As the new year begins, it’s safe to say that 2016 was a trying time for the International Criminal Court (ICC). The United Nations-inspired program established by the Rome Statute of 1998 stands as the world’s only tribunal capable of prosecuting individuals at the international level. Formed to investigate and prosecute war-related crimes, the 124-member committee is now three members short, and its legacy is at stake. Various signatories in Africa have recently resigned (and more are expected to do so) due to continuous accusations of the court disproportionately targeting Africans and representing the interests of western imperialism. Now with fewer members (and therefore fewer outlets to pursue cases) the independent judicial body’s ability to indict foreign dignitaries for orchestrating violent campaigns may dwindle as Uganda, South Africa, and Burundi are facilitating a “coordinated revolt” to undermine ICC operations.

The International Criminal Court’s Unique Origins

The formation of the ICC resulted from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court–a United Nations initiative that was adopted on July 17, 1998 and took effect on July 1, 2002 after the 60th member state ratified it. For five weeks, U.N. members deliberated in the Italian capital about establishing a fixed international tribunal. After several compromises were made, the treaty passed with a vote of 120 to 7, with 21 countries abstaining. From the beginning, the mandate aimed to indict political officials for wartime atrocities, diminish impunity, and ensure that restorative justice is accomplished when national governments are unequipped to reach their own verdict (which is generally the case in times of crisis). Separate from the United Nations, the permanent, autonomous court provides an all-encompassing index on how to legally handle cases of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression. A limited scope of retribution was granted, meaning that only crimes occurring after the court’s 2002 inception are open for investigation.

Although the Yugoslavian and Rwandan wars were occurring during these preliminary negotiations (and therefore representing a dire impetus for action), the idea of a permanent world court was 50 years in the making. According to the International Policy Digest, the vision of a supranational judiciary gained momentum toward the end of World War II after the Axis Powers were defeated and their wrongdoings were exposed. Following the Nuremberg Trials against Nazi Germany in 1945 and 1946, the U.N. General Assembly passed the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in 1948. This was the first step in defining genocide, which is considered to be “the most heinous international crime” and one of the three original crimes that would fall under the ICC’s jurisdiction.

How Does the ICC Function?

The ICC, which is located in The Hague, Netherlands, can only intervene when states are “unable” or “unwilling” to prosecute criminals themselves. The Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) for the ICC receives referrals of “situations” where court action may be needed. This stipulation means that the ICC can only intervene when national criminal justice systems fail to prosecute a war crime themselves. By signing the treaty, member states, therefore, consent to the ICC’s jurisdiction and allow the judiciary to pursue investigations if warranted. Therefore, countries that didn’t sign the peace agreement, like the United States, cannot be issued warrants.

Instead of relying on juries, the ICC delivers verdicts through judges–all of whom must be citizens of an ICC member state. Within the tribunal there are 18 judges serving in three divisions: the Pre-Trial Division, Trial Division, and Appeals Division. Perhaps the most vital department is the Pre-Trial Chamber, given that it is responsible for issuing arrest warrants and confirming indictments that are initiated through the U.N. Security Council or the Assembly of States Parties. But this vital department allegedly has a slow response rate, sometimes taking months to respond to arrest warrants.

Ever-present Challenges and Critiques of the ICC

As the world’s only official international war crime tribunal, the ICC has a lot at stake. The agreement that created it may have made history, but the court also faces a lot of systematic challenges. When the ICC was formally introduced in 2002, certain skeptics believed that the institution would become too powerful and prompt the formation of a one-world government. Originally, countries like the United States and Israel were dissuaded from signing the treaty out of fear of potential prosecution, and that some “new mega-criminal law” would result in tyrannical practices. However, today the ICC is viewed as far from tyrannical (or effective for that matter) due to its “procedural and substantive deficiencies.” Throughout its short existence, the court has opened 10 investigations and publicly indicted 39 people. These relatively low numbers signify three main challenges of the ICC.

