[Peace-discuss] FW: Burundi Withdrawing from International Criminal Court--The White Man's Court

[Boyle, Francis A]

Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign, IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (phone)
217-244-1478 (fax)
(personal comments only)

From: Boyle, Francis A
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 9:49 AM
To: 'SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org' <SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org>
Subject: Burundi Withdrawing from International Criminal Court--The White Man's Court



Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign, IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (phone)
217-244-1478 (fax)
(personal comments only)


ICC: The White Man's Court. And Bensouda is Black Skin, White Masks. Fab.

Professor Boyle: Thank you Kuda, my best to all my friends in Africa.

Kudakwashe: Thank you very much for joining us once again on Heart of Africa, we value your knowledge and your desire to share your knowledge with us.....Kudakwashe: Ok, thank you Professor. Now can we move to the ICC? The ICC - why was it set up, and how was it set up because what we know in Africa is that the ICC seems to be the legal tool against African leaders especially of after some of the renowned people like Reverend Desmond Tutu have actually called for Tony Blair and George Bush to be tried by the ICC.

Professor Boyle: Again, you are certainly correct. The ICC has become the white man's court, the court for the white Western colonial imperialist states to go after African leaders. We might say some of them are unsavoury, ok, but, so far everyone, the ICC has gone after has been from Africa. The ICC refused to go and do anything about Tony Blair despite the fact that British lawyers filed a perfectly correct complaint legally against Blair. He refused to do it, and Bishop Tutu was definitely correct. Likewise, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, I filed a complaint with the ICC in 2010, that was technically correct over the policy of extraordinary rendition, which is a euphemism for the enforced disappearance of human beings and their torture done in some African countries and in the Middle East and Asian countries. So far the ICC has refused to do anything to go after Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeild, Rice, or any of their lawyers involved in this policy. I advised Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, set the jurisdiction of the ICC for the Israeli crimes, war crimes, crimes against humanity against the Palestinians, and the ICC prosecutor dismissed this complaint under completely bogus grounds that Palestine is not a state despite the fact that it is a member state of UNESCO, which is a specialised UN agency, its ridiculous to say its not a state. We can go on with this least forever. Basically, the ICC will not touch American, British, Israeli, European war criminals and genociders, the simply won't. So, it is a completely political court. We have this problem then, they decided to put a black skin on a white mask, now they have appointed Miss Bensouda, from Africa but thats simply to deceive the Africans into believing that this is really a fair, impartial court which is, is not. You have to look at who pays, most of the bills for the ICC. He who pays the piper calls the tune. And thats Europe, Japan, South Korea, the major funders. So, of course they are not going to go for major war criminals United States, Britain, Israel, they are simply not going to do it. They made that perfectly clear since they were founded. My advice to African states who are not parties yet to the ICC, is to not join, not cooperate with it. And if possible, I would say, pull out. Because Ms Bensouda reminds me again of Frantz Fanon - black skin, white mask. She's just in there as propaganda, to delude African states and peoples to believe, and as you correctly said, the ICC is just a tool, of white racist Western colonial imperial powers. I'm very sorry, I originally supported the ICC, as I know, Africa did too. But after 10 years, thats all we've seen. The only people we see in the doc are black African petty thugs, where the major war criminals, genociders, United States, France, have not even been pursued. The ICC has just rejected at all to do anything about them, even though lawyers such as myself, British lawyers, Palestinian lawyers, have created prima facie case that clearly mandated investigation of prosecution. They were just summarily dismissed. My advice to African states - this is apparently a trap that has been set for you - simply to pull out. Pull out of the ICC, its not doing you any good. Its gonna only be used to hurt you.


Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign, IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (phone)
217-244-1478 (fax)
(personal comments only)
From: Boyle, Francis A
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 11:29 AM
To: Killeacle
Subject: FW: PODCAST: Application of International Law in Africa.

