Former Yugoslavian president Slobodan Milosevic cheated justice, and by doing so demonstrated the futility of attempting to deal with war crimes and crimes against humanity through international prosecutions. That, at least, is the conclusion that some people have reached after Milosevic's death in a Hague prison: The fact that he was able to drag out his trial for four years and still escape a verdict is considered proof that the international community is wasting its resources by putting such people on trial for their misdeeds.
Even the most dedicated partisans of international justice concede that the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) has had many shortcomings. All those associated with it were new to such proceedings, and had to learn on the job, as there had been no such bodies since the courts at Nuremberg and Tokyo after World War II.
Moreover, the post-war bodies were tribunals in which the war's victors judged the losers, and those prosecuted were already in custody. The ICTY, by contrast, has no capacity of its own to arrest defendants. It must rely on persuasion to secure cooperation by others -- cooperation that is still being withheld in the case of the two most notorious defendants from the Bosnian War, former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic and his army chief Ratko Mladic.
Until Tony Blair and Robin Cook became, respectively, Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom in 1997, four years after the ICTY was established, NATO troops in Bosnia failed to arrest indicted suspects even when they ran into them. By now, of course, 133 defendants from all parties to the wars in the former Yugoslavia have appeared before the tribunal, charged with war crimes, crimes against humanity and even genocide.
These are highly complex cases, frequently involving not only novel issues under international law, but also thousands of witnesses -- often traumatized by their suffering -- dispersed to many lands, the constant need for high-quality simultaneous translations and disruptive tactics by some defendants. Yet the proceedings against 85 of them, including appeals, have been completed.
In trying them, the ICTY has been a model of fairness at all times. The mountains of evidence in its records make the horrendous crimes committed in the wars in the former Yugoslavia comparable in the extent of their documentation to those by the Nazis. Inevitable efforts by demagogues to revise the history of what took place in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s will be complicated by the availability of that evidence, including the facts compiled during the Milosevic trial.
Far from being a failure, the ICTY has inspired the establishment of several other such courts, including those for Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Cambodia and the permanent International Criminal Court. Even heads of state have not escaped these bodies.
Milosevic, the former president of Yugoslavia, and then Serbia, died in prison. Biljana Plavsic, the president of the Bosnian Serb Republic after Karadzic, expressed remorse for her crimes, pled guilty and is serving a prison sentence. Jean Kambanda, the former prime minister of Rwanda, pled guilty to crimes against humanity and genocide and is serving a life sentence in prison.
We are thus slowly reaching the point where some of those contemplating crimes such as those committed by Milosevic must recognize that one day they could be held accountable. Charles Taylor was president of Liberia when the tribunal for Sierra Leone indicted him. He had to flee his country, paving the way for the democratic transition that resulted in the recent election of Ellen Johnson Sirleaf. Taylor still faces the prospect of trial and, another former dictator, Saddam Hussein, is now on trial before a national court in Iraq.
Persisting on the path of international justice will continue to require substantial resources. Great as they are, the costs are trivial in comparison to the expense of humanitarian aid, international military intervention and reconstruction assistance. Most important, of course, is the need to prevent the suffering caused by the crimes that lead to international prosecutions; and when those crimes cannot be prevented, we must provide some comfort and redress to the victims and their families by doing justice.
Of course, the slow, tortuous process of international justice is often frustrating to the victims. But it would be worse if those responsible for great crimes got away with it, as happened all too often in the past. In the wake of Milosevic's death, Karadzic and Mladic should be brought before the ICTY, both to reinforce its work and to demonstrate to their victims that the international community is resolved not to allow their suffering to be forgotten. The ICTY's mission is as valid and as vital as ever: to show that the era of impunity for some of humanity's worst crimes is coming to an end.
Aryeh Neier is the president of the Open Society Institute and a founder of Human Rights Watch. Copyright: Project Syndicate
From the Iran war and nuclear weapons to tariffs and artificial intelligence, the agenda for this week’s Beijing summit between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is packed. Xi would almost certainly bring up Taiwan, if only to demonstrate his inflexibility on the matter. However, no one needs to meet with Xi face-to-face to understand his stance. A visit to the National Museum of China in Beijing — in particular, the “Road to Rejuvenation” exhibition, which chronicles the rise and rule of the Chinese Communist Party — might be even more revealing. Xi took the members
Taiwan’s higher education system is facing an existential crisis. As the demographic drop-off continues to empty classrooms, universities across the island are locked in a desperate battle for survival, international student recruitment and crucial Ministry of Education funding. To win this battle, institutions have turned to what seems like an objective measure of quality: global university rankings. Unfortunately, this chase is a costly illusion, and taxpayers are footing the bill. In the past few years, the goalposts have shifted from pure research output to “sustainability” and “societal impact,” largely driven by commercial metrics such as the UK-based Times Higher Education (THE) Impact
The inter-Korean relationship, long defined by national division, offers the clearest mirror within East Asia for cross-strait relations. Yet even there, reunification language is breaking down. The South Korean government disclosed on Wednesday last week that North Korea’s constitutional revision in March had deleted references to reunification and added a territorial clause defining its border with South Korea. South Korea is also seriously debating whether national reunification with North Korea is still necessary. On April 27, South Korean President Lee Jae-myung marked the eighth anniversary of the Panmunjom Declaration, the 2018 inter-Korean agreement in which the two Koreas pledged to
I wrote this before US President Donald Trump embarked on his uneventful state visit to China on Thursday. So, I shall confine my observations to the joint US-Philippine military exercise of April 20 through May 8, known collectively as “Balikatan 2026.” This year’s Balikatan was notable for its “firsts.” First, it was conducted primarily with Taiwan in mind, not the Philippines or even the South China Sea. It also showed that in the Pacific, America’s alliance network is still robust. Allies are enthusiastic about America’s renewed leadership in the region. Nine decades ago, in 1936, America had neither military strength
RSS