International Criminal Court

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      ICJ Orders Israel to Halt Its Military Incursion Into Rafah

      by

      The International Court of Justice has no means to enforce its order in the Gazan city, but the ruling added pressure on the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel.The International Court of Justice on Friday ordered Israel to “immediately” halt its military offensive in the city of Rafah in southern Gaza, dealing another blow to the country as it faces increasing international isolation and a drumbeat of criticism over its conduct in the war.The court has few effective means of enforcing its order, and it stopped short of ordering a cease-fire in Gaza, with some of the court’s judges arguing that Israel could still conduct some military operations in Rafah under the terms of their decision.But the order added more pressure on the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has faced domestic and external calls to reach a cease-fire deal with Hamas that would lead to the release of hostages held in Gaza.“The court considers that, in conformity with obligations under the Genocide Convention, Israel must immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part,” the court’s president, Nawaf Salam, said in reading the 13-2 ruling.The court, based at The Hague, also specified the need for open land crossings, in particular the Rafah crossing, as part of its request for “the unhindered provision” of humanitarian assistance and services. Israel has controlled the Rafah crossing for more than two weeks, and very few aid trucks have entered the enclave since, according to United Nations data.The Israeli government said in a statement that its military “has not and will not” take actions that would lead to the partial or complete destruction of the Palestinian population of Rafah. In effect, it said that the court’s decision has no bearing on Israel’s offensive because the prohibited acts are not occurring. We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Another week, another Trump flirtation with fascism

      by

      Welcome back to the Stakes, our weekly US politics newsletter. I cover democracy issues, and I’m filling in for Adam Gabbatt this week as Donald Trump flirted with a third term in office (yes, that’s illegal) and posted a video promising a “unified reich” (yes, that’s Nazi-adjacent language). Weird how these anti-democratic “gaffes” keep happening! We’ll get into why that might be, after a look at what else is happening in US politics.Here’s what you need to know
      Trump rests, but doesn’t get any restOn the 20th day of the hush-money trial in New York, Trump declined to take the stand and the defense rested. Trump had falsely claimed he wasn’t allowed to take the stand: he was, and he chose not to. Outside the courtroom, he said although the defense would rest quickly, he himself would not be resting. “I don’t rest. I’d like to rest sometimes, but I don’t get to rest.”
      Biden’s Israel problemThe international criminal court’s prosecutor applied for arrest warrants for leaders of Israel and Hamas, and Joe Biden is not pleased. He called the warrant application “outrageous” and said: “We will always stand with Israel against threats to its security.” His strong backing of Israel comes as the progressive left continues to pressure him to end US support for the Israel-Gaza war.
      That’s not the way the flag goesAn upside-down US flag – a symbol of those who believed the 2020 election was stolen – flew outside the home of the supreme court justice Samuel Alito’s home shortly after the January 6 insurrection in 2021. Alito blamed his wife, saying she did it as part of a dispute with a neighbor, but many observers saw it as the latest example of the politicization of the high court.
      Too many coincidencesView image in fullscreenAnother week, another few instances of Trump flirting with fascism.On Monday, Trump’s Truth Social account reposted a video about a second Trump term which included a fake newspaper with reference to a “unified reich”. The term means “empire” in German and is indelibly associated with Hitler’s rule, which the Nazis called the Third Reich.Biden’s campaign seized on it, saying Trump was telegraphing how he’d lead “as a dictator over a ‘unified reich’”. Trump’s campaign defended themselves by arguing it was all a mistake, saying a staffer reposted the video but didn’t see the words.But the video remained on Trump’s page for 15 hours, long after media outlets had reported on it, and stayed up even after the Trump campaign had acknowledged it in its statement.This pattern isn’t