From: Association of American Law Schools Section on Minority Groups [mailto:AALSMIN-L at LISTSERV.UBALT.EDU] On Behalf Of Boyle, Francis A
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 11:22 AM
To: AALSMIN-L at LISTSERV.UBALT.EDU<mailto:AALSMIN-L at LISTSERV.UBALT.EDU>
Subject: PODCAST: Application of International Law in Africa.

From: Kuda Cayenne [mailto:kudacayenne at yahoo.co.uk]<mailto:[mailto:kudacayenne at yahoo.co.uk]>
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 10:56 AM
To: Kuda Cayenne
Subject: PODCAST: Application of International Law in Africa.

This week's edition of Heart Of Africa is now available on http://soundcloud.com/heart-of-africa/application-of-international-law-prof-boyle-and-abayomi-azikiwe. It focusses the Application of International Law in Africa. Renowned Professor of International Law, Francis Boyle & esteemed African Historian & Political Analyst Abayomi Azikiwe are the expert guests for this highly pertinent matter. PLEASE NOTE: first interview is not clear mainly at the beginning - please see full interview transcript for that part under "comments". This session is worth for all around the world to tune into as our expert guests shared very fundamental knowledge. Professor Boyle comprehensively discussed the various institutions involved in formulating and applying international law like the United Nations, International Monetary Fund & International Criminal Court. He emphasised that the UN is the enemy these days, and that we should not believe a word the UN says or anything that comes in its name, as it is undoing the decolonisation of Africa. Africa currently under re-colonisation by the United States, European States, organised by NATO. Professor Francis Boyle is a leading American expert in international law. He has a huge and noble portfolio as he has worked extensively in the legal fraternity at governmental level with many governments at different junctures. He has also published diverse literature available, some of it is available from www.claritypress.com<http://www.claritypress.com> / Amazon www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&field-author=Francis%20Boyle&search-alias=digital-text<http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&field-author=Francis%20Boyle&search-alias=digital-text>. Abayomi Azikiwe gave us well informed relevant current case studies. He illustrated that in many cases international law has not worked for Africa's interests like Libya. But nations like Namibia are an example of when international law worked for the interests of the Namibian people as it became independent from SA in the process. Abayomi Azikiwe is an African Historian & Political Analyst. He is also the editor of the Pan-African News Wire. The Pan-African News Wire is an international electronic press service designed to foster intelligent discussion on the affairs of African people throughout the continent and the world. Since January 1998, this press agency has published thousands of articles and dispatches in newspapers, magazines, journals, research reports, blogs and websites throughout the world. More information on Abayomi's work is available from http://panafricannews.blogspot.co.uk/. The show is concluded by applicable biblical perspectives. Heart of Africa is broadcasted live every Wednesday night at 2000 hours Central Africa Time on www.morelightradio.com<http://www.morelightradio.com>. It is dedicated to examining matters that affect Africa from a Pan-African Christian perspective, as we envisage the revival of the African dream.


TRANSCRIPT OF PROFESSOR FRANCIS BOYLE INTERVIEW:

This transcript may not be word for word of what Professor Boyle stated but is as close to it as possible. It covers the unclear part of the recording at the beginning of the interview. our sincere apologies for this unexpected disruption.

Kudakwashe: listeners joining me now is Professor Francis Boyle from the United States. A very good evening Professor ...

Professor Boyle: Thank you Kuda, my best to all my friends in Africa.

Kudakwashe: Thank you very much for joining us once again on Heart of Africa, we value your knowledge and your desire to share your knowledge with us.

Professor Boyle: well thanks
Kudakwashe: today we looking at international law, how it is being applied in Africa. Can we start with the UN? The UN seems to be pertinent these days. We've actually had one of our listeners make a comment about the UN. He says, 'everything the UN stands for in Africa is questionable and there isn't much justice on the ground though it was designed for peace'. What is the structure and function of the UN?

