IN a world that suffers from an endemic shortage of justice, the sight of former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic appearing before the UN war crimes tribunal in The Hague last week to face charges of genocide and other war crimes, including the 1995 massacre of 8,000 Muslims at Srebrenica, was dramatic and awe-inspiring.
Karadzic, who was arrested in Belgrade last month after evading his pursuers for more than 12 years, was a key player in Europe’s bloodiest chapter since the end of World War II. The civil war in the former Yugoslav republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the ethnic cleansing that Serbian and Croat leaders conspired to carry out against ethnic Muslims has left an indelible scar in the face of modern-day Europe. By the time Europe and the United States took action to stop the carnage, more than 100,000 people had died — about 65 percent of them Bosnian Muslims. An unknown number of Muslim women, including young girls, were raped in a deliberate and sinister scheme to humiliate the republic’s native Muslims. More than 1.8 million Bosnian Muslims were displaced, most of them until today.
In spite of the rift that the Bosnian conflict created within Europe and the slow reaction to the war crimes that were taking place, the wheels of justice were finally put into motion. The UN set up the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in 1993. The court issued warrants for the arrest of more than 160 indicted war criminals including the former president of Serbia, Slobodan Milosevic, who died while in custody in 2006, Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, former commander of the Bosnian Serb Army. At least six war criminals, including Mladic, are still at large.
W
HILE the court’s work is far from over, the fact that it has achieved so much is setting an important precedent worldwide. Still Yugoslavia could stand out as a rare exception in today’s world where crimes against humanity are committed almost every day in many parts of the globe.
Unlike the ICTY, the International Criminal Court, also based in The Hague, is a permanent tribunal that was set up in 2002 to prosecute individuals for war crimes including genocide and crimes against humanity. And in contrast to the ICTY, the ICC’s mandate is not limited to a specific conflict. Although more than 100 countries are full members of the court with 40 more signing the court’s treaty but not ratifying it yet, the United States, China and India have refused to recognize it. The ICC’s prosecutor general recently demanded that the court issue a warrant for the arrest of Sudan’s President Omar Bashir on suspicion of genocide and crimes against humanity in the Darfur region. That request, surprisingly backed by the US which refused to join the court, has created a diplomatic crisis between the Arab League and the UN Security Council which oversees the ICC.
What is common between the ICTY and the ICC is that both are subject to the political will of key players, namely the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. It is here that the quest for justice may falter and take on a political streak. The case of Yugoslavia’s war crimes would not have evolved into what it is today if it was not for the determination of powerful nations, such as the United States and Europe.
This could be said of the ICC as well. It is ironic that the Bush administration, which is involved in war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, has refused to join the ICC while at the same time is pushing the court to hunt down Sudan’s Bashir. Sudan is not a member of the court and technically does not fall under the ICC’s jurisdiction.
Justice is an elusive thing and while in a perfect world one would want to see its arms reaching as far as possible, the fact is that international courts, and the UN Security Council for that matter, are politicized and are used to serve the narrow political interests of influential parties.
This has been said in the past but what would it take for the ICC or its equivalent to tackle war crimes in the occupied Palestinian territories, or to indict Israeli officials for crimes against humanity committed in Lebanon over the past two decades? What is the difference between what is happening in Darfur and Tibet, Zimbabwe and Burma?
Legal experts will waste much ink explaining the differences and underlining the reasons why the ICC is focusing on Sudan now and not on Israel. But the fact of the matter is that we do not live in a perfect world and while the survivors of the horrors of Srebrenica will see justice served in the arrest and trial of Karadzic, the reality is many notorious war criminals are walking free in other areas of conflict because the big powers chose to let them off the hook.
As Arabs, we are angered and bemused by the fact that the ICC may consider issuing a warrant for the arrest of President Bashir. If the cause of justice is to be served blindly and without prejudice, then that court and whoever is manipulating it should have considered the plight of millions of Palestinians who are suffering under more than 40 years of illegal occupation. Furthermore, when tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis and Afghanis have lost their lives as a result of a deliberate act of war against them by the United States, the least the ICC could do in the interest of justice is to investigate a possible foul play.
