Justice will be a long time coming in Syria, but it can begin with a UN Security Council referral of the situation in that wounded country to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for investigation and, ultimately, prosecution. The obstacles are serious, but the goal is imperative.
Last week, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay and French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe; called for such a referral to the ICC during a session of the UN Human Rights Council that sharply attacked the Syrian regime for its deadly assaults on civilians in Homs and elsewhere in Syria.
A report by UN legal experts found that crimes against humanity are being committed by Syrian forces against civilians under the leadership of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton warned of the prospect of war-crimes charges against al-Assad. Tunisia, seeking to induce al-Assad to leave, offered him asylum.
The challenges erupting daily across Syria extend far beyond the criminal conduct of its leaders. The international community’s most important task is to force an end to the bombardments and killings, and to provide humanitarian relief to the country’s besieged civilian populations. If ever there was a case for preventing atrocities and activating the UN’s “responsibility to protect,” Syria provides it.
However, further political pressure, economic sanctions and humanitarian action through a tough UN Security Council resolution still seem remote, given resistance by Russia and China — both of which are permanent council members and closely allied to the al-Assad regime.
An initiative in New York to craft a Security Council resolution that only refers the Syrian situation to the ICC would not be enough to save many lives, but it might be a plausible first step at a time when few other options are available.
Because Syria is not a party to the ICC, the only way to give the tribunal jurisdiction is through the Security Council’s use of its enforcement authority to refer the situation of atrocity crimes in Syria, including crimes against humanity and war crimes, to the court. The al-Assad regime’s conduct would be investigated automatically, even without the consent of Damascus.
Last year, the Security Council unanimously voted to refer the Libyan situation to the ICC for investigation, several weeks before it adopted a second resolution creating the NATO no-fly zone over Libya. Russia and China abstained from the vote on that resolution, and now angrily resent its adoption, because it resulted in regime change rather than just humanitarian protection of Libyan civilians.
However, the council’s earlier referral of Libya to the ICC was an entirely different initiative, and Russia and China supported it.
Impunity for atrocity crimes has been radically diminished during the last 20 years with the rise of international criminal tribunals for the Balkans, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Cambodia and the permanent court in The Hague. Such major political and military leaders as Slobodan Milosevic, Radovan Karadzic, Ratko Mladic, Charles Taylor, Jean Kambanda, Muammar Qaddafi, Omar al-Bashir, Jean-Pierre Bemba and others have been indicted — and many of them prosecuted — during this period. While some tyrants will escape justice in coming years, al-Assad surely must appreciate that his own impunity is in doubt.
How should a Security Council referral of Syria to the ICC be framed in order to attract Russian and Chinese support (or at least abstention)? A “clean” referral like the one used last year to bring the Libyan situation before the court might not work this time. The Security Council has the power to tailor the referral and to limit to some extent the court’s jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute. Mollifying Russia and China might require providing some escape hatch, which al-Assad and regime officials could use before the full weight of the court’s jurisdiction comes thundering down on them.
If, for example, the Security Council gave al-Assad and his colleagues one week to quit power and leave the country for asylum in, say, Tunisia (or perhaps Russia), the council would explicitly omit their names from its referral of the Syrian situation to the court. Such officials would have to demonstrate indefinitely their complete withdrawal from political and military power in Syria in order to qualify for continued omission from the court’s jurisdiction.
Russia and China cannot be perpetually blind to the discredit accruing from supporting a regime bent on destroying sectors of its own population. Rebel leaders found responsible for atrocity crimes also would have to fall within the jurisdiction of the court to conduct fair and comprehensive investigations of all egregious criminal actions against civilians and even soldiers.
This may strike some as an abdication to impunity, but Russia and China must be given some incentive to turn the wheels of justice in Syria. A referral to the ICC framed in this way might serve that purpose, as well as help to achieve some humanitarian objectives. In the future, Syrian courts operating under new leadership could indict and seek the extradition of al-Assad and others to face judgement at home.
David Scheffer is a professor of law at Northwestern University and former US ambassador-at-large for war crimes issues.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under