Challenges in Today’s World
A Report by Sana Soleman Elmansouri
We did establish that principle [the international criminal status of waging an aggressive war] in Nuremberg. It was the greatest thing we achieved in Nuremberg. A thing that’ll save the world, because it provides the basis for peace in the world. No nation and no group of nations can engage in aggressive war any longer.” - Whitney Harris (US Prosecutor, Nuremberg Trials from the Documentary: Nuremberg - Goering’s Last Stand
The scent of spiced mulled wines and Lebkuchen fill the air at the Christmas markets lining the streets of Nuremberg. The evenings are crisp at this time of year with the beautiful fairylights hung on all the old buildings and walls.
As one walks the streets of the city, it is unsettling to wonder how it was under Hitler. How the streets would have bustled in a similar manner during the Nuremberg rallies for a very different kind of celebration in the local Luitpoldhain. How the genius of one monster and his infamous Nazi regime in Germany changed the history of international law.
Nuremberg is a city rich in german history. It was highly significant in the Holy Roman Empire, and its location is strategic as a trade route. As a result the Nazis and central to the German Reich favoured it.
Unlike a simple conference such as many I have attended, the ‘Preventing Genocide and Other Atrocity Crimes’ conference included an intensive and detailed course on global crimes and human justice. The speakers came from different countries and states to share their knowledge and points of view on the subjects of their professional field. The multicultural, multi professional input contributed to the success of this event with an underlying theme to improving the international community’s ability to deal with atrocity crimes.
From the 4-5th December 2014 in that unique city, specifically in courtroom 600 in the Nuremberg Palace of Justice the challenges of today’s world conflicts were explored at The International Genocide Conference. The Wayamo Communication Foundation prepared a workshop on reporting on genocide and mass violence with the help of The International Nuremberg Principles Academy. Delegates found themselves in a well-presented hall that had once witnessed a key event in the development of humanity. An event that called out ‘Justice!’ to those abused by the cruelty of the Nazi regime.
Technique Development
As participating journalists we had two days of discussion on what makes a reporter’s job more effective, secure and useful. Prof. Ugur Umit Ungor gave a very detailed presentation on the study of Genocide and The Holocaust, where he presented to everyone that conflict has different stages before it reaches a point of no return, and that journalist reports and interviews are more valuable to researchers if they include the accounts of the perpetrators, not just victims.
Challenges
The Memorium Nurmberg Trials carries great significance. It honours social justice practiced in front of the world and reminds us that justice can be served on an international scale regardless of rank or position. Over twenty speakers on several panels, spoke of trials, achievements, experiences and some of those who were honest enough to mention their failures, the high expenses, the shortcomings.
Identification of Shortcomings
Adama Dieng - Special Advisor to the UN Secretary General on the Prevention of Genocide opened the talks by defining atrocity crimes. He went on to say he would like to have practical recommendations on how we can take steps towards the ‘never again’ ideology; a request that doesn't quite reflect the urgency of the aforementioned atrocity crimes taking place in Syria and Iraq. He identified the fundamental failures of international communities to fulfill their pledged ‘Responsibility To Protect’ (World Summit 2005) because it requires intervention before, or at least at the earliest stages of an offence. However, there was a distinct lack of any tangible methods to change this.
Mr Dieng highlighted that if we do not prevent atrocity crimes we have failed the convention (of Responsibility to Protect). He then went on to say how we did not prevent that very thing in Syria, implying failure. He moved on to be a little more creative. The Special Advisor to the UN wants to build societies where the state can protect all its population without discrimination. Although this is the ideal situation, it could be argued we do not have time to build such a society. Especially regarding his next point of interest.
Mr Dieng admitted that if the international community had acted in time regarding Syria the “monster” tearing through Iraq could have been prevented from arising. It is not until this point that Mr Dieng suggested a practical approach to dealing with a problem. He mentioned a meeting in his office of 70 religious leaders, which concluded in their unison against the atrocity crimes taking place in Iraq. But even this is a very visionary approach to dealing with very physical crimes and criminals.
It can be concluded that the UN has an in depth knowledge of its shortcomings but is looking for answers from other communities for solutions. The influencers: Youth, Social Media, and Journalists. But not the decision makers: Governments.