new for Trump: he will often use fascist language or nods to extremist groups, then claim it was a mistake or that the left and the media are twisting a narrative.Like claiming he would be a “dictator on day one”, but only for a day. Or promising a “bloodbath” if he lost the election, which his campaign later declared was a reference to the auto industry. Or calling his political opponents “vermin” – something Hitler also did – and saying immigrants are “poisoning the blood” of the US.Most recently, just days before the Truth Social video, speaking at the National Rifle Association’s convention, Trump floated the idea of a third term. US presidents are limited to two terms by the 22nd amendment to the constitution, which was passed in 1951 a few years after Franklin D Roosevelt won his fourth term.“You know, FDR 16 years – almost 16 years – he was four terms. I don’t know, are we going to be considered three-term? Or two-term?” Trump asked the NRA crowd, some of whom responded “three!”He has previously said he wouldn’t try for a third term – which is good, because it’s not clear how he could unless he figures out how to suspend or override the constitution – and if that were to happen, who knows what comes next.Regardless, the prospect of “Trump forever” is clearly on voters’ minds when they’re deciding who to elect this year, a sign that his ongoing authoritarian bent is spooking at least part of the undecided electorate.“I wouldn’t put it past him, now that he owns the RNC, to say: ‘Don Jr is going to do the next term, and he’ll get two,” said one focus group attendee who was quoted by Bloomberg.“‘And then Barron will get two.’ And we’ll just have some fake monarchy.”Worst weekView image in fullscreenArizona’s fake electors. Eleven of them were arraigned on Tuesday in the state’s case against the people who falsely signed documents saying Trump won the state, and the Trump allies who drummed up the idea.Among the 11 were Christina Bobb, an attorney who is now the Republican National Committee’s senior counsel for election integrity; Rudy Giuliani (last week’s “worst week” winner); former Arizona Republican party chair Kelli Ward and her husband, Michael; and Anthony Kern, a sitting state senator.Giuliani, 80, is so far the only one charged who was required by the court to post a bond, for $10,000. The former New York City mayor led the attorney general’s office on a cross-country chase, which culminated at his birthday party – after taunting the AG on social media – where court officials served him the charges. He later complained that the summons was not delivered to him “stylishly”, though it’s more stylish than usual to serve charges by crashing an 80-year-old’s birthday bash.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBiggest lieView image in fullscreenTrump. The former president was in my home state last Friday for a fundraiser where he again told a whopper: that he won Minnesota in the 2020 election.Obviously, he falsely claims nonstop that he won the entire election in 2020. But the Minnesota claim is a bit newer, as he tries to make the case that the state’s voters should swing to him.“I thought we won it in 2016. I thought we won it in ’20 – I know we won it in 2020,” he said, according to NBC.The 2020 election in Minnesota was not close: Trump lost by more than 233,000 votes, though he was closer in 2016, losing to Hillary Clinton by less than 45,000. Could he win the state in 2024? If he did, it would almost certainly mean Biden lost spectacularly nationwide: Minnesota is a Democratic stronghold for presidents, and the last Republican who won it was Richard Nixon in 1972.Elsewhere in US politicsView image in fullscreen The majority of Americans – nearly three in five – wrongly believe the US is in an economic recession, and many blame Biden, an exclusive new poll for the Guardian revealed. You can also take our quiz to see if you know how the US economy is faring. Two states have required schools to show an animated video in sex ed classes called Meet Baby Olivia, created by an anti-abortion group to show fetal development. Carter Sherman reports on the latest front of the anti-abortion movement. A Republican concerned about election fraud in 2020 found no fraud once he took over his county’s elections after winning office, Alice Herman reports from conservative Hillsdale county, Michigan.Words fail usView image in fullscreen“If I put my name on something, I really believe it”: Rudy Giuliani, who declared bankruptcy and owes massive legal fees and debts from various civil and criminal lawsuits, on his new coffee line, which he called “smooth, rich, chocolatey and gentle on your stomach”. More