Professor Boyle: Well, I think your listener is correct. These days its far from the role it used to play in Africa where as you know the United Nations worked specifically for the decolonisation of Africa from the white racists Western colonial imperial powers. Now what we are seeing is the United Nations basically helping white racists Western colonial imperial powers re-colonising Africa. So I personally would not believe anything the United Nations is saying or doing because Secretary General Ban ki Moon is a flunky for the United States. The United States gave him the job. He does whatever the Americans tell him to do. So I think Africa will be well advised to pay no attention to the UN and be extremely sceptical of anything they are saying or doing. So I agree with your reader. Its sad this has happened because again as you know back then throughout the late 1950s throughout the decade of the 1960s and even 1970s the UN played an important role in decolonising Africa. But no more today.

Kudakwashe: Ok, talking about the decolonisation of Africa, I understand that there was actually a UN Charter of 1945 that assisted that. Some scholars even say that if that had been followed, there should have never been any other genocides after 1945.

Professor Boyle: Yes, technically there was a Genocide Convention finally adopted in 1948, although you are correct the Nuremburg Charter of 1945 prohibited crimes against humanity. But regretfully the major imperial powers, United States, France, Britain, Italy, Belgium, have really paid no attention to the genocide convention if it stands in their way.

Kudakwashe: Ok, when we talk about the colonisation of Africa, we note that there was the Berlin conference between 1884 November to 1885 February, and this is what gave the Western nations permission to colonise Africa. But then, one question has come - how can this be reversed, Africa has now suffered, there are now divisions and this is what gave Africa divisions and colonial lines, can this be reversed in any way legally?

Professor Boyle: Well that's a tough one of course the Berlin Conference did not give permission to this gaying of the white racist European thieves to go into Africa to steal Africa from the Africans and then proceed to commit genocides against them. Technically, as I said, in the early days, the United Nations in the 1950s, 60s, 70s, finally culminating in the liberation of Namibia, as independent state ultimately a dismantling of apartheid in South Africa, ... technically Africa was free. Now economically it wasn't because the neo-colonial economic control and domination was there. What we are seeing today is an attempt by the United States, and the European States, organised by NATO to recolonise Africa. For example what happened just in 2011 to Libya. The United States and NATO went in there, clearly to steal all of Libya's oil and gas. They exterminated up to 50 000 Africans in the process and they are now using Libya as a neo-colonial base, re-establishing what had been their base before Gaddafi threw them out to project power southward to the rest of the continent. As you know today as we speak France is already proposing to do this to Mali. And France of course is one of the major Western colonial imperial powers especially on the West coast of Africa. And France has never really left; they still maintain garrison forces in several African states. They recently intervened in the Ivory Coast, overthrew a government there ... So this process is going on and I think the African people have to understand it. In addition I think realise that many of your leaders in Africa are ... pockets of the United States and the NATO states. Its like what Frantz Fanon said in his classic "Black Skin, White Masks" ... you have capital classes in southern African states that do the bidding for the United States and NATO, they are not there for the interests of the African people. I am not here to mention anyone by name. Listeners can probably figure out this one for themselves but its part and parcel of the phenomena, we have to deal with. The recolonisation of Africa is underway today as we speak and you have the 2007 neo-conservative Bush Junior administration, speaking of US Africa Command - AFRICOM, for the sole purpose for the military domination and conquest of Africa. Libya was its first victim. We've also seen Obama then land Special Forces in Uganda, Burundi, Congo, and Rwanda, allegedly for the purposes of going after Kony. But everyone agrees Kony's forces are little or there is no significance right there. They are simply using humanitarian concerns to justify military intervention, in order to get a toe hold there on East Africa. Like we discussed last time, what they are doing to Somalia, at the horn of Africa, they already have a military base in Djibouti. And basically Djibouti is under foreign Western military occupation. Ethiopia is working hand in glove with the US and the Pentagon, as is Kenya today. So you have very serious problems there in Africa, I can't tell Africans what do to. I'm doing the best I can here as an American to resist this but people in Africa living in different African countries will have to decide for themselves what they could do resist this recolonisation of Africa. It's really the, Kuda, the Berlin Conference all over again and in states.

