Thank You ICC: Charges Against Sudan's President Expected In the Future

Aimee Sobhani
Politics

After 5 years and 300,000 deaths, the Economist reports that the International Criminal Court (ICC) will bring present evidence against Sudan's president, Omar Al-Bashir. This move could result in Al-Bashir's indictment for war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. This move shows exactly why the ICC is an important, necessary international body.

I've written in favor of the ICC before, and I strongly believe that the U.S. should take steps to join the Court. A belief that is central to liberal political theory is that one way that "world peace" may be achieved is through involvement in international organizations. This concept is very simple: international organizations force states to work together, thus lessening the likelihood of war.

Currently, the United States is not part of the ICC. Clinton was apprehensive about joining the organization because he thought it might undermine the Constitution, and Bush totally opposes American participation in the Court. This fear partially stems from the fact that if an American commits a heinous crime, he or she might be subject to the ICC's jurisdiction instead of the jurisdiction of the American court. However, this fear is unfounded, mainly due to the fact that it is unlikely that someone raised with American values would commit a crime so severe that he or she would end up in front of the ICC. In addition, the ICC only has jurisdiction over an American criminal if it deems that proceedings in an American court were lacking in some way--also unlikely given the sophistication of the American judicial system.

If America chooses to join the ICC, the organization could be strengthened significantly. Though the U.S. is losing popularity because of some its policy decisions, there is no doubt that the U.S. is still one of the most powerful nations in the world. If we join the ICC, we will be able to influence the Court's decisions and the rules that govern it. There doesn't seem to be anything negative about that.

Never fear, though. Barack Obama is a supporter of the ICC and internationalism in general so it is possible that the United States will be involved in the ICC in the near future.

I Wish I Were Karl Rove...Then I Could Ignore Subpoenas, Too

Aimee Sobhani
Politics

Karl Rove was supposed to appear before the House Judiciary Committee today, but he and his lawyer believe that Rove has the power to ignore the Committee's request for him to testify. Rove's lawyer claims that Rove is protected by "executive privilege," meaning that Rove can ignore the subpoena and avoid questions dealing with him and his cronies dismissing U.S. attorneys who they saw as threats to Rove's well-oiled political machine.

Rove is not the first member of the Bush administration to claim that he is protected from answering to Congress or the courts. Bush himself has used the excuse multiple times to avoid answering awkward questions and to protect his faithful followers from answering them, too.

Executive privilege is to the executive branch what "pleading the fifth" is to private citizens. They are both meant to protect individuals from giving up self-incriminating information. While this power is a Constitutional right for individuals, the Constitution doesn't exactly give the same power to a public entity such as the government. Citizens have a right to know what elected officials are saying behind closed doors; we have the right to know if something suspicious is going on, right?

Citing executive privilege usually means that an executive has something to hide. Nixon claimed the privilege during the Watergate scandal, and Clinton too used the power as a way to bypass answering questions about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Given the secrecy and lying done by the present administration, it's not surprising that it too hides itself under the curtain of executive privilege.

I'm sure executive privilege has its place in the American government, but it seems kind of unnecessary in Rove's case. It is undeniable that he is responsible for several rather illegal actions, and he needs to be punished.

Mugabe: Still In Business (Unfortunately)

Aimee Sobhani
Politics

Few Americans know the true extent of problems in Africa: after all, the media's attention is so focused on the war in Iraq, the impending 2008 Presidential election, and various celebrity scandals that there's little time to cover problem-ridden Africa. Sure, every so often we might hear about Darfur, but there are also many other issues plaguing the African continent. Low life expectancies, famine, disease, poverty, war--these issues all stem from the rampant colonial expansion that occurred until the middle of the twentieth century, but it can be argued that these problems specifically arose from the rise of corrupt, incompetent African leaders that came into power after the expulsion of colonial rule.

One such leader is Robert Mugabe, the current President of Zimbabwe. The term "president" is not the best descriptor for the leader--a more accurate term is dictator. Mugabe has been President since 1980, mainly due to the fact that he has "won" corrupt elections by unbelievable margins (The BBC reports that in the recent June election, Mugabe won by 85%). Mugabe's cronies engage in all sorts of illegal activities in order to secure Mugabe's place in the government. Mugabe's opponents are harassed and intimidated, and voters not casting a ballot for Mugabe can expect to be intimidated as well. In addition, many voters choose not to participate in the elections due to the fact that it is common knowledge that the elections are meaningless.

Why is Mugabe such a threat? Let's just say he doesn't have the best track record. He and his party, ZANU-PF, have ruined the lives of large numbers of Zimbabwe's people through their revolting policies. For example, in 2005, Mugabe's followers destroyed homes in Zimbabwean suburbs because ZANU-PF's opposition party was gaining support in these areas. As a result, many Zimbabweans fled to other countries (especially South Africa), where they are at risk of becoming targets of xenophobic violence.

A decrease in the general well-being of Zimbabweans has accompanied Mugabe's rule. Zimbabwe has the lowest life expectancy in the world; most people only live until their mid-30's. In addition, inflation is rampant; a recent article revealed that inflation in Zimbabwe has reached 1 million percent and could continue rising. Additionally, as in most African countries, AIDS is a huge concern.

So how is the world responding to Mugabe's inability to ensure the health and happiness of his people? Well, it's not. The UN has stated that it believes Zimbabwe's latest elections were unfair, but merely pointing out the obvious is not going to solve any problems. The African Union (AU) has failed to take any decisive action against Mugabe and like the UN, merely voices its concerns about Mugabe's actions. Words, though they may be powerful in some cases, cannot remove Robert Mugabe from office, and they certainly cannot solve the problems faced by Zimbabwe.