I am writing this blog in response to the articles for Bashir's arrest, and the video interview by Ms. Hilsum. During his presidency, or what seems more like a dictatorship, millions have suffered. It is hard to believe how one man can make such a dramatic impact on so many lives. Intuitively speaking, it seems that the situation is hardly simple enough to claim one man orchestrated the death and displacement of millions. Yet the evidence is from relaible sources; the UN relief organizations, the interviews with darfur memembers themselves, etc. In contrast, Bashir in the face what seems to be insurmountable evidence, denies all accusations by either minimizing the amount of suffering, and claiming the evidence has bias against his reign.
I almost pity president Bashir. His country is left in ruins, and the entire world blames him for the death of his countrymen. With the level of atrocity and comparison to the Nazis, I almost want to believe his story, and, with his version of what is happening at Darfur, I am stricken with slight confusion. Is this man insane and living in another universe or is there a hint of truth behind it? Or is he simply just lying through his teeth, trying to cover up his tracks?
This brings me to the evidence. From my point of view, the stories seem to split between the media and president Bashir. The media has carried with it the testimonies of witnesses from the likes of UN officials, Darfur victims, relief agency memebers and many more, and as journalist witness for themselves and report on the latest story. It seems just quantitatively speaking millions of people claiming similar stories to one man's story. The witnesses make him seem as guilty as sin, even if you want to believe him out of pure pity.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Do Figure-Heads Detract From What is Really at Stake?
This week I am responding to the arrest warrant issued for President Omar al Bashir of Sudan regarding his crimes against humanity.
In thinking about the ideas testimony produces via how it is produced, I wonder if convicting al Bashir will really be that helpful. While the crimes of Darfur are terrible, and while one person can be held accountable, making al Bashir a poster-child for monstrosity seems ill-directed. In reading the new stories provided by the links, I get the sense many already feel this man is guilty. While I feel that he probably is, this defeats the purpose of a fair and unbiased trial. I think there needs to be a distinction between testimony for the purpose of conviction and testimony that seeks to elicit emotion. The Eichmann Trial sought the latter, and I feel the current trial is seeking to do both. There is an attempt to stop crimes against humanity and at the same time, expose others to what is really going on.
My issue is this: Even though Omar al Bashir may be the organizer of such crimes, it is impossible that he is the only perpetrator. Thus, he has become more of a figure and an example than an actual person standing trial. I think that in times of gross human rights violations, examples need to be made of people because it is too difficult, if not impossible, for all involved to be called out. However, I feel that placing the blame on a single individual takes the focus off of the crimes everyday civilians have committed in this situation. Rather than hating the neighbor who raped them, victims can now center all their anger on one figure. Placing blame on one person is necessary to bring justice when blame lays on the shoulders of multiple individuals. I just worry that with a villain identified, one who is already painted as someone with "no presence, no charisma, no charm, no magnetism", those who stand against him will forget
the atrocities committed by people who blindly, or knowingly, obeyed orders.
Quote from: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/the-banality-of-sudans-president/
In thinking about the ideas testimony produces via how it is produced, I wonder if convicting al Bashir will really be that helpful. While the crimes of Darfur are terrible, and while one person can be held accountable, making al Bashir a poster-child for monstrosity seems ill-directed. In reading the new stories provided by the links, I get the sense many already feel this man is guilty. While I feel that he probably is, this defeats the purpose of a fair and unbiased trial. I think there needs to be a distinction between testimony for the purpose of conviction and testimony that seeks to elicit emotion. The Eichmann Trial sought the latter, and I feel the current trial is seeking to do both. There is an attempt to stop crimes against humanity and at the same time, expose others to what is really going on.
My issue is this: Even though Omar al Bashir may be the organizer of such crimes, it is impossible that he is the only perpetrator. Thus, he has become more of a figure and an example than an actual person standing trial. I think that in times of gross human rights violations, examples need to be made of people because it is too difficult, if not impossible, for all involved to be called out. However, I feel that placing the blame on a single individual takes the focus off of the crimes everyday civilians have committed in this situation. Rather than hating the neighbor who raped them, victims can now center all their anger on one figure. Placing blame on one person is necessary to bring justice when blame lays on the shoulders of multiple individuals. I just worry that with a villain identified, one who is already painted as someone with "no presence, no charisma, no charm, no magnetism", those who stand against him will forget
the atrocities committed by people who blindly, or knowingly, obeyed orders.
Quote from: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/the-banality-of-sudans-president/
Cambodian pictures
I viewed this link, the Cambodian photo essay: http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/03/cambodia_and_its_war_tribunal.html.
When looking at this photoessay, it wasn't the photos that got to me the most, it was reading the captions about the photos.