At the forefront is the issue of credibility. When Thomas Lubanga Dyilo of the Democratic Republic of the Congo was found guilty on March 14, 2012 for recruiting child soldiers (becoming the first person to be convicted by the ICC), the court had already existed for 10 years and spent an estimated billion euros. Although the verdict set a new precedent for international law, the amount of time required to set the milestone didn’t seem like an efficient use of time or money to some. Trials need to be carried out more efficiently for this situation to improve, which could be difficult considering how the ICC prefers live testimony, which inevitably elongates the trial process. Legitimacy is another indelible challenge for the ICC. Only two members of the U.N. Security Council are official judicial members, which certainly complicates the referral process. Although the U.N. Security Council has tried to refer the Syrian conflict to the ICC (despite Syria not being a member of the Rome Statute) both China and Russia (non-ICC members) have rejected such initiatives–major powers can veto court efforts even when there is proof of atrocities taking place.

The implementation of the ICC can be tricky, considering that the court relies heavily on other nation’s police forces to make arrests and transfer indicted people to The Hague. This requires vast cooperation among State Parties. A common critique is that the court relies too much on international governments to implement court mandates without much direct supervision or guidance. The consequences are straightforward: no arrests and no trials.

Finally, the third issue involves unrealistic expectations and the extent to which the treaty is a “persistent object of faith.” The treaty inherently relies on the free and voluntary consent of member nations, providing them with every right to withdraw if desired. Moreover, this has resulted in certain countries being ambivalent towards the ICC (particularly the United States during the Clinton and Bush administrations), which ultimately diminishes the court’s overall credibility.

Lately, the most critical commentary of the ICC involves how it may be an “instrument of modern colonialism” due to the extent in which the judicial body primarily affects African officials. Throughout the existence of the ICC, every indicted person has been African, which “implies unfair selectivity at best, and smacks of neocolonialism at worst.” Since the ICC began 18 years ago, nine out of the 10 investigated cases have involved African nations, which has led to accusations of bias. With fewer member states to help expedite this process, the ICC would have a more limited scope for prospective investigations. Fewer African members would make the ICC “a shell of its former self.” Not only does this undermine the legitimacy of the organization, but makes its operations seem dysfunctional.

African Case Studies

Following in the footsteps of Burundi and South Africa, the tiny West African country of Gambia became the latest member to withdraw from the ICC this past October. Together, these nations have chastised the multinational tribunal for its alleged “anti-African bias” and ignorance toward wrongdoings from Western powers. Burundi was the first constituent to “file for divorce” from the ICC. At the time, the country was being investigated for possible war crimes during the recent outbursts of political violence. Civil unrest transpired after the incumbent president, Pierre Nkurunziza, declared he would be running for a third term.

Once considered as a “continental heavyweight” and avid supporter of the ICC in the 1990s, South Africa disappointed the ICC after failing to arrest Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir in June of 2015, who is wanted by the ICC for orchestrating wartime atrocities in Darfur. Despite a South African court order to arrest al-Bashir, the Sudanese head of state still managed to attend an African Union summit in Johannesburg and leave Pretoria unscathed. Even though Sudan is not a member of the ICC, the U.N. Security Council successfully referred the Darfur conflict to officials in The Hague. South Africa and the ICC clashed over the impunity afforded to current heads of state. Although the ICC has brought current presidents to stand trial, this practice is something that South Africa strongly disapproves of.

Peeved by the continual investigations into African affairs, the Gambian President Yahya Jammeh urged the ICC to divert its attention from Africa and instead probe further into the E.U.’s wrongdoings in today’s ongoing immigration crisis. In a public statement, Jammeh suggested that European countries be tried for the deaths of African migrants on the Mediterranean Sea.

“This action is warranted by the fact that the ICC, despite being called the International Criminal Court, is in fact an International Caucasian Court for the persecution and humiliation of people of color, especially Africans,” said Sheriff Bojang, who serves as Gambia’s information minister.

