Since Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte took office in late June and declared a “war on drugs,” more than 1,900 people have been killed — 756 by police officers and another 1,160 by “vigilantes,” according to police reports as of Aug. 24. Duterte is celebrating the killings and has vowed to continue his anti-drug program as long as he remains president.
The Philippine law enforcement agencies prosecuting the drug war have thrown out the rulebook and ignored fundamental requirements such as collecting evidence, adhering to due process, or even holding trials.
Philippine Police Chief Ronald dela Rosa has even blamed the victims for their own deaths, claiming: “If they did not fight it out with the police, they would be alive.”
This explanation for the high body count defies belief. In scenarios where individuals are shot while resisting arrest, the number of people who are wounded should — as in military conflicts — far exceed the number of people who are killed. If almost everyone who is shot by police or soldiers dies, this suggests that the shooters are executing people they already have in custody.
Moreover, if culprits were fighting the police, one would expect to see a sharp rise in the number of police officers who are wounded or killed. Yet the police have not reported any increase in officer casualties.
It is not surprising that Duterte is encouraging these killings. Previously, as the long-time mayor of Davao City on the southern Philippine island of Mindanao, he carried out a similar campaign of vigilante incitement and made clear that he would continue it nationally if elected president. That promise seems to have contributed to his electoral success, pointing to an unfortunate historical trend in Southeast Asian politics.
In 1983, former Indonesian president Suharto, who ruled the country with an iron fist from 1967 to 1998, presided over a series of mysterious deaths, known as the Petrus Killings for their Indonesian acronym. Over the course of two years, an estimated 3,000 to 10,000 alleged petty criminals — many of them supposedly drug users — were executed without trial. The reason for such a wide estimate is that Indonesia’s censors made reporting on human rights all but impossible at the time.
In 2003, then-Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra conducted his own war on drugs. About 2,800 people were arbitrarily killed and a subsequent official investigation found that more than half of them had no involvement with drugs.
Both Suharto and Thaksin were eventually overthrown, but not because they orchestrated the killings of suspected petty criminals and drug users. In fact, as with Duterte, inciting mass murder appears to have contributed to their popularity, at least for a while. One explanation for this commonality is that launching a public campaign against a powerless, unpopular group like drug users is an easy way for a leader to mask other shortcomings.
Duterte is riding high right now, but there are instruments available to hold him accountable, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), to which the Philippines became a party in 2011. Under the 2002 Rome Statute, which established the ICC, the court has jurisdiction to prosecute all crimes that Philippine law enforcement agencies are “unable” or “unwilling” to pursue themselves. Unless Philippine law enforcement officials preempt the ICC by bringing a good-faith prosecution against Duterte in Philippine courts, the ICC can take action.
The Rome Statute defines murder or persecution that is knowingly “committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against any civilian population” as a crime against humanity. The wide-scale extrajudicial killings carried out under Duterte’s “war on drugs” banner already meet that definition.
The Rome Statute also stipulates that “official capacity as a head of state or government ... shall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility under this statute.”
So, there is nothing stopping the prosecutor of the ICC from launching an investigation against Duterte — and against police officials and vigilante leaders who have collaborated with him in conducting the killings. Doing so would send a message that the world is watching and demanding justice. If Duterte and his coterie sense that they can act with impunity, the killings will only escalate.
One prominent Philippine political figure, Leila de Lima, a senator and former minister of justice, is already calling on the ICC to take action. Everyone around the world who is committed to due process and human rights should take up her plea. The fact that a popular head of state is trampling the rule of law in the Philippines makes a fast, decisive response all the more necessary.
Aryeh Neier is president emeritus of the Open Society Foundations and a founder of Human Rights Watch.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
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