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Parts of Gaza in ‘Full-Blown Famine,’ U.N. Aid Official Says

      by

      Cindy McCain, the director of the World Food Program, said starvation is entrenched in northern Gaza and is “moving its way south.”The leader of the World Food Program said that parts of the Gaza Strip are experiencing a “full-blown famine” that is spreading across the territory after almost seven months of war that have made delivering aid extremely challenging.“There is famine — full-blown famine in the north, and it’s moving its way south,” Cindy McCain, the program’s director, said in excerpts released late Friday of an interview with “Meet The Press.” Ms. McCain is the second high-profile American leading a U.S. government or U.N. aid effort who has said that there is famine in northern Gaza, although her remarks do not constitute an official declaration, which is a complex bureaucratic process.She did not explain why an official famine declaration has not been made. But she said her assessment was “based on what we have seen and what we have experienced on the ground.”The hunger crisis is most severe in the strip’s northern section, a largely lawless and gang ridden area where the Israeli military exercises little or no control. In recent weeks, after Israel faced mounting global pressure to improve dire conditions there, more aid has flowed into the devastated area.On the diplomatic front, negotiations resumed in Cairo on Saturday aimed at reaching a cease-fire and an agreement to release Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners. A delegation of Hamas leaders traveled to the Egyptian capital, the Palestinian armed group said.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Israeli Officials Believe I.C.C. Is Preparing Arrest Warrants Over Hamas War

      by

      Israeli officials increasingly believe that the International Criminal Court is preparing to issue arrest warrants for senior government officials on charges related to the conflict with Hamas, according to five Israeli and foreign officials.The Israeli and foreign officials also believe the court is weighing arrest warrants for leaders from Hamas.If the court proceeds, the Israeli officials could potentially be accused of preventing the delivery of humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip and pursuing an excessively harsh response to the Hamas-led Oct. 7 attacks on Israel, according to two of the five officials, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the matter.The Israeli officials, who are worried about the potential fallout from such a case, said they believe that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is among those who might be named in a warrant. It is not clear who might be charged from Hamas or what crimes would be cited.The Israeli officials did not disclose the nature of the information that led them to be concerned about potential I.C.C. action, and the court did not comment on the matter.Arrest warrants from the court would probably be seen in much of the world as a humbling moral rebuke, particularly to Israel, which for months has faced international backlash over its conduct in Gaza, including from President Biden, who called it “over the top.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Venezuela Holds a Key Vote on Sunday. Here’s What You Need to Know.

