But it would seem that for more than 20 years, Joseph Kony and his army have ignored those same commandments in the execution of a war that has been dubbed Africa's forgotten conflict. Hidden from world media attention, the conflict has claimed thousands of lives and displaced hundreds of thousands.
A signature tactic of the LRA is to raid isolated villages in northern Uganda and - after an orgy of mass rape, arson and killing - head back to the bush with their booty of livestock, child soldiers and child sex slaves. It was for precisely similar atrocities that Charles Taylor was hauled before the ICC.
In the decades-old war, the LRA has never gained any political support in Uganda or elsewhere, or captured a minor town. They must know that they lack political legitimacy or the military wherewithal to succeed in their stated objective. This fact has led many observers, therefore, to conclude that the LRA's bizarre political objectives are a smokescreen for sheer anarchistic terrorism.
But having said that, it is also true that the Ugandan army has been unable to defeat the rebels, and after much pressure, the Museveni government and the rebels have begun tentative peace talks. It is against this background that many African leaders have expressed uneasiness over the ICC's indictment of Kony. Their argument is that the ICC's move is a disincentive for Kony to make peace. The rebel leader, with the knowledge of Charles Taylor's predicament on his mind, might well decide that the bush is a much safer place.
And therein lies a classical moral dilemma. Should you cast aside human rights laws in order to achieve peace? Yes, say many. They point to the many instances where peace talks based on clemency, rehabilitation and integration have led to the solution of seemingly intractable conflicts. In Africa, Angola and Mozambique are cited as cases in point. Would the Renamo fighters have laid down their arms while threatened by punitive justice? Would Unita have made peace with ICC indictments hanging over their heads like the proverbial sword of Damocles? The import of the rhetoric is obvious: Peace is the ultimate justice.
No way, others say. It is precisely because of this kind of expediency that conflicts of the most brutal kind exist. They argue that the sense of impunity encourages people to demand concessions from their opponents by threatening and, often, carrying out, the most heinous of crimes against civilians. Human lives and suffering become mere negotiating terms.
The case of Charles Taylor, it is pointed out, upholds the principle that even in war, individuals, including, and especially, leaders, will be held accountable for actions that violate national and international human rights laws. This knowledge of legal accountability acts as a deterrent against abuse of human rights.
So, should Joseph Kony, his history of atrocities notwithstanding, be given amnesty and- God forbid! - be incorporated in government in order to achieve peace? Or should organizations and governments execute the ICC warrant of arrest?
My view is that while peace is very desirable, and that in certain circumstances its benefits outweigh those of justice, we should be careful when making this trade off. Factors that should be considered are whether those accused of atrocities have justifiable political demands and whether those demands enjoy significant sympathy from those they claim to be fighting for.
Nihilistic terrorism is not a legitimate political cause. It is criminal behaviour. In WW11, the Allies did not offer the Nazis clemency, rehabilitation and integration into government; they demanded unconditional surrender and criminal culpability for their crimes.
The international community should make it clear that acts of terrorism against civilians cannot be negotiated away. Justice, not appeasement, is ultimately the way to prevent future abuses. Every resource available to the international community, therefore, should be utilized to bring to book war and human rights criminals.
Joseph Kony's place is not at the negotiating table or in government. He belongs next to Charles Taylor at the ICC.