Conclusion

If more African states revoke their ICC membership, then the court’s stability will remain unclear, considering that 34 of the original 124 member states are from the continent. The ICC could very well lose its credentials if a mass exodus of African nations ensues. Attention is currently fixated on Kenya, which many fear may be the next African country to abandon the tribunal. Three years ago, the African Union pressured the ICC not to persecute incumbent heads of states. Such a proposal was made while Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta and his colleague, William Ruto, were expected to stand trial for the ethnic violence stemming from the contentious 2007 elections. Kenyatta became the first head of state to be tried by ICC, but the charges were dropped due to insufficient evidence.

“These challenges are best addressed not by diminishing support for the court, but by strengthening it from within,” said U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in a statement. “Deterring future atrocities, delivering justice for victims, and defending the rules of war across the globe are far too important priorities to risk a retreat from the age of accountability that we have worked so hard to build and solidify.”

In hopes of gaining more clout on the international stage, it would be advantageous for the ICC to appeal to non-members, such as the United States, Russia, and China. Without support from the mightiest of global contenders, the court remains a fledgling U.N. project that lacks the global support it needs to properly function. Considering that 57 additional members have signed the treaty since its creation, further recruitment is possible. Lastly, to restore trust among members, the court must demonstrate that it has clear standards and motivations in convicting war criminals outside of Africa.

Jacob Atkins

Jacob Atkins is a freelance blogger and contributor for Law Street Media. After studying print journalism and international relations at American University, Jacob now resides in Madrid where he is teaching English, pursuing multimedia reporting projects and covering global news. Contact Jacob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

http://jacobson.pressfolios.com/

The post Is the Fate of the International Criminal Court in Jeopardy? appeared first on Law Street.

The German parliament passed a resolution on Thursday to recognize the 1915 mass killings of Armenian people as “genocide,” sparking a backlash in Turkey. The motion was put forward by Chancellor Angela Merkel’s ruling coalition together with one opposition party and passed with support from all parties in parliament.

Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was upset by the resolution and said that this will deeply affect Turkey’s relationship with Germany. He also recalled the Turkish ambassador from Berlin and said that further action in response to the resolution will be discussed later. The three biggest political parties in Turkey have already condemned the German decision, and the Turkish foreign minister, Mevlut Cavusoglu, tweeted: “The way to close the dark pages of your own history is not by defaming the histories of other countries with irresponsible and baseless decisions.”

According to the 1948 Convention on Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, genocide is the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.” According to historians, the Ottoman Empire deliberately crashed down on Armenian people and other Christian minorities, starting in April 1915. They estimate that as many as 1.5 million Armenians were killed in the genocide. While Turkey acknowledges that many people died, they claim that the deaths were the result of war and that the numbers are exaggerated.

Learn more: The Armenian Genocide: A Battle For Recognition

Denying that the genocide happened has long been a part of the national consciousness in Turkey, and is so sensitive that it is illegal to even talk about. Even though many large nations–such as France, Austria, Canada, and Russia, recognize the events as such–many still do not. And that is largely for political reasons–when countries have recognized the genocide, Turkey has been quick to withdraw its ambassadors or end military collaboration. This is why it’s a pretty sensitive time for Germany, as it seeks a friendly relationship with Turkey to seal a deal over the immigrant crisis facing the EU.

With the deal, Turkey will take back refugees that make it to Greece illegally. In return, Turkey will get additional aid from the EU, Turkish citizens will be able to travel through Europe more easily, and talks about Turkey joining the EU will be sped up. The goal is to stop the human trafficking that has led to so many deaths on the seas as refugees seek entry into Europe. However, human rights groups and organizations like Doctors Without Borders have criticized the deal, saying that sending people back simply forces refugees to suffer in Turkey while also reducing them to numbers.

Angela Merkel did not participate in the vote, but later said: “There is a lot that binds Germany to Turkey and even if we have a difference of opinion on an individual matter, the breadth of our links, our friendship, our strategic ties, is great.”