When the captions explained everything about the trials, the victims, the genocide,the meaning of the
picture came to life. When they showed the pictures of the bones, it did not strike any emotion in me,
they were just pictures taken, possibly for archeological purposes. But, because they had a caption, there
was more meaning to the skulls. Unless you knew the who story, then you would
be able to understand and possibly have some emotion attached to the picture that you see. I know the
one picture and caption that got to me was the one where the men were looking for old land mines, and
it stated that a family of three happened upon one and were killed. Just thinking about how tragic that was
after the genocide was over, that people still have to fear for their lives. Comparing this
to our lecture last week, when we talked about listening to a tape from a holocaust survivor or reading
their statement, i feel that a person will show more emotion, over hearing someone speak or reading their
testimonies, because the most powerful thing to me are the words. Describing in details what happened
to you whether in a book or in a video or a tape recording, it portrays a lot of emotional and pulls on your
heart strings!! Looking at pictures on the other hand, such as those from Cambodia, they do not pull
on your heart strings because you didn't know what they were about and what happened to those people
unless you read their testimonies.
Words are louder then pictures i believe. In words a person can communicate everything they are feeling
detail by detail. In a picture, you can just see so much. You can possibly see sadness, happiness, anger,
but it doesnt tell you what the person is thinking or going through unless you have information
and facts that explain the time period, and who the person is in the photo and when happened. I am not
saying that pictures don't say a thousand words, but i am saying that pictures can just tell you so much.
And its not what is in the picture that gets to a person, it is the story behind the picture.
The Future of Global Criminal Prevention
This week I chose to focus on the recent indictment of Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir by the International Criminal Court-- an action that will surely reverberate throughout the world. If the charges stick, the seven year old council will have the ability to display its power as a worldwide preventer and prosecutor of crimes against humanity. The joint efforts of 108 nations will hopefully provide an unbiased trial for Bashir, whether he be found guilty or not guilty on the accusations of murder, extermination, rape, torture, forced relocation of civilians and pillaging. As we discussed in class, the verdicts of past events like the Eichmann and Nuremberg Trials were surely influenced by personal belief. The presence of the ICC may help to establish a balance for which to try future criminals among the likes of Hitler and Bashir. The United States is not currently a member and has not expressed its intention to join, however maybe one day all the world’s nations will be fortunate enough to have the opportunity to work hand in hand to bring about justice on a global scale. The charge of genocide has been strangely omitted from Bashir’s counts, maybe due in part to a lack of evidence or the ability to pursue such a severe crime. We have heard tales of the horrific events occurring in Darfur, and many people are doing what they can to assist those in need, but now the ICC’s actions demonstrate that those in power are also committed to end such travesties. By bringing this situation to light, it really puts a nation’s problems in perspective. However low Former President Bush’s ratings reached, we as a people never came anywhere remotely close to the level of fear of government that those in Sudan are experiencing. The ICC is doing what is necessary to stop the crimes of humanity that are currently happening in other parts of the world, and I can only hope that the outcome of Bashir’s trial will help prevent similar events from occurring in the future.
Forgotten Victims
I looked at the article about the horrors in Cambodia from the viewpoint of a Khmer Rouge member. While it is true the regime committed horrible acts against the people it ruled, people often forget that the regime's own members can be victims as well. In the scramble to figure out what happened and who should be punished, it is these people, the lower ranking members of the regime, that are often forgotten.
No one can deny that actions performed by Him Huy and others like him were horrendous. Lining up prisoners and hitting them in the head with an iron bar is never acceptable. However, at least in my opinion, the situation changes drastically when the "executioner" could just as likely end up on the other end of the iron bar. Mr. Huy speaks of eating lunch with co-workers, then that night seeing the same co-worker on the recieving end of one of the bars. In fact, he moved up to be a high ranking prison official for precisely this reason - those above him were arrested and killed.
The article discusses how Mr. Huy's friends, family, and neighbors do not hold his actions against him, and I agree with them. A former prisoner even commented that he had nothing against Mr. Huy, as the prisoner did not know what he would do if it was him. This is precisely the dilema that is so easily forgotten. If your job was to kill people, or be killed yourself, how many people could honestly say they would refuse to do their job?
It is this that shows the almost forgotten attrocities of the regime. Yes, killing millions of people are wrong. But is recruiting kids(Mr. Huy was 12) and then brainwashing them to assist in your evil any better? And just in case the brainwash is not complete, the regime members can just as easily find themselves the prisoners.
However, when speaking of the horrors commited by the regime, this often goes forgotten, or barely mentioned. In order to hold those responsible truly accountable, all their wrong doings must be brought to light. The absolute stranglehold regime leaders have over their own followers is often forgotten, and should not be. It is these people who are often the forgotten victims.
