The world has plunged into a period of brutality, with impunity for the perpetrators of violence. Syria is suffering untold civilian casualties as a divided UN Security Council sits on the sidelines. Gaza’s pain continues with little more than handwringing by those who might stop it. Iraq is in flames, with no end in sight. Atrocities are mounting in South Sudan and the Central African Republic, which are also being swept by an epidemic of sexual violence. Even Europe is not immune: A civilian aircraft was shot down over a conflict zone in eastern Ukraine and officials were prevented from investigating.
Twenty-five years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and more than a decade after the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC), shockingly little is being done to stop these abuses and the prospects of the victims ever getting justice, let alone bringing the perpetrators to account, seem ever more remote.
For many years, the world seemed to be progressing toward greater recognition of human rights and demands for justice. As democracies emerged in Latin America and Central and Eastern Europe in the 1980s and 1990s, these issues assumed increasing importance. Although wars, conflicts and atrocities continued, the global powers tried and occasionally managed — albeit chaotically and usually late — to stop the killing.
Moreover, the international community created frameworks for justice to deal with the consequences of violence, a move that was scarcely imaginable during the Cold War. New UN-backed international and hybrid tribunals were created to bring to account perpetrators of atrocities in the Balkans, Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Cambodia. The ICC, with jurisdiction over atrocities committed in 122 member states, was established to try cases referred to it by state parties or the UN Security Council (even though three permanent members — the US, Russia and China — have not ratified or acceded to the Rome Statute, which places parties under ICC jurisdiction).
In addition, many governments, with UN support, created mechanisms for transitional justice at home, including more than 40 “truth commissions” (such as in Argentina, El Salvador, East Timor, Morocco and South Africa), reparation programs and prosecutions. None of these efforts have been perfect, but they have given victims a voice and recognized their suffering, while signaling to culprits that their crimes will not be forgotten. Such measures have also deeply affected, and in some cases transformed, public discourse for the better.
However, today the international community appears to be backsliding on its human rights commitments. The world’s emerging powers lack any sense of urgency in addressing abuses, preferring the pursuit of narrower, short-term interests to investing in long-term peace and justice.
Without robust support from the international community, the institutions of justice are coming under pressure — and losing their momentum. Several countries have attacked the ICC; African Union members want heads of state to be immune from prosecution, thus undermining a fundamental principle of the court.
To be sure, many states undergoing political transition are doggedly pursuing some form of justice. For example, justice and human rights are at the heart of the historic peace talks in Colombia. Despite the collapse of the Arab Spring, Tunisia is pressing ahead with reforms, including the creation of a Truth and Dignity Commission.
However, these societies may find it difficult to address adequately their troubled pasts without the support of international institutions.
Elsewhere, the fight for human rights might become virtually impossible. Indeed, it will be hard enough to defend the human rights gains made since the end of the Cold War, let alone expand them.
Fortunately, governments’ growing reticence about progress on human rights — if not outright obstruction — will not stop civil-society groups from continuing their fight for justice. Groups like Argentina’s Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo and the Mothers of Srebrenica have always bravely led the way; they will, no doubt, continue to do so.
However, the absence from this process of key governments, especially the emerging powers, threatens to end the world’s all-too-brief era of accountability.
It is time for the international community to redouble its resolve, regain its sense of purpose, and reaffirm, in both word and deed, its commitment to human rights and a more just world.
David Tolbert is president of the International Center for Transitional Justice.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Burger King Taiwan on Wednesday last week posted an update on Facebook advertising a new “Wuhan pneumonia” (武漢肺炎) home delivery meal, catering to customers hankering for a Whopper, but who wished to avoid visiting one of its outlets. “Wuhan pneumonia” is the term commonly used in Taiwan to describe COVID-19. Beijing has been waging an extensive propaganda campaign against the use of the words “Wuhan” or “China” in reference to the novel coronavirus, calling it racist and discriminatory. Meanwhile, Chinese officials have claimed that the coronavirus might have originated in the US. The intention is obvious: to distract attention from the Chinese Communist
Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force Shaanxi KJ-500 airborne early-warning aircraft and Shenyang J-11 fighters on March 16 conducted a nighttime exercise in the waters southwest of Taiwan and, in doing so, came close to the nation’s air defense identification zone. Three days later, the PLA Navy’s fleet for Gulf of Aden escort mission sailed north in the Pacific off Taiwan’s east coast via the Miyako Strait on its way home. Meanwhile, the US carried out freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea and assembled the USS Theodore Roosevelt carrier strike group with the Expeditionary Strike Group to conduct
Having returned to the UK late last year and with a Taiwanese spouse remaining in Taiwan, I have been afforded the chance to compare and contrast the UK and Taiwanese governments’ responses to the COVID-19 crisis. My early conclusions are that Taiwan benefits from a rational, competent government, which quickly recognizes, adapts to and confronts large-scale disasters. It is led by a government that does more than just talk of respecting democracy and human rights, one that is scrutinized and responds to criticism, one that is concerned about public opinion, and one that is used to dealing with emergencies on
Italy, Spain, France, the UK and the US are all depending on social distancing to fight COVID-19 and have fallen into terrible situations, with mounting positive cases and many deaths. Social distancing might flatten the curve, so that the peak is not so high that hospitals are overwhelmed with patients, the problem is that the pandemic could extend further into the future, hurt the economy more and become unbearable for society. Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and Singapore have controlled the spread of COVID-19, and the main reason is that most Asians wear masks. It can be illustrated as follows: If someone contracts the