Day: November 18, 2012
Justice does not always mean convictions
The acquittal at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) last week of two Croatian generals responsible for Operation Storm in 1995 has occasioned a lot of annoyance among Serbs. Belgrade has downgraded cooperation with the Tribunal. I got some pretty ugly tweets, because somehow I am responsible for what ICTY decides. Anti-Semitic tirades accused me of being a Nazi.
So I decided to read the judgement, which I imagine few of my expletive-wielding antagonists had done. I am not a lawyer, but the appeals panel that made the split decision to reverse a lower chamber’s conviction did not, in my layman’s view, exonerate the generals. What it did was to find the trial chamber’s decisions faulty and indict the prosecution’s case as weak and ill-founded. This distinction is important. Courts do not exonerate. They find guilty, or not guilty. Not guilty does not mean innocent. It means everything from innocent to insufficient evidence to poorly argued to logically inconsistent to incorrectly processed. This gives the accused the benefit of doubt, which some of them are able to exploit to get off the hook (in this case only after Gotovina had spent seven years in prison). That is inherent in a modern court system, which seeks to avoid false convictions.
The main rational objection to the Tribunal in Serbia is that it is biased against Serbs. I find this assertion hard to credit. Certainly ICTY has indicted more Serbs (94 of 161) than Croats, Bosniaks and Albanians, who were the main ethnic groups involved in the Balkans wars of the 1990s. There are many possible reasons for that: Serbs were certainly involved in more wars (they fought against each of the other three ethnic groups), they may have engaged in more criminal activities, and even if they did not there may be more evidence available against them, including more witnesses willing to testify. Belgrade did not help by refusing to cooperate with ICTY for years. The number of indictments and convictions is not a reliable indicator of bias.
It is really very difficult, given the varied make-up of the Tribunal’s judges and staff, to imagine how any systematic bias could be at work. And this particular decision was a close call: 3 to 2. It is far more likely that the Tribunal’s critics simply don’t accept that certain acts are criminal according to the laws of war. Whenever someone objects to a conviction on grounds that the acts involved were provoked by another ethnic group, or were not as bad as what another ethnic group did, the critic simply does not understand what application of law to war means. The Tribunal judges individuals (and their joint action), not ethnic groups.
Personally, I don’t have much doubt that the way in which the generals conducted their offensive against Serb-held areas in Croatia was indiscriminate, inconsistent with their obligation to protect civilians and unlawful. My opinion is that they intended to displace the civilian population by force. I’d have preferred that they be held criminally responsible for it.
But I don’t envy the judges who sit at ICTY on trials and appeals, or the prosecutors that try them. The facts of these cases are horrendous. The evidence is often less than fulsome. Procedures and standards (the main issue in this case) are not always as well-defined. There will never be justice for most of the victims, who are heard only faintly through the often muted voices of survivors. Bad guys certainly get off. But to my knowledge ICTY has a good record of avoiding false convictions. That is very much to its credit.
I understand Serbs are offended that the Croatian generals whom Belgrade holds responsible for ethnic cleansing got off. The unseemly celebrations in Zagreb irritated an old wound. But it would be unwise to promise that everyone who committed crimes would be convicted. Nor is it reasonable to expect that ICTY will go easy on Serbs to compensate for the Croatian acquittals. Justice is an individual, not an ethnic, issue.
If someone has evidence that ICTY is systematically biased against Serbs, I’ll be glad to have a look at it. If not, it is time to put the ethnic feelings to one side and accept the fact that some of those who committed heinous crimes will be convicted and others not. Justice does not always mean convictions.
This week’s peace picks
A very light holiday week comes as a break after the flurry of post-election events.
1. America and China in the Aftermath of Election and Succession: Paths and Pitfalls, Monday November 19, 9:15 AM – 12:00 PM, Brookings
Venue: Brookings Institution, 1775 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036, Falk Auditorium
Speakers: Jonathon D. Pollack, Cheng Li, Kenneth G. Lieberthal, J. Stapleton Roy, Alan Romberg, Jeffrey A. Bader, Michael Swaine
The reelection of President Barack Obama and the convening of China’s 18th National Congress only days later highlight converging political calendars that may set the contours of U.S.-China relations and East Asian politics for years to come. However, uncertainties remain, with China’s political, economic and strategic trajectories subject to major internal and external pressures. At the same time, the United States confronts a daunting, long deferred set of fiscal challenges that could reshape U.S. foreign and security policy options.
Register for this event here.
2. Militancy and the Arab Spring, Monday November 19, 12:15 PM – 1:45 PM, New America Foundation
Venue: New America Foundation, 1899 L Street NW, Washington, DC 20036, Suite 400
Speakers: Peter Bergen, Leila Hilal, Souad Mekhennet
The deaths of four American diplomats in Benghazi, Libya in September, along with the reports of militant jihadists’ participation in the Syrian conflict, have given rise to serious concerns about the role of Islamist extremists in the various theaters of the “Arab Uprising.” Al-Qaeda and its affiliated terrorist groups have suffered severe blows since 9/11, but the chaos and confusion surrounding the revolutions that have roiled the Arab world could provide such organizations with fertile ground for recruiting new members.
Register for this event here.
3. U.S.-India Military Engagement, Tuesday November 20, 10:30 AM – 11:30 AM, CSIS
Venue: CSIS, 1800 K Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, B1 Conference Room
Speakers: Karl F. Inderfurth, S. Amer Latif, Walter Doran
Bilateral military cooperation has deepened substantially between the U.S. and India over the past decade. The next challenge is to see whether military relations can transition to engagement that is more normal, routine, expected. Join the CSIS U.S.-India Chair and guest panelist Admiral (ret.) Walter Doran — who is featured in our October newsletter — for a discussion of the findings, recommendations, and conclusions of our latest report, entitled “U.S.-India Military Engagement: Steady as They Go.”
Register for this event here.