      by

      Ten opposition candidates are running to face off against President Nicolás Maduro next year. A center-right former legislator, María Corina Machado, is widely expected to win.One million Venezuelans headed to the polls on Sunday to elect an opposition candidate to face President Nicolás Maduro in presidential elections in 2024, a contest that could prove pivotal to the fate of a country that has endured a decade of economic crisis and authoritarian governance.Mr. Maduro came to power in 2013, after the death of Hugo Chávez, the founder of the country’s socialist-inspired revolution. Under Mr. Maduro, Venezuela, once among the richest countries in Latin America, has undergone an extraordinary economic collapse, leading to a humanitarian crisis that has sent more than seven million people fleeing.But the Maduro government and the opposition signed an agreement on Tuesday meant to move toward free and fair elections, including allowing the opposition to choose a candidate for next year’s presidential contest.Sunday’s election, however, will take place with no official government support. Instead, the vote is being organized by civil society, with polling stations in homes, parks and the offices of opposition parties.The leading candidate is María Corina Machado, a center-right former legislator, who has declared herself the country’s best shot yet at ousting the socialist-inspired government that has governed since 1999.Here is what you need to know about Sunday’s election:How are relations between Venezuela and the United States?The United States for years has leveled sanctions on some Venezuelan leaders, but the Trump administration significantly tightened them in 2019, after an election that was widely viewed as fraudulent, in which Mr. Maduro claimed victory.Mr. Maduro has long sought the lifting of the sanctions, which have strangled the economy, while the United States and its allies in the Venezuelan opposition have wanted Mr. Maduro to allow competitive elections that could give his political opponents a legitimate chance at winning.President Nicolás Maduro, with President Gustavo Petro of Colombia last year, has sought the lifting of economic sanctions.Federico Rios for The New York TimesThe past week has seen the most significant softening of relations between Venezuela and the United States in years.Venezuela’s authoritarian government has agreed to accept Venezuelan migrants deported from the United States, signed an agreement with opposition leaders devised to move toward a free and fair presidential election, and released five political prisoners.In exchange, the United States has agreed to lift some economic sanctions on Venezuela’s oil industry, a vital source of income for the Maduro government.What effect does the easing of sanctions have?The sanctions relief announced this past week allows Venezuela’s state-owned oil company to export oil and gas to the United States for six months. For the past few years, the Venezuelan government has been exporting oil to China and other countries at a significant discount.While the move is expected to be a significant boon to Venezuela’s public finances, analysts said that poor infrastructure and a reluctance by some outside investors to quickly enter the Venezuelan market present significant challenges.What is driving these developments?Among the factors driving this flurry of new policies is Venezuela’s increased geopolitical importance.The South American country is home to the largest proved oil reserves in the world, and there is growing U.S. interest in those reserves amid concern over a broader conflict in the Middle East and the war in Ukraine, which has threatened access to global oil supplies.Venezuela is home to the largest proved oil reserves in the world. Adriana Loureiro Fernandez for The New York TimesWhile it would take years for Venezuela’s hobbled oil industry infrastructure to recover, the country’s petroleum reserves could be crucial in the future.The Biden administration is also increasingly interested in improving the economic situation in Venezuela to try to stem the surges of Venezuelan migrants seeking to reach the United States.Could this election really lead to a change in Venezuela’s leadership?Experts are skeptical that Mr. Maduro will willingly give up power, or allow elections to take place if there is a chance he might not win.His government is being investigated by the International Criminal Court for possible crimes against humanity, and the United States has set a $15 million reward for his arrest to face drug trafficking charges. Leaving office could mean lengthy jail terms for Mr. Maduro and his associates.So despite the significance of the recent announcements, some analysts worry that Mr. Maduro is playing both the opposition and the U.S. government, and could ultimately end up with everything he seeks: relief from the sanctions; at least some international recognition for his bow toward fair elections; and a victory next year that allows him to retain power.The United States has tried to prevent that from happening by making clear that the sanctions could be reinstated at any time.But some analysts say that could be difficult if companies take advantage of the sanctions relief and start investing in Venezuela. If that happens, it might be hard to put the sanctions back in place.Who is María Corina Machado, the leading candidate?Ms. Machado is a veteran politician nicknamed “the iron lady” because of her adversarial relationship with the governments of Mr. Maduro and Mr. Chávez. She is viewed by some supporters as courageous for staying in the country when many other politicians have fled political persecution.Her proposals to open up the free market and reduce the role of the state have earned her a loyal base across social classes.Ms. Machado’s adversarial relationship with Mr. Maduro and his predecessor, Hugo Chavez, have earned her the nickname “the iron lady.” Adriana Loureiro Fernandez for The New York TimesBut as she has promoted her candidacy, Ms. Machado’s campaign has been plagued by violence and government surveillance.She has been beaten by people holding Maduro signs, and had animal blood thrown at her at one rally at which The New York Times was present. She has been followed by military intelligence police, and she bypasses police roadblocks by riding on the motorcycles of her supporters.Could Ms. Machado actually win the presidency?Polls suggest that Ms. Machado is likely to win the primary, which has 10 candidates.The group of contenders, who represent a spectrum of ideological views, includes former governors, activists, professors and lawyers, though none seems to have broken through enough to pose a serious challenge to Ms. Machado.But the biggest question is whether Ms. Machado, assuming she wins, will be able to participate in the general election.Mr. Maduro’s government has banned Ms. Machado from running for office for 15 years, claiming that she did not complete her declaration of assets and income when she was a legislator. These types of disqualifications are a common tactic used by Mr. Maduro to keep strong competitors off ballots.Despite an agreement this week to move toward competitive election conditions, the Maduro government has shown little indication that it will allow Ms. Machado to run.The Biden administration has made clear that it expects Mr. Maduro to reinstate banned candidates or face the restoration of sanctions.If Ms. Machado is not allowed to run in 2024, the opposition could put forward another candidate. But it is unclear whether Ms. Machado would willingly step aside, and if the opposition would rally around a single new candidate or split the vote, essentially handing Mr. Maduro the election. More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Elecciones primarias en Venezuela 2023: lo que hay que saber

