Kubwajinga
JF-Expert Member
- Jan 23, 2008
- 2,193
- 299
Wakuu hebu tuliangalie bara letu kwa mapana kidogo.
Bwan Al BASHIR, Rais wa Sudan, leo ameshtakiwa Rasmi kama "war criminal" na mwendesha mashtaka wa mahakama ya kimataifa (ICC) ya The Hague bwana Luis Moreno Ocampo.
Kifupi kama majaji wataridhia hiyo application ya Ocampo, basi Rais wa Sudan atakuwa on wanted list kama Marehemu Milosevic na Charles Taylor. Na most likely watakubali..evidence are overwhelming!
Swala langu ni je, sisi kama waafrika hiki kitendo cha hii mahakama ku-deal na RAIS ALIYEKO MADARAKANI..bila longo longo tuliyozoea ya "UN DIPLOMACY" tukichukulieje? inaweza kuwa mwanzo mzuri kwamba hawa viongozi wetu wa kiafrika ambao wamekataa kuwasikiliza na kuwahudumia raia wao waende wakakae huko The Hague, sisi tuhangaike na mustakabali wa bara letu au vipi?
Maana kweli waafrika tumenyanyasika na hawa viongozi ndugu zetu kuliko hata wazungu walivyotunyanyasa. Je wakipelekwa The Hague itasaidia viongozi wengine kuamka na kuwa responsible?
Personally nimeshindwa kutoa msimamo wangu...maana viongozi wa Afrika watasema tunaingiliwa na wazungu, lakini nikiangalia Darfur inavyowaka moto, sina budi kusema, Al BASHIR AENDE AKAOZEE HUKO THE HAGUE.
Watakao sema kwamba ashtakiwe Sudan, asipelekwe The Hague, naomba waangalie uwezo wa mahakama za kiafrika kuwashtaki "wakulu wetu'. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE.
So is it the right decision for Al BASHIR to be indicted by the ICC?
Every crisis in the African continent can only be solved by outsiders, specifically the West. The Darfur crisis is no different. The solution to the Darfur crisis will not come from the Sudanese government nor from the African Union. The solution will come from the West. Perhaps this indictment of President Bashir is the first step towards that solution, I don't know. But one thing I know for sure is Africans can not solve and are incapable of solving this Darfur crisis. As my good European friend used to say, Africa is a White man's burden. Oh, how true those words were and still are today.
Pia kuna wale wanaofikia kuwa mahakama ina double standards, kwa sababu watu kama Bush ndio walitakiwa wafikishwe The Hague kwanza! Swali ni kwamba kwa kumkamata Mr Bashir na kumuacha George Bush mahakama inakuwa fair?
Ni kwa sababu marekani siyo mwanachama/hai-itambui ICC/haikusign mkataba na hiyo mahakama (ICC - The hague). Na Bush ni Mmarekani kama Wamarekani wengine, hawezi kushtakiwa katika hiyo mahakama. Sina hakika nchi ngapi siyo wanachama wa Mahakama hiyo ila nina hakika na Marekani na Nepal hawaitambui/siyo wanachama. So no matter how wakifanya makosa yanayotambuliwa na mahakama hiyo, Mahakama hiyo haina uwezo wa kuwachukulia sheria/kuwashtaki.
Kwa upande wa Sudan kama ilivyo Tanzania na baadhi ya nchi duniani ambao ni wanachama/wanaitambua/wamesign mkataba na ICC, hivyo kupatikana na makosa yanayotambulika na hiyo mahakama ambayo mtu huyo (kama wanavyodai Rais wa Sudan, Mr. Bashir), kutenda hayo makosa anayokabiliwa nayo BAADA ya kujiunga/kuitambua na kukubaliana na vifungu vya Mahakama hiyo, mtu huyo atashtakiwa.
Sina hakika ni kwa nini Marekani na baadhi ya nchi hawataki kusign/kuwa wanachama wa ICC.
