International criminal justice grinds slowly, but it can grind exceedingly small. Former Liberian president and warlord Charles Taylor was first indicted in 2003 for crimes against humanity, in a UN court over which I presided. Then, he strutted the world stage as a head of state. Ghana refused our request to arrest him when he visited and Nigeria gave him refuge for several years. There was a general expectation that he would escape trial, but the whirligig of time brings its changes and revenges: on Wednesday Taylor was sentenced to 50 years imprisonment, for aiding and abetting 11 kinds of war crimes and crimes against humanity — ranging from terrorism, rape and murder of civilians, to recruiting child soldiers and child sex slaves.
The power to punish heads of state for crimes against humanity is a recent discovery: Oliver Cromwell’s lawyers managed it with King Charles I, but their judges were in due course executed for treason. Napoleon we exiled instead to St Helena, and not even F.E. Smith and Lloyd George could persuade their allies at Versailles to try the Kaiser for invading Belgium.
LEGAL PRECEDENT
Nuremberg created a precedent, but it was not until Augusto Pinochet came to London in 1998 to take tea with Mrs Thatcher that the idea of ending the impunity of political and military leaders seemed possible. In those days it was bitterly controversial: the pope, Henry Kissinger, George H.W. Bush, and even Fidel Castro wrote to then-UK home affairs minister Jack Straw demanding that he be freed. However, today there are no such efforts on behalf of Taylor: International justice is here to stay.
That does not mean it should be welcomed uncritically, or that its principal defect should be overlooked — namely it does not in practice apply to the “big five” powers in the UN Security Council, or to their close friends (hence Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has thus far escaped indictment because Russia supports him). However, justice has its own momentum and this will selectivity will change. The importance of the Taylor decision, for example, is that it creates a precedent for prosecuting those who “aid and abet” by sending assistance to brutal factions in a civil war. Former US president Ronald Reagan’s conduct in arming the Nicaraguan Contras, if it occurred again, would be seen as comparable to the conduct for which Taylor was convicted.
Taylor supplied arms, ammunition and money to the rebels (and even the herbs that child soldiers were told to rub on their bodies to protect them from bullets) in return for a share of their spoils. What fixed him with criminal liability was that he provided this assistance at the time he knew, from reading newspapers, that the rebels were committing widespread and systematic atrocities. On this basis, any political or military leader who sends arms or ammunition to the brutal forces in Syria is guilty of aiding and abetting what is clearly a crime against humanity.
IMPROVEMENTS
The Taylor proceedings are far from over: both prosecution and defense are appealing. The prosecution in fact suffered some serious defeats: It failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Taylor was “godfather” (in league with deposed Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi) of the mass-murdering and mass-mutilating rebel factions, or even that he had joined in their blood-curdling conspiracy. However, according to the court, he knew and he approved and he assisted. Yet it remains open to question whether this is enough to convict him of aiding crimes which require “specific intent,” such as rape or terrorism, so his appeal may on these counts be upheld.
An example of how international justice still needs improvement is provided by the three-year duration of Taylor’s trial (seven months were taken up by his own testimony) and the unacceptable 13-month delay in delivering the judgment. Particularly jarring is the 50-year sentence, which consigns Taylor to prison until his 114th birthday. The US prosecutor, ludicrously, had demanded 80 years. It is a peculiarity of US criminal justice to sentence people to terms that expire long after they will: it is a custom both irrational and cruel which should have no place in international justice.
The UK has offered to house Taylor in its prisons, but not for a sentence of such unconscionable length. The appeal court is likely to reduce it. Taylor was, after all, acquitted of much more serious offenses; and for all the horror produced by his money and his munitions, punishment must always be kept in perspective. The real problem for international justice is the diplomats and politicians — in the UN Security Council — who refuse to send those who ordered the bayoneting of Syrian children in their homes to the International Criminal Court.
Geoffrey Robertson QC is author of Crimes Against Humanity.
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
Taiwan aims to elevate its strategic position in supply chains by becoming an artificial intelligence (AI) hub for Nvidia Corp, providing everything from advanced chips and components to servers, in an attempt to edge out its closest rival in the region, South Korea. Taiwan’s importance in the AI ecosystem was clearly reflected in three major announcements Nvidia made during this year’s Computex trade show in Taipei. First, the US company’s number of partners in Taiwan would surge to 122 this year, from 34 last year, according to a slide shown during CEO Jensen Huang’s (黃仁勳) keynote speech on Monday last week.
RSS