No one can deny that actions performed by Him Huy and others like him were horrendous. Lining up prisoners and hitting them in the head with an iron bar is never acceptable. However, at least in my opinion, the situation changes drastically when the "executioner" could just as likely end up on the other end of the iron bar. Mr. Huy speaks of eating lunch with co-workers, then that night seeing the same co-worker on the recieving end of one of the bars. In fact, he moved up to be a high ranking prison official for precisely this reason - those above him were arrested and killed.
The article discusses how Mr. Huy's friends, family, and neighbors do not hold his actions against him, and I agree with them. A former prisoner even commented that he had nothing against Mr. Huy, as the prisoner did not know what he would do if it was him. This is precisely the dilema that is so easily forgotten. If your job was to kill people, or be killed yourself, how many people could honestly say they would refuse to do their job?
It is this that shows the almost forgotten attrocities of the regime. Yes, killing millions of people are wrong. But is recruiting kids(Mr. Huy was 12) and then brainwashing them to assist in your evil any better? And just in case the brainwash is not complete, the regime members can just as easily find themselves the prisoners.
However, when speaking of the horrors commited by the regime, this often goes forgotten, or barely mentioned. In order to hold those responsible truly accountable, all their wrong doings must be brought to light. The absolute stranglehold regime leaders have over their own followers is often forgotten, and should not be. It is these people who are often the forgotten victims.
The World's Perception on Sudan
I have chosen to do my assignment on the international criminal courts and Sudan. I will first go into detail on the New York Time’s article and small clip called, “ Impressions of Sudan’s President.” Next, I will go into detail on the news stories of Sudan’s President Omar Al Bashir, and how this relates to Wieviorka's book. Lastly, I will explain my personal experience with a survivor from Sudan, and how his life is perceived as a part of history.
Throughout the article, “Impressions of Sudan’s President” it became apparent that Sudan’s President showed no remorse throughout the years of genocide, rape crimes, and the destruction of his people. The President of Sudan states that the charges and accusations were “made up.” Nonetheless, I believe that the International Criminal Court will face pressure from the entire world to seek justice because this has been viewed in society as a “massacre” on innocent people. Which brings up the question: Will the President of Sudan receive a fair trial? Throughout class we’ve touch on the fact that the perception in the public sphere can have a big impact on vital decisions.
We also touch on Wieviorka’s point of view about how historical content structures everything. I believe the crimes in Sudan will finally get justice. On the other hand, many people fear that the indictment on Omar Al Bashir will result in more violence and hate crimes. In this article it states:
“Some have contended that an ICC indictment of the President of Sudan, which enforces international law and holds him accountable for his crimes, is necessary for sustained peace. Others are concerned that such an indictment could negatively impact the peace negotiations, prolonging war or perhaps even accelerating it – resulting in more deaths, sexual violence, destruction, and misery.” (http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/exeres/0EF62173-05ED-403A-80C8-F15EE1D25BB3.htm)
Either way the indictment of Omar Al Bashir” will be seen throughout the world is an example of a world leader being punished, and hopefully it will become a step towards progression for the people in Sudan. Overall, I believe the pictures, video clips, pod casts, and television send a strong message throughout the entire world. The material that is being shown from Sudan clearly shows the ongoing genocide that is happening. As a result, society only knows what they see through media outlets, and I believe this method will have a big influence on the decision of Omar Al Bashir’s indictment.
A good friend of mine in college, Ayuen (AJ) Garang was known on campus as a survivor of Sudan’s war. At first, I had no idea of his past history. We stood on the same floor together and immediately became friends. He was looked upon as an iconic figure throughout campus. It wasn’t until the spring semester that I had realized I was hanging out with a person who came from the struggle of Sudan. I remember it was the first day of the spring semester, and the professor wanted to know our names and what described us as a person. When the question was asked to Ayuen, he took out a piece of medal from his pocket, and said, “ My name is Ayuen Garang… and I am like this medal. Nothing can break me.” Ayuen can be compared to Holocaust survivors in many ways. The reason I say this is because in society he is viewed as a “survivor from Sudan,” and will be known as one for the rest of his life. The same can be said for Holocaust survivors as well because of the fact society perceives them as historical figures.
Throughout the article, “Impressions of Sudan’s President” it became apparent that Sudan’s President showed no remorse throughout the years of genocide, rape crimes, and the destruction of his people. The President of Sudan states that the charges and accusations were “made up.” Nonetheless, I believe that the International Criminal Court will face pressure from the entire world to seek justice because this has been viewed in society as a “massacre” on innocent people. Which brings up the question: Will the President of Sudan receive a fair trial? Throughout class we’ve touch on the fact that the perception in the public sphere can have a big impact on vital decisions.
