Constant criticism and pessimism is crazy-making. Any honest review of
human histories or our own experiences will reveal this
basic understanding. All too often, justice activists
and revolutionaries lose credibility because they disappear
into a deeply imbalanced swamp of hopelessness that is
immediately recognized by the folks activists they seek
to convince and these too pessimistic activists are not
listened to any longer. Who wants to spend much time around
someone who finds no �sunshine� anywhere? That behavior
verges on clinical depression.
Admittedly, relatively speaking, one can truthfully say that for us, the
99% in the US and in the world, there
is not much �sunshine� in our lives, but that has been
the case - especially since the rise of conquerors and
occupiers - for more than 500 years. Even oppressors know
to tell LIES about the supposed misery we suffered before
they take control, but lies do not change the present
pain that their pens, boots, chains, and weapons visit
on us. It is not lies or false hope that is needed. I
am not talking about the attempted soothing words of the
slave holders� LIE about Africans being better off as
slaves then they would be in their villages in the Mother
Land. Those �facing the barrel of the gun� are never fooled by such
LIES, yet they still must find sources of hope and energy
for the struggle. Even in the deepest dungeons and the
worse circumstances, the human spirit does rise to find
some reason to hope and to look forward. It is this hope
- not our pessimism - that provides us the will to struggle
on. Please take note of the gut level hopefulness of the
hunger strikers of the Pelican
Bay super maximum prison or the
Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails. In hopeless circumstances
they valiantly struggled for more time for family visits,
for better food, and a more just classification policy.
Competent organizers and motivators shine the �light� of hope into our
dungeons by pointing out and recognizing real positive
trends and clear, concrete steps that can lead toward
better outcomes, rather than smothering hope through frenetic
criticism and calls for disconnected, acting-out protests.
Some vision of success, even though incremental, is necessary
to sustain the struggle. It is extremely important to
delineate what we are FOR�along with pointing to what
we are AGAINST. It is extremely important to lay out a
reasonable action path forward. Both critique and hope
for the future are views necessary to motivating, steering,
and sustaining us on the path to empowerment and justice.
That is why, at the world level, I would like to turn
to consideration of the International Criminal Court
(ICC).
The ICC is an organization of nations that conducts a permanent
tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes
against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression
(although it cannot, until at least 2017, exercise jurisdiction
over the crime of aggression). By this April 2012, there
were 121 countries that are state parties to the Statute
of Rome that established the Court. This includes every
nation in South America, nearly all of Europe and roughly
half the countries in Africa. A further
32 countries, including Russia,
have signed but not ratified the Rome Statute. However
weak or limited is the functioning and jurisdiction of
the ICC, let us recognize its importance for a large part
of humanity as a common source for justice in these areas
of concern. It represents an important step along our
justice path. It holds out a reasonable direction in which
to move, and that is not a utopia.
Wikipedia states that �The establishment of an international tribunal
to judge political leaders accused of war crimes was first
made during the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 by the
Commission of Responsibilities. The issue was addressed
again at a conference held in Geneva
under the auspices of the League
of Nations in November of 1937, but no practical results
followed. The United Nations states that the General Assembly
first recognized the need for a permanent international
court to deal with atrocities of the kind committed during
World War II in 1948, following the Nuremberg
and Tokyo Tribunals. At the request of the General Assembly,
the International Law Commission drafted two statutes
by the early 1950s but these were shelved as the Cold
War made the establishment of an international criminal
court politically unrealistic.� There has been a continuous
movement toward strengthening and implementing a world
process that challenges absolute sovereignty and nationalism
and supports individual and community justice according
to a world law standard.
Court conviction does not include the exercise of the barbarity of capital
punishment. It requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt,
provides for competent defense counsel, allows for appeal,
and - in the estimation of most - complies with the rights
provided by the US Constitution and the constitutions
of most other countries. Because the Court supplements
the actions or the lack of action from national courts
and is established by international treaty, it does not
violate the US Constitutional requirement for the supremacy
of the Federal Supreme Court.
Acknowledging that the current use of the Court has fallen more on �weak�
states and African perpetrators does not cancel the hopeful
potential of this world mechanism. There is active opposition
in some of the more powerful countries: China and India
never signed the Statute and Israel,
Sudan,
and the US has �unsigned� it. Opposition
to the ICC in the US
is part and parcel of the abomination of �American Exceptionalism�
and US
racism. What I hear from this US
opposition would sound as follows: �How dare the other
people of the world - most of whom are people of color
- hold US civilian and military leaders accountable to
international standards of law and justice.� Despite President
Clinton�s reluctance to bring this international treaty
to the Senate for ratification and President Bush�s open
hostility led by UN Ambassador John Bolton, the Obama
Administration has subsequently re-established a working
relationship with the Court. Polls show that Americans
overwhelmingly support the ICC. Would Obama in a second
term bring the ICC to the Senate for ratification? Let�s
put this on the agenda for the 2012 campaign.
The ICC is not a panacea. The current Statutes of the ICC do not allow
for consideration of rights violations that happened prior
to July 1 2002; whether on-going effects of prior violations
can be remedied through actions by the ICC has not yet
been dealt with. There are twists and turns yet to be
encountered on this path. Those challenges, however, should
not be discouraging since reality presents no perfect
path.
Again, criticism and hope are both required. From the wisdom philosophies
of the East we learn about the efficacy of balance. A
deeper, wiser social psychological stance necessary to
sustain the struggle is the understanding and recognition
that it is �walking� the PATH along the edge of dualities
and not the DESTINATION that is most important.
BlackCommentator.com Guest Commentator, Wilson Riles, is a former Oakland, CA City Council Member. Click here to contact Mr. Riles.