More than 40 U.S. states label the Armenian genocide as such, but the nation as a whole does not. Many see the lack of recognition as an attempt to maintain friendly relations with Turkey in order to maintain a strategic ally within the Middle East. President Obama has not referred to it as a genocide while in office, although he did prior to becoming president.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Turkey Angered by Germany’s Recognition of the Armenian Genocide appeared first on Law Street.

While this doesn’t necessarily imply that there’s any sort of legal obligation of involvement when the word “genocide” is used, it makes a more compelling argument for the U.S. to take stronger action against ISIS. And even though the international law can be very ambiguous, Secretary Kerry said in today’s statement that “we must hold the perpetrators accountable. And we must find the resources to help those harmed by these atrocities be able to survive on their ancestral land.” To add to that even further, it’s also pretty rare for the U.S. to make such a declaration: the last time the U.S. officially declared genocide was over a decade ago, in 2004, when then-Secretary of State Colin Powell used it to refer to the atrocities in Darfur.

So while it’s still not completely clear to what extent this affects our current foreign policy toward ISIS, it could mean a significant international effort to take action against the group, and shows that we definitely aren’t walking away from this conflict any time soon.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Kerry Says ISIS “Responsible for Genocide”: What Does That Mean? appeared first on Law Street.

Muammar Qaddafi, longtime leader of Libya, was the first leader to be killed in the Arab Spring–the wave of uprisings that swept the Middle East demanding the end of autocratic ruling. The United States and NATO military forces executed a military intervention in Libya to remove Qaddafi as leader. After its immediate action, the event became the primary example for what a successful intervention looks like. But now, four years have passed, and there’s an essential question often posed: did the intervention really make things better?

While it’s difficult to answer that question, Libya’s path post-intervention demonstrates that just because you give people the opportunity for change, does not mean they have the tools or infrastructure to do so. In many ways, the situation in Libya has gone from bad to worse, and continues to raise concerns about the efficacy of the intervention.

 Who was Muammar Qaddafi?

Just two days after the overthrow of President Ben Ali in Tunisia, Libyan demonstrators were throwing stones at a government building and set fire to its offices. The protesters were demanding “decent housing and dignified life.” Libyan opposition websites flourished, and social media was optimized to revolt against Qaddafi. But who exactly was the maligned leader?

Muammar Qaddafi governed Libya as its primary leader for 42 years, from 1969 to 2011. Through his tenure, he was known for supporting public works projects, such as the Great Man-Made River project, which brought water to the arid north of Libya. He was known to redistribute wealth, and provided loans at a zero percent interest rate.

He was also branded an abuser of human rights. He was accused of administering the murder of more than 1,000 prisoners–mainly political opponents–at the Abu Salim prison. Qaddafi was also linked to both the bombing of Pan-Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988 that resulted in the loss of 270 lives, and the murder of police officer Yvonne Fletcher in central London in 1984.

Qaddafi did fit the bill as an authoritarian ruler. As a result, the possibility of toppling the government, just as Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak and Tunisia’s Ali had been toppled, was too strong for the Libyan population to resist.

United Nations Involvement

Libya was in uproar during the Arab Spring. Opposition rebel forces were mobilizing quickly, and the Qaddafi regime fought back. Among the international community, the question was raised–should someone intervene?

Following the tragedies in Rwanda and the Balkans in the 1990s, the international community debated how to effectively react when a nation systemically violates its citizens’ human rights. Essentially, do states have unconditional sovereignty over their own affairs–no matter how inhumanely events may occur–or can the international community legally intervene for humanitarian purposes?

In 2001, the expression “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) was first presented in response to this debate over the ethics of international intervention. The R2P report outlines that the state is responsible first for the protection of its own citizens within its borders; if the state fails, either through lack of ability or a lack of willingness, the responsibility to protect will shift to the international community through humanitarian intervention or effort.

