NationStates Jolt Archive

Rwanda expells German ambassador (http://www.france24.com/en/20081111-rwanda-expel-german-ambassador-arrest-berlin-kigale-rose-kabuye&navi=MONDE)

After expelling the French ambassador two years ago, closing down all French schools and French cultural centres, and breaking off diplomatic relations with France, Rwanda has now expelled the German ambassador and has recalled its own ambassador from Germany.
This is due to Rose Kabuye, Rwandan President Paul Kagame's chief of protocol, having been arrested in Germany by German authorities in cooperation with an arrest warrant issued by a French judge in 2006. Kabuye is suspected of having been involved in the murder of Rwanda's former president Juvenal Habyarimana - an act which sparked the Rwandan genocide.

Kagame is also suspected of having been involved in the murder, but no arrest warrant has been issued against him, because French law prohibits to issueing of an arrest warrant against a head of State while he is still in office. If Kagame ever relinquishes his tight grip on power, a warrant will almost certainly be issued in France for his arrest. French law authorises the French judiciary to put out warrants against non-French citizens for serious crimes.

Kagame initially reacted to the accusations of the French judge in a tit for tat game, responding with bizarre accusations whereby France was, according to him, the mastermind behind the genocide.

Kagame -a particularly unpleasant dictator, condemned by international human rights organisations for violently repressing dissenting journalists- apparently fails to grasp that, in democracies, there is a seperation between the judiciary and the government. Expelling the top representatives of the French and German states would seem to show that he has little grasp of the concept of judicial independence - or, more likely, that he's simply using this for political purposes.

Germany is now expected to extradite Kabuye to France, where she will face trial.

Thoughts?


Rwanda expelled Germany's ambassador to Kigali on Tuesday and recalled its own ambassador from Berlin in anger at the arrest of a top Rwandan official in Frankfurt.

"Rwanda's ambassador to Germany was recalled today for consultations," Rwandan Information Minister Louise Mushikiwabo told AFP.

"The Rwandan government told the German ambassador to leave within 48 hours until the arrest of Kabuye is resolved.

"The ambassador should leave the country by Thursday," added Mushikiwabo, who is also the government's chief spokeswoman.

Rose Kabuye, Rwandan President Paul Kagame's chief of protocol, was arrested on Sunday by police in Germany -- acting on a French warrant -- on suspicion of involvement in the killing of Rwanda's former president Juvenal Habyarimana.

Habyarimana's killing is widely seen as having triggered the 1994 genocide in which nearly 800,000 people in a three-month period.

Kabuye's arrest has sparked outrage in the tiny central African nation, itself poised to issue indictments and arrest warrants against 23 French military and political officials over their suspected role in the genocide.

On Monday, several thousands of demonstrators marched to the German embassy in the capital Kigali and the offices of the Deutsche Welle, Germany's national broadcaster.

On Tuesday, around a thousand youths demonstrated in front of the French cultural centre in Kigali, which has been closed since Rwanda broke diplomatic ties with France in November 2006.

Officials have said that a demonstration of women could also take place on Wednesday.

Kabuye is the first Rwandan to be arrested out of nine warrants issued by issued by French anti-terrorism judge Jean-Louis Bruguiere in 2006 against close Kagame aides whom the judge suspects of being behind Habyarimana's death.


(link (http://www.france24.com/en/20081111-rwanda-expel-german-ambassador-arrest-berlin-kigale-rose-kabuye&navi=MONDE)


Germany is recalling its ambassador to Rwanda to Berlin at the request of the government in Kigali. It's the latest escalation of tensions after an aide to President Paul Kagame was arrested in Frankfurt.

A spokesman for Germany's foreign ministry said the German ambassador would "travel back to Berlin for consultations."

Rwandan Foreign Minister Rosemary Museminali confirmed the request from Kigali. "We've ask the German ambassador to leave until this matter is resolved," she told Reuters, adding that her country has recalled its own ambassador from Berlin for consultations.

"We have not broken ties with Germany at all," she said. "It's not a permanent move."

The growing row centers around the arrest of Rose Kabuye, director general of state protocol in Rwanda and a senior aide to President Paul Kagame. She was arrested at Frankfurt airport on Sunday by German police, who were acting on an international arrest warrant issued by France in 2006.

She is wanted there in connection with the fatal April 1994 attack on the plane of President Juvenal Habyarimana, whose death lead to the campaign of genocide that killed 800,000 in the African nation and left it deeply traumatized.

