Dutch court gives Rwandan man life for genocide-era crimes

THE HAGUE — A Dutch appeals court on Thursday sentenced a Rwandan citizen living in The Netherlands to life in prison for war crimes committed during the Rwandan genocide in 1994.

Joseph Mpambara, 43, was found guilty of having carried out an attack on a Protestant church where Tutsis had fled. The lower court, which sentenced him to 20 years in prison, had previously acquitted him on this charge.

"Hundreds of persons were literally slaughtered or hurt," with guns or machetes, Judge Raoul Dekkers said, who added Mpambara "encouraged others to commit (these crimes)."

Because he was now convicted of the attack, Mpambara's crimes have been qualified as war crimes, which was not upheld by a lower court.

Mpambara was also convicted by the appeals court of torture causing the deaths of two Tutsi mothers and their four children on April 13, 1994, upholding a previous lower court conviction.

"The appeals court... sentences the suspect to life in prison," said judge Dekkers, the head of the appeals chamber, during a public session in The Hague.

"The appeals court is of the opinion that you have made yourself guilty of war crimes," the judge told Mpambara, qualifying his crimes as "extremely serious".

Mpambara was also found guilty of detaining a German-Rwandan couple and their baby on April 27, 1994, for several hours. The court ordered Mpambara to pay the couple 1,360 euros in damages.

Added the judge: "You showed no compassion for the Tutsis" while testimony was being heard during the appeal.

Worse, the judge added, the Rwandan has "stuck to your opinion that the victims deserved their fate."

Both the prosecution, which asked for life in jail, and Mpambara, who pleaded not guilty, appealed the lower court's decision.

"It was a very convincing judgment," one of the complainant's lawyers Liesbeth Zegveld told AFP afterwards.

"The crimes are very serious. It cannot be compared to anything we know in The Netherlands. A strong signal is being sent today across our borders," she said.

Mpambara was tried in The Netherlands as part of an agreement between several European countries and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) under which they try genocide suspects in their national courts.

The country also has a law which allows it to try people for suspected war crimes if the person lived in The Netherlands.

The son of a wealthy family, Mpambara had been living in The Netherlands since 1998 although his request for asylum was refused. The Dutch authorities detained him in 2006.

He was the first Rwandan to be condemned in The Netherlands for crimes during the genocide in which 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus died, according to United Nations estimates.

Copyright © 2011 AFP. All rights reserved

South Sudan Vote looms

There's a few months until the crucial referendum that will determine whether south Sudan will become independent. A result of a peace deal brokered with the help of the Bush administration in 2005 the referendum is causing tensions as conflicts over border lines rise. Why? Oil. Sudan is according to BP Africa's 3rd largest oil producer. Some of the oil lies on disputed land, which is a potential cause of conflict if the issue is not resolved. The referendum is likely to result in a vote for independence. The biggest issue remains the borders and what will happen after the vote. For more detail check out this report from the International Crisis Group and a Washington Post article.

One Tribe: Black Eyed Peas song

This song captures the basic concept that we are all one people at the end of the day. Very uplifting, worth a listen! Video courtesy if no2hate

I remember celebrating VJ day this year. Only because I live in the stated of RI and this tiny stated is able to recognize this day as a holiday. One of the few holidays recognized by the good state of RI and HA. I laughed that one of histories greatest tragedy and highest achievement was gained by the deaths over 90,000 people. I say achievement not to be sadistic but to mention that the awesome power of 2 bomb was able to end a years long war that claimed the lives of millions. In a utilitarian standpoint eradicating 90,000 to save millions is a better alternative than continuing years worth of unnecessary bloodshed. I say tragedy because presently a country's claim to global power and recognition is decided but owning at least one of those bombs.

No more nukes?

Today marks the 64th anniversary of one of the great travesties in modern history. Harnessing the powers of science, mankind developed the atomic bomb. On August 6th 1945, with the Japanese on the ropes, the order came from Washington to drop the uranium 235 gun-type bomb, named Little Boy on the city of Hiroshima.