We also touch on Wieviorka’s point of view about how historical content structures everything. I believe the crimes in Sudan will finally get justice. On the other hand, many people fear that the indictment on Omar Al Bashir will result in more violence and hate crimes. In this article it states:
“Some have contended that an ICC indictment of the President of Sudan, which enforces international law and holds him accountable for his crimes, is necessary for sustained peace. Others are concerned that such an indictment could negatively impact the peace negotiations, prolonging war or perhaps even accelerating it – resulting in more deaths, sexual violence, destruction, and misery.” (http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/exeres/0EF62173-05ED-403A-80C8-F15EE1D25BB3.htm)
Either way the indictment of Omar Al Bashir” will be seen throughout the world is an example of a world leader being punished, and hopefully it will become a step towards progression for the people in Sudan. Overall, I believe the pictures, video clips, pod casts, and television send a strong message throughout the entire world. The material that is being shown from Sudan clearly shows the ongoing genocide that is happening. As a result, society only knows what they see through media outlets, and I believe this method will have a big influence on the decision of Omar Al Bashir’s indictment.
A good friend of mine in college, Ayuen (AJ) Garang was known on campus as a survivor of Sudan’s war. At first, I had no idea of his past history. We stood on the same floor together and immediately became friends. He was looked upon as an iconic figure throughout campus. It wasn’t until the spring semester that I had realized I was hanging out with a person who came from the struggle of Sudan. I remember it was the first day of the spring semester, and the professor wanted to know our names and what described us as a person. When the question was asked to Ayuen, he took out a piece of medal from his pocket, and said, “ My name is Ayuen Garang… and I am like this medal. Nothing can break me.” Ayuen can be compared to Holocaust survivors in many ways. The reason I say this is because in society he is viewed as a “survivor from Sudan,” and will be known as one for the rest of his life. The same can be said for Holocaust survivors as well because of the fact society perceives them as historical figures.
Conflict in Darfur
I watched the article here, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/06/world/africa/06sudan.html?_r=1, and watched the video inside of the article.
As is clear from this article and this video, we do not live in a black and white world. In my opinion, the Sudanese president Omar Hassan al-Bashir was guilty of "war crimes charges stemming from the conflict in Darfur". This indictment came from the "International Criminal Court, which was formed in 2002 with the idea of creating a permanent venue to pursue the type of war criminals who had emerged in conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda". The ICC has become a permanent venue to pursue war criminals, and I believe that Bashir should be pursued.
There is talk in the video saying that if Bashir was suddenly taken out, then the country would crack and collapse from his abscense. I think that is a poor reason to not pursue justice, the truth, and people taking responsibility for their actions. Just as Wieviorka argues, testimony can enters the public sphere through trials. These trials leave an imprint of those testimonies. Bashir is not only trying to avoid these criminal charges, but I think he is also trying to not allow the creation of a public sphere in favor of his enemies. By not allowing your enemies to have the smae public platform as you, you create an unfair advantage and are not taking responsibility for your actions.
As is clear from this article and this video, we do not live in a black and white world. In my opinion, the Sudanese president Omar Hassan al-Bashir was guilty of "war crimes charges stemming from the conflict in Darfur". This indictment came from the "International Criminal Court, which was formed in 2002 with the idea of creating a permanent venue to pursue the type of war criminals who had emerged in conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda". The ICC has become a permanent venue to pursue war criminals, and I believe that Bashir should be pursued.
There is talk in the video saying that if Bashir was suddenly taken out, then the country would crack and collapse from his abscense. I think that is a poor reason to not pursue justice, the truth, and people taking responsibility for their actions. Just as Wieviorka argues, testimony can enters the public sphere through trials. These trials leave an imprint of those testimonies. Bashir is not only trying to avoid these criminal charges, but I think he is also trying to not allow the creation of a public sphere in favor of his enemies. By not allowing your enemies to have the smae public platform as you, you create an unfair advantage and are not taking responsibility for your actions.
Cambodia and its War Tribunals
I looked at Cambodia and its War Tribunals. http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/03/cambodia_and_its_war_tribunal.html
The first thing I could not help but notice is the length of time it took for trials to occur. These crime against humanity are now being taken up in trials three decades after they occurred. Its hard to believe that death of 1.4 million Cambodians look three decades to address and punish.
The site shows the numbers of bones that are just piled up and its disturbing. Human skulls and appendages are just arranged neatly in a pile, and I honestly wondered why the time was taken to do this.
Just as we have no smoking signs, there is a no laughing sign posted on a wall. I found it hard to believe that laughing, a way of expression joy and emotion, is prohibited. I couldn't help but to keep comparing it to signs we see everyday: no smoking; no turn on red; no u-turn; no laughing . . .one of these just doesn't belong.