A French anti-terrorism judge had issued the warrants against nine members of Kagame's entourage suspected of having a hand in the attack that killed Habyarimana, an ethnic Hutu.

Damage to relations

Kagame said the arrest would affect his country's relationship with France and Germany. He called the action a "violation of the sovereignty of Rwanda."

"We will see how we can challenge such actions, which in my view are simply a question of being arrogant and people being a law unto themselves," he said after visiting Kabuye in a German prison.

Kagame said he expected Germany to extradite her to France within days. Kabuye's lawyer has said she is willing to go before a French judge.

The Kagame regime has long accused France of being partly to blame for the massacres in Rwanda and complained that Paris and other European capitals were seeking to prosecute the victims rather than the perpetrators.

On Tuesday, around a thousand youths demonstrated in front of the French cultural centre in Kigali, which has been closed since Rwanda broke diplomatic ties with France in November 2006.

In Germany, hundreds of Rwandans protested on Monday against the arrest.

Private visit?

Rwanda's foreign ministry expressed its "shock and dismay" over Kabuye's arrest and denied claims she was on a private visit, in a letter of protest to the German embassy in Kigali seen by the AFP news agency.

It said that Kabuye enjoys diplomatic immunity, was on a "working visit" to Germany and "should be treated with courtesy and dignity by the German authorities as it is required by diplomatic decorum."

President Kagame made a four-day state visit to Germany in April. According to media reports, Kabuye was on that trip but German law prohibits the detention of any members of an official delegation.


(link (http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3782862,00.html))

What a silly thing to do.

I'm stunned the Chief of Protocol wasn't travelling on a diplomatic passport, and thus subject to diplomatic immunity.

That said, I do feel France has overstepped it's bounds by arresting a member of the government of another sovereign state. At least without declaring war first.

Presumably theres some law that overrides it, if the Germans are just going to pass her on to the French.

That said, I do feel France has overstepped it's bounds by arresting a member of the government of another sovereign state. At least without declaring war first.

I don't think France declaring war on Rwanda would go down too well...

To be clear, it's not "France" making the arrest. The arrest warrant was not issued by "France". The French State had nothing to do with it. The warrant was issued by a French judge, acting independently from the state. That's how the justice system works.

I agree that arresting members of the government of foreign countries is... debatable. But French law, rightly or wrongly, projects itself beyond the territories and people over whom France has jurisdiction. If you're accused of involvment in crimes against humanity, you can be arrested no matter your nationality or status. Except if, like Kagame, you're still serving as head of State.

Wait, the Germans arrested a Rwandian at the behest of a French Judge...for assassinating the head of state of Rwanda...in Rwanda.

Does France have jurisdiction in Rwanda now?

And people say America doesnt stay out of other people's business.

No law overrides full DI. On the other hand, mere Consular immunity, or if she was travelling on a private passport, provides no defence against a capital crime.

I don't think France declaring war on Rwanda would go down too well...

To be clear, it's not "France" making the arrest. The arrest warrant was not issued by "France". The French State had nothing to do with it. The warrant was issued by a French judge, acting independently from the state. That's how the justice system works.

I agree that arresting members of the government of foreign countries is... debatable. But French law, rightly or wrongly, projects itself beyond the territories and people over whom France has jurisdiction. If you're accused of involvment in crimes against humanity, you can be arrested no matter your nationality or status. Except if, like Kagame, you're still serving as head of State.

Good point. It's easy to forget that, like most developed nations, France has an independent judiciary.

As Kagame seems to have done.

Presumably theres some law that overrides it, if the Germans are just going to pass her on to the French.

Apparently, the Germans are saying that she was on a "private visit" to Germany, and thus not protected by diplomatic immunity. The Rwandans are saying she was there as part of a diplomatic delegation.

So we'll see how that turns out.

Yea, because Rwanda is one of those countries that clearly don't need any European aid, so cutting ties with Germany will surely make the Germans care. I mean it's Rwanda, of course Germany will care.

What a bunch of idiots.

The Germans and the French working together ?!?!?! this sounds bad.

It is called "Universal Jurisdiction".

It exists in France, Belgium and Spain as far as I know.

It has happened before with european judges ordering arrests of west african dictators for example.

But I wonder if the French would appreciate a Rwandan judge issuing an arrest warrant for former French colonial administrators or WWII collaborators with the Vichy regime for instance.

I still think the Rwandan reaction is just idiotic. They should instead open a case against Kabuye and demand her extradition to Rwanda.