      by

      Diez candidatos de la oposición se están postulando para enfrentarse al presidente Nicolás Maduro en 2024. Se espera que María Corina Machado, una exdiputada, gane la contienda.Este domingo, se espera que un millón de venezolanos acudan a las urnas para elegir a un candidato de la oposición que se enfrente al presidente Nicolás Maduro en las elecciones presidenciales de 2024, una votación que podría ser crucial para el destino de un país que ha sufrido una década de crisis económica y autoritarismo gubernamental.Maduro llegó al poder en 2013 tras la muerte de Hugo Chávez, el fundador de la revolución inspirada en el socialismo que gobierna el país. Bajo la gestión de Maduro, Venezuela, que solía ser uno de los países más ricos de América Latina, ha sufrido un extraordinario colapso económico, lo que generó una crisis humanitaria que ha hecho que más de siete millones de personas huyan del país.Pero el martes, el gobierno de Maduro y la oposición firmaron un acuerdo diseñado para avanzar hacia unas elecciones libres y justas, lo que incluye permitirle a la oposición elegir un candidato para las elecciones presidenciales del próximo año.Sin embargo, las elecciones del domingo se realizarán sin apoyo gubernamental oficial. En su lugar, el proceso está siendo organizado por la sociedad civil, que instalará centros de votación en casas, parques y en las sedes de los partidos de oposición.La candidata que lidera las encuestas es María Corina Machado, una exdiputada de centroderecha, quien se ha autoproclamado como la mejor oportunidad del país hasta el momento para derrocar al gobierno de inspiración socialista que ha tenido el control del país desde 1999.A continuación, presentamos lo que hay que saber sobre las elecciones del domingo:¿Cómo están las relaciones entre Venezuela y Estados Unidos?Durante años, Estados Unidos ha venido implementando sanciones a algunos líderes venezolanos, pero el gobierno de Donald Trump las endureció de forma significativa en 2019, tras unas elecciones que fueron ampliamente percibidas como fraudulentas, en las que Maduro se declaró ganador.Desde hace tiempo, Maduro ha buscado el levantamiento de las sanciones que han asfixiado la economía, mientras que Estados Unidos y sus aliados en la oposición venezolana han querido que Maduro permita unas elecciones competitivas que pueda brindarles a sus rivales políticos una oportunidad legítima de ganar.El presidente Nicolás Maduro, con el mandatario colombiano, Gustavo Petro, el año pasado, han buscado el levantamiento de las sanciones económicas.Federico Rios para The New York TimesLa semana pasada se produjo el acercamiento más significativo de las relaciones entre Venezuela y Estados Unidos en años.El gobierno autoritario de Venezuela acordó aceptar a los migrantes venezolanos deportados desde Estados Unidos, firmó un acuerdo con los líderes de la oposición diseñado para avanzar hacia unas elecciones presidenciales libres y justas, y liberó a cinco presos políticos.A cambio, Estados Unidos acordó levantar algunas sanciones económicas impuestas a la industria petrolera de Venezuela, una vital fuente de ingresos para el gobierno de Maduro.¿Qué efecto tiene la flexibilización de las sanciones?El levantamiento de las sanciones anunciado esta semana le permite a la compañía petrolera estatal venezolana exportar petróleo y gas a Estados Unidos durante seis meses. Durante los últimos años, el gobierno venezolano había estado exportando petróleo a China y otros países con un descuento significativo.Si bien se espera que la medida sea de gran ayuda para las finanzas públicas de Venezuela, los analistas afirmaron que la infraestructura deficiente y la renuencia de algunos inversores externos a ingresar rápidamente al mercado venezolano presentan desafíos importantes.¿Qué impulsa estos avances?Entre los factores que impulsan esta oleada de nuevas políticas se encuentra el incremento de la importancia geopolítica de Venezuela.El país sudamericano tiene las mayores reservas comprobadas de petróleo del mundo, y existe un creciente interés de Estados Unidos en esas reservas en medio de la preocupación por un conflicto más amplio en el Medio Oriente y la guerra en Ucrania, las cuales han amenazado el acceso a los suministros mundiales de petróleo.Venezuela tiene las mayores reservas comprobadas de petróleo del mundo.Adriana Loureiro Fernandez para The New York TimesAunque se necesitarán años para que la mermada infraestructura de la industria petrolera de Venezuela se recupere, las reservas de petróleo del país podrían ser cruciales en el futuro.El gobierno de Biden también está cada vez más interesado en mejorar la situación económica en Venezuela para intentar mitigar el flujo de migrantes venezolanos que intentan cruzar a Estados Unidos.