Last week when I read articles and watched videos of Holocaust survivors, I remember reading something about how horribly intellectuals were treated. The same type of event occurred in Cambodia. Intellectuals were tortured and interrogated before they were killed and drown into mass graves.
There were also pictures of the fields of landmines, and soldiers attempting to find them. I'm not sure how landmines are generally found and recovered, but I found it surprising that they were using pick axes and shovels to recover a delicate explosive. The following picture was a man with a prosthetic leg at a rehabilitation center.
30 years after strict labor laws, executions, starvation, and torture due to the power of the Khmer Rouge, the country is still suffering with a destroyed agricultural system and extreme poverty being only two of their many problems.
The first thing I could not help but notice is the length of time it took for trials to occur. These crime against humanity are now being taken up in trials three decades after they occurred. Its hard to believe that death of 1.4 million Cambodians look three decades to address and punish.
The site shows the numbers of bones that are just piled up and its disturbing. Human skulls and appendages are just arranged neatly in a pile, and I honestly wondered why the time was taken to do this.
Just as we have no smoking signs, there is a no laughing sign posted on a wall. I found it hard to believe that laughing, a way of expression joy and emotion, is prohibited. I couldn't help but to keep comparing it to signs we see everyday: no smoking; no turn on red; no u-turn; no laughing . . .one of these just doesn't belong.
Last week when I read articles and watched videos of Holocaust survivors, I remember reading something about how horribly intellectuals were treated. The same type of event occurred in Cambodia. Intellectuals were tortured and interrogated before they were killed and drown into mass graves.
There were also pictures of the fields of landmines, and soldiers attempting to find them. I'm not sure how landmines are generally found and recovered, but I found it surprising that they were using pick axes and shovels to recover a delicate explosive. The following picture was a man with a prosthetic leg at a rehabilitation center.
30 years after strict labor laws, executions, starvation, and torture due to the power of the Khmer Rouge, the country is still suffering with a destroyed agricultural system and extreme poverty being only two of their many problems.
Crimes Against Humanity
The idea of the President of Sudan being issued a warrant for arrest did not at first strike me with particular intrigue. I mistakenly assumed that it was just another corrupt politician. However, in reading further into the articles, that the news sites have posted, I realized that the situation was definitely a great deal more complex. The International Criminal Court is charging President Omar Al Bashir on 5 counts of crimes against humanity. This, in itself, is amazing to me in that the idea of a President being charged with anything that involves the safety of people seems extremely hypocritical. That a president would issue orders of "murder...extermination...forcible transfer...torture...and rape" (ICC), does not make immediate sense to me. I found in the interview in the pod casts from the "Voices of Genocide Prevention", that Judge Gabrielle Kirk McDonald stated quite clearly that "
So, Bashir... How do we see you from here?
I chose to read about the International Criminal Court (ICC)'s warrant of arrest for Sudanese President Omar Al Bashir. I read four articles in all and watched two small video clips by New York Times correspondents. I will comment on the first two, which included the video clips.
The first article, "ICC Issues Arrest Warrant for Sudanese President Bashir", was from the US Holocaust Memorial Museum website, under the Responding Today to Threats of Genocide page. Immediately I noticed that this arrest was described as a "historical decision" and a marker of history. The emphasis on history was apparent to me right away. The concerns of the USHMM were also quite readily apparent in the second paragraph: "Notably absent from the warrant is the charge of genocide." If Bashir is ultimately tried in an international trial, what does that mean for history? As Wieviorka quesitons, how does investigation or prosecution in trials work as a means of derriving history (65)? What would it mean, historically, for Bashir, as the current Head of State in Sudan, to be tried for crimes against humanity? Is it just a matter of precident, perhaps? Of setting Bashir up as an example to others? Or is it, like the Eichmann trial, a way of giving voice to those who have been silenced by violence? This is an answer we might not get to know unless/until we see the trial of Bashir.
The second article I read was from the NY Times blog, The Lede, called "Impressions of Sudan's President". This particular blog is a blog about other (sometimes past) blogs. I was struck by the comparison the writer, Robert Mackey, creates...
Ms. Hilsum writes about President Bashir in terms that echo Hannah Arendt’s famous “Banality of Evil,” about the trial of the Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Of her first interview with President Bashir, which took place a few days after he seized power in 1989, Ms. Hilsum recalls:
which is followed by a quote from Hilsum's blog. What is interesting to me about this exerpt is the contextualization of Hilsum's current commentary as similar to that of commentary from the Eichmann Trial - an association meant to draw parallels between Bashir and Eichmann, and thus, implicitly, between the two men's crimes... as that of genocide. What is also intriguing is Hilsum's current commentary being offered about an interview which she conducted 20 years ago. Wieviorka stresses how memory is recalled from within specific contexts... which makes me wonder how untainted by recent events/developments Hilsum's memory of the first interview is.
