[Salon] Day 1 of the ICJ Genocide Hearings
- To: salon@listserve.com
- Subject: [Salon] Day 1 of the ICJ Genocide Hearings
- From: Chas Freeman <cwfresidence@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 10:37:25 -0500
- Authentication-results: mlm2.listserve.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="KbOydEnF"
- Dkim-filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mlm2.listserve.net 4A1C5B0830
FM: John Whitbeck
Today's three hours of oral arguments at the International
Court of Justice by the six members of the South African
legal team were highly professional and impressive.
In 2020, in the genocide case brought by Gambia against
Myanmar, the ICJ unanimously ordered the following
"provisional measures", which are fully (and no doubt
intentionally) consistent with the provisional measures
sought by South Africa:
***
86. For these reasons,
The Court,
Indicates the following provisional measures:
(1) Unanimously,
The Republic of the Union of Myanmar shall, in accordance
with its
obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of
the Crime of Genocide, in relation to the members of the
Rohingya group
in its territory, take all measures within its power to
prevent the commis-
sion of all acts within the scope of Article II of this
Convention, in par-
ticular:
(a) killing members of the group;
(b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to the members
of the
group;
(c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of
life calculated to
bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
and
(d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within
the group.
***
While the horrors inflicted upon the Rohingya were
appalling, it is clear, as argued by the South African
legal team, that the horrors already inflicted and
continuing to be inflicted upon the Palestinian people in
Gaza are "sadly even more stark" and "of much greater
severity" and, significantly for proving "intention" under
the Genocide Convention, openly advocated and avowed by
abundant public declarations of explicitly genocidal
intent.
Accordingly, there is no legal or moral reason for the ICJ
not to order the provisional measures sought by South
Africa unanimously, subject only to the presumed
politically motivated dissent of the ad hoc judge
added to the court by the Israeli government and the
possible politically motivated dissent of the American
judge.
Since four of the court's judges, including the American
judge, who is currently serving as president of the court,
are scheduled to retire and be replaced on February 6, one
may anticipate that the court will issue its order prior
to February 6. In light of the urgency of the matter, one
may hope that the court will issue its order much sooner.
While ICJ orders are binding and non-appealable, it is
clear that Israel will ignore any order of the ICJ, as it
has ignored the court's near-unanimous (the American judge
dissenting) 2004 opinion on the illegality of the
Apartheid Wall and all "binding" UN Security Council
resolutions and "non-binding" UN General Assembly
resolutions against it.
However, after such an order is issued, it will be awkard
(albeit far from impossible) for the the governments of
the U.S., the UK and other Western countries to defy a
"binding" order of the world's highest judicial authority
by continuing to support, militarily, financially and
diplomatically, Israel's genocidal assault against the
people of Gaza, notably, in the case of the United States,
by vetoing a new UN Security Council resolution (probably
to be introduced by new temporary member Algeria)
demanding that all states comply with the ICJ's order --
effectively, another demand for an immediate ceasefire.
If the United States were to veto such a resolution, it
would be reconfirming that the subservience of its
political class to Israeli domination and control has
reduced the country of my birth to the status, like
Israel, of an outlaw, rogue and pariah state.
Even Genocide Joe might hesitate.
NOTE (1): As a lawyer who recognizes that even the
worst moral monsters are entitled to a legal defense, I
cannot help feeling a modest measure of professional pity
for the Israeli legal team, which will be required
tomorrow to argue (for three hours!) that the ICJ should
not even try to halt the horrors being inflicted upon the
Palestinian people in Gaza by ordering the provisional
measures sought by South Africa.
NOTE (2): As an Irish citizen (if only my marriage)
resident in France, I was proud that one member of the
South African legal team was a particularly impressive
Irish woman, who, as a courtesy to the court, began and
ended her contribution to South Africa's oral argument in
flawless French. As the only Western country which has
itself been the victim of imperialism, colonialism and
racism, Ireland is, at least so far, the only Western
country which has adopted, at least to some degree, an
admirably humane position regarding Israeli ethnic
cleansing, racism, apartheid and genocide.
NOTE (3): As a human being, I have today derived
emotional satisfaction from watching Africans eloquently
argue at the highest court established by the "white"
Western world for accountability for the atrocities being
committed by a "white" Western regime against an
indigenous people deemed, regardless of their actual skin
tone, "non-white" because culturally and historically
non-Western.
NOTE (4): A video recording of today's ICJ
proceedings, which is well worth watching for anyone with
the time and interest, can be accessed at https://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k11/k11gf661b3.
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail (Mailman edition) and
MHonArc.