Lucy shukrani kwa hizi info, ila juzi nilisikia BBC wanasema kuwa Sudan pia hakusaini mkataba, swali langu ni hili, ukiweka sahihi inakubana kiasi gani, na inawezekana kujitoa ukiamua kama nchi kutoka kwenye hii ICC?
gm,
Kwa ufahamu wangu mdogo nitakujibu ifuatavyo. Unaposign mkataba ni kwamba umeusoma, ukauelewa na ukaridhia/kubali kwa 100% mkataba huo ikiwa ni pamoja na adhabu zilizotaja kwenye huo mkataba endapo itatokea ukiukwaji wowote (kwenda ndivyo sivyo na mkataba uliosign).
Nchi kujitoa kwenye ICC sina jibu sahihi na naomba nisi comment katika hili kwa sasa, nikipata jibu nitakuletea soon.
Asante
Shukrani Lizy pamoja na kwamba nimekuita Lucy, sijui nilikuwa naota nini hapa, mawenge wenge yangu tu, I sincerely do apologize!!!
Truth,
I think you are wrong about Africans not being able to solve their crisisses. Africans sorted out Burundi conflict, Uganda tyrany, Commoro cessation etc.
It is only when a conflict sabsumes foreign interests that's when it become difficult for Africans to deal with. Daffur, Zimbabwe are the perfect examples.
However, as difficult as it might seem, if we don't end up pessimistic as you , we have enough leverages and capabilities among ourselves that we can use to clear our messes.
Lucy shukrani kwa hizi info, ila juzi nilisikia BBC wanasema kuwa Sudan pia hakusaini mkataba, swali langu ni hili, ukiweka sahihi inakubana kiasi gani, na inawezekana kujitoa ukiamua kama nchi kutoka kwenye hii ICC?
Lizy et al tuwekane sawa kidogo hapa.
Sudan ILISIGN mkataba wa kuanzisha hiyo Mahakama mnamo September 2000Kitu ambacho Sudan haijafanya Ni KURATIFY huo mkataba. KUNA TOFAUTI KUBWA KATI YA HIVI VITU VIWILI SIGNATURE NA RATIFICATION.
Sudan has signed but has not ratified the Rome Statute establishing the ICC. Kwa kukubali kusign huo mkataba ni kwamba Sudan ilikuwa inakubaliana na malengo ya ICC na ilikuwa ni njia mojawapo ya kuonyesha nia yake ya kuridhia huo mkataba kwa kuupeleka bungeni upitishwe na wabunge. Ndo maana members walioratify mkataba wa ICC ni 106 lakini waliosaini ni 139! Bush hawezi kushatakiwa na ICC, unless kesi yake ipelekwe na UN security Council ambako US wana VETO..HAPO JIBU UNALO...
Athari za kusaini mkataba tuu bila ku-ratify ni kwamba you can not do anything to defeat the purpose or essence of that treaty. Na hii imo kwenye Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Art. 18 ...) ambayo Sudan ameridhia. Hivyo basi kwa vile Sudan amesaini huo mkataba wa ICC lakini hajauratify au kuupeleka mbele ya bunge, basi kisheria hana wajibu wa kutoa ushirikiano kwa hiyo mahakama lakini vile vile anawajibika kutofanya jambo lolote la kukwamisha kazi za hiyo mahakama kama upelelezi au jambo lolote lile kama kuwanyima visa investigators wa ICC, kuwazuia mashahidi kuongea na ICC etc.... Ndiyo implication ya signature.
Swali ni vipi Mahakama ya ICC imeingia Sudan? Mkataba wa ICC unaipa mamlaka UN kupitia baraza la USALAMA LA UMOJA WA MATAIFA kuingilia kati kazi za ICC either kusitisha kesi au kupeleka kesi mbele ya hiyo mahakama kama jambo linahatarisha usalama wa dunia (Article 13 and 16 of the ICC Statute). Mfano nchi zote ulimwenguni kwa namna moja au nyingine ni members wa UN kwa hiyo UN ikiona kwamba hali fulani sehemu yoyote ile duniani inatishia usalama wa dunia inaweza kulipeleka jambo hilo mbele ya ICC (ingawa ICC haiwajibiki kukubali..bali itaridhia maombi ya Security Council kama ikiona kweli kuna ushahidi wa kujenga kesi). Kwa sababu ICC ingawa imeanzishwa kwa juhudi za UN..lakini ni independent..UN haina mamlaka yoyote juu yake zaidi ya hivyo vifungu viwili hapo juu.