The United Nations Security Council, a group of 15 countries including five permanent members–the United Kingdom, United States, France, China, and Russia–demanded an immediate ceasefire in Libya. This included an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute “crimes against humanity.”

The Security Council authorized U.N. member states to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country.

NATO-U.S. Actions

Two days after the UN authorization under R2P, NATO-U.S. forces imposed a ban on all flights in the country’s airspace, a no-fly zone. Sanctions were tightened on the Qaddafi regime, and the bombing on Qaddafi forces began. Seven months later, in October 2011, after an extended military campaign with sustained Western support, Libyan Opposition forces conquered the country.

Qaddafi was trying to flee the city in a convoy of cars when he came under attack from NATO jets. A mob captured him on the ground, led him through the streets and shot him twice. The French claimed responsibility for the airstrike.

Afterwards, the United States continued bombing Libyan tanks and personnel, allowing rebels to re-establish control in Benghazi.

Why did NATO-U.S. Forces Intervene?

There were three fundamental choices. The first was to do nothing and witness a possible humanitarian nightmare. The second was to intervene with a limited approach–essentially assist in the takedown of current government, but not the building of a new government. The third option was to intervene with a complete approach, including staying to help stabilize and build the new government.

The United Nations Security Council decided the U.S. should not allow a humanitarian nightmare to happen if it could be prevented with a relatively simple military intervention. Any presence on the ground to stabilize the conflict probably would not have been welcomed, and it may not have worked any better than it did it in places such as Iraq or Afghanistan. So, the second option was chosen–remove Qaddafi as leader in order to allow the Libyan people time to bring in a new authority.

Additionally, it was a multilateral effort. NATO forces actually led the attacks, not the United States. Additionally, Libyan rebel forces were well organized and located near port cities, which made communication and importing goods easier.

Why was it deemed successful?

There were three targets outlined as a part of the NATO-U.S. strategy: ensure there was an arms embargo enforced on Qaddafi; protect the people being attacked by Qaddafi’s forces; and buy some time and space for Libyan people to decide their own future. These goals were fulfilled in a timely manner, with no American lives lost. Automatically, NATO-U.S. forces declared success.

How is Libya Now?

Unfortunately, by many measures, Libya is now in worse shape. There’s activity from militias affiliated with terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS.

The U.S. may have mitigated the event of a mass killing, but now the region is destabilized–affecting education and literacy, employment, gender equality, and the possibility of institution building, among other things. The following video outlines the difficulties that the Libyan people are facing currently.

So why didn’t we stay in Libya?

Given the political environment in 2011, animosity toward American foreign forces were a concern. This fear led American and European leaders to set a limit the extent of intervention. In addition, the U.S. could have been accused of forcing Western and democratic ideals in a vulnerable country. Security and foreign policy decision makers are constantly riddled with what to do. There is a huge dilemma when it comes to legal and moral humanitarian intervention. In 20/20 hindsight, any decision can be found faulty.

Conclusion

Libya’s case is far from perfect, but not necessarily wrong. It’s very easy to criticize the actions taken, because, yes, Libya may very well be worse off. On a global level, there are steps that could be taken to prevail the challenges to humanitarian intervention. The Security Council permanent members are faced with a difficult conundrum. It becomes increasingly difficulty to determine how to intervene–in what capacity does the international community take over another nation? It’s a question that had to be considered in Libya’s case, and will continue to come up time and time again.

Resources

Primary

United Nations: Background on Responsibility to Protect

United Nations: Security Council Approves No-Fly Zone

Additional

Council on Foreign Relations: The Challenge Of Humanitarian Intervention Since Rwanda

Council on Foreign Relations: Libya and the Responsibility to Protect

Huffington Post: Was the 2011 Libya Intervention a Mistake?

First Look: Hailed as a Model For Successful Intervention, Libya Proves to Be the Exact Opposite

The New York Times: President Obama on Libya

Guardian: Muammar Gaddafi, the ‘King Of Kings,’ Dies in His Hometown

Jasmine Shelton

Jasmine Shelton is an American University Alumna, Alabamian at heart, and Washington D.C. city girl for now. She loves hiking, second-hand clothes, and flying far away. Contact Jasmine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Looking Back: Lessons From the Intervention in Libya appeared first on Law Street.

