Burundi: Declaration de l’Assemble Nationale suite a l’attaque menee contre le Conseliler Principal en charge des Presses, Information et Communication au Cabinet du President de la Republique du Burundi (30.11.2016)

burundi-30-11-2016

Burundi: Communique de Presse Contre les Accusations Graves et la Rhetorique Xenophobe et Injurieuse a l’Endoit des pays amis et Partenaires du Burundi et des Opposants par le Pouvoir de Facto de Bujumbura (28.11.2016)

burundi-28-11-2016-p1burundi-28-11-2016-p2

Burundi: Communiqué du gouvernement Burundais suite à la tentative d’assassinat de Willy Nyamitwe(29.11.2016)

burundi-29-11-2016

Burundi: Declaration locale de l’Union europeene (29.11.2016)

burundi-dialouge-29-11-2016

Act to protect civilians, UN experts urge Burundi Government (29.11.2016)

burundi-soldiers-archive

The fact that armed militia are openly intimidating people demonstrates, “the unwillingness or the inability of the Government to protect civilians,” the Committee wrote in a decision issued under its early warning and urgent action procedure.

GENEVA, Switzerland, November 29, 2016 – The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) has called on the Government of Burundi to take prompt and effective action to protect civilians, including allowing the immediate admission of a UN police contingent* to monitor the security and human rights situation in the country.

The fact that armed militia are openly intimidating people demonstrates, “the unwillingness or the inability of the Government to protect civilians,” the Committee wrote in a decision issued under its early warning and urgent action procedure. CERD also expressed deep concern regarding a Civil Service questionnaire issued on 8 November that asks public servants to state their ethnicity.

“Such a survey, given Burundi’s history of virulent ethnic conflict, could spread fear and further mistrust among the population, and could be hugely dangerous if misused,” said CERD Chairperson Anastasia Crickley.

Acting under its early warning procedure, CERD also voiced deep concern at reports of killings, summary executions, disappearances and torture; the frequent use of hate speech by Government officials; and the growing number of Burundians fleeing the country.

The Committee deplored Burundi’s increased lack of co-operation with the international community and called on the Government to re-engage with the UN Human Rights Office. CERD also urged the Government to abide by Burundi’s human rights obligations, including those arising from the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

CERD established its early warning procedure in response to the conflicts of the early 1990s, including in the Great Lakes region, as a way of preventing  problems or crises from escalating into conflicts and above all to prevent the wounds of old conflicts from re-opening,” said Ms. Crickley. “That is why we expressed alarm in August this year and this is why we are raising our voice again”.

“Burundi is at a dangerous junction. We therefore call on the Government to step back from any actions that risk stoking ethnic conflict and that could even be a precursor to mass atrocities,” said Ms. Crickley.

Burundi: Sonnette d’alarme de l’OLUCOME sur la détérioration de l’économie (24.11.2016)

burundi-24-11-2016-p1burundi-24-11-2016-p2burundi-24-11-2016-p3burundi-24-11-2016-p4

UN human rights body appoints Commission of Inquiry on Burundi (24.11.2016)

burundi-cartoon-p2-0

The Commissioners appointed today include Fatsah Ouguergouz (Algeria), Reina Alapini Gansu (Benin) and Francoise Hampson (United Kingdom). Mr. Ouguergouz will serve as the Chair of the three-member Commission.

NEW YORK, United States of America, November 24, 2016 – Following a decision of the United Nations Human Rights Council, in which it setup a commission of inquiry to investigate human rights violations and abuses in Burundi, including whether they may constitute international crimes, the President of the body has appointed the Commission’s Chair and members.

According to a news release, the Commissioners will “provide the support and expertise for the immediate improvement of the situation of human rights and the fight against in impunity.”

Established for a period of a year at the Human Rights Council’s 33rd session (September 2016), the Commission has also been mandated to identify the alleged perpetrators of violations and abuses, since April 2015, with a view to ensuring full accountability.

The Commissioners appointed today include Fatsah Ouguergouz (Algeria), Reina Alapini Gansu (Benin) and Francoise Hampson (United Kingdom). Mr. Ouguergouz will serve as the Chair of the three-member Commission.

In discharging its duties, the Commission has been authorized by the Human Rights Council to engage with national authorities, UN agencies, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) field presence in the country, as well as other stakeholders, including the civil society, refugees, authorities of the African Union (AU) and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

The Commission will be present an oral briefing to the Human Rights Council at its 34th and 35th sessions, in March and June 2017, respectively, and a final report at an interactive dialogue at the Council’s 36th session in September 2017.