Kwa hiyo kisheria ICC isingeweza kuingia Sudan, lakini baada ya ile tume ya Koffi Anna iliyoongozwa na Cassese (mwanasheria maarufu wa Italy) kuhusu Darfur, ilishauri Baraza la usalama la umoja wa mataifa litumie mamlaka zake kwenye mkataba wa ICC kuipeleka Sudan mbele ya ICC. USA ilikuwa haitaki (kwa sababu mpaka leo US haitaki kukubali mamlaka ya hiyo mahakama kwa sababu zake). Lakini kwa Vile US ndo ilikuwa nchi ya kwanza kusema kwamba Darfur kuna Genocide mwaka 2004, basi wakaridhia kwa shingo upande Darfur kwenda ICC (Infact US walitaka kesi ya Darfur ianzishiwe mahakama kama ile ya Rwanda pale Arusha, na walikuwa tayari wamejitolea kutoa millions of $$. na walitaka hiyo mahakama iwe Arusha...Ofcourse Europe ndo supporters wa ICC wakakataa..thats the way Darfur ended up in the Hague-as a compromise between Europe and USA.
Sasa je Sudana anawajibu wa kushirikiana na ICC? Kisheria Sudan iko fully responsible kushirikiana na ICC kwa sababu ile kesi ilipelekwa na US Security Council, infact kila UN member ana wajibu wa kushirikiana na ICC-ndo resolution invyosema..
Je itakuwaje kama Sudan akikataa kushirikiana na mahakama? Well, ICC haina jeshi wala polisi..kwa hiyo itarudi New York pale kwenye UN wawambie waliowapa kazi..kuhusu kukataa kwa Sudan..Security Council..ndo itaamua ichukue hatua gani..kama vikwazo nk...Lakini tukumbuke hili swala liko divisive sana..maana China ana veto na Russia...na wanaitetea Sudan wakati France, Britain na US..wako kambi nyingine..kwa hiyo tusubiri tuone unafiki wa dunia unavyozidi kujionyesha.
Vile vile..UN Security Council, inweza kuamua kupiga kura (inabidi kuwena kura tisa na isiwemo veto hata moja-at any time Security Council ina members 15). Wakipiga kura wanaweza kususpend investigation kwa mwaka mmoja (renewable)..kama kufanya hivyo kutaonekana in the best interests of peace and security of the world. Lakini je inawezekana ukapata P5 wote wakakubaliana kususpend investigations? maana France and Britain ni supporters wa ICC na wameshasema kabisa lazima Bashir aende the Hague. Itakuwa ni jukumu la China na Russia rafiki zake Bashiri kuwaconvince France na Britain kususpend hiyo kesi kwa mwaka mmoja. A mamoth task.
Na tukumbuke kwamba kwa sasa Bashiri mpaka kifo chake ni war criminal. Kwa hiyo hata kama akiamua kuresist, anaweza kuwa arrested hata baada ya miaka ishirini..ameshastaafu yuko uraiani..maana war crimes hazina mda maalumu..ndo maana mpaka leo Nazi collaborators bado wanashtakiwa kwa crime zilizofanywa 50 years ago!
Na kwa nini USA haikubaliani na ICC? well kifupi ni kwa sababu US hana veto kwenye ICC..US walitaka ile mahakama iwe chini ya UN Security Council..yaani UN ndo iamue nani ashtakiwe...na kwa vile US wana veto..basi wangecontrol nani wa kushtakiwa nani wa kuwa huru..kitu ambacho wale wasio na veto kama Germanay, India, nk waligoma kata kata....wakasema we have had enough with the UN...ICC inabidi iwe independent...ndo hivyo mpaka kesho kutwa US haikubaliani na ICC si kwa lingine but simply because it cant influence who is likely to stand in the courtroom!
Anyhow, hii issue ni ngumu, lakini what we can be sure of, sasa hivi Bashiri anatoka jasho maana hakutegemea kwamba ICC ingekuwa na courage ya kudeal na yeye directly.
Maelezo marefu, but I just wanted to share what I know about this court,
Masanja.