But I believe that this example of "Universal Jurisdiction" is evidence of a very counter-productive liberal-fundamentalism which is growing in the West.

In Europe with humanitarian-trotskyism and in the USA with democratic-trotskyism.

More and more people believe that the principles of liberalism override national sovereignty!!!

The very system of International Law starting in 1944 has been - under heavy Western influence - legislating more and more based on western liberal principles.

Eventually countries like China will garner global sympathy simply by being pragmatic and not trying to force their beliefs on anyone...

But who in the western world will listen?...

Hell, even here on NationStates, more and more ethical and moral resolutions are being approved at the World Assembly...........

The Germans and the French working together ?!?!?! this sounds bad.

Germany and France are on excellent terms, and have been for several decades. They're probably each other's closest friend and ally. They're core members of the EU, and the "Paris-Berlin axis" represents a certain vision of Europe, sometimes at odds with that of more recent EU members. France and Germany tend to back each other up.

Ariddia,

Quite right!

Their colaboration even extends to the military and intelligence fields, where they have almost as close a relationship as the USA and UK.

Is this another case of EU warrants? I don't like that.

Hey EU? Can you guys issue a warrent for Bush?

It is called "Universal Jurisdiction".

Welcome to NationStates. And indeed.


But I wonder if the French would appreciate a Rwandan judge issuing an arrest warrant for former French colonial administrators or WWII collaborators with the Vichy regime for instance.

France is quite capable of bringing its own criminals to trial. If a surviving collaborator from the Vichy era were somehow found by the Rwandans, France would want to bring that person to justice.


I still think the Rwandan reaction is just idiotic. They should instead open a case against Kabuye and demand her extradition to Rwanda.

She's part of the government, and the Rwandan judiciary is anything but independent. Kagame is never going to allow her to be put on trial in Rwanda, as long as he's in power. All the more so since it would indirectly be a trial against himself.


In Europe with humanitarian-trotskyism and in the USA with democratic-trotskyism.

I'm not sure how you equate it with trotskyism.


More and more people believe that the principles of liberalism override national sovereignty!!!

That is indeed a highly debatable issue.


The very system of International Law starting in 1944 has been - under heavy Western influence - legislating more and more based on western liberal principles.


Yes and no... They started off as essentially Western principles. However, they became enshrined as UN principles - i.e., as international and universal principles. Rwanda is a signatory to the UN Charter. In theory, it has pledged to respect those principles.

Welcome to NationStates. And indeed.

I appreciate your welcome, but I have been on NS for quite some time. I really love this game.

France is quite capable of bringing its own criminals to trial. If a surviving collaborator from the Vichy era were somehow found by the Rwandans, France would want to bring that person to justice.

Absolutely irrelevant.

If criminals could only be judged by capable systems, than France herself should export its criminals to countries with more efficient judicial systems.

In intergovernmental relations, the effectiveness of a system or the moral worthyness of a particular regime should play no part whatsoever.

Imagine if ISAF decided to pursue the Taliban into Pakistan simply because the Pakistani government fails to deal with them... It'd be chaos!

She's part of the government, and the Rwandan judiciary is anything but independent. Kagame is never going to allow her to be put on trial in Rwanda, as long as he's in power. All the more so since it would indirectly be a trial against himself.

Well if the Rwandans who were actually the victims of the genocide don't seem to care ...why should the French judiciary?

Morally unfortunate? Sure!
Pragmatically worthwhile pursuing? NO!

I'm not sure how you equate it with trotskyism.

I meant trotskyism in the sense of "permanent revolution".

Societies in America and Europe more and more believe there should be no limits to their beliefs and ideals.

It is easy to think so when one has the financial and operational resources to invest in the projection of said values, but would Europe appreciate a lesson in values from other parts of the world?...

Obviously not, reason why it should abstain from interfering in other societies and states' affairs.

Yes and no... They started off as essentially Western principles. However, they became enshrined as UN principles - i.e., as international and universal principles. Rwanda is a signatory to the UN Charter. In theory, it has pledged to respect those principles.

They became enshrined as UN principles? Really?

Well that's the problem! UN is an intergovernmental body! It doesn't represent any kind of "international civil community" because there is no such thing.

Besides, this is the same UN whose UNSC is run by 4 permanent WESTERN members and 1 eastern...

The same UN where the USA has more than one vote because of its "associated territories"...

International and Universal principles? Only in writing, because in reality many states are not democracies and even when they are, they don't necessarily respect human rights.