As you may very well know, citizens of the United Sates can form and sign petitions on the White House Website. If a petition reaches 100,000 signatures in 30 days, the White House has to respond, though they sometimes respond to petitions with fewer signatures. For example, earlier this summer, a new petition went up asking the White House to change the name of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport to the Tim Howard National Airport, in honor of Howard’s great performance as goalie for the United States Men’s Soccer team. This got me thinking, what are the wackiest, craziest, coolest, and dumbest White House petitions ever received? Well, here are my ten “favorites” (besides the Tim Howard one). This list includes a couple classics that you may of heard of before and some newer ones that you most likely have not. Enjoy!

[wooslider autoslide=”false” slide_page=”we-the-people-top-10-weirdest-white-house-petitions” slider_type=”slides” limit=”10″ thumbnails=”default” order=”DESC” order_by=”date”]

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post We the People: Top 10 Weirdest White House Petitions appeared first on Law Street.

“If during a study-abroad trip to Indonesia you stumble across an image of the Führer, don’t be surprised,” reported Vice News earlier this summer. “The swastika is also everywhere — on walls, cups, ashtrays, and t-shirts — and it’s not the Buddhist kind.” Stickers, posters, and stenciled graffiti images of Adolf Hitler litter the cities of Indonesia aside images of weapons and bullets. But the Nazi graffiti is not limited to illegal marks; street vendors sell posters and framed prints of a fiery Adolph Hitler delivering an impassioned speech. A prepubescent boy wears a burgundy T-shirt that reads “PUNK NAZI” emblazoned with a swastika. “I don’t idealize Hitler, I simply adore the soldiers’ paraphernalia,” said Henry Mulyana, owner of Soldaten Kaffee (German for ‘The Soldiers’ Café’) in Bandung City, which opened in 2011. Customers can order “Nazi goring” (a version of traditional fried rice) served on swastika-motif china by a waiter wearing a black SS uniform.

The recent bizarre phenomenon of Nazi imagery in Indonesia would be absurdly laughable if it wasn’t so disturbing. Indonesia’s poor education system and historical ignorance may be at the root of the irreverent prevalence of Nazi imagery. Indonesia is a diverse country consisting of more than 300 ethnic groups and over 700 languages, yet few of the nation’s 240 million people receive formal education about race relations. Schools omit world history curriculum, which, according to the Jakarta Globe, contributes to the ignorance of sensitive social topics. “It is not uncommon,” says the Conversation, “for Indonesians to say ‘I like Hitler’ when meeting someone from Germany.”

“Contrary to their European peers, Indonesian students hardly receive any history lessons on World War II. They know nothing about the persecution of Jews, for example,” according to a history professor at the Gadjah Mada University of Yogyakarta in Java. “They see Hitler as a revolutionary, similar to Che Guevara, not as someone who is responsible for the death of millions of Jews…[T]hey’re attracted to emblems of Nazi Germany because they’ve become acquainted with these symbols through punk and hard-rock videos. In their view, these symbols are a representation of rebellion.”

Adolf Hitler bumper sticker, Lombok Barat, West Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia. Courtesy of Klaus Stiefel via Flickr

The evidence pointing to Indonesia’s poor education system, however, suggests a more fundamental issue at stake in the resurgence of Nazi imagery. From 1967 to 1998, Indonesia was ruled by an authoritarian, pseudo-Fascist government that strictly controlled school curriculum. “The Ministry of Education prohibited teachers from educating students on international genocide, political violence, or racial conflicts,” said Gene Netto, an English teacher from Jakarat. “Most students graduated without ever having heard of the Holocaust…Students were only taught about the glory and grandeur of Indonesia as a country.”