Burundi was thrown into fresh crisis more than a year ago when President Pierre Nkurunziza decided to run for a controversial third term that he went on to win. To date, it has been reported that hundreds of people have been killed, more than 250,000 have fled the nation, and thousands more have been arrested and possibly subjected to human rights violations.

Advocacy Brief on Kenya: 15th Session of the Assembly of State Parties (ASP) to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 16-24 November, 2016 (21.11.2016)

kptj

Background

At the height of the violence that gripped Kenya after the disputed 2007 elections, the Party of the National Unity and the Orange Democratic Movement, who were parties to the conflict, wrote to the International Criminal Court (ICC) seeking its intervention to stop what they called genocide. A local investigatory commission with international participation found that some actions during the post-election violence likely met the threshold of crimes against humanity and recommended the establishment of a Special Tribunal for Kenya, or in the alternative, the handover of the sealed evidence to the Prosecutor at the ICC.

Efforts to establish the Tribunal were defeated by political forces aligned to suspected perpetrators, hence triggering the handover of evidence to the ICC and the subsequent investigation. Six Kenyans were named in connection with seven crimes against humanity charges; the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber II confirmed charges against four suspects. Two suspects – Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto were subsequently elected President and Deputy President, respectively, before their trials could begin at the ICC. Thereafter, the Prosecutor withdrew charges against two suspects – Francis Muthaura and Kenyatta – citing witness bribery and intimidation, as well as failure by the Kenya government to cooperate with the court. The remaining case against Ruto and journalist Joshua arap Sang was terminated citing “intolerable levels of witness interference and political meddling”.

Kenyans for Peace with Truth and Justice (KPTJ) has followed closely the developments around accountability for the crimes committed during the 2007 post-election violence. Since the opening of the investigations in March 2010, we have observed certain shortcomings and challenges on the part of the Government of Kenya, the ICC, the Assembly of States Parties (ASP) and the African Union (AU). This brief seeks to focus on key issues emerging from the situation that the ICC and international justice finds itself in today, while drawing linkages from how the Kenya cases and other ICC cases were managed. KPTJ also makes recommendations on actions that require to be undertaken by the ASP, the ICC and African governments in order to address the emergent challenges.

  1. Engage and Withdraw Simultaneously?

A Contradiction in the Mandate of the AU Open Ended Committee

  1. The 27th ordinary session of the African Union’s assembly in July 2016 issued a decision on the ICC[1] pursuant to a similar one from the previous session[2]. Besides praising the court’s termination of the case against Kenya’s Deputy President William Ruto, the AU outlined a five-point agenda for the Open-Ended Committee of Foreign Ministers on the ICC, which included the following:
  • Engaging with the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) before the January 2017 AU Summit and before the 15th Assembly of State Parties in November 2016.
  • Maintaining the earlier decision from January 2016, to develop a comprehensive strategy to inform the actions of AU member states that are party to the Rome Statute; a strategy that includes collective withdrawal from the ICC.
  • Concluding a review of the ICC’s interpretation of Article 93 of the Rome Statute regarding the compulsion of unwilling witnesses to testify, with a view to inform debate at the 15th
  • Conveying the message that AU member states object to the inclusion of language requiring the UNSC to mandate UN peace-keeping missions to enforce arrest warrants in Africa.
  • Utilising the AU Mission in Brussels, Belgium, as the secretariat to the Open-ended Ministerial Committee and provision of institutional support to the African Group in The Hague, Netherlands, to ensure effective coordination of its activities.
  1. The AU has since held a meeting with the UNSC in September 2016 to present pre-formulated terms developed by the Open-ended Ministerial Committee as conditions to keep African States as parties to the Rome Statute. These conditions were as follows[3]:
  • Immunity under the ICC’s Rome Statute for sitting heads of state and government as well as senior officials;
  • Intervention of the ICC in cases involving African states only after those cases have been submitted to the AU or AU judicial institutions; and
  • Reduction in the powers of the ICC Prosecutor.
  1. Recent developments have seen South Africa, Burundi and The Gambia commence processes to withdraw from the ICC; seemingly as part of actualising the intention cited in the agenda of the Open-ended Ministerial Committee. These actions expose the agenda by the AU to be disingenuous and presupposes that the deliberations within the ASP would be futile.. The wave of withdrawals occurs against a counter-wave of support for the Court by countries including Cote d’Ivoire, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Malawi, Zambia and Botswana[4]; an indication that the strategy for mass withdrawal does not enjoy the consensus suggested by the AU decision of July 2016. These countries have suggested that concerns expressed by African states are not insurmountable and can be addressed within the framework of the ASP. Their support for the ICC underscores the fact that the obligations under the Rome Statute are State obligations and not AU obligations; as such, decisions on withdrawal will be based on national interest that cannot be assumed by the AU.
  1. Furthermore, the strategy for AU member states to withdraw undermines the other outlined agenda items of engagement with the ASP, such as the review of the interpretation of Article 93 of the Rome Statute and the enforcement of arrest warrants. Such contradictory actions raise the question of whether the AU is negotiating ICC reforms in good faith.
  1. In light of the foregoing, KPTJ recommends that:
  • African States abandon and disregard calls for mass withdrawal from the Court and instead consolidate the member bloc to advance their concerns within the bounds of the ASP in deliberations based on good faith.
  • African states should continue to publicly reaffirm their support for engaging with the ICC through the ASP and prevail on the AU to adjust its engagement strategy accordingly. We applaud the statements made by Cote d’Ivoire, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Malawi, Zambia and Botswana.
  • An ICC Liaison Office should be established at the AU headquarters in Addis Ababa to facilitate more productive and sustained communication between African States and the ICC as part of restoring a relationship that has become plagued by mistrust and misunderstandings.
  1. Absence of Accountability?