On August 9th, 1945 a second bomb was dropped on the Japanese. This time a plutonium implosion bomb named Fat man was dropped on the city of Nagasaki.

As many as 140,000 were killed in Hiroshima, and up to 80,000 in Hiroshima. On August 15th, the Japanese surrendered and peace finally came. But was it really peace? The bombings were the ultimate show of force by the United States, but was it an act of defense or simply a warning to their new rival, the Soviet Union (Russia). History shows a story that led to the ultimate show down with the Soviet Union and United States shaping world history for the next 50 odd years through the cold war. The race to accumulate nuclear warheads almost brought the world to Armageddon. Fortunately that did not happen, but the effects of this rivalry are evident.

Nuclear weapons are a menace to our existence. Several, but not many possess them. Rogue nations like Iran and North Korea have been in the news for attempting to join the "club" posing a threat to world "peace" due to their unpredictable leadership. The United States and Russia still have nuclear war heads, and talks to reduce them are ongoing. It seems the elimination of nukes is our best chance to a future without the threat of extinction. But how realistic is their elimination?

Refugees around the world reaching 45 million mark

As the world focuses on North Korean nuclear ambitions, Iranian election irregularities and Israeli PM,the global recession Benjamin Netanyahu's first utterances of a two state solution a nation of refugees fights to survive another day. It is always a futile exercise to attempt convince the world that the issue of displaced people deserves more media coverage, but the importance of it cannot be understated and I wish to add my voice to that fact. According to Reuters, over 42 million people are either refugees in designated camps (+16 million) or internally displaced. Most recently clashes between the Pakistani government and elements of the Taliban have resulted in massive displacement in North West Pakistan. This adds to the already displaced, Congolese, Rwandans, Darfuris, Sri Lankan, Zimbabwean, Burmese and Somali people, to name a few groups. Conflict abounds, the world over and the dislpaced seem to be an after thought at times. Humanitarian organizations, fight to make a difference, but without the political will of nation states then these precarious conditions are likely to get worse.

Having so many people displaced is not good and it is an issue that begs to be addressed. In Lebanon Palestinian refugee camps have been up since the conflict with Israel in the 60s. They have been breeding ground for obviously unhappy individuals eager to avenge their misfortune. This situation makes the region less safe. In Somalia people are forced to crime for a living. On top of this children suffer for a lack of facilities while disease and hunger take their toll on the population.

According to the UNHCR, 80% of refugees live in the poorest countries of the world. This has been an issue that has led to several problems that worsen the refugee situation in whatever area it may be. Refugees are resettled to more developed countries by the thousands, while millions remain. The situation is a ticking time bomb, that constantly needs addressing, window dressing will not quite do the job.

The world is better off dealing with these refugee situations than not.

The opposite of faith is not heresy, it is indifference...

A poigant statement, made by Elie Weisel. I just watched the movie, Beyond the Gates. A film featuring two Europeans caught up in the Rwandan genocide. One was a priest, the other a teacher. The priest is older, and his understanding of life is shaken to its very core by the sheer level of evil that they witnesses as Rwandans kill Rwandans over divisions based on vaguely defined tribes. The teacher struggles to understand the subtleties of Rwandan politics and the paralysis that is international law. Frankly he highlights the difference between words and actions, by the international community. Instead of sending more reinforcements, the UN is ordered to withdraw. Instead of protecting civilians the Europeans save themselves and leave Rwandans to their fate. The news cameras depart as the worst of the genocide begins and the world debates over the merits of using the term genocide (which would oblige action)

This film is one of several based on the sad story of genocide in Rwanda as early as 1994. Yes it makes great cinema but the problem remains. What is the world doing about Darfur, Burma, Zimbabwe? Civilians suffer the most in internal and international conflicts alike. A principle known as The Responsibility to Protect has emerged and could potentially provide hope to many civilians who would normally lose their lives in the face of conflict.