¿Podrían estas elecciones realmente conducir a un cambio en el liderazgo de Venezuela?Los expertos se muestran escépticos ante la posibilidad de que Maduro renuncie al poder de forma voluntaria, o de que permita que se celebren elecciones si existe la posibilidad de que no las gane.Su gobierno está siendo investigado por la Corte Penal Internacional por posibles crímenes de lesa humanidad, y Estados Unidos ha fijado una recompensa de 15 millones de dólares por su arresto para enfrentar cargos de tráfico de drogas. Abandonar la presidencia podría traducirse en largas condenas de cárcel para Maduro y sus asociados.Así que a pesar de la relevancia de los anuncios recientes, a algunos analistas les preocupa que Maduro esté jugando tanto con la oposición como con el gobierno de Estados Unidos, y que pueda al final terminar con todo lo que busca: flexibilización de las sanciones; al menos cierto reconocimiento internacional por su disposición hacia elecciones justas; y una victoria el año que viene que le permita retener el poder.Estados Unidos ha intentado prevenir que suceda eso dejando bien en claro que las sanciones pueden ser restituidas en cualquier momento.Sin embargo, algunos analistas afirmaron que eso podría ser difícil si las compañías se aprovechan del levantamiento de las sanciones y comienzan a invertir en Venezuela. Si eso sucede, podría ser complicado volver a instaurar las sanciones.¿Quién es María Corina Machado, la candidata líder?Machado es una política veterana que tiene el apodo de “la dama de hierro” debido a su relación adversa con los gobiernos de Maduro y Chávez. Es percibida por algunos simpatizantes como una persona valiente por permanecer en el país cuando muchos otros políticos han huido para evadir la persecución política.Sus propuestas de apertura al libre mercado y de reducir el rol del Estado le han hecho ganar una base leal de seguidores por diferentes clases sociales.La relación de confrontación de María Corina Machado con el presidente Nicolás Maduro y su predecesor, Hugo Chávez, le han valido el apodo de “la dama de hierro”.Adriana Loureiro Fernandez para The New York TimesPero durante la promoción de su candidatura, la campaña de Machado ha estado plagada de violencia y vigilancia gubernamental.Machado ha sido golpeada por personas que portaban carteles de Maduro y en un mitin en el que estuvo presente The New York Times le arrojaron sangre de animal. Ha sido seguida por la policía de inteligencia militar y suele sortear los controles policiales viajando en las motocicletas de sus simpatizantes.¿Podría Machado realmente ganar la presidencia?Las encuestas sugieren que Machado probablemente ganará las primarias, la cual tiene un total de 10 candidatos.El grupo de contendientes, los cuales representan una gama de diversas visiones ideológicas, incluye exgobernadores, activistas, profesores y abogados, aunque ninguno parece haber logrado avances suficientes como para representar una amenaza seria para Machado.Sin embargo, la pregunta más importante es si Machado, asumiendo que gane el domingo, será capaz de participar en las elecciones presidenciales de 2024.El gobierno de Maduro le ha prohibido a Machado postularse a la presidencia por 15 años, alegando que no completó su declaración de activos e ingresos cuando fue diputada. Este tipo de inhabilitaciones son una táctica común utilizada por Maduro para mantener a competidores fuertes fuera de las boletas de votación.A pesar de un acuerdo esta semana para avanzar hacia condiciones electorales competitivas, el gobierno de Maduro ha mostrado pocas señales de que permitirá que Machado se postule.El gobierno de Biden ha dejado claro que espera que Maduro restituya a los candidatos inhabilitados o se enfrente al restablecimiento de las sanciones.Si a Machado no le permiten postularse a la presidencia en 2024, la oposición podría presentar a otro candidato. Pero no se sabe con certeza si Machado saldría del proceso voluntariamente, si la oposición apoyaría a un solo nuevo candidato o si dividiría el apoyo, lo que en esencia le entregaría a Maduro las elecciones en bandeja de plata. More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Jack Smith’s Experience in The Hague and the Trump Investigations