In fact - as Singapore proves - democracy and human rights aren't necessarily one and the same.

Legally speaking Rwanda is signatory to the UN charter, but so what? How many countries signatory to the UN charter don't respect it?

All I'm saying is that clearly the UN charter is only binding for those who don't have the power to oppose it and get away with it...

The one principle that should be held sacrosanct should be the principle of non-interference and national sovereignty - in my oppinion that is - because it is the only one that is objective enough that every culture can agree with.

Hey EU? Can you guys issue a warrent for Bush?

Actually there were some people in Europe who considered it immediately after Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.

The problem is - as it has always been and always will be - that, as Thucydides so eloquently quoted:

"The strong do what they can and the weak accept what they must"

I appreciate your welcome, but I have been on NS for quite some time. I really love this game.



Not long enough, apparently, as it looks like you still need to lurk moar.

I'm sorry I didn't quite catch that:

Lurk what ?

There's more going on here - specifically, bad blood between Kagame and the French. While I don't pretend to fully understand the hideous mess that is central African history, Habyarimana's administration did have close ties to France. Kagame's party was in open opposition to that government and French influence in Rwanda, which brought them into conflict (sometimes the direct and shooty kind) with French forces on numerous occasions.

Habyarimana's assassination was and remains one of the great modern mysteries. Kagame's Rwandan Patriotic Front could have done it, certainly - there was no love lost between him and Habyarimana. On the other hand, extremist elements in Habyarimana's own government and military hated him for dealing with Kagame at all, and were itching for an excuse to fight. Those folks went on to commit the Rwandan Genocide, so it's hard to find moral depths they wouldn't sink to. Still, both sides had plenty of means and motives to pull it off. So much destruction and misinformation went on in the aftermath that we may never really know, but the French are definitely going to be inclined to side with the version that said Kagame did it.

They've kept the UK Ambassador, though, huzzah!

Hey EU? Can you guys issue a warrent for Bush?
It would take longer to sort out the paperwork to issue one than the time he'll remain in as President. And after that, that shit's all down to you guys.

I'm sorry I didn't quite catch that:

Lurk what ?

And thus you demonstrate what I was saying.

Rwanda actually being punished for genocide, instead of not selling oil to US, like Iraq was? Oh my, France and Germany working together and in the interests of Rwanda's People? Wow, this is new.

Interesting points there.

Of course we already knew that the Paris-Berlin Tandem supports one side and the Anglosphere supports another, but still thanks for the additional info.

Regardless of tendencies though, Kagame should realise it is not in Rwanda's best interest to alienate the leaders of the EU.

And thus you demonstrate what I was saying.

Again, I don't really get your point.

Look, you haven't contributed with anything substantial to the debate, are you planing on doing so soon?

Because if you're not, you might as well abstain from participating at all...




Your comments were addressed to the comment that I wasn't new to NS, well I'm not: I've been on NS for over 2 years, even if I don't participate in the forum that often.

I hope this clears out whatever issue you may have with me, and gets you to start a dialogue instead of keeping a rather sterile monologue.

Rwanda actually being punished for genocide, instead of not selling oil to US, like Iraq was? Oh my, France and Germany working together and in the interests of Rwanda's People? Wow, this is new.

I'm not so sure-it could well be Germany got France's Back in getting the people that got their man, and nothing more than cosmetics as far as the Rwandan People are concerned.

As for Iraq "Not selling oil to the U.S.", um, it was the US, enforcing UN sanctions, that made that oil not going to the U.S. France is just pissed because the U.S. invalidated a sweetheart deal for them by overthrowing Saddam, and then cut them out of the juicy reconstruction contracts after the fact. (The french should be damn glad they were cut out-they don't have to worry about their nationals getting kidnapped and beheaded on Al-Jazeera.)

Again, I don't really get your point.

Look, you haven't contributed with anything substantial to the debate, are you planing on doing so soon?

Because if you're not, you might as well abstain from participating at all...




Your comments were addressed to the comment that I wasn't new to NS, well I'm not: I've been on NS for over 2 years, even if I don't participate in the forum that often.

I hope this clears out whatever issue you may have with me, and gets you to start a dialogue instead of keeping a rather sterile monologue.

2 Years? Still new to me.

And apparently you don't spend enough time on the forums to really get how things work around here. That is what I mean when I say you need to "lurk moar."

