El fiscal Khan y la credibilidad de la CPI

El fiscal Karim Khan de la Corte Penal Internacional (CPI) decidió ordenar el arresto del primer ministro israelí Benjamín Netanyahu y de su ministro de defensa Yoav Gallant acusándolos de presuntos crímenes de guerra y de crímenes contra la humanidad. El fiscal Khan también ordenó el arresto de varios cabecillas de Hamás. Ambas decisiones tienen como explicación el oportunismo judicial del fiscal Khan, quien está muy consciente de la falta de credibilidad de la CPI, instancia que tiene poco que mostrar como resultados concretos en relación a varios crímenes y violaciones contra los derechos humanos en la escena internacional. 

Ya lo había dicho Khan en una conferencia que dio en la Universidad de Ottawa en mayo de 2023 (mucho antes de la masacre perpetrada por Hamás en octubre de ese mismo año): está en juego la credibilidad en el sistema internacional de justicia si la CPI no actúa de forma contundente, como NO lo ha hecho en varios casos notables, tales como los crímenes cometidos por el presidente sirio Bashir Al Assad, o en las persecuciones y masacres contra los rohinyás en Birmania o los uigures en China.

El record de la CPI no es bueno. Khan no quiere pasar sin pena ni gloria por su cargo de fiscal. Tampoco ha sido muy eficaz en el caso de las acusaciones contra Nicolás Maduro y su séquito militar-civil acusados de toda clase de crímenes contra la humanidad (torturas, asesinatos selectivos, persecuciones, exilio de millones de venezolanos). A pesar de sus visitas a Venezuela y reuniones con el mismísimo Maduro, Khan no tiene nada concreto que presentar a las víctimas de la autocracia chavista.

La masacre del 7 de octubre y la respuesta defensiva de Israel contra Hamás y la Yihad Islámica Palestina abrieron las puertas para que Khan logre alguna visibilidad en la escena internacional y le de un empujón a la decaída credibilidad de la CPI. Y lo ha hecho con un juego de equilibrismo judicial que pone en la misma balanza a quien perpetra crímenes contra civiles (asesinatos, torturas, violaciones, secuestro de rehenes) y a un estado que se defiende con los medios legítimos que establece la ley internacional. 

Khan ha apostado por montarse en la ola de opinión que impulsan la izquierda woke y el radicalismo islamista. Lástima por los que teníamos alguna esperanza en la credibilidad de Karim Khan para pedir justicia por las víctimas del chavismo-madurismo. Con su decisión que pretende igualar a los miembros de un gobierno constituido democráticamente como el de Israel (aunque ese gobierno nos guste o no) y los terroristas que reivindican a pleno pulmón sus crímenes, ha terminado de enterrar su legado. Una verdadera lástima.

Racialized arguments that are almost racist: my letter to The Conversation

No Conversation in The Conversation Canada

Scott White, Editor -in-Chief of The Conversation Canada, ignored this letter regarding a mischaracterization that one of his editors made of a public letter that I co-signed with other colleagues defending academic freedom. His behaviour is not an example of being “open, transparent and accountable,” and certainly not a good journalistic practice. Here is my letter:

February 9, 2021

Scott White

CEO | Editor-in-Chief

The Conversation (Canada)

Dear Scott,

Judging people’s opinions based on their race should be considered racist. No? Well, it depends who you ask. If you think you have the “right” opinion or the “right” theory, then your judgment won’t be considered racist, even if it looks very much like that. 

Let’s take the following statement: “Last fall, a group of 34 university professors wrote a letter in support of the use of the n-word in classrooms. Every single one of the letter writers was white. Why is this conversation still happening? Why do white and non-Black people insist on uttering that word, the n-word? And when asked not to use it, why are they fighting for control of it? (published in The Conversation as a teaser for the podcast Don’t call me resilient by Senior Editor and Producer, Vinita Srivastava) (see screenshot of a similar teaser that was emailed to the portal’s readers).