Peace, Security and Stability

  1. The characterisation of the ICC as undermining the peace and security of states or threatening their stability has become a recurring theme by those advocating disengagement or withdrawal from the ICC. In its notice of withdrawal, South Africa claims that its aspirations for the peaceful resolution of conflicts were being hindered by its obligations under the Rome Statute[5] to arrest Sudanese President Omar Al Bashir when he attended the June 2015 AU Summit in Johannesburg. Kenyan government officials have also previously described the cases against Kenyatta and Ruto as an existential threat to peace and stability.
  2. A closer scrutiny of this assertion in the face of ongoing conflict situations suggests the contrary. The absence of accountability processes does not necessarily facilitate peaceful resolution of conflicts; the South Sudan and Burundi conflicts instead point to protagonists willing to escalate violence, even in the context of peace negotiations. Burundi and The Gambia have commenced processes to withdraw from the ICC at a time when their respective governments stand accused of acts of repression and mass human rights violations. Rather than advance the cause for peace, the clamour for withdrawal from the ICC is playing into the hands of those wary of the prospects of accountability in the aftermath of conflict. Even more concerning is an apparent trend of rising post-election violence, such as that witnessed in Kenya previously and in Gabon currently, or violence stemming from efforts to instal third-term incumbencies in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Burundi. Such trends are bound to persist in the absence of mechanisms for accountability, of which the ICC is a critical component.
  3. The assertion that the African Court of Justice and Human Rights (African Court) and its proposed expanded criminal jurisdiction through the Malabo Protocol would fill in any void created by a mass withdrawal from the ICC is erroneous. The African Court is a distant prospect for addressing the impunity gap: it is far from being operational. Since 2013, only five states namely Benin, Kenya, Congo, Guinea Bissau and Mauritania have signed but not ratified the Malabo Protocol, which requires the ratification of 15 states to begin operations. Kenya is the only state thus far that has made a financial pledge of USD 1 million to operationalise the court — a far cry from the resources required for a court of broad jurisdiction consisting of a mandate on human rights as well as international law and interstate disputes. It has previously been estimated that a singular international criminal trial costs USD 20 million to undertake. In addition, the protocol contains contentious provisions that undermine its viability as an alternative platform for international crimes, the most notable being the clause of immunity for sitting heads of state and senior government officials. As a testament to the inability of the African Court to be an immediate replacement of the ICC as desired by some, even South Africa through its Justice Minister has indicated that it will ask for a review of the Malabo Protocol to address contentious issues. Furthermore, limited progress has been made towards establishing national mechanisms that can sufficiently undertake the obligation of accountability for international crimes.
  4. KPTJ recognises the pursuit of justice in conflict and post-conflict settings as an essential pillar of rebuilding democracies and restoring rule of law. These are the pathways to lasting peace, security and stability. Rather than push to void international justice mechanisms after the conflict to facilitate mediation, we recommend that:
  • African states fully implement and consistently apply already established norms on democracy, peace and security as a preventative measure to conflict including: the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights; the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance and; the African Governance Architecture.
  • African states must critically reflect on and address the issues of the African Court’s capacity, accessibility, legal standards outlined for crimes under international law and expunge provisions conferring immunity on sitting Heads of State and senior government officials. This process must not be rushed or predicated on a manufactured crisis precipitated by a strategy of mass withdrawal from the ICC.
  • African states should establish robust and credible national mechanisms to address the accountability question at first instance and in complementarity with regional and international mechanisms. They must also broaden their policy considerations to include comprehensive reparation programmes for victims of international crimes.
  • Disparity between State Obligations and Reality?