Defining Genocide
Professor of International Law Paola Gaeta explained how (quite frighteningly) even the Nuremberg trials themselves, the pinnacle of international justice that we were there to commemorate, was fraught with political restriction. She told the audience how the Allies needed to define genocide very carefully in order not incriminate their activities as sovereign governments of colonial powers. It wasn't until 1948 when the genocide convention was agreed upon that human rights of civilians were finally upheld in the eyes of international law. The professor agrees with Mr Dieng that prevention is the key to successfully upholding the convention, however she did stress that the convention does not specify how this should be done in great detail. She took this further by underlining how the legal definition of genocide changed through the notion of special intent (dolus specialis). That an act of murder of one individual can be condemned as genocide providing that the perpetrator has intent to take the murder further regarding that group. She suggested that the definition of genocide that refers to a person may be more useful if it were expanded when referring to states, to encompass the intent to cause genocide as a secondary outcome to another primary objective.
R2P
Margit Hellwig-Botte Head of Division (Conceptual issues and Responsibility to Protect) UN Department pointed out that the UN quickly came under fire from public criticism when international communities failed to intervene rapidly enough. She referred to recent cases where the risk of genocide was high and atrocity crimes were taking place. She quoted Kofi Annan to specify that humanity should be able to look to the Security Council for protection and that therefore the final responsibility does lie with them. Ms Hellwig-Botte went on to say that a major issue with responsibility to protect is that this responsibility is not well defined and agreed upon, and that for the legitimacy of the convention to be upheld, all states must be agreed on a level playing field. She made a shocking revelation that although responsibility to Protect is an emerging norm, it is not actually common practice yet. The key question to raise here is why not. It has been almost a decade since the conception of the notion at the world summit 2005 and a number of debates have taken place in the general assembly about how to implement it effectively. How long will this process take? Too long, it seems, for the victims of atrocity crimes in the 21st century.
Influence
Mr Dieng finished his talk with the influence of religious leaders in genocide prevention. Mr Vahidin Omanovic opened his talk in much the same way. He explored the struggles he experienced in pulling together religious leaders from different faiths in his own country and how a short meeting amongst them made a huge difference in the development of the society. It goes to show how simple, practical actions reap results.
Astonishment
By the end of the first panel of speakers, it struck me that despite the obvious place for Libya’s current state of crisis (being a state where atrocity crimes are being committed by the definitions outlined in the talks) no one had spoken about Libya’s current affairs. The focus had been on its past and the current state of Syria, Iraq and the African States. In response to the first line of questioning where I raised this point, Ms Hellwig-Botte stated that the Security Council was often blocked in its ability to take actions, and that this affected the case of Libya, which in turn has influenced the Syrian crisis. This statement holds enormous connotations. If individuals from within the UN are claiming the Security Council does not have the necessary power to act then how could humanity possibly look to it for protection? It suggests a complete overhaul is needed.
Hate Speech
Agnes Callamard - The Executive Director of Article 19 of the ICCPR and Special Advisor to the president of Columbia University opened by reminding us of the fundamental causes and mechanisms of atrocity crimes like discrimination and inequality within societies - human history has so many cases of racism and discrimination which gave rise to crimes against humanity. She moved on to focus on censorship and control of information. “Some of the worst man-made monstrosities required control of opinions, expression and in some cases consciousness.” She stated. Ms Callamard explained how controlling information availability in so many countries has been key to their oppression. “Control of expression is an extension of physical power in the realm of the mind and spirit.” A charming yet powerful description of the power media provides for controlling powers seeking to subdue the masses.
Freedom of expression and speech are key in upholding human rights according to international conventions. She quoted “A world where all people can enjoy freedom of speech and belief has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people.”
However she made sure to explore the opposite side of the coin and the circumstances where freedom of expression can lead to hate speech. The special Advisor clarified that any regulation must be done with great specificity to avoid the move to incitement and the actual behaviour of unlawfulness. Moreover, she went on to summarise the importance of being able to identify incitement, the level above hate speech, prohibited under article 20 of ICCPR. She took a holistic approach in identifying that freedom of expression cannot be absolute and gave her ‘6 steps to grading the danger of incitement speeches:’
1.Historical Context - using past cases to analyse current ones
2.The Speaker’s Position (authority)
3.Content of Expression
4.Outreach (how receptive/at risk is the audience)
5.Likelihood (how likely is the crime to actually take place)
6.Intent
Agnes concluded that with the rise of social networking and the sheer speed of Internet communication, it is a huge challenge to tackle hate speech, and almost impossible to prevent it reaching its target audience. She called for creativity in combating online hate speech, giving the example of Islamic State videos and websites that return to the web within minutes of their initial removal. It’s clear that censorship has to have a place in modern media but it is difficult to decide with whom this power should reside. Regulating bodies need to be free of bias, which is nearly impossible in the modern age. Furthermore the parameters of what can be identified as hate speech need to be clear and universal to retain legitimacy.