The two video clips were from this source as well, the first being halfway through the blog as an integral part of it (kind of a multimedia experience) and the other, a video entitled "Applauding the International Criminal Court" by Nicholas Kristof, I found from a link I followed to a NY Times Opinion page. I was a little disturbed by how much the "impressions" of Bashir written by Hilsum might affect the viewer's opinion of him in the video. In these videos I found a strong appeal to emotions. The first, which includes an interview of Bashir by Hilsum, shows her impassioned appeal to Bashir followed by his response, translated in a kind of deadpan voice. The quesiton of language, so often brought up in Wieviorka's text, came up here for me. We trust the documentary translator to be bringing us exact words and phrases, but in a context so politically and morally fraught, can we trust it completely to be unbiased?
Kristof's "video report" - as it is identified in the Lede blog - also appeals to emotion, showing disfigured refugee men and women, asking us to applaud the ICC's actions for the boy who's hands have been blown off by a grenade... I wanted to comment on this Opinion piece - and all "opinion" pieces - being widely included and accepted as a component of "News". It says a lot about the public's quest and the media's presentation (or selling) of "truth"-finding, the creation of history and collective memories. Will I remember Bashir from now on as the man who blew the innocent boy's hands off? That kind of history is very different from that offered by, say, the detailing of the arrest warrant in the press release on the ICC website. If the same news program were to cover the ICC's trial of Bashir, what kinds of images would be juxtaposed with the hearing? How would that affect public/collective opinion of his crimes and his guilt?
The first article, "ICC Issues Arrest Warrant for Sudanese President Bashir", was from the US Holocaust Memorial Museum website, under the Responding Today to Threats of Genocide page. Immediately I noticed that this arrest was described as a "historical decision" and a marker of history. The emphasis on history was apparent to me right away. The concerns of the USHMM were also quite readily apparent in the second paragraph: "Notably absent from the warrant is the charge of genocide." If Bashir is ultimately tried in an international trial, what does that mean for history? As Wieviorka quesitons, how does investigation or prosecution in trials work as a means of derriving history (65)? What would it mean, historically, for Bashir, as the current Head of State in Sudan, to be tried for crimes against humanity? Is it just a matter of precident, perhaps? Of setting Bashir up as an example to others? Or is it, like the Eichmann trial, a way of giving voice to those who have been silenced by violence? This is an answer we might not get to know unless/until we see the trial of Bashir.
The second article I read was from the NY Times blog, The Lede, called "Impressions of Sudan's President". This particular blog is a blog about other (sometimes past) blogs. I was struck by the comparison the writer, Robert Mackey, creates...
Ms. Hilsum writes about President Bashir in terms that echo Hannah Arendt’s famous “Banality of Evil,” about the trial of the Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Of her first interview with President Bashir, which took place a few days after he seized power in 1989, Ms. Hilsum recalls:
which is followed by a quote from Hilsum's blog. What is interesting to me about this exerpt is the contextualization of Hilsum's current commentary as similar to that of commentary from the Eichmann Trial - an association meant to draw parallels between Bashir and Eichmann, and thus, implicitly, between the two men's crimes... as that of genocide. What is also intriguing is Hilsum's current commentary being offered about an interview which she conducted 20 years ago. Wieviorka stresses how memory is recalled from within specific contexts... which makes me wonder how untainted by recent events/developments Hilsum's memory of the first interview is.
The two video clips were from this source as well, the first being halfway through the blog as an integral part of it (kind of a multimedia experience) and the other, a video entitled "Applauding the International Criminal Court" by Nicholas Kristof, I found from a link I followed to a NY Times Opinion page. I was a little disturbed by how much the "impressions" of Bashir written by Hilsum might affect the viewer's opinion of him in the video. In these videos I found a strong appeal to emotions. The first, which includes an interview of Bashir by Hilsum, shows her impassioned appeal to Bashir followed by his response, translated in a kind of deadpan voice. The quesiton of language, so often brought up in Wieviorka's text, came up here for me. We trust the documentary translator to be bringing us exact words and phrases, but in a context so politically and morally fraught, can we trust it completely to be unbiased?
