Belgian history 101: Belgian rule of African Congo

[ZultanofZex]

It is really a low-point in arguing when someone is using a 100 year old excuse for making a nation "uncapable" of a certian policy/act. That would make every single nation on this earth unable to act at all

 

[Drewcifer]

I think the issue of Belgium's past, and that of it's court's charging of Sharon are seperate.

No nation can be blamed for the sins of it's history. Those to blame are dead.

Originally posted by vonork
What's wrong with a national court charging anyone? If the court system is so, and they feel like they can prove it.

Does not mater to me if that person is of another nationality or has committed the crime in another country.

Israel is a democracy. It can elect whomever it wishes to be it's Prime Minister. That they elected Sharon (a man seen by many as an unindicted war criminal) is certainly controversial. However, the idea that a national court has jurisdiction over the world and can charge people like Sharon is imperialism through the back door. This is true whether it is Belgium, Britain, the US or anyone else. No nation's courts have jurisdiction over the whole human race. Belgian courts have no right to interfere with another countries' democracy.

I oppose all imperialism.

 

[Sh3kel]

The startling finding of the committee was that Belgium held no responsibility save for moral responsibility regarding Lumumba’s assassination, because no “premeditation from the Belgian part” was found. Amazing as this might be, the Belgian government only settled for establishing a small fund (3 million Euro by today’s standards) to honor Lumumba’s memory and issuing a formal apology by means of their Foreign Minister.

What is even more infuriating is that the Belgian committee found no reason to bring to criminal court the people involved in Lumumba’s murder that still live today.

I'm not blaiming Belgium for being a colonial empire which massacred millions, even though they did. I'm not blaming Belgium for exploiting untold numbers of slaves, even though they did. I am accusing Belgium of being hypocritical, self-righteous and down right wrong in their claim for unviersal jurisdiction. I would not trust the Belgian court with my life even if I were innocent, knowing they are fully capable of trialling the elected Prime Minister of a foreign nation but hoplessly gridlocked when it comes to trialling thier own butchers.

 

[jack merchant]

Originally posted by ZultanofZex
It is really a low-point in arguing when someone is using a 100 year old excuse for making a nation "uncapable" of a certian policy/act. That would make every single nation on this earth unable to act at all

Well, of course such an excuse should not be made lightly; What I meant was, for example, what happened in Chile, where the dictator Pinochet stepped down, made himself a senator for life, and had the armed forces, and probably the judiciary, stacked with his friends, thereby rendering himself nearly innvulnerable. And just imagine what would happen if some Zimbabwean court tried to indict Mugabe for failing to send the food aid coming in to Ndebeleland. Tantamount to genocide, but atm noone would dare, they'd be blown up before you can say "ZultanofZex". And do you really think the current Iraqi regime would allow some judge to try it for the murder tens of thousands of Kurds during the Anfal campaign of the late 1980s ?
Hope that clears it up.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Knight-Dragon
Every country and nation has dirt in its closet which it'd rather not acknowledge or broadcast. No nation is exceptional in this regard.

Since when had the Belgians had judicial jurisdiction over national leaders of other nations? Sorry, but I don't keep up with the news that often.

Yes, every country does; but some of those countries have acknowledged that and tried to remedy it, or situations have changed. In Sharon's case, he is still alive, still active, and alleged crimes still unadjudicated. If we followed the reasoning of your post, Canada should stop its lacklustre hunt for hidden nazi war criminals until cases against Israel are resolved, and needless to say, I think that's a non-starter.

I appreciate the argument you're making about "who judges who," Sh3ckel, but I don't think this argument helps. Better to say "look who might do the judging" if such decisions happen than "none of you can ever judge," which is the implication I see in your pitch here. Because if you start saying "every country has dirt, and for that reason none can judge," then how are we ever going to progress as a civilization (or set of them?)

R.III

 

[vonork]

Drewcifer:

So if someone commies murder in one country (and it's not illegal to do so in that counrty for some reason) then moves to another country. You feel that that country can not take a case against this person.

 

[duckofflanders]

Well it's a long time since i posted here ,but seeing this belgian-israeli deathmatch debate ,as seen multiple time's before on this forum ,i'm inclined to defend my side (or attack the other )

Ok it's not a total secret that belgium in it's history has not always done the most humane thing.The murder on lumumba and belgian's colonial past are ,with the exception of the dutroux crises , the greatest reason's that we are sometime's ashamed to be belgian's.

BUT:

Since this discussion is brought up due to some frustration among the isreali poster's around here who are fed up with belgian's alway's criticizing their gouverment ,i can only but to compare these atrocities with the one's israel did ,or it's leader's for that part.