There was a rich collection of other distinguished talks and speakers at the event. However these, for me, were they key themes that related to Libya and that had the greatest impact on me, as a reporter for Libya.
Justice For the Victims of the Gaddafi Regime
At the first public meeting of the NSDAP held in Munich, on 24th of February 1920, Hitler announced the party's National Socialist Programme. This programme, which remained unaltered, consisted of twenty-five points. One of particular interest is the following:
“Point 1 - We demand the unification of all German speakers in the Greater Germany, on the basis of the right of a self-determination of peoples.’’
Now to me this strikes a familiar chord. Gaddafi preached of similar ideas of ‘unification.’ When he was oppressing minorities he insisted so strongly on the idea of, 'Arabian blood’ and the ‘Arabian role', to the limit that even those who were not Arabs were singing his words in songs from having heard them so regularly. Praising ideas they didn't even agree with.
On 15th April 1973, Colonel Muammar Al-Gaddafi addressed the nation in a historic speech at Zuwara, my city, a coastal town west of Tripoli, announcing the country was about to embark on a “popular revolution,” vowing to wipe out all political opposition. As a result of the latter, a large number of people were taken to the Abu Salim Prison, which would become infamous for the horrific stories told by some of the victims that survived. Torture was regular and systematic inside this and other military police prisons. Prisoners would have their knees opened with razor blades and have salt poured on the wounds. Teeth and nails were extracted. Hot iron rods were inserted into prisoners’ anuses. Trained military attack dogs were set loose against inmates. Families would bring food and clothes for the inmates believing that they could see them, only to be sent away by the guards who would keep the items for themselves. Some surviving victims said they were starved and left in the cold; they had no beds but slept on the concrete floor for years. By the 29th of June 1996, over 1,200 people were estimated dead. Hundreds of men were taken to the courtyards and executed by order of Abdullah Al Sanussi, Gaddafi’s right hand man and top informer, the man overseeing the abuse and killings and mass violence against Libyans.
The killings committed during the Nazi regime and the atrocities committed in the prisons of Abu Salim are two, very similar, organised mass-killings. In the case of the Nazi regime it was the genocide of many different groups of people, from opposing political groups to those of different ethnicity, religion and sexuality on a huge scale. In the case of the Gaddafi regime it was also the genocide of opposing political groups, and those of different ethnicity. Both dictators attempted to make their own superior race and become the leaders of one great nation. Both regimes involved the murder of innocents on a mass scale in the attempt to achieve this goal. The feelings shared by the victims in the concentration camps and the victims in Abu Salim are the same. For Hitler, the idea was Grossdeutschland (Great Germany) for Gaddafi the Great Jamahiriya. Gaddafi, like Hitler, was obsessed with the idea of becoming one of the great rulers of a great nation such as Hannibal, even naming one of his sons Hannibal.
For the victims of these crimes against humanity, the feelings of fear, abuse, starvation and helplessness are familiar. Surely if the victims faced the same pain and the crimes had the same effects on them, the criminals should face the same punishments. Surely justice should be brought to the criminals responsible to Abu Salim in the same way justice was brought to the Nazi leaders, as they both committed crimes of mass violence in breach of human rights. It should not matter that the Gaddafi regime was on a smaller scale to the Nazi regime. On the contrary, the fact that he managed to get away with so much after WW2 is terrible enough. In a world of democracy all humans are equal in the eyes of the law.
In my opinion the mass violence committed against the Jews and many other groups by the Nazis can be related to the violence committed against the civilians that were held in the prisons of Abu Salim. With this premise in mind it would be fair to have trials of the same design in Libya organised by the UN, as the Libyan Government seems completely unable to do so itself. Perhaps as an extension of the International Court of Justice could settle the debt to the people as the trials organised for the Nazi leaders in Germany did for many of theirs.
I long to see the day when the grounds of Abu Salim are transformed into benches in a courtroom like the courtrooms in Nuremberg and witness a historical decision that changes the international law within Libya. To see those who committed these horrific crimes face the consequences and the victims finally get justice. On the same grounds the crimes were committed justice would be served.