Kudakwashe: Ok, Professor Boyle, would you be able to explain to the listeners, what a UN Resolution is? You have explained that there is the recolonisation of Africa going on and it's like a re-enactment of the Berlin Conference. Would you be able to explain to the listeners, what a UN Resolution is, cause this is what we hear all the time, a UN Resolution has been passed for Libya, there is a UN Resolution for this and that. So it might be helpful for us to understand what a UN Resolution is.

Professor Boyle: Well basically it's what we seeing these white racist Western colonial imperial powers, on UN Security Council, the permanent members, United States, Britain, France, Russia, China of course is Asian. But, they use the Security Council to effectively oppress Africa. The resolution against Libya was a total abomination. It was clear, if you read that resolution, which I had and analysed, it would be used as a blank cheque by the US and NATO to overthrow and destroy Gaddafi and take over Libya in order to steal Libya's oil and gas. Basically, the French pushed through another resolution on Mali that will call for the preparation of a military intervention force into Mali, and apparently, spear headed by France. EXCUSE ME, when has France ever had the best interests of Africa or the Africans at heart? I'm saying that as someone who is a French American ancestry. Viva la France but not in Africa. They should stay in France, and stay out of Africa, given all the terrible things France historically has done in Africa. But, there it is. So, just because these resolutions come through the Security Council, don't mean anything, because so much of them have been bought off or threatened or intimidated by the great powers. I think you should pay more attention for example to the African Union. The African Union is a regional organisation set up under chapter 8 of the UN Charter. The African Union are the ones who are supposed to be dealing with threats to the international peace and security of Africa, not the security council. First and foremost, it should be the African Union. And yet since United States, Britain, France, Russia, do not control the African Union, they just push it out of the picture of having any meaningful role to play in Africa. Let's take, Libya, the AU came up with, I have read it, I thought it was a very good viable negotiable peace package, a road map peace package for Libya. The United States and NATO powers just brushed it aside, paid no attention to it at all, and ignored role of AU leaders, they were still bombing to demonstrate gross disrespect for the AU. So, the Security Council should not be in there. The Security Council basically represents these white racist European and American colonial powers. It should be the African Union taking care of these problems and unfortunately that's not what's happening.

Kudakwashe: Ok, it's actually sad to see that wherever the UN Resolution is enacted, there is further division of countries like we see in Sudan and what is currently going on in Mali.

Professor Boyle: South Sudan is another excellent example. There the United States, Israel, fomented a rebellion in South Sudan for decades, armed them, equipped them, supplied them to break off from Sudan. And, finally got this referendum that led to South Sudan's independence. First in order to weaken Sudan, as a state, and second to get monopoly control of the oil and gas in the as well in South Sudan, as well as all the other minerals it has. So yes, that's another example as well.

Kudakwashe: Professor Francis, I am wondering if the UN is supposed to support regime change in countries, legally.

Professor Francis: Well, as a matter of fact, Kuda, this is expressly prohibited by the terms of the UN Charter it set. If you read article 2, paragraph 7 of the charter, "Nothing contained in this charter shall authorise the UN to intervene in matters essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the members to submit such matters to settlement under the present charter..." etcetera. Its clear the UN has been barred from getting involved in regime change, whether its Libya, Syria, overthrowing the ICU government in Somalia, which we talked about the last time, helping set up a puppet government there in Somalia. Who knows what they are going to do in Mali? I really don't know, I can't say. Overthrowing the government of the Ivory Coast etcetera. So, we have to understand that the permanent members of the Security Council, the European powers could not care less about the United Nations charter when it comes to Africa and the Africans. At this point in time, as I said, the UN was very constructible in facilitating the decolonisation of Africa, but now it is playing an extremely destructive role in facilitating the re-colonisation of Africa at the behest of the United States and the European states.

Kudakwashe: Thank you Professor. The other thing that I noted is that the UN charter mentions that the UN is not supposed to be using military intervention, unless it's in self defence. Now, from what we are hearing, it seems the UN has actually been involved in military intervention that has nothing to do with self defence. [short break]. Hallo Professor, we can continue.