Kristof's "video report" - as it is identified in the Lede blog - also appeals to emotion, showing disfigured refugee men and women, asking us to applaud the ICC's actions for the boy who's hands have been blown off by a grenade... I wanted to comment on this Opinion piece - and all "opinion" pieces - being widely included and accepted as a component of "News". It says a lot about the public's quest and the media's presentation (or selling) of "truth"-finding, the creation of history and collective memories. Will I remember Bashir from now on as the man who blew the innocent boy's hands off? That kind of history is very different from that offered by, say, the detailing of the arrest warrant in the press release on the ICC website. If the same news program were to cover the ICC's trial of Bashir, what kinds of images would be juxtaposed with the hearing? How would that affect public/collective opinion of his crimes and his guilt?
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Tribunals Legitimate Both History and Memory
Tribunals are important because the people that are responsible for crimes against humanity must realize that they will be held accountable in some way at some point in their future. They are also important because as in any trial, both sides of a story are heard—most importantly the witnesses’ testimony because the accused's actions speak for them. Tribunals should take the form of the Eichmann trial because in cases where genocide and mass violence are concerned, the guilt of a defendant is generally unquestionable once they have been indicted. The point of the trial is not so much to prove guilt as to straighten out facts of the story and provide a narrative for public digestion, as well as make a political point. Another aspect of tribunals is the evidence of a changed political atmosphere. Tribunals in
A tribunal sanctioned by the Cambodian government as well as the UN lends considerable legitimacy to the testimonies brought forth by witnesses. A blog about Khmer Rouge mass violence doesn’t have the same intensity or legitimacy of a witness’s court testimony because the emotional qualities conveyed visually aren’t as readily available through print. Also, writing about mass trauma isn’t restricted to survivors only. Historians or regular Joes can assume the role of writing about the Khmer Rouge’s crimes against humanity through second hand knowledge of the event. The status of a witness as a primary source makes their knowledge more valuable to those like Wieviorka who believe that memory and history must remain distinct, although the memory of the witness may be (unintentionally) incomplete or false.
We try so hard to reconstruct a version of the past constituted from snapshots of individuals’ life experiences and then separate the subjective and objective parts into memory and history, respectively. But this is impossible. History should just be universally recognized as being a product of a particular collective perception (facts, events), as well as individual perceptions within that collective, shaped by memory with all its faults. The receivers of history are not objective; humans have subjective experiences which cause them to react to information differently. So why does history have to seem objective when it really isn’t?
Holocaust & International Criminal Court & Sudan Responses
International Criminal Court and Sudan:
After watching the clip of the intrview of President Bashir I could not stop laughing at his responses. Is he for real? He doesn't give out go reasons to how he is not involved. He just says things like theres no such thing as mass rape. He sounds just like Hitler, when he said he wasn't harming the Jews and even showed worked camps to outsiders. But now we know what actually was going on. I think they should put him on trail. How does a person like that become president? First off they say how dry he is, how does he capture the attention of the country? Who would actually pay attention and follow him? I mean lets look at former US President Ronald Reagan who was known as 'The Great Communicator'. Reagan was a master at delivering simple concepts that everyone could understand, but how does a nation follow President Bashir? The lady intreviewing him couldn't stand him and was being border line nasty time him. Lastly, how could someone be so evil? We are all humans, yes we all have made mistakes, but not to a whole nation. He really needs to put himself into the shoes of his victims.Holocaust:
I watched the video on Peter S. (http://www.library.yale.edu/testimonies/excerpts/peters.html) and he talked about how the old and handicapped were put on a different side, and to prevent his mom from being taken away, she made her neck seem huge on both sides. I just cant grasp how such an event could happen, with Jews from all over Europe coming together into the camps. The Jews themselves realized something wasn't kosher, or else why would his mom cover herself up. I just don't get how there can be so much evil out there. And the worst part is, it still is happening today.
Then I watched the video of Hy Abrahms (http://college.usc.edu/vhi/otv/otv.php) and he talked about hiding when all the Jews from there community were ordered to leave. The saddest part was how his classmates shot at him and ratted him out. Furthermore, Hy doesn't think that was the worst part, but how his friend that he has known all his life, pulled the golde earings out of a young girls ear. They are all from the same community. What happened to good neighbors that are always there for you? And on the same wensite I watched Henry Greenblatt and how he escaped from the ghetto to buy food and bring it back for the family. It was a great video that shows no matter what sutituation Jews are in, they can be prosperious!
To Act Or Not To Act
After reading a number of New York Times articles on the alleged practices of Sudan's president Omar Hassan al-Bashir, it became obvious to me what side of the argument the press, and generally the world, is situating itself on. Bashir, by and large, is viewed as a criminal and villian set out to destroy the people he was chosen to lead. Moreover, from the testimony and information I have come across, I believe he is at least partly responsible for the genocide in Darfur and the seemingly hellish atmosphere its inhabitants have had to live through. Of course, this opinion is only based on information available to me, but this is the same information available to the rest of the world. However, if there is enough data to prompt the International Criminal Court to issue a warrant for the arrest of Bashir for crimes against humanity, then there is probably a just cause to consider him a threat to the safety of the people of Sudan.