A look at State Cooperation

  1. The Kenya and Sudan cases have exposed the frailties within the Rome Statute framework in as far as state cooperation is concerned. These cases have laid waste to the presumption that States will willingly engage with the court in the face of cases seeking to prosecute sitting heads of state, their deputies or powerful elites in close proximity to power. State cooperation has only demonstrably worked in instances where the target for prosecution is a vanquished foe of conflict as seen in the cases of Uganda and Cote d’Ivoire, that are fast advancing a notion of “victor’s justice”. This challenge is further compounded by the fact that the final recourse for addressing the lack of state cooperation rests with the ASP. The ASP being a political organ of the Rome Statute is influenced by political rather than purely legal considerations in making its decisions, which makes the issue of resolving the non-cooperation of states problematic. A final challenge to state cooperation is the failure of the United States, China and Russia to ratify the Rome Statute while also being members of the UNSC with the power of referral of matters to the court. This has created the notion of double standards within the international justice system and emboldened other states to disregard cooperation with the court.
  2. KPTJ calls on the members of the UNSC who have not ratified the Rome Statute to display leadership on State cooperation with the court by first ratifying the Statute and utilising its discretion on referral and deferral in a manner that adheres to the objectives of the Statute. We further wish to reiterate that state cooperation must denote effective cooperation that facilitates the mandates of the respective organs of the court and not feigned cooperation which creates the perception of facilitating the court but in fact consists of using procedural and technical obstacles to undermine the court. We call on the ASP to adopt a consistent and objective legal standard in the assessment of state cooperation.
  3. Are there lessons to be learned?

Taking stock of the experience in the Kenya cases

  1. The Kenya cases and the manner of their termination carry critical lessons for consideration to inform future actions by the court and the content of reforms within the strategic plans of its respective organs. The Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) as well as the bench on various occasions decried the instances of witness tampering and intimidation as well as non-cooperation by the state in responding to the OTP requests for information and a failure to execute ICC warrants of arrest with respect to three Kenyans suspected of witness tampering. This in fact has led to a finding of non-compliance against Kenya and led to its referral to the ASP under article 87(7) of the Rome Statute. In the midst of all this, was an unprecedented and disruptive diplomatic effort that deliberately exerted political pressure on the court with a view to influencing the outcome of the Kenya cases. It is arguable that these diplomacy efforts yielded the concession of excusing President Kenyatta and Deputy President Ruto from continuous presence at their trial and that the current wave of withdrawals from the ICC on the basis of an apparent bias by the court against Africans are a fallout from these diplomatic efforts. The capitulations of the cases have also pointed to significant flaws in the investigative and prosecutorial approaches that informed the development of the cases and must lead to some introspection from the relevant mechanisms. The fact that the Trust Fund for Victims is yet to commence operations in Kenya cannot go without mention.
  2. KPTJ urges all the organs of the court to reflect on these experiences and take due cognisance of the following lessons and recommendations:
  • The ICC, particularly the ASP, should do more to ensure that it does not allow political statements to interfere with the judicial independence of the Court.
  • The ICC should ensure that it takes steps to respond to messages of a political nature and correct inaccurate statements in a timely manner. In addition, it should ensure that such key messages reach the right audiences, including victims and affected communities.
  • The Court should continue to build its relationship with African States that openly support the mandate of the ICC; in addition, the ICC should do more to improve its relationship with, and image at, the AU.
  • The Trust Fund for Victims should commence operations in Kenya, as victims have received little to no assistance from the Kenyan government.
  • The Prosecutor should carefully consider when to request ‘summons to appear’ as opposed to ‘warrants of arrest’ and take into account the individual circumstances of each accused person in doing so, particularly their potential to intimidate witnesses and interfere with evidence.
  • Swift action should be taken by the Prosecutor and the Court in instances of non-cooperation by States Parties. Any instances of non-cooperation should be resolved as speedily as possible, in such a manner that the outcome of proceedings on non-cooperation can be applied to strengthen an ongoing case and not be delayed to the point that the outcome is only of academic significance.
  • The Prosecutor should continue to carry out a review of its investigative strategies and methods in order to improve its chances of success at trial.
  • The Prosecution should ensure that its staff are able to spend as much time as possible on better understanding the context and nuances of a given situation country.
  1. Pursuit of reform without prejudice?

