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.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US