To be clear, it's not "France" making the arrest. The arrest warrant was not issued by "France". The French State had nothing to do with it. The warrant was issued by a French judge, acting independently from the state. That's how the justice system works.
Better to make it clear for everyone: France (and most countries whose constitution and codes descend from the Napoleonic era) has a tight separation between the three branches of the State government. The judiciary is independent from the executive (President and PM), and from the legislative (Assemblée Nationale and Senate). So it's not "France" as a whole, but a member of the french judiciary who is FORCED by the law to prosecute that crimes (criminal prosecution is mandatory).

I agree that arresting members of the government of foreign countries is... debatable. But French law, rightly or wrongly, projects itself beyond the territories and people over whom France has jurisdiction. If you're accused of involvment in crimes against humanity, you can be arrested no matter your nationality or status. Except if, like Kagame, you're still serving as head of State.
And that's the same in about all of the EU.

They became enshrined as UN principles? Really?

Well that's the problem! UN is an intergovernmental body! It doesn't represent any kind of "international civil community" because there is no such thing.

Besides, this is the same UN whose UNSC is run by 4 permanent WESTERN members and 1 eastern...

The same UN where the USA has more than one vote because of its "associated territories"...

International and Universal principles? Only in writing, because in reality many states are not democracies and even when they are, they don't necessarily respect human rights.

In fact - as Singapore proves - democracy and human rights aren't necessarily one and the same.

Legally speaking Rwanda is signatory to the UN charter, but so what? How many countries signatory to the UN charter don't respect it?

All I'm saying is that clearly the UN charter is only binding for those who don't have the power to oppose it and get away with it...

The one principle that should be held sacrosanct should be the principle of non-interference and national sovereignty - in my oppinion that is - because it is the only one that is objective enough that every culture can agree with.

Oh horseshit. Don't give us the "UN is enshrining Western post colonial law and order on everyone else" angle.

The ICJ has repeatedly demonstrated that small countries (like Nicaragua) can get justice against bigger states (like the United States) without having a decision wiped out by a UNSC veto.

The Chief of Protocol wouldn't be covered by diplomatic immunity as far as I'm aware, and as soon as Kagame is out of office an arrest warrant will probably be issued for him too. Nothing to do with French law prohibiting heads of state being arrested, it's covered by international law and probably by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations in particular.

2 Years? Still new to me.

And apparently you don't spend enough time on the forums to really get how things work around here. That is what I mean when I say you need to "lurk moar."

So I'm new, satisfied?

What's your problem ?...

Better to make it clear for everyone: France (and most countries whose constitution and codes descend from the Napoleonic era) has a tight separation between the three branches of the State government. The judiciary is independent from the executive (President and PM), and from the legislative (Assemblée Nationale and Senate). So it's not "France" as a whole, but a member of the french judiciary who is FORCED by the law to prosecute that crimes (criminal prosecution is mandatory).


And that's the same in about all of the EU.

Right, IF you believe in universal jurisdiction...

The legislative branch is the one that makes the laws, the legislative branch is run by politicians, politicians should no better than to mix morality with politics.

So I'm new, satisfied?

What's your problem ?...

You'll figure it out.

Oh horseshit. Don't give us the "UN is enshrining Western post colonial law and order on everyone else" angle.

The ICJ has repeatedly demonstrated that small countries (like Nicaragua) can get justice against bigger states (like the United States) without having a decision wiped out by a UNSC veto.

The Chief of Protocol wouldn't be covered by diplomatic immunity as far as I'm aware, and as soon as Kagame is out of office an arrest warrant will probably be issued for him too. Nothing to do with French law prohibiting heads of state being arrested, it's covered by international law and probably by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations in particular.

CAREFUL !

I'm not saying that the UN is enshrining Western post colonial law.

Hell I'm Portuguese, if anyone can see past marxist-third-world propaganda, its me.

I AM saying that most Westerners have a prejudiced view of the world, and ESPECIALLY an idealistic and naïve view of the UN.

-----------------------------------

The ICJ has repeatedly...

Well, that's not exactly true.

Where are the lawsuits demanding extradition of American, European, Chinese leaders or soldiers to Third World countries?

And come on... its not because of a lack of questionable decisions/crimes ...

Yes in the case of Nicaragua Vs USA it did rule in favour of the former but what did the US lose exactly?...

----------------------------------

it's covered by international law and probably by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations in particular

Yeah, the same International Law system that has the UN as its main embodiment...

Look, I'm all for punishing the genocidal regimes, but all I ask is that you realise that it'll only work as far as the genocidal regimes are in weak states.

