their own porch. Before they can criticise President Mbeki for his silent diplomacy policy on Zimbabwe, they first have to look at whether Bush was really succesful in his progressive actions towards this so called war against terror.

Or in the words of the Michael W Smith song: 'One nation over God look at what we have become'.

Where has the southern African spirit of 'Ubuntu' gone in light of the xenophobic attacks in South Africa? Or was it ever there in the first place?

On Sunday, 25 May 2005, Africa celebrated ‘Africa Day’ or as it is known in Zambia, ‘African Freedom Day’. However, when celebrating this marvellous continent in all its beauty, we should ask ourselves, as Africans, how far have we come to simply accept each other? How far have we come to practice the spirit of Ubuntu? (The spirit of Ubuntu is a southern African philosophy which focuses on peoples’ allegiances and relations with each other)

I have read countless articles where authors seem to shift the blame to the colonial powers that divided Africa at the Berlin Conference in 1884 – 1885. Yes, the colonial powers seemed to have created a divide between our people, based on race, tribes, etc. However, Europe has ‘left’ Africa a long time ago and yet we use those differences to advocate hatred and war among each other, as Africans.

Currently South Africa is seeing the result of our hatred to one another, as Africans. South African nationals are attacking people of foreign citizenship in South Africa, burning their houses and setting out to kill them. It is surprising to note that only citizens of foreign African countries are being attacked and the citizens of other continents, which are staying in South Africa, are left unharmed. The xenophobic attackers are stating that the African foreigners are committing crimes and taking employment from South African citizens. This is the reason for the attacks on all the foreign African citizens. Apart from the fact that they blatantly have no trust in the South African criminal justice system, they are also showing their hatred towards African foreigners. They are showing this hatred notwithstanding the fact that Ubuntu is an inherent southern African philosophy, which the South African government has countless times encouraged us to practice.

Although xenophobia cannot be compared to genocide, because the special intention, which is required to commit genocide, is lacking in xenophobia, the social circumstances are similar. Citizens from one country are attacking citizens from foreign countries, more particular foreign citizens from other African continents. The ultimate question remains, does Africa not learn from its previous and current mistakes? Robert Mugabe, who was an African hero, is also guilty of advocating xenophobic attacks against foreign farmers and farm workers from Malawi and other parts of Africa, who are living in Zimbabwe. Rwanda saw the bloody massacre of thousands of its citizens, for which the Hutu militia and the Rwandan government were responsible. Sudan is currently going through the same experience with the Janjaweed (a government backed militia) attacking all non-Muslim citizens of Sudan in the Darfur region.

Classification plays an important role in the attacks. Our roots and our ancestry define our being as Africans. However, when this classification allows us to ostracise one another, based on a certain classification, we should start comparing it to our sense for humanity… for Ubuntu. We should start comparing the importance of our tribe/ citizenship to that of having the African continent flourish with respect for human rights. This is a difficult decision to make, but if our tribe/ national classification is a reason to break us as Africans, then we should start to consider the importance thereof. If we cannot live in peace in our tribes, then we should start questioning the existence thereof. Kenya just recently gave testimony to where a political disagreement filtered into ethnic violence, with the Luo tribe violently attacking the members of the Kikuyu tribe. Rwanda abolished the Tutsi and Hutu ethnic classification after the 1994 genocide and today the country is on a successful route to have its citizens living in harmony and peace with each other.

I used Rwanda, Kenya and Sudan as examples of the consequences where the practice of Ubuntu was absent. In southern Africa this practice flourishes wonderfully in philosophy, but looking at the past atrocities in this region (Zimbabwe’s presidential and parliamentary elections and the xenophobic attacks in South Africa), I am of the opinion that Ubuntu is not present here, even though we are encouraged to practice it.