Indeed, Indonesia has a historic relationship with Nazis specifically and Fascism broadly. During the 1930s, while Indonesia was under the control the Netherlands, Nazi publications were translated and disseminated throughout the country; Hitler’s concept of a “Greater Germany” inspired similar ideals, “Indonesia Mulia” (esteemed Indonesia) and “Indonesia Raya” (great Indonesia), galvanizing the Indonesian National Party (PNI) that was instrumental in achieving independence from the Dutch in 1949. Soekarno, the leader of the independence movement, and subsequently the country’s first president, revered Hitler’s vision of the Third Reich, declaring in 1963, “It’s in the Dritte Reich that the Germans will see Germany at the apex above other nations in this world.” Suharto, the second Indonesian president, came to power in 1967 following a military coup that deposed Soekarno, immediately consolidating government power around the military, consequently instituting a military dictatorship. Building on Soekarno’s Nazi inspired ideals, Suharto’s regime ruthlessly killed criminal and political prisoners, and conducted genocides, most infamously in East Timor. A pro-democracy Indonesian revolution ended Suharto’s long reign in 1998, but the neo-Fascist rhetoric has resumed once again during the current presidential election.

Prabowo Subianto, one of the two front runners in the Indonesian election, is a “continuation” of Suharto’s “fascist rule,” according to Indonesian scholar Andre Vltchek writing in Counter Punch. Prabowo has historic roots in Indonesia’s autocratic government; not only did his father serve as Suharto’s cabinet minister, Prabowo is Suharto’s son in law, and commanded the Special Forces group that spearheaded a brutal occupation and genocide of East Timor in 1976. Prabowo’s resume gives a clear indication that he will be as authoritarian and as cruel as Suharto, if not more so. As Foreign Policy explains, “Suharto-style authoritarianism remains alive and well,” including politics of exclusion, fear, and intimidation; as a campaign spectacle, Prabowo rode a horse into a stadium full of supporters in formation, wearing white uniforms and red berets. Allusions to Mussolini could not be more complete.

A voting bulletin just after the official closing of elections at a voting station in Jakarta. Courtesy of Lord Mountbatten Via Wikipedia.

What is more striking, however, is that Indonesians seem to embrace the Fascist imagery and political rhetoric. “We need Adolf Hitler! In order to fully restore law and order” a businessman in Sumatra exclaimed. “I’m not personally familiar with the [Nazi] ideology, but even if I am, I don’t think I’d find it completely disagreeable,” said Mulyana, the owner of the Nazi-themed café. “For example, communism in Indonesia was prohibited, but it’s flourishing in China. Maybe it’s just a matter of politics.” In June, Indonesian pop star Ahmad Dhani released a music video in support of Prabowo, dressed in a black Nazi uniform, singing a modified version of Queen’s “We Will Rock You.”

“What is the connection between German soldiers and Indonesia?” Dhani asked rhetorically. “We Indonesians didn’t kill millions of Jews, right?”

The ballots are in but the election is still undecided. Both candidates — Prabowo and Djoko “Jokowi” Widodo — are claiming victory, citing unofficial results conducted by private polling agencies, and accusing each other of election fraud. By law, the Indonesian Election Commission must announce the official results today. Whoever wins, this election marks a clear resurgence of Indonesia’s latent Fascism. The Mussolini-style political campaigns, Nazi-themed cafés, and stenciled images of Hitler plastered through the streets, are not as horrifying, though, as the fact that the Indonesian people seem completely comfortable with the pervasiveness of Fascist symbolism. As we have seen with ‘neo-Fascists’ in Israel, graffiti is a bellwether for subterranean political currents in Indonesian society.

 —

Ryan D. Purcell (@RyanDPurcell) holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York.

Feature image courtesy of [Ikhlasul Amal via Flickr]

Ryan Purcell

Ryan D. Purcell holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York. Contact Ryan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Nazi Graffiti Indicates Resurgence of Fascism in Indonesia appeared first on Law Street.