The trial of Slobodan Milosevic in the Hague is in trouble, a worrying augury when former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein awaits further days in court.
The problem is not Milosevic's failing health. His trial has dragged on for two years and the prosecution has only now completed its case. He has been presented with 400,000 pages of evidence. One observer noted that, if the former Serbian leader read three pages a minute, 12 hours a day, seven days a week, it would take him more than six months to ingest the evidence. This would floor a well man.
Even if counsel is foisted on Milosevic, his lawyer will have to digest the mass of material.
ILLUSTRATION: LOUISE TING
Then there are the witnesses Milosevic intends to call: French President Jacques Chirac, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and former US president Bill Clinton. Milosevic doubtless wants to accuse the Western leaders of war crimes by sanctioning the bombing of Belgrade. He will point to international bullies, such as China, who have escaped their attention, and claim the tribunal represents "victors' justice." The potential embarrassment is unlimited.
This should come as no surprise. The trial of the Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem in 1961-2 is widely regarded as a crucial step along the path that leads to Milosevic and Saddam facing justice today. The prosecution of the man who organized the annihilation of Europe's Jews is celebrated for advancing the application of international law covering crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide. The Eichmann trial is also credited with raising public awareness of the Nazi persecution and mass murder of Jews. It is seen as a classic "historic trial."
Eichmann example
But scrutiny of the Eichmann trial, and the Nuremberg tribunal of 1945-46 on which it drew precedent, helps to explain why the Milosevic trial has run into trouble. It should also serve as a warning, rather than an inspiration, to those now contemplating the trial of Saddam.
As head of the Jewish Office of the Gestapo between 1941 and 1944, Eichmann oversaw the deportation of millions of Jews to death camps. He escaped to Argentina and remained undetected until 1957. In May 1960, the Israeli secret service kidnapped Eichmann in violation of Argentine sovereignty.
It is a myth that former Israeli prime minister David Ben Gurion wanted a trial to tell the world of the genocide of the Jews. But when the abduction was denounced at the UN, and prominent Jews demanded Eichmann appear before an international tribunal, Ben Gurion saw how a trial could demonstrate the rationale for Jewish statehood.
Eichmann would be tried in Jerusalem precisely to show that the Jews now determined their own fate -- and that of any enemy who fell into their hands.
Initially, preparation of the Eichmann case was handled by the Israeli police. They sought documents and witnesses that linked him directly to the genocide. This resulted in a case confined to geographical areas where there was a paper trail incriminating Eichmann.
But when the newly-appointed attorney general of Israel, Gideon Hausner, took over the prosecution he revamped the case. He wanted the trial to recall the genocidal campaign against Europe's Jews.
Hausner, under intense political pressure, doubled the number of witnesses to provide this scope and give the hearings an emotional edge. Ben Gurion intervened to ensure that his role in unsuccessful and controversial rescue negotiations with the Nazis was never mentioned. Former foreign minister Golda Meir wanted comparisons made with the fate of black Africans under colonialism.
Teddy Kollek, the director of Ben Gurion's office, set out to produce the media trial of the century, converting a theater into a courtroom and arranging for proceedings to be televised. Facilities were provided for 450 journalists.
The trial opened in a blaze of publicity but within days the press had gone. In terms of its immediate impact the Eichmann trial, like Nuremberg, was a flop. Those despairing of the minimal coverage of the Milosevic trial should have heeded these examples.
Long and dull
Historic trials are by their nature long and dull. They are self-defeating because the media cannot sustain interest in them. The journalist Rebecca West described Nuremberg as "boredom on a huge, historic scale." Telford Taylor, a prosecutor at Nuremberg who later covered Eichmann's trial, complained that journalists had not come to Jerusalem "to be bored to tears by long lectures and legal argument."
They can also be counterproductive, thanks to the antics of the defendants. At Nuremberg, Rudolf Hess, once deputy fuehrer, seemed a harmless lunatic. Goring, by contrast, tore into his accuser, Justice Jackson. Eichmann looked so inoffensive that Simon Wiesenthal suggested he be dressed in SS uniform to remind people of what he once was. The sight of Saddam in chains has aroused conflicting emotions, even among Iraqis glad of their freedom.
Some legal theorists argue that trials can have a cathartic effect, offering comfort to victims and helping a society move on from tyranny and atrocity. But this is not always how it seems.
Legal procedure means that the narrative is chopped and disjointed. At Nuremberg, information about the destruction of the European Jews got lost among other evidence. The survivors who testified against Eichmann were coached as to what they could say.
Trials can backfire. The first tactic of the defense is always to impugn the court's legitimacy. At Nuremberg, Goring pointed out that Russia, represented on the bench, had invaded Poland in 1939 and waged war against Finland in 1940. Robert Servatius, who defended Nazis at Nuremberg prior to acting for Eichmann, was quick to denounce "victors' justice." Milosevic intends to call the French, British and American leaders, almost certainly in the hope of questioning them over their alleged war crimes.
The Nuremberg tribunal, the Eichmann trial, and the prosecution of Milosevic demonstrate the same flaws. They were political and shaped by compromise. After initial publicity, media interest was ground down. Testimony given by survivors was hardly reported and the invisibility of the proceedings deprived the victims of satisfaction that justice was being seen to be done.
But the alternative, such as the kangaroo court that condemned former Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu, is worse. These prolonged trials may be imperfect but they can reinforce democratic values by reasserting human rights and the rule of law over tyranny. They may not deliver instant understanding or reconciliation, but in the long run they establish a historical record that serves the future as testimony and admonition.
David Cesarani is research professor of history at Royal Holloway, London University.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with