You'll never see one of those courts prosecuting Russian Chinese or Arab leaders, because those countries will never allow it.

As far as Western leaders go, in the case of weak states like Serbia, it may happen.
Stronger states ...I'd say it is unlikely, but I don't rule it out precisely because of what I have already called "Humanitarian-Trotskyism"...

Again, I'm a Westerner myself, and my sole point is that this kind of attitude and self-righteous moral superiority will in the long term be very COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE to us westerners...

The legislative branch is the one that makes the laws, the legislative branch is run by politicians, politicians should no better than to mix morality with politics.

Depends how you define "morality". Crimes against humanity are universally recognised as crimes. It does make sense to have international legislation in that field.

Beyond that, it simply becomes a debate over national sovereignty, in which there are valid points to be made on either side.

Hey EU? Can you guys issue a warrent for Bush?

We tried with Cheney...

I AM saying that most Westerners have a prejudiced view of the world, and ESPECIALLY an idealistic and naïve view of the UN.
Whoa, talk to some Americans on here and that view will be quickly dispelled!



Well, that's not exactly true.
Yeh it is. More than once, more than twice, more than three times and so forth - how many before you think it qualifies as repeatedly?

Where are the lawsuits demanding extradition of American, European, Chinese leaders or soldiers to Third World countries?
Leaders? Leaders are covered by immunity. Soldiers? Would be to do with the ICC and not the ICJ - the ICJ can only hear cases taken by a State against another State - not individuals.

And come on... its not because of a lack of questionable decisions/crimes ...
Law, morality : two different things. But I don't disagree with you either.

Yes in the case of Nicaragua Vs USA it did rule in favour of the former but what did the US lose exactly?...
In that particular case, the US was found to be in breach of International Law. That's quite a big thing. And the issue wasn't necessarily a case of 'what did the US lose' in so much as it is 'what did Nicaragua gain' - Nicaragua (tiny) won a court case of significance against the United States of America (huge).

Here, knock yourself out for some other examples: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=2


Yeah, the same International Law system that has the UN as its main embodiment...
The UN isn't the end all of International Law - a large part of the International Law system is simply customary international law.

Look, I'm all for punishing the genocidal regimes, but all I ask is that you realise that it'll only work as far as the genocidal regimes are in weak states.
You're about to split hairs - define 'weak state'. Because, you mention it below, Serbia might like to disagree that it's 'weak'.

You'll never see one of those courts prosecuting Russian Chinese or Arab leaders, because those countries will never allow it.
And because leaders are covered by immunity until out of office. While I appreciate your point about the rich and the powerful - you're talking about mixing politics with the law which is always a messy business. Which one are you being critical of: political will or international law?

Stronger states ...I'd say it is unlikely, but I don't rule it out precisely because of what I have already called "Humanitarian-Trotskyism"...
I agree that individual leaders aren't held to account. And I agree that it's wrong. However, the UN is simply a collection of individual state and is constricted by the powers they chose to give it. Yes that's a flaw, but that's not it's fault - that's the fault of the UK, US, Russia, China and France. That's not the fault of international law, that's the fault of not having political will.

Again, I'm a Westerner myself, and my sole point is that this kind of attitude and self-righteous moral superiority will in the long term be very COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE to us westerners...
Moral superiority? Where? And what do you think is going to happen in the long term?

Edit: Let my clarify - I don't disagree with the morals of your position, in fact I agree totally. However, you work with what have, no matter how bad it is. Things can still get done through international law.

What's your problem ?...
That you're not using the damn quote button.

Right, IF you believe in universal jurisdiction...
For some crimes, there IS universal jurisdiction. Like genocide and crimes against humanity.

The legislative branch is the one that makes the laws, the legislative branch is run by politicians, politicians should no better than to mix morality with politics.
Actually, it should be their job (many times, though, the electors choose politicians whose morality is... somewhat shaky). And the executive is run by politicians, too.

Depends how you define "morality". Crimes against humanity are universally recognised as crimes. It does make sense to have international legislation in that field.

Beyond that, it simply becomes a debate over national sovereignty, in which there are valid points to be made on either side.

Well not really, I think. The USSR committed "democide" against its own citizens and no one was ever tried.

Many european countries committed crimes during their colonial administrations for which no one was ever brought to justice.

Many developing countries committed crimes against former colonising populations and their own citizens and again ...no one was ever brought to justice.
(This reminds me of the Italy-Libya issue earlier this year)

No court bothers with this. The reason why is that there is no interest in doing so since it would arise more problems than it would fix.

