ISLAMABAD (AP) — Afghan rights workers warned Tuesday that the U.S. national security adviser's blistering attack on the International Criminal Court investigating war crimes allegations will strengthen a climate of impunity in Afghanistan, prolong the war and embolden those carrying out acts of violence.
In a speech Monday, John Bolton said Washington would not cooperate with The Hague-based court and threatened it with sanctions, saying it put U.S. sovereignty and national security at risk.
War crimes allegations in Afghanistan include those allegedly committed by the CIA and U.S. forces.
"It's very unfortunate because delivering justice to victims will help to facilitate the peace process in Afghanistan," said Sima Samar, head of Afghanistan's Human Right's Commission, on Tuesday. "Justice is not a luxury. It is a basic human right."
During a three-month period that ended in January, the International Criminal Court received a staggering 1.7 million allegations of war crimes from Afghanistan, although some involved entire villages alleging a war crime.
Still, thousands of individual statements as well as statements filed on behalf of multiple victims, were received by the ICC in The Hague. The statements were collected by organizations based in Europe and Afghanistan and sent to the court.
Bolton's speech came as an ICC judge was expected to soon announce a decision on a request from prosecutors to formally open an investigation into allegations of war crimes committed by Afghan national security forces, Taliban and Haqqani network militants as well as U.S. forces and intelligence officials in Afghanistan since May 2003.
The 181-page prosecution request, dated November 2017, said "information available provides a reasonable basis to believe that members of United States of America (US) armed forces and members of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) committed acts of torture, cruel treatment, outrages upon personal dignity, rape and sexual violence against conflict-related detainees in Afghanistan and other locations, principally in the 2003-2004 period."
Washington's unequivocal rejection of the court seems likely to embolden Afghanistan's U.S.-backed government, which refused Tuesday to respond directly to Bolton's outburst, but similarly dismissed war crimes allegations against Afghan National Security Forces as well as its intelligence agency.
President Ashraf Ghani's deputy spokesman, Shahussain Murtazawi, said the Taliban, the Islamic State group affiliate and as many as 21 other anti-government groups are the perpetrators of war crimes. He dismissed allegations against security forces saying "government forces are always trying to save the people. It is the insurgents who are the killers of civilians."
Yet the prosecutor's request says there is "a reasonable basis to believe that members of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), in particular members of the National Directorate for Security (NDS) and the Afghan National Police (ANP), have engaged in systemic patterns of torture and cruel treatment of conflict-related detainees in Afghan detention facilities, including acts of sexual violence."
For human rights activists in Afghanistan, Bolton's assault dealt a punishing blow to their relentless efforts to end a culture of impunity that has bedeviled efforts to bring perpetrators of crimes to justice.
"The solution to put an end to war is by making everyone accountable, whether it is the Taliban or the Haqqani network or whether it is the Americans or the Afghan army or Afghan government," said Ehsan Qaane, of the Kabul-based Transitional Justice Coordination Group, which represents 26 organizations working for transitional justice in Afghanistan.
The coordination group assisted many victims who wanted to file a claim with the international court.
Victims need to see justice done if they are to begin to heal, said Qaane. He said some insurgents turned to the Taliban after being picked up, tortured and released. Their fight is more about revenge than ideology, he said.
"These people will perhaps stop fighting if they feel they have justice," said Qaane.
"These people will perhaps stop fighting if they feel they have justice," said Qaane.
In The Hague, the ICC simply stated it was aware of Bolton's comments. In a statement issued Tuesday it did not address Bolton directly but rather reiterated its mission and that it was supported by 123 countries who have signed on to the Rome Statute that created the court. Afghanistan is a signatory.
Samar said rights groups cannot dispense justice.
"There is a difference between a human rights defender and a judge," thus the need for the ICC, she said in a telephone interview. "My concern is that to deny justice is to deny a basic human right and human dignity."
Dominic Deus here,
I have followed the ICC for years and though it's existence and works are imperfect, it is a vitally important international organization that gives voice to the the call for justice coming from the marginalized, the powerless and victimized.
As a retired Army officer, I can tell you there are good reasons why the United States cannot agree to certain elements of jurisdiction by the ICC but a constant effort to support it, look for ways to cooperate with it and expand it's reach are all possible and were the goal of the Obama administration.
No more.
John Bolton, though no fool, has decades of experience in narrowing his scope of understanding so that he speaks only text and never ever includes context. Thus in the end, he says nothing.
Donald Trump, though a fool, has never had a breadth or depth of understanding to narrow so he tweets text free of context. Thus, in the end he says everything--and nothing.
It is best not to engage either of them on substance, since they have none but identify them for what they so obviously are: deeply flawed Muppets. (Apologies to Jim Henson.)
Sadly, the world of international injustice is not a puppeteers stage but a multidimensional landscape of suffering in a long running tragedy. The ICC works to bring and end to this deplorable drama and I look forward to the day when our country will, once again, support the ICC.
Dominic
First one should note that John Bolton uses his real name rather than a self adulatory avatar....score 1 for Bolton
Second it is equally clear that John Bolton would decimate you in a debate since he uses facts to underlying his arguments rather than your sophistry of cute turns of a phrase. You provide not an ounce of fact to support your position except to admit as a "former army officer" that the army has very good reasons to not agree to certain elements of jurisdiction of the ICC" . You fail to note that it's "jurisdiction" is the very underpinning of any claimed powers by that Court and that absent jurisdiction it is powerless. In short as "a former army officer" you have admitted that the ICC should not have any power to determine any alleged charges against army personnel.....score 2 for Bolton
the answer to position an end to battle is by making every person responsible whether it's miles the Taliban or the Haqqani community or whether it's far the individuals or the Afghan military or Do My Coursework For Me Afghan authorities. it is very unfortunate due to the fact delivering justice to victims will assist to facilitate the peace method in Afghanistan. government forces are continually seeking to store the people. it's far the insurgents who are the killers of civilians.
Historically the United States has been averse to joining and supporting the work of the ICC. Along with seven other nations at its founding (Including Israel and China), the US opposed its original charter. which was officially adopted by the UN in 1998. Adviser Bolton's recent pronouncement is another in a tradition of nation-statist rationales for retaining exclusive sovereignty over US assets stationed throughout the world, including military bases and other government interests. So Bolton's reference to the Court's bias, particularly its call for investigations of not just US actions in war zones, but also for Israel's rejection of Palestinian demands for review of its occupation and treatment of citizens, reflects an ideological position that international security and interests should not be subject to an authority that supersedes the nation. As global complexities continue to progress, however, US foreign policy advisers of Bolton's ilk should be wary that the US is needing to refer to international bodies to address economic and environmental issues of many kinds, not just security. While the US could unilaterally wield influence some decades ago over global developments, its unilateral sway today is ineffective if it continues on a path of withdrawal from internationally legal mechanisms to address global problem.