The death of Slobodan Milosevic, referred to as either “the Butcher of the Balkans” or a nationalist Serbian hero depending on one’s perspective, has become a hot potato. Global headlines scream he cheated justice. Serbs squabble over his final resting place. Some want a state funeral. Others would like his body shipped to Moscow or anywhere that will have him. Members of his family maintain he was poisoned and blame the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia for his death.
Conspiracy theorists point to a letter the former Yugoslav leader wrote just 24 hours prior to his demise addressed to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, saying he was being deliberately prescribed drugs for leprosy. They also allude to the timing of his death pointing out that the former US President Bill Clinton was shortly due to be called to give evidence.
Journalist and publicist Max Hastings adds condiments to the controversial stew in a column published in yesterday’s Guardian newspaper. “Yet proving Milosevic’s direct involvement, finding his fingerprints on a smoking gun, turned out to be harder than prosecutors at The Hague anticipated. Most of the worst atrocities were carried out by Bosnian Serbs or Serbs in Kosovo. Documentary evidence of a direct link between Milosevic and the killers was sparse or nonexistent.”
Hastings offers an alternative view to those who bemoan Milosevic’s escape from justice, saying, his “exit enables justice to escape a hideous embarrassment. The prisoner was likely to be acquitted on a substantial number of the charges against him.”
A preliminary autopsy carried out in The Hague indicates that he died of a heart attack but toxicology reports are still awaited. The Hague’s Chief Prosecutor Carla Del Ponte said she couldn’t rule out suicide.
Whatever the truth of the matter, the tribunal will no doubt be criticized for its refusal to allow Milosevic to seek medical treatment in Russia, advised by his own doctors. The judges refused to countenance this out of concern that Milosevic would fail to return.
Given the failure of the tribunal to extract from their bolt-holes Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadic, both charged with genocide, as well as the recent suicide of Milan Babic, found dead in his cell, its credibility is now in serious doubt. This may mean that those protecting Mladic and Karadic will be even more reluctant to turn them over than they already are.
There is further criticism directed at The Hague for allowing the prosecution four years to present its case and for charging Milosevic on too many counts.
Without Mladic, Karadic and Milosevic there is nothing substantial for the tribunal to do, which means that countless millions of Euros have been squandered with the only beneficiaries being lawyers.
Also under fire is the Iraqi tribunal charged with trying Saddam Hussein and his co-defendants for the killing of 148 Shiites in Dujail allegedly in reprisal for an attempt on his life. This has been referred to as a kangaroo court following assassinations of Saddam’s defense team members, judges’ resignations, walkouts by lawyers, theatricals on the part of the defendants, a hunger strike, and prosecution witnesses refusing to give evidence at the last minute. The tribunal’s Chief Prosecutor Jaafar Mussawi says Saddam will be immediately hanged if found guilty and the tribunal would not pursue other charges against the former Iraqi leader, which include the crushing of the Shiite uprising subsequent to the 1991 Gulf War and the gassing of Kurds in Halabja.
The defense argues the tribunal cannot be impartial because the Chief Judge Abdel Rahman is himself from Halabja. On this particular point, Saddam’s lawyers are surely right. It’s like someone being tried for robbing a bank with the manager of the same bank on the bench.
On the face of it, the tribunal in The Hague and that in Iraq have little in common.
The former has been meticulous and patient while the latter hasn’t bothered with internationally recognized legal niceties and has bowed to political pressure, which ultimately triggered the resignation of Chief Judge Rizgar Amin, considered too soft.
Yet both tribunals share an important commonality, that of former heads of state being tried while held in the custody of foreigners and foes. Here, we should not forget that Saddam is still being incarcerated by Americans and the tribunal was set up during Paul Bremer’s time as US viceroy. Indeed, at that time, Iraqi law was changed to allow for the death penalty and to lift immunity from the Iraqi head of state.
Further, in the case of both tribunals, the defendants claimed the courts were without jurisdiction to try them and devoid of legitimacy.
So, here we have two failed tribunals at opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to their methods. In this case, what should be done with leaders accused of genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity? This question did not apply to previous eras when dictators like the Shah of Iran, Chile’s Gen. Pinochet, Uganda’s Idi Amin and Cambodia’s Pol Pot were allowed to gracefully retire from office.
But this does not mean that Milosevic and Saddam should not have been held accountable for their alleged crimes. The question is by whom? In the case of Milosevic, I believe he should have been tried by a Serbian court with a jury representative of all the former Yugoslavia’s sectarian groups; its members thoroughly scrutinized for impartiality.
As for Saddam, any judgment on him should be deferred until the occupiers have quit Iraq when hopefully there will be a truly independent and balanced government made up of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. As long as the long finger of the US-led occupation is involved in Saddam’s tribunal, history will never judge it as fair.
Justice should not be compromised no matter what the accused is alleged to have done. There is no such thing as some justice or half justice. Justice cannot be cobbled together as a convenience, and it should not be dispensed freely to our enemies and ignored when it relates either to us or to our allies.
Justice is an absolute concept and if we refuse to treat it as such preferring self-serving or expedient half measures, then we might as well forget it, take a leaf out of Israel’s book and dispatch the hit squads.