IT IS a question of morality because there is no political interest whatsoever in dealing with these crimes by french judges.
There is only a moral interest.

Legality is secondary since there many other crimes closer to France, involving more French citizens than the genocide in Rwanda whose leaders - as I understand - the French authorities want to bring to court for their responsibility in the whole massacre and not only their responsibility in the harm that came to French citizens.

THE FRENCH CITIZENS were the ones who appointed those judges, are the ones who pay the judges, and SHOULD BE the only ones to benefit from the work of those judges...

Yeh it is. More than once, more than twice, more than three times and so forth - how many before you think it qualifies as repeatedly?

Fine, so it has repeatedly done so.

But to issue arrest warrants for a states' officials is one thing, to win a juridic dispute is another.

Leaders? Leaders are covered by immunity. Soldiers? Would be to do with the ICC and not the ICJ - the ICJ can only hear cases taken by a State against another State - not individuals.

Conceded, but even the ICJ can be accused of bias precisely because the biggest crimes of the last decades have became secondary to issues involving weak countries.

And besides in this case we're discussing a French court.

Law, morality : two different things. But I don't disagree with you either.

Thank you.



The UN isn't the end all of International Law - a large part of the International Law system is simply customary international law.

Exactly ! And in customary Law, principles like sovereignty should take precedence.


You're about to split hairs - define 'weak state'. Because, you mention it below, Serbia might like to disagree that it's 'weak'.

Well, in terms of resources, capital and military force, one can clearly tell the difference between weak and strong states.

NATO countries being strong, neutral isolated impoverished and small countries like Serbia being weak.

And because leaders are covered by immunity until out of office. While I appreciate your point about the rich and the powerful - you're talking about mixing politics with the law which is always a messy business. Which one are you being critical of: political will or international law?

Ok, now its getting interesting.

In this case I believe civil society is stepping on grounds which are naturally the area of states and governments (politics).

The problem is that while morally justified, Universal Jurisdiction is voiding Foreign Affairs Ministries of their competence and inherently replacing politics with morality.

This is in my view wrong, because this woman is not just a citizen of the world, she is a foreign dignatary and her legal status abroad should be agreed upon diplomatically, not by the judiciary.


I agree that individual leaders aren't held to account. And I agree that it's wrong. However, the UN is simply a collection of individual state and is constricted by the powers they chose to give it. Yes that's a flaw, but that's not it's fault - that's the fault of the UK, US, Russia, China and France. That's not the fault of international law, that's the fault of not having political will.

The problem is that I don't consider it a flaw. It is completely justified since no other organism should be above states which are the natural - and until now, legal - representatives of peoples.

It is not a perfect system sure. But does anyone prefer the world to be run by judges? by idealist intellectuals?

The problem is that frequently that which benefits more people, isn't necessarily moral.

Moral superiority? Where? And what do you think is going to happen in the long term?

Moral superiority in the fact that many Westerners believe that the UN Charter is the one binding piece of legislation in the world, but tend to forget that western leaders wrote the Charter half a century ago at a time of western geopolitical supremacy and then forced the rest of the world to sign it without necessarily agreeing with it.

Human rights mean different things in New York, Rhiyad and Beijing.

Even the concept of democracy meant different things during the Cold War and still does today.

----------------------

Edit: Let my clarify - I don't disagree with the morals of your position, in fact I agree totally. However, you work with what have, no matter how bad it is. Things can still get done through international law.

The problem is that with instances like the ICJ and Universal Jurisdiction, international law is becoming Transnational Law...

I only dispute Universal Jurisdiction not International Law.

But more and more in the West, we legislate according to moral principles and overlook national interest.

In the long term, I fear that the rest of the world will end up bypassing western institutions and the West becomes isolated...

That you're not using the damn quote button.

I didn't realise that, but by all means if that's the problem: quote button away !

I didn't realise that, but by all means if that's the problem: quote button away !
Geht doch =D

For some crimes, there IS universal jurisdiction. Like genocide and crimes against humanity.

Right, but I think that since only powerful countries can enforce that Law and often against weaker - and frequently non western - countries, ultimately it is a mechanism afflicted by double standards...

Don't you think?

Actually, it should be their job (many times, though, the electors choose politicians whose morality is... somewhat shaky). And the executive is run by politicians, too.