Or read this one (originally in French commenting a public letter signed by 579 professors and lectures from Québec): “I told myself that I had to look at the evidence, and it took me hours to find the photos of the 579 professors and lectures to know how many whites and non-whites signed this letter. The result is terrifying, but not surprising. From those 579 signatories, 97.2% are white persons. That means that only 2.8% are racialized people. From that small number only 0.5% are black.” (published on the website Ricochet by Will Prosper) 

In both cases, the authors of these statements pretend to judge or disqualify the opinions of those who wrote the respective texts because they were “white.” We can call these “arguments” ad ethnicity (the equivalent of ad hominem but racialized). They are very weak but also very dangerous. They are based on impressions and prejudices, since the persons who wrote those statements don’t know the people who signed the op-eds. And what being “white” means according to them? For example, I am one of the 34 professors from the University of Ottawa who signed last fall an op-ed (in French) supporting part-time professor Lieutenant-Duval and defending academic freedom. Am I “white?” It depends, again, who you ask. I am a Venezuelan Sephardic Jew who was born in Tangier, Morocco. Should I consider myself a Latino? My mother tongue is Spanish. I grew up in a Latin American country. Am I the typical “white” (whatever that means) who migrated to Canada? The other 33 colleagues who signed the public letter have different origins and backgrounds, and the languages they speak, their religions (or lack of), their skin colour should not be used to invalidate their views on the issue of academic freedom.

But there is even a more troubling issue in these statements. They represent an inquisitorial mindset looking for the “pure” and the “tainted,” as the Spanish Inquisition used to do when persecuting the heretics and the crypto-Jews. They also convey a new rhetoric of stigmatization under the disguise of “social justice” and egalitarian aim. Historically, the “good causes” (i.e. the salvation of the souls) have ended in terrible tragedies and crimes.

As you can see in these statements, there is a very thin line dividing the “racialized” and “racist” discourses. Those using the racialized rationale to disqualify the opinions of other people should remember the words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.” Amen.   

I hope you will publish the entire content of this letter in The Conversation. I consider this a matter of editorial fairness and good journalistic practice. 

Cordially, 

Isaac Nahón-Serfaty

Associate Professor

University of Ottawa

About Adolf Hitler being elected in Namibia: Should I be offended?

Herero chained during the rebellion against 

German colonial power in 1904

I don’t know. Some friends told me, “no.” Why be offended? Adolf Hitler won a local election in Namibia. Actually, his full name is Adolf Hitler Uunona. He was elected as a councillor for the Ompundja constituency. But why I should not be offended? In this era of generalized “offensiveness”, there is always a good reason to be offended (and also, to apologize when someone claims that you offended her/him). 

Adolf Hitler Uunona told to the German newspaper Bild that he has no intention of dominating the world (what a relief!). Mr. A.H. Uunona thinks that his father was not aware of Hitler’s ideas and deeds when decided to name his son after the founder of the Nazi regime. He also explained that he grew up in total innocence about the implications of having that name. "It wasn't until I was growing up that I realised: This man wanted to subjugate the whole world," said Mr. A.H. Uunona. 

He won his seat in the local council with 85% of the votes. He ran under the banner of the Swapo party, the one that led the independence of the country from South Africa and fought colonial and white-minority rule. It could be said that the party of Mr. A.H. Uunona is anti-racist. 

A BBC report reminds us that Namibia was a German colony between 1884 and 1915 (as part of a territory called “German South West Africa”). The German Empire killed thousands during the revolt of aboriginal Nama, Herero and San people, of what has been called “the forgotten genocide.” Namibia refused 10 million euros offered by Germany for reparations. The Namibian government continues to negotiate for a “revised offer.”

With such a sombre past marked by massive killings and racism, one could expect more sensibility from the part of Mr. A. H. Uunona. For example, he could have dropped the “Hitler” particle of his first name. Maybe his father didn’t know, but Mr. A.H. Uunona has no excuse. He should know about Hitler’s responsibility in the persecution and killing of millions of human beings, the biggest genocide in human history. 

What about of those who voted for Mr. A.H. Uunona? Maybe they are too young to know, or maybe they don’t give a damn, or maybe they have other priorities in their lives that caring about Hitler’s nefarious record. But Mr. A.H. Uunona could have used his name as a “pedagogical opportunity” to educate Namibians about the relatively recent criminal past of Nazi Germany, its allies and accomplices. To be named Adolf Hitler in an educational context is not the same as to use that name in a rally of a neo-Nazi party. No?

Mr. A.H. Uunona prefers to keep his name in full. His wife called him just Adolf. 

Should I be offended? No. Stupidity is equally distributed among the racist and among those who claim to be anti-racist.