Both the murder on Lumumba and the atrocities on the congolese people at the beginning of the belgian colonization (mass slavery ,with masses of death's among the poppulation) had it's certain orrigin's.
The murder on lumuba for once was more or less planned by the V.S.A ,and belgium had a lot of pressure on itself from the V.S to work out a sollution to get rid of Lumumba.Don't forget that lumumba had quite good ties with the soviet union ,and in cold war times the west was not going to risk Congo (with all it's abbundant recource's) to the sovjet's ,yet the V.S ,understandably ,didn't want official involvement in this situation ,thus belgium was ordered to do 'the job'.

The biggest attrocities in the congo were carried out under the reign of leopold II though ,a king that has a very bad name in Belgium ,a king at wich we are not proud on.He ruled Congo as apersonal possesion ,thus you cannot really push this responsibilety onto the belgian people or gouverment ,since Congo was a personal possesion of the king the responsebilety for all attrocities in the congo at the time of his rule should be considerd as his and only his responsibilety.

Note that i agree on the opinnion that about every country in the world has done some bad thing's over his history.In the context of present problem's much of those are not relevant anymore.The difference is that some of the attrocities of israel are very recent to this date and are very relevant to modern global problem's.

I won't say that the thing's Sharon does/has done in his political or millitary career over time is the full responsebilety of the Israeli people ,yet i dare to state that indeed this man is responsible of multiple atrocities ,and should be convicted for them.Furthermore is Sharon a key figure in the global conflict with terrorism ,his attrocities tend to have an inpact on the whole world.

Understand me correct.If leopold the second would be still alive the day of today i wouldnt have any problem with it if someone would pull him infront of a court and convict hime for his atrocoties if backed with enough evidence.We belgian's do not just target the israeli people ,no rather we try to raise our voice onto every bad dictator/leader/human rights abuser in this world ,even if our history isn't the all perfect example.Can you state that this mentallity is bad? Criticism is a pillar of democracy.

Yet there is one thing that i ,for philosophical reason's ,condem of the Jewwish people ,that's zionism. (not that all Israeli are zionists)
The very thought that an etnical group lay's claim's on a piece of territory with territorial demands of over 3000 year's old is one thing i seriously think is retarted ,especially if that etnic group has over all these years lived in diaspora all around the world.IMHO the jewwish people livving in diaspora all around in history should have assimilated into their respected country thousands of year's ago.In 3000 years hundred's of etnicities have assimilated into other's ,yet the jewish people have always been that "nationalistic" to retain their etnic profiel over all thouse thousands of years.
It's just my oppionion that after all those thousand's of year's livving in diaspora ,jews shoulda never go back to their promised land.One thing is for sure ,the middle east could have been way more stabilized by now if it wasn't for the jewwish livving as a seperate nation in that region.
More or less i see nationalism as one of the key element's that make world peace or unity's inpossible.For me ,the jewwish have proven ,by their zionism ,to be the most Nationalistic etnic group in the world.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by duckofflanders
Well it's a long time since i posted here

Hey! Welcome back. What happened to the other account?

 

[duckofflanders]

well i don't know the password of my previous account anymore. (and the e-mail adress on that profile was an hotmail account wich is deleted by now )

Thx for welcomming me back though.

 

[Sh3kel]

Originally posted by Richard III
Yes, every country does; but some of those countries have acknowledged that and tried to remedy it, or situations have changed. In Sharon's case, he is still alive, still active, and alleged crimes still unadjudicated. If we followed the reasoning of your post, Canada should stop its lacklustre hunt for hidden nazi war criminals until cases against Israel are resolved, and needless to say, I think that's a non-starter.

The problem is that Ariel Sharon has been tried (despite what Iceblaze will start screaming about) by a governamental committee (Kahan committee) which did find him morally responsible for his lack of action, not on account of his actions. As a matter of fact, Ariel Sharon cannot hold the position of Minister of Defense while he still lives.
The Kahan committee wasn't a tribunal, true, but while Ariel Sharon's lack of action is more than reprehensible, there was no malice intended in the fact he withheld IDF troops from directly engaging the Christian Lebanese as well as the fact he was condemened for being passive, not active. Ariel Sharon is being indicted with not preventing, a world's difference between committing the massacre.

While you will not find an Israeli with 2 grams of common sense that will understand Sharon's involvement in Sabra and Shatila is deplorable, he did not pull the trigger or order anyone else to pull the trigger. We will not defend him morally - there's nothing to defend, he's guilty there - but we will absolutely go forward towards his defense legally. The Kahan Comittee terminated his carreer for a long period of time, but found no reason to send him to a criminal court. Again, Ariel Sharon payed a heavy personal price in the form of a reputation damaged almost beyond repair and the disgrace of a public, not a legal trial.

