Stress test

I am finding yesterday’s post on the EU’s investigation of post-war crimes by Kosovars criticized from two directions.  One reader tweeted:

“You forgot to mention the conclusions, didn’t you? Namely: “crimes against humanity”, “ethnic cleansing”, “war crimes”.

Well, no. I cited the specific crimes that led the prosecutor to conclude that crimes against humanity and war crimes had been committed and ethnic cleansing resulted. It’s a sad world in which a reader diminishes the importance of my mentioning

…unlawful killings, abductions, enforced disappearances, illegal detentions in camps in Kosovo and Albania, sexual violence, other forms of inhumane treatment, forced displacements of individuals from their homes and communities, and desecration and destruction of churches and other religious sites….

These to me are much more graphic than “crimes against humanity,” “ethnic cleansing” and “war crimes,” but since someone asked I am glad (and sad) to mention them as well.

On the other side of the spectrum, a reader felt I was insufficiently critical of Clint Williamson’s announcing the intention to indict without naming the individuals and without any evidence to support the claim that the crimes in question, including organ-trafficking, had occurred. This makes it impossible for the accused to respond, since no accused is identified, and impossible for others to verify the evidence, since it has not been presented.

These procedural objections to what Clint reported are serious, but the circumstances are unusual. Had he left the prosecutor’s position without saying anything, rumors would have been rife. Some likely would have been far worse than what he now alleges actually happened, which he says was no more than a “handful” of cases of organ trafficking. Any number of cases of murder in order to harvest organs is unacceptable, but at least the rumors of hundreds of such cases have been scotched. Clint also made it clear he foresees no indictments for those crimes, presumably because the standards of proof required cannot be met.

I’ve also received objections based on the political sensitivity of the allegations, which could conceivably involve prominent Kosovo politicians, one-time leaders of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). But as it happens that is a wash, since both government and opposition have such politicians in their midst. KLA leaders naturally play an important role in post-war Kosovo. We don’t know who the accused might be, which is precisely the same situation as before Clint issued his report. One other notable thing:  Clint makes it clear that individuals, not the KLA itself, were responsible for the abuses he mentions.

Potentially more serious is the international impact. These allegations could sully Kosovo’s reputation (further) and hinder it from gaining the international recognition it craves. But the rumors were arguably worse for Kosovo’s reputation than what Clint alleges in his report. The Kosovo government has decided to create a special court to judge the cases arising from the Special Investigative Task Force indictments outside Kosovo, when and they are handed down. Ensuring that the allegations and the accused get their day in court is the best any government can do when faced with criminal charges. No one should hesitate to recognize Kosovo when it is doing the best that can be expected of any government.

So yes, the situation is awkward and unsatisfactory. Politicians in Kosovo and Serbia will find themselves challenged to remain calm and rational. I’m pleased to see that at least some of their officials are behaving calmly, even if some in their media are jumping to conclusions. But I don’t see how it is worse than before Clint’s report was issued. The allegations were already known, as well as the possibility of charges against KLA leaders. The report has clarified and narrowed the focus of the investigation.

This is a stress test for democratic institutions. I hope they pass, in both capitals.