Taking all of this into account, many people have pleaded with our government to take action in this affair. There are many different avenues that could be taken, some military and some humanitarian. However, the ICC arrest warrant alone has caused Sudan to halt the efforts of 13 aid organizations currently in Darfur (see link below).
http://http//www.nytimes.com/2009/03/06/world/africa/06sudan.html
If a simple warrant has caused the Sudanese government to prevent its citizens from getting aid, what would actual action against Sudan prompt them to do to their already seriously disabled population? Some, such as New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, suggest active arrest efforts and bombing Sudan's military aircraft. (see link below).
http://http//video.nytimes.com/video/2009/03/04/opinion/1194838343457/arrest-warrant-for-sudans-leader.html
If the warrant scared Bashir enough to stop aid, what would bombing his country's aircraft lead him to do? Obviously, the man is skittish as it is.
This is the dilemma we are faced with. Action or no action, it seems the people of Darfur will continue to suffer.
Taking all of this into account, many people have pleaded with our government to take action in this affair. There are many different avenues that could be taken, some military and some humanitarian. However, the ICC arrest warrant alone has caused Sudan to halt the efforts of 13 aid organizations currently in Darfur (see link below).
http://http//www.nytimes.com/2009/03/06/world/africa/06sudan.html
If a simple warrant has caused the Sudanese government to prevent its citizens from getting aid, what would actual action against Sudan prompt them to do to their already seriously disabled population? Some, such as New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, suggest active arrest efforts and bombing Sudan's military aircraft. (see link below).
http://http//video.nytimes.com/video/2009/03/04/opinion/1194838343457/arrest-warrant-for-sudans-leader.html
If the warrant scared Bashir enough to stop aid, what would bombing his country's aircraft lead him to do? Obviously, the man is skittish as it is.
This is the dilemma we are faced with. Action or no action, it seems the people of Darfur will continue to suffer.
Mixed Feelings about Pres. Bashir's Indictment
Before reading these articles and watching the videos, I knew nothing about the Sudanese Civil War, or the state of the country in general. What seems clear, is the majority of countries believe Bashir to be guilty of crimes in Darfur, while the Sudanese people in general respect and support their leader. It seems to me that both sides are bringing historical baggage into play. The accusers must be influenced by the fact that Bashir gained his power by overthrowing a Democtratic government. Bashir and other members of his government are comparing the accusation to the "same Euro-American justice that destroyed Iraq, Afghanistan, and most recently Gaza" (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/06/world/africa/06sudan.html?_r=1). Also, Bashir accuses the international community of a modern day colonialism. Building on these past events, the 'Euro-American justice' must look twisted to the Sudanese people. We must also keep in mind that Bashir recently ended a 25 year Civil War that killed over 2 million people.
When just reading the articles, I did not understand the extent to which he is supported by the citizens. Watching the video from the New York Times article made a big difference though. Hearing the urgency and resolve in the voice of citizens worrying about their country changed my feeling about this indictment. They are concerned that a quick removal of Bashir would result in many more deaths, and a change of government. Taking into account past motivations, I wonder if this indictment is more about a desire to change the government in Sudan and less about the death and suffering of the people in Darfur.
However, I really don't know. The type of access we have to these events is very limited and almost always through an American run source. We are probably missing a lot of information. It surely seems that Bashir and his government have done some horrible things and may well deserve international judgement; I am just unsure that this is the best time to act. The country seems too unstable to withstand something like this.
The last thing that jumped out at me was a question posed in the New York Times article: Will Bashir's support in Sudan make a difference? It seems that the international community may be ignoring the voice of the people that they are trying to protect.
When just reading the articles, I did not understand the extent to which he is supported by the citizens. Watching the video from the New York Times article made a big difference though. Hearing the urgency and resolve in the voice of citizens worrying about their country changed my feeling about this indictment. They are concerned that a quick removal of Bashir would result in many more deaths, and a change of government. Taking into account past motivations, I wonder if this indictment is more about a desire to change the government in Sudan and less about the death and suffering of the people in Darfur.
However, I really don't know. The type of access we have to these events is very limited and almost always through an American run source. We are probably missing a lot of information. It surely seems that Bashir and his government have done some horrible things and may well deserve international judgement; I am just unsure that this is the best time to act. The country seems too unstable to withstand something like this.
The last thing that jumped out at me was a question posed in the New York Times article: Will Bashir's support in Sudan make a difference? It seems that the international community may be ignoring the voice of the people that they are trying to protect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)