I appreciate the argument you're making about "who judges who," Sh3ckel, but I don't think this argument helps. Better to say "look who might do the judging" if such decisions happen than "none of you can ever judge," which is the implication I see in your pitch here. Because if you start saying "every country has dirt, and for that reason none can judge," then how are we ever going to progress as a civilization (or set of them?)
R.III [/B]

I'm not saying no one can ever judge. I'm saying "judge not lest ye be judged yourself", and in this spirit I hope someone reads about Belgium's actions and decideds to sue them in their own courts in the name of the Congolese.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by duckofflanders
well i don't know the password of my previous account anymore. (and the e-mail adress on that profile was an hotmail account wich is deleted by now )

Thx for welcomming me back though.

Hey, welcome back. I suggest trying to reregister to hotmail under the same name you had before, and if it doesn't work try PMing thunderfall.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by vonork
So if someone commies murder in one country (and it's not illegal to do so in that counrty for some reason) then moves to another country. You feel that that country can not take a case against this person.

If a country allows murders something should be done about the country. But it's completely irrational coutnries will apply their justice systems on other countries. What's the point in having a parlament when your nehibours parlament will already determine which rules should be applied? And how would you feel if you'll make a crime, then have to be in jail in 10 different countries because each of them wants to have it's own justice done?

 

[vonork]

I would not travel to those countries. That simple.

If you commit an action outside Sweden and come back here even if the action was not considered a crime in that country you'll get prosecuted. This has been taken up regarding murder(I belive) and circumcision on women. None regarding if both of those involved are not Swedish.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by vonork
I would not travel to those countries. That simple.

If you commit an action outside Sweden and come back here even if the action was not considered a crime in that country you'll get prosecuted. This has been taken up regarding murder(I belive) and circumcision on women. None regarding if both of those involved are not Swedish.

Sharon didn't travel to Belgium. And what the Swedish goverment is doing is quite illigal. Swedish law can be applied on people in Sweden and on Swedish citizens. It cannot apply those who aren't Swedish while they're not in Sweden. Also, any democracy has a law that forces the goverment to publishize the law in a way the public can see it. It's likely Sweden has sucha law as well, and in that case members of every Swedish goverment since such acts were allowed should be arrested.

 

[jack merchant]

Actually, laws with 'extraterritorial'status have been around since at least the 17th century, when England decided to regulate international shipping through the Navigation Act, Among others, this caused three wars with the (Dutch) Republic of the Seven United Provinces. A more recent example is the American Helms-Burton law relating to businesses trading with Cuba, Libya and Iran . This law applies to non-Americans as well, and has had Europeans screaming bloody murder at it since its passage.
Still, this is another matter than laws relating to human rights violations and genocide. I still fail to see why these should only be prosecuted in the country where they happened.

 

[vonork]

on people in Sweden and on Swedish citizens

Well, that's the point - so people that live (or are citizen of swede) don't travel abrode to do something like circumcision on women. If they do that they'll get prosecutet.

You think that is wrong?

 

[Sh3kel]

Still, this is another matter than laws relating to human rights violations and genocide. I still fail to see why these should only be prosecuted in the country where they happened.

Because the country "responsible" already tried the "guilty" and found no reason to go to a criminal court. Just because a trial doesnt' come up the way you wanted it, it doesn't mean it's any less of a trial.

 

[jack merchant]

Originally posted by Sh3kel

Because the country "responsible" already tried the "guilty" and found no reason to go to a criminal court. Just because a trial doesnt' come up the way you wanted it, it doesn't mean it's any less of a trial.

I was making a general point, not referring to the Sharon case. There has been no trial in the instances I mentioned. Also, you stated yourself that Sharon had been 'tried' by a governmental committee, not by a court of law. I must assume that the legal status, and the sentencing capability, is different.
I'm sure Saddam Hussein will appreciate your position though.

 

[philippe]

DOF is back!!!!!Party!!!!!

 

[Sh3kel]

Originally posted by jack merchant


I was making a general point, not referring to the Sharon case. There has been no trial in the instances I mentioned. Also, you stated yourself that Sharon had been 'tried' by a governmental committee, not by a court of law. I must assume that the legal status, and the sentencing capability, is different.
I'm sure Saddam Hussein will appreciate your position though.

I resent the comparison, but will address your claims regardless.
A governamental committee, while not officially being part of the judicial system, is to all means and purposes a court of law. A court-marshall is no less judicial than a civilian court of law, and neither is a governamental committee which is established to investigate the responsible for act X or Y but finds no reason to submit person X or Y to criminal court while at the same time removing said person from his or her position. Ariel Sharon has been tried to all means and purposes, and as such there is truly no point in pursuing the matter further.