      by

      Donald Trump openly flatters foreign autocrats such as Vladimir V. Putin and Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and in many ways Mr. Trump governed as authoritarians do around the globe: enriching himself, stoking ethnic hatreds, seeking personal control over the courts and the military, clinging to power at all costs. So it is especially fitting that he has been notified that he may soon be indicted on charges tied to alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election by an American prosecutor who is deeply versed in investigating the world’s worst tyrants and war criminals.Jack Smith, the Justice Department special counsel — who has already indicted Mr. Trump on charges of illegally retaining secret documents and obstructing justice — has a formidable record as a career federal prosecutor in Tennessee, New York and Washington. Yet he also has distinctive expertise from two high-stakes tours of duty as an international war crimes prosecutor: first at the International Criminal Court and then at a special legal institution investigating war crimes in Kosovo. For several momentous years in The Hague, he oversaw investigations of foreign government officials and militia members who stood accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.There are two competing visions of national and international justice at play in Mr. Smith’s investigation of Mr. Trump. One is the lofty principle that even presidents and prime ministers must answer to the law. The other is the reality that such powerful leaders can try to secure their own impunity by decrying justice as a sham and rallying their followers, threatening instability and violent backlash. These tensions have defined the history of international war crimes prosecutions; they marked Mr. Smith’s achievements in court; they are already at play in Mr. Trump’s attempts to thwart the rule of law.Start with the ideals. The United States championed two international military tribunals held at Nuremberg and Tokyo after World War II, which put senior German and Japanese leaders on trial for aggression, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Henry L. Stimson, the U.S. secretary of war, privately exhorted Franklin Delano Roosevelt that even Nazi war criminals should be given a “well-defined procedure” including “at least the rudimentary aspects of the Bill of Rights.”Both the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials convicted senior leaders for atrocities committed while in government, treating their deeds not as acts of state but as personal crimes punishable by law. After the Cold War, these principles of legal punishment for the world’s worst criminals were revived with United Nations tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, as well as special courts for East Timor, Sierra Leone and elsewhere.Mr. Smith hewed to the ideal of individual criminal responsibility as the prosecutor for the Kosovo Specialist Chambers, which was created under U.S. and European pressure to investigate war crimes and crimes against humanity from 1998 to 2000 related to Kosovo’s struggle for independence from Serbia. Although part of Kosovo’s legal system, the institution is headquartered in The Hague and staffed by international judges and personnel — which is how Mr. Smith, a U.S. citizen, wound up serving as its specialist prosecutor.In June 2020, his office revealed that it was seeking to indict Hashim Thaci, then Kosovo’s popular president, who was on his way to the White House for a summit with Serbia convened by the Trump administration. Mr. Thaci, a former Kosovo Liberation Army guerrilla leader, returned home, later resigning as president and being detained in The Hague in order to face several counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity in an ongoing trial that could last for years.It is always difficult and risky to prosecute national leaders with some popularity among their people. Savvy dictators will often secure a promise of amnesty as the price for a transition of power, which is why a furtive impunity — such as that promulgated in Chile by Gen. Augusto Pinochet’s military government in 1978 — is more common than spectacular trials such as Nuremberg or Tokyo. In order to impose justice on Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, the Allies had to commit to a devastating policy of unconditional surrender, which meant that German and Japanese war criminals could not negotiate for their own necks. Even so, the Truman administration quietly undercut that pledge of unconditional surrender for Emperor Hirohito, fearing that the Japanese might fight on if he was prosecuted as a war criminal. The Truman administration left the emperor securely in the Imperial Palace while his prime ministers and generals were tried and convicted by an Allied international military tribunal in Tokyo.At an earlier point in his career, from 2008 to 2010, Mr. Smith worked as the investigation coordinator in the prosecutor’s office at the International Criminal Court, the permanent international war crimes tribunal based in The Hague. Although 123 countries from Afghanistan to Zambia have joined the I.C.C., the tribunal was a bugbear for the Trump administration; Mr. Trump’s national security adviser, John Bolton, vowed to let it “die on its own,” while his secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, reviled it as a “renegade, unlawful, so-called court.”Anyone working at the I.C.C. must understand how constrained and weak the court actually is. In 2009 and 2010, the I.C.C. issued arrest warrants for Sudan’s president, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, charging him with war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in the Darfur region; he is still at large, even after being overthrown. When a prominent Kenyan politician, Uhuru Kenyatta, was charged with crimes against humanity after ethnic violence in the wake of his country’s 2007 presidential election, he decried the I.C.C. as a neocolonial violation of Kenya’s sovereignty. In 2013 he was narrowly elected president of Kenya. In 2014, the I.C.C. prosecutor dropped the charges against Mr. Kenyatta, fuming that Kenya’s government had obstructed evidence and intimidated witnesses.From Kenya to Kosovo, Mr. Smith presumably knows all too well how an indicted politician can mobilize his loyalists to defy and obstruct a prosecution. When Mr. Thaci’s trial started in The Hague in April, some Kosovars rallied in support of a leader seen by them as a heroic guerrilla fighter against Serbian oppression. Mr. Smith’s office has complained that Mr. Thaci and other suspects were trying to obstruct and undercut the work of prosecutors, as well as convicting two backers of the Kosovo Liberation Army for disseminating files stolen from the office.Mr. Trump is already instinctively following a similar playbook of bluster and intimidation — even though he is not facing an international tribunal, but the laws of the United States. He has compared the F.B.I. agents investigating him to the Gestapo and smeared Mr. Smith as “deranged,” while crudely warning an Iowa radio show that it would be “very dangerous” to jail him since he has “a tremendously passionate group of voters.”Yet Mr. Trump will find that Mr. Smith has dealt with the likes of him — and worse — before. The American prosecutor is well equipped to pursue the vision of a predecessor Robert H. Jackson, the eloquent Supreme Court justice who served as the U.S. chief prosecutor at Nuremberg, who declared in his opening address there: “Civilization asks whether law is so laggard as to be utterly helpless to deal with crimes of this magnitude by criminals of this order of importance.”Gary J. Bass is the author of “The Blood Telegram” and the forthcoming “Judgment at Tokyo: World War II on Trial and the Making of Modern Asia.”The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Paul Gicheru, Kenya Lawyer on Trial at I.C.C., Is Found Dead