UN Reform vs ICC Reform

  1. The unique role played by UNSC in referral and deferral of cases before the ICC means that the debates on reforming the court and reforming the UN and in particular the UNSC have inevitably intersected. We have witnessed both undertones and overt accusations of imperialism and undue influence directed at the court on account of cases on Africa referred to it by the UNSC (Libya and Sudan). Arguments made to amend the Rome Statute to confer immunity for sitting heads of state and senior government officials are laced with grievance against the UNSC permanent five members possessing a de facto immunity from prosecution under the ICC on account of their veto power. The end result is a misdirected effort to amend the Rome Statute or in the extreme withdraw from the ICC on the basis of perceived excesses that are better addressed by engaging the broader debate of UN reforms.
  1. While KPTJ acknowledges the slanted relationship of the UNSC with the court and supports a robust conversation on its reforms, we call on states not to misdirect the agenda of reforming the UNSC into discussions on improving the functions of the court and occasion amendments to the Rome statute that sacrifice the future of the court as part of a bargaining process on UNSC reforms. We call on African states in particular, to distinguish the broader question of UN reforms as enshrined in the “Ezulwini Consensus” from the question of reforming the Rome Statute and reflecting on the performance of the court. We call upon African member states to the Rome Statute not to sacrifice the promise of justice for victims of atrocity crimes at the altar of grievance against the unequal power relations represented by the UN Security Council.

end/kptj/16.06.2016

——–

About KPTJ:

This brief was prepared by Kenyans for Peace with Truth and Justice (KPTJ), a coalition of Kenyan citizens and over 30 organisations working in the human rights, governance and legal fields that came together during the crisis over the disputed results of the 2007 presidential election to seek truth and accountability for the elections and the widespread violence that followed; and who continue to work closely with the victims of that period. It is a brief update on the situation in Kenya as pertains to pursuing accountability for the crimes against humanity committed during the 2007-2008 Post-Election Violence as well as its adherence to its obligations under the Rome Statute.

[1] Assembly/AU/Dec.616 (XXVII)

[2] Assembly/AU/Dec.590(XXVI)

[3] Press Release: “UN/African Union: Reject ICC withdrawal”. Available here: http://www.khrc.or.ke/2015-03-04-10-37-01/press-releases/552-un-african-union-reject-icc-withdrawal.html

[4] Article: “Which African states slammed Burundi, South Africa and Gambia’s withdrawal from ICC?” Available here: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/which-african-states-slammed-burundi-south-africa-gambias-withdrawal-icc-1589711

[5] https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/South-Africa-Instrument-of-Withdrawal-International-Criminal-Court.jpg

Burundi: Footage allegedly shows Imbonerakure militiamen marching in a parade (Youtube-Clip)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kXuX2J84vg

Horrendous bleak situation right now in East Africa/Horn of Africa: Genocide Warnings, Army used against Civilians, Opposition harassed and a surge of refugees between the nations (November 14.2016)

East-Africa

That there is civil-war like activity in Ogaden and Amhara regions in Ethiopia, that there continues internal skirmishes between Burundian security forces and civilians, that the Rwandan Opposition are silenced, In the Democratic Republic of Congo as there guerrillas fighting and killing while the FARDC and MONUSCO doesn’t act against civilians in North and South Kivu; As there are internal fighting between Somaliland, Galdumug, Al-Shabaab and AMISOM. This is all happening as we flick between the channels on the telly.

There we are discussing who’s the next racial biased brother Donald J. Trump thinking of hiring to his executive branch staff at the White House. This is happening while there continue bloodbath, there been genocide warnings for Burundi in October 2016 and South Sudan November 2016. South Sudan are skirmishes happening in Yei State, South Kordofan, West Bahr El Ghazal between SPLM/A and SPLM/A-IO, which is President Kiir and former FVP Machar. There are battles still in Darfur as the Khartoum regime under President Omar Al-Bashir are attacking the SPLM-N and other rebels who fight themselves in the past, but has no written an agreement while the Khartoum has said they will continue to fight them.