Professor Boyle: Yes I guess there was an internet fluctuation there. To go back to your previous questions, yes, the doctrine of regime change violates the UN charter. This bogus doctrine of "responsibility to protect" is just propaganda that violates the UN charter; democracy promotion - using that for military intervention as France tried to do with the Ivory Coast recently - that violates the UN charter. So, you are certainly correct. Fighting international terrorism once again trying to use that as an excuse, once again as they are trying to do in Mali today. That too violates the UN charter. So, I think our listeners there in Africa should have to be able to identify propaganda when they hear it. Don't believe one word they are saying. You do have legitimate publications there; I get some of them here on the internet. There are very fine writers there in Africa, who are attuned to the propaganda, and legal pettifoggery, put out by Western governments and Western news media. And can cut through it like a very well polished knife. So read some of your own media over there. I think we've got some very perceptive writers, who know imperialism and neo-imperialism when they see it. Because they have lived through it once before, I regret to say, you are living through it again.

Kudakwashe: Ok, thank you Professor. And thank you for mentioning "responsibility to protect" because that is one of the phrases we have become accustomed to. But one thing I have heard about "responsibility to protect" is that its not supposed to have a hidden agenda.

Professor Boyle: its all about a hidden agenda! And thats why its there. When the United States and the NATO states bombed Serbia in 1999, they tried to use the doctrine of humanitarian intervention and everyone broke out laughing. So then what they did was try to retool it and covered up with a new doctrine called "responsibility to protect". But you know, its the same old nonsense, its again another justification for military intervention by the militarily powerful white racist imperial states of Europe and the United States, in Africa, and elsewhere around the world.

Kudakwashe: Ok, thank you Professor. Now can we move to the ICC? The ICC - why was it set up, and how was it set up because what we know in Africa is that the ICC seems to be the legal tool against African leaders especially of after some of the renowned people like Reverend Desmond Tutu have actually called for Tony Blair and George Bush to be tried by the ICC.

Professor Boyle: Again, you are certainly correct. The ICC has become the white man's court, the court for the white Western colonial imperialist states to go after African leaders. We might say some of them are unsavoury, ok, but, so far everyone, the ICC has gone after has been from Africa. The ICC refused to go and do anything about Tony Blair despite the fact that British lawyers filed a perfectly correct complaint legally against Blair. He refused to do it, and Bishop Tutu was definitely correct. Likewise, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, I filed a complaint with the ICC in 2010, that was technically correct over the policy of extraordinary rendition, which is a euphemism for the enforced disappearance of human beings and their torture done in some African countries and in the Middle East and Asian countries. So far the ICC has refused to do anything to go after Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeild, Rice, or any of their lawyers involved in this policy. I advised Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, set the jurisdiction of the ICC for the Israeli crimes, war crimes, crimes against humanity against the Palestinians, and the ICC prosecutor dismissed this complaint under completely bogus grounds that Palestine is not a state despite the fact that it is a member state of UNESCO, which is a specialised UN agency, its ridiculous to say its not a state. We can go on with this least forever. Basically, the ICC will not touch American, British, Israeli, European war criminals and genociders, the simply won't. So, it is a completely political court. We have this problem then, they decided to put a black skin on a white mask, now they have appointed Miss Bensouda, from Africa but thats simply to deceive the Africans into believing that this is really a fair, impartial court which is, is not. You have to look at who pays, most of the bills for the ICC. He who pays the piper calls the tune. And thats Europe, Japan, South Korea, the major funders. So, of course they are not going to go for major war criminals United States, Britain, Israel, they are simply not going to do it. They made that perfectly clear since they were founded. My advice to African states who are not parties yet to the ICC, is to not join, not cooperate with it. And if possible, I would say, pull out. Because Ms Bensouda reminds me again of Frantz Fanon - black skin, white mask. She's just in there as propaganda, to delude African states and peoples to believe, and as you correctly said, the ICC is just a tool, of white racist Western colonial imperial powers. I'm very sorry, I originally supported the ICC, as I know, Africa did too. But after 10 years, thats all we've seen. The only people we see in the doc are black African petty thugs, where the major war criminals, genociders, United States, France, have not even been pursued. The ICC has just rejected at all to do anything about them, even though lawyers such as myself, British lawyers, Palestinian lawyers, have created prima facie case that clearly mandated investigation of prosecution. They were just summarily dismissed. My advice to African states - this is apparently a trap that has been set for you - simply to pull out. Pull out of the ICC, its not doing you any good. Its gonna only be used to hurt you.