      by

      Paul Gicheru was accused of tampering with witnesses in favor of President William Ruto, whose trial at The Hague collapsed in 2016. The cause of death is not yet known.NAIROBI, Kenya — A Kenyan lawyer on trial at the International Criminal Court on charges of witness tampering in a case linked to President William Ruto was found dead at his home in a suburb of the capital, Nairobi, his family and the police said on Tuesday.The lawyer, Paul Gicheru, had been awaiting a verdict in the trial, which took place in The Hague from February to June. Prosecutors accused him of bribing and intimidating witnesses to prevent them from testifying against Mr. Ruto over his role in post-election violence in Kenya in 2007 and 2008.Mr. Ruto, who announced his new cabinet on Tuesday, was sworn in as president on Sept. 13 after winning last month’s hard-fought election by a narrow margin.Michael G. Karnavas, Mr. Gicheru’s lawyer, confirmed his death, which was received with shock by many in Kenya — the latest twist in a decade-long legal journey at the International Criminal Court, punctuated by collapsed trials, disappearing witnesses and accusations of meddling, that has drawn in Kenya’s leaders and framed its politics.Kenyan news reports, citing the police, said that Mr. Gicheru went to sleep on Monday after a meal at his home in Karen, a wealthy Nairobi suburb, and was found dead later that night. His son was taken to a hospital and complained of stomach pains after eating the same meal.Mr. Karnavas said that he suspected foul play and called on the Kenyan authorities and the International Criminal Court to open a full investigation into the death. “It’s somewhat odd that after the election in Kenya, and before the court issues its judgment, there is this incident,” he said, speaking by phone. “This warrants the I.C.C. stepping up to the plate.”But in comments to reporters in Kenya, John Khaminwa, a lawyer for the Gicheru family in Kenya, downplayed suggestions of poisoning, and said the family was waiting for an autopsy to be completed and for the police to issue its preliminary report.Mr. Gicheru caused a sensation in Kenya in late 2020 when he flew to Amsterdam to present himself to the International Criminal Court, after years of refusing to stand trial and resisting the court’s efforts to have him extradited to The Hague.When the trial started this year, Mr. Gicheru pleaded not guilty and declined to testify. He returned to Kenya when the trial ended in June to await the verdict. A spokesman for the International Criminal Court said in an email that under the court’s guidelines, a verdict should be delivered within 10 months.President William Ruto of Kenya at the U.N. General Assembly last week. He was sworn in this month after winning a hard-fought election in August by a narrow margin.Dave Sanders for The New York TimesThe Kenya Human Rights Commission called the news of his death “shocking,” and urged the authorities to mount a swift investigation. In a statement, the Law Society of Kenya reiterated that call, noting that “several witnesses in the I.C.C. cases have either disappeared or died,” and wished a speedy recovery to Mr. Gicheru’s hospitalized son.Mr. Gicheru’s trial stemmed from a series of high-profile prosecutions that implicated some of Kenya’s most prominent politicians in a wave of violence after the disputed 2007 elections that killed at least 1,200 people and forced another 600,000 to flee their homes.In 2011, the International Criminal Court indicted Mr. Ruto for crimes against humanity over accusations that he orchestrated violence in his home area, the Rift Valley, distributing weapons and issuing kill lists of opposition supporters from rival ethnic groups.Uhuru Kenyatta, then a political rival of Mr. Ruto, was also indicted on similar charges.By 2016, the cases against both men collapsed after key witnesses recanted their testimony and the Kenyan government stopped cooperating with the court. By then, Mr. Ruto and Mr. Kenyatta had resolved their political differences to unite as a formidable force. Together they won the 2013 election, with Mr. Kenyatta as president and Mr. Ruto as his deputy, and were re-elected in 2017.Not only did the I.C.C. charges unite the two leaders, but it also provided them with a powerful electoral argument. After becoming president in 2013, Mr. Kenyatta denounced the court as a “toy of declining imperial powers.”But in dismissing the charge against Mr. Ruto, the court did not declare him innocent, leaving open the possibility that he could face a new trial. And it had already, in 2015, indicted Mr. Gicheru, a provincial lawyer from the same area as Mr. Ruto, on accusations that he ran a witness tampering scheme responsible for scuppering the trial.During the trial that started in February, prosecutors said that Mr. Gicheru had intimidated or offered bribes of up to $41,600 to witnesses who withdrew their testimony against Mr. Ruto and Joshua Sang, a radio journalist accused of stoking political violence in the Rift Valley after the 2007 vote.Prosecutors told the court that Mr. Gicheru’s actions, from 2013 to 2015, had caused four “vital” witnesses to recant their testimony. Eight people testified against him, including witnesses who said that they been threatened and that they feared for their lives.The prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Karim Khan, recused himself from the Gicheru case because he had represented Mr. Ruto as a defense lawyer during the trial that collapsed in 2016.Protesters and the police in Eldoret, Kenya, in 2008. Mr. Gicheru had been accused of intimidating witnesses to prevent them from testifying against Mr. Ruto over his role in post-election violence in Kenya in 2007 and 2008.Ben Curtis/Associated PressAfter Mr. Ruto’s case collapsed, the International Criminal Court prosecutions receded from prominence in Kenya. Mr. Gicheru, by then a senior Kenya government official, successfully opposed efforts by the court to have him extradited to The Hague.But the affair returned to prominence in November 2020 when Mr. Gicheru voluntarily flew to The Hague with his wife and presented himself for trial at The Hague.The unexpected move by Mr. Gicheru stoked widespread speculation inside Kenya that it was linked to the crumbling relationship between Mr. Kenyatta and Mr. Ruto. Two years earlier, Mr. Kenyatta had signed a political pact with Raila Odinga, a veteran opposition leader expected to contest the 2022 election, that his deputy, Mr. Ruto, saw as a betrayal.When Mr. Gicheru presented himself for trial in 2020, reports in Kenyan news media speculated that he had been pressured or inducted to present himself for trial as part of an effort to resurrect the I.C.C. case against Mr. Ruto.His lawyer, Mr. Karnavas, said Mr. Gicheru’s motivation was simply to clear his name. “It was a sword of Damocles,” Mr. Karnavas said.During the hearings early this year, no evidence emerged that directly linked the witness tampering scheme to Mr. Ruto, and the issue hardly figured in the bitterly fought election campaign that ended in August, with Mr. Ruto’s narrow victory over Mr. Odinga.Mr. Karnavas said the prosecution’s case was weak and, had Mr. Gicheru lived to hear the verdict, he was confident he would have been acquitted.“Here’s someone who came voluntarily to clear his name, knowing the consequences,” he said. “Even if there’s no foul play, there needs to be an investigation.” More