Rice in Market

These are killings of civilians in with the mind of staying in power. It is happening with bullets that imported and exported from the rich nations, through back-channels that none of us want to discuss, because it implicates the nations of peace are involved in profits of the death of civilians. This is happening as we go to buy bread at the supermarket, markets for selling cassava and rice are blown to bits, water-sources are getting scarce as these nations are hurt by droughts and dire need of secure agricultural productions, but that is not happening while the big-men are explicitly doing what they can to kill each other for POWER.

The innocent is dying at rapid speed. The livelihoods are dwindling away because the Presidents and Government together with rebels are destroying the nations in their reach of staying with titles, businesses and feeding their elites of the donor funds. This is the situation in Ethiopia, Burundi, Somalia, South Sudan and Sudan.

Adjumani Refugee Camp

We cannot let this happening while the fleeing civilians are going from one bad situation into another. If the Somalis think of fleeing to Ethiopia, they get into new trouble and Kenyan Government are busy deporting them to PoC sites inside Somalia. If you’re fleeing Ethiopia you have to cross the South Sudan and Sudan. Where the battles between the rivals continue and are bloody. The place of refuge right now is Northern Uganda, the war-torn parts that has had a decade of peace, but the locals are not getting land, but the refugees and businessmen. The reality is that the Government doesn’t have funds to allocate the Refugee camps in Adjumani where the UNICEF organization is lacking funds for support.

Together with the issues of Burundian refugees in Rwanda and Tanzania; the Burundian ones are safe in Tanzania, but still the UN operations doesn’t have the sufficient funds as there are more worry of what the Rwandese authorities do, as they want to send them away because the Burundian Authorities are claiming that Rwandese Government are training rebels to coup d’état against President Nkurunziza.

While the pulling out of ICC happens from Burundi, the Kenyan pulling troops from the UMISS, Ugandan negotiations in dialogue between the parties in Burundi and South Sudan; while the shallow relationships is to see how they all can grind monies out of the international community. The African Union complains to the European Union on payments for the soldiers, while the Ugandan and Burundian government eats of these funds, while the soldiers themselves thieving ammunition and gas to supply themselves with needed salaries.

All of this is happening while the Ethiopian Government has pulled out battalions out of certain areas in Somalia, as Kenyan have a strong force and feeling the pinch for being involved in the internal squabbles between Al-Shabaab, Government and Local-Government in war-torn nation. As Djibouti tries to live in peace, but get trained guerrillas from Eritrea and has built a railroad from Ethiopia so that the coastal state has giant ally on the Horn of Africa.

south-sudan-army-pic

So the civil wars, the skirmishes from governments towards civilians shouldn’t be happening without anyone doing something about it. The Ethiopian, Burundian, Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan and South Sudan are now all involved in similar business. The Troika of South Sudan is inactive and like a donor-friendly buddy to Kiir Government, but not certainly acting upon the violence and crimes against humanity. The Sudan government might be under sanctions and has issues with ICC charged President Bashir. Still, they are able to continue to fight civilians in the Darfur Region. The Somali Government feels more powerless as they are donor-friendly and need foreign support for basic operations, while the Al-Shabaab takes stake in every other region, as the Puntland, Galdumug and Somaliland has become more independent and making agreement on their own. As Somaliland have signed giant port-agreement to secure funding of the Civilian Government; also so they can function as nation on their own, though not respected as one from the international community.

This is just the beginning, and it’s not wonderful, it’s bleak… the warnings of GENOCIDE should worry the world in Burundi and South Sudan. But, the current silence, the mediocre attention and no-worries attitude. Is making me shiver and making me worried about the state of affairs in our time!

IGAD Plus

That there are such current state of affairs, the diplomatic works must be in tatters, the African Union is pointless, the East African Community is a Men’s Club for the Presidents, European Union are stooges for big-business, IGAD are Ethiopian skeleton for peaceful operations and the United Nations are powerless with no-mandate or real army to act upon the human rights violations or crimes against humanity if they are occurring.

It’s a reason why these nations want to withdraw from the Roman Statute if they can and still get donor-aid because the armies, laws and regulations of the civilians are massive breaches of international laws. The Geneva Conventions, the UN Charters and the other ones these Nations have signed into.

While the worst is having knowledge of the dying civilians in South Sudan, Sudan, Ethiopia, Burundi and Somalia as we speak, the silence and indifference… time to act; time for change and time get it on the agenda. Peace.