Kudakwashe: Ok. Thank you Professor. Now, can we talk about the IMF and World Bank. We understand in Africa that we go through what are called Economic Structural Adjustments. But history is showing us that these are more detrimental to our economies more than being beneficial to our economies.

Professor Boyle: That is certainly correct. Despite anything you may think, the IMF and World Bank are not there to help Africa or to develop Africa. They are there to rob Africa. The IMF, I think its pretty clear, thats run by the United States and Europe for their own interests to force austerity measures on the people of Africa so that they can reap the profits on the loans. The World Bank has somewhat a better reputation in theory, its supposed to be there to develop Africa. But if you read this important book by Mr Perkins - "Confessions Of An Economic Hit Man" - who used to work for the World Bank. He pointed out the fact that the whole purpose for the World Bank is to foist economic development projects on Africa that might not be beneficial for Africa, but simply for the purpose of putting you into debt. Therefore you would be subjected to debt slavery forever to pay off these impossible loans. And I think thats pretty much what the World Bank is doing today. So these two institutions are certainly not there for the benefit of Africa and the Africans. That is one of the problems that Gaddafi had. He was trying to make his oil wealth available to African states for development without relying upon the IMF and World Bank. We see this going on now in Latin America where Brazil, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, are getting together to throw off this neo-imperialism, neo-colonialism of the IMF and World Bank, and unite together - and Argentina - to develop independent economic relations for their own benefit, and not of these two institutions that are controlled and dominated by the United States and Europe.

Kudakwashe: Ok. Thank you Professor. And then we've got another issue that is giving us problems in Africa and that is in regard to environmental law as well as laws that govern natural reserves and wild life. We have a problem of like what we see in Nigeria, where companies like Shell come and extract oil but then they pollute our rivers, now the Niger Delta has been destroyed and their livelihood has been affected. Secondly we have the problem like elephant poaching for the sake of ivory. Now, are there any laws, international laws, that govern such instances?

Professor Boyle: Oh yes, you have the permanent sovereignty over natural resources, UN General Assembly, Resolution and a variety of international laws that should protect Africa. You also have the toxic waste dumping going on in Africa as well, by, certainly by Europe. We see in Somalia and West Coast of Africa there are supposed to be conventions against this. Its really going to be up to African people to pressurise their African leaders to stand up and resist this. The laws are there, if your leaders want to try to enforce them. But then again, I regret to say, without mentioning any names, I'm afraid some of your leaders are getting money off the top to go along with this environmental rape of Africa.

Kudakwashe: Ok. Thank you Professor Boyle. Are there any laws we need to be aware of that are pertinent today besides what I've asked?

Professor Boyle: No, I think we have sort of covered the ground, haven't we? I think those are the major developments. I think you've asked the major questions. I also think we should be supporting the African Union. We should also support its court on human rights. Lets have the human rights of Africans adjudicated by Africa and not by Europeans and Americans sitting off there in the Hague, the ICC or anywhere else like that. I think you have to turn to yourselves, the African Union, its court of human rights, and African Development Bank. You got to rely on yourself cause the UN, they are the enemy, they are not there to help you.

Kudakwashe: Ok. Thank you Professor Francis Boyle. I would like to thank you for joining us here on Heart of Africa. You are a very valuable guest, so thank you for giving us your time today.

Professor Boyle: Well again, thanks for having me on Kuda. Again my best to all your listeners in Africa.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20161013/a4d99307/attachment-0001.html>