The War Crimes Tribunal for ex-Yugoslavia that is preparing its case against former president Slobodan Milosevic is sitting on a time bomb, concocted by Milo-sevic himself.
He has made it plain that he is going to conduct his defense on a political level -- not by hiring a team of smart lawyers to challenge witnesses' veracity over accounts that he ordered or sanctioned mass murder, rape and torture, but by mounting a solo political defense that will seek to turn the tables on his Western prosecutors. He will accuse them of bombing his country in defiance of the Charter of the UN. It is they, he will say, who need to defend themselves against legitimate charges of breaking international law. They bombed a sovereign foreign country without the approval of the Security Council, the supreme organ of the UN.
It is going to be a difficult trial and the prosecutors will have to hope that the bench of judges, despite having a strong non-Western component, will rule such a defense out of order. If they don't the proceedings could well end up as a trial within a trial, an outcome that should have been foreseen when the West chose to bomb Belgrade without a UN mandate. The great danger with bending the rules of the UN is that they don't always spring back to shape like a rubber band when next you need them.
But something positive will come out of this confrontation, if it forces a debate in the West about the relationship between invasion and bombardment and the cause of human rights
There is a powerful school of thought, marked out by such diverse personalities as David Holbrooke, Clinton's ambassador to the UN, the Canadian writer Michael Ignatieff and the Oxford don, Timothy Garton Ash, that argues that massive human rights abuses strengthen the presumption in favour of military intervention. But war is war, even if it is launched in a "good" cause and human rights is too often the loser, however stringent the control exercised by democratically elected politicians of their fighting machine. Indeed, if the preservation of human rights is really the first and paramount purpose of policy, the whole approach to the kind of political impasses that lead to war becomes very different. Simply put, one avoids the recourse to war and leaders are compelled to search for alternative ways of dealing with the situation.
Human rights crises can and should be prevented. They are never inevitable. As Pierre Sane, the remarkable Secretary-General of Amnesty International, has expressed it, "If government decisions to intervene are motivated by the quest for justice, why do they allow situations to deteriorate to such unspeakable injustice?"
The NATO governments which bombed Belgrade are the same governments that were willing to wheel and deal with Milosevic's government during the break-up of the original Yugoslavia and were unwilling to address repeated warnings about the growing human rights crisis in Kosovo. Six years before the bombing, Amnesty was arguing in public: "If action is not taken soon to break the cycle of unchecked abuses and escalating tensions in Kosovo, the world may find itself again staring impotently at a new conflagration."
A similar argument can be made for the West's other great preoccupation during the 1990s -- the dictatorial regime of Saddam Hussein, defeated and driven back after an attempted invasion of neighboring Kuwait. (President George Bush Senior did seek and win the approval of a UN Security Council vote for this action.) It was Amnesty which called for international pressure on Iraq in the mid 1980s, especially after the 1988 chemical weapons attacks by Saddam Hussein's troops on the town of Halabja, which killed an estimated 5,000, unarmed Kurdish civilians. Amnesty also drew attention at this time to Saddam's notorious conduct towards his political enemies, incarcerating and torturing their children.
Yet Western governments were then foursquare behind Iraq as it fought a World War II type of conflict of attrition with its neighbor Iran, which the US could not forgive either for its fundamentalist stridency or for taking hostage the diplomats of the US embassy a few years earlier. The West simply turned a blind eye to Saddam's human rights violations, while it sold him increasingly sophisticated weapons of war.
Prevention work may be less newsworthy and more difficult to justify to the public than intervention in a time of crisis, argues Sane. "It requires the sustained investment of significant resources without the emotive media images of hardship and suffering". It's the hard day-to-day slog of human rights vigilance -- using diplomatic means to persuade governments to ratify human rights treaties and implement them at home. It means ensuring there is no impunity and that every time someone's rights are violated, the incident is investigated and those responsible brought to justice. Not least, it means the speeding up of the establishment of the International Criminal Court, meant to take over from the Yugoslavia War Crimes Court and to have universal jurisdiction, wherever there are crimes against humanity.
If the West had thought a little more about prevention in the early days of the Yugoslavian conflict, much of the subsequent horror could have been avoided. Now with Milosevic's trial in the offing the West stands of danger of being hoisted on its own petard. It will be good for it.
Jonathan Power is a freelance columnist based in London.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers
Gogoro Inc was once a rising star and a would-be unicorn in the years prior to its debut on the NASDAQ in 2022, as its environmentally friendly technology and stylish design attracted local young people. The electric scooter and battery swapping services provider is bracing for a major personnel shakeup following the abrupt resignation on Friday of founding chairman Horace Luke (陸學森) as chief executive officer. Luke’s departure indicates that Gogoro is sinking into the trough of unicorn disillusionment, with the company grappling with poor financial performance amid a slowdown in demand at home and setbacks in overseas expansions. About 95