So let me get this right:

You believe politicians - our civil representatives - should legislate according to moral principles and in detriment of national interest?...

So you think that for example eastern european countries should freeze to death because they are all on principle opposed to Russia and to the russian regime and by boycotting the Russian energy system they'd be making a point?...

Rwanda threads always depress me. When I passed through in '89, 5 years before the genocide, I had no idea so many of the people I met would be dead so soon.

Anyway, the issue at hand.

While accepting the strict separation between the French state and the French judiciary, the French role in Rwanda in 1994 is complex, and some might argue that France has a vested interest in trying to link Habyarimana's assassination with Kagame and the RPF.

There are two main candidates for carrying out the assassination.

The first candidate is rogue Hutu extremists within Habyarimana's military, possibly led by Colonel Théoneste Bagasora (an 'intimate' friend of the assassinated president's wife). This is the version accepted by the US government in now-declassified documents of the US State Department, CIA, and Defense Intelligence Agency.

The second version is that RPF forces, acting on orders of now-president Kagame, ordered the assassination. This is the version accepted by Bruguière, and relies heavily on by no-means universally-accepted testimony from one Abdul Ruzibiza, who claims he was part of the assassination cell.

Why does this potentially matter to France? Because Kagame and the current Rwandan government has been at the forefront of accusing France of being, not the 'masterminds' behind the genocide that Ari's OP suggests, but of being complicit in the genocide. Or, as Deutsche Welle put it in the OP:

The Kagame regime has long accused France of being partly to blame for the massacres in Rwanda and complained that Paris and other European capitals were seeking to prosecute the victims rather than the perpetrators.

The usual accusation of the Rwandan government is that the French deployment in Rwanda in '94, the highly-controversial Opération Turquoise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op%C3%A9ration_Turquoise), was designed less to end the genocide than to protect pro-French elements among the genocidaires, and by doing so enabled the continuation of the genocide, rendering France at least passively complicit. This point has itself been previously raised in French courts; in 2006 the Paris court of appeal allowed six lawsuits against the French military from genocide victims on the grounds of "complicity of genocide and/or complicity of crimes against humanity".

Since winning the Rwandan Civil War, the RPF - who for years were based in Anglophone Uganda - have consistently saught to downplay the Francophone influence in Rwanda (the latter, however, resulting from Belgian, rather than French, colonial rule), and the Rwandan government recently announced that English would replace French as the European language of education in most Rwandan primary schools.

In so far as there's tit for tat, it's because Kagame and the RPF believe the following:

1) That France (who, whatever the specifics of its role in the genocide, openly gave Habyarimana's government military aid against the RPF in the early 90s) intervened and was complicit in the genocide in order to maintain French influence in the region.

2) That it's in France's interest to prove Kagame and the RPF shot down that plane because, depending on how cynical your perspective is, it partially discredits Kagame's claim to the moral high ground, proves that the people the French military had traditionally supported didn't start the genocide, allows France to rebuild its lost influence in the region.

Summarised, if Kagame is bitter towards France, it's because he believes he has good reason to be bitter towards France. Having a member of his government arrested on a French magistrate's warrant in Germany isn't going to make him any less bitter.

While Kagame isn't quite the saint that his ardent supporters sometimes claim, remember... it's only paranoia if you have no reason for believing they're out to get you.

I'm not so sure-it could well be Germany got France's Back in getting the people that got their man, and nothing more than cosmetics as far as the Rwandan People are concerned.

As for Iraq "Not selling oil to the U.S.", um, it was the US, enforcing UN sanctions, that made that oil not going to the U.S. France is just pissed because the U.S. invalidated a sweetheart deal for them by overthrowing Saddam, and then cut them out of the juicy reconstruction contracts after the fact. (The french should be damn glad they were cut out-they don't have to worry about their nationals getting kidnapped and beheaded on Al-Jazeera.)

Didn't realize Saddam was beheading US Nationals. Got a link? And everyone intelligent was pissed off at the US for attacking Iraq and having Halliburton's stocks skyrocket. Again, how was Saddam a threat to others outside of Iraq? Also, what's wrong with non-US nations getting sweetheart deals? Isn't that Capitalism where everyone can get a sweetheart deal?

Sorry, but reading this thread's title, I could only think of Emo Phillips:

One time I was in trouble at school and the principal told me, "Emo, I could expel you!", and I said "Well, you'll have to catch me and eat me first, ya freak!"

I had this image of some Rwandan official eating the German Ambassador and then, well...yeah.

I know. I need help.