Day: February 1, 2016
The Butcher’s Trail
I was unable to attend Julian Borger’s book presentation today in DC, but here is my appreciation of his recently published account of the search for and trial of Balkans war criminals:
Who knew the search for war criminals could be so entertaining? Julian Borger, now the Guardian diplomatic editor who reported from the Balkans during the 1990s, has a sharp eye for relevant detail and an ironic sense of its role in the story of how war criminals were tracked and captured in Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia after the Dayton peace accords were signed in 1995.
His Butcher’s Trail is enlivened with a menagerie of well-drawn and memorable characters: the “Serb Adolf” (that’s what he called himself), an evangelical American general trying to redeem the loss of Marines in Somalia, a former mayor so anxious for status that he drives into Croatia to keep an appointment with the senior UN official plotting his capture, the American-trained Polish special forces who in their first operation ever snatch him, the planned use of a gorilla costume to distract Radovan Karadzic’s guards on a winding mountain road at night and his frumpy wife’s successful effort to evade massive and concerted American efforts–coordinated in part by David Petraeus–to track her to her husband.
This would all make for an interesting, if sometimes excessively John Irving, novel. It makes for captivating non-fiction.
I was involved as a State Department officer in some of the earlier and notably unsuccessful efforts to capture war criminals in Bosnia. The generals commanding the hunt thought the protection of their troops far more important. A deputy to the Supreme Allied Commander told me point blank in the summer of 1997 that President Clinton wasn’t interested in capturing war criminals. The general and his boss–Wes Clark–got me withdrawn from the effort in order to block reports to the State Department about what they were doing, or more likely what they were not doing.
Later the hunt for war criminals–PIFWCs in milspeak (Persons Indicted for War Crimes)–became far more serious, though the Americans lagged the British and Dutch in the effort. Trying to minimize risk, Washington often deployed far too many people and too much apparatus, without however knowing much about the environment and terrain in which they had to operate. Borger tells the story of their bumbling well. Nor does he spare the French, late-comers to the competition to capture PIFWCs, whose keystone cops even ended up facing off with each other in the hotel room of one of Radovan Karadzic’s mistresses. But Borger also gives some credit: the Americans at least learned and applied their lessons later in the hunt for Al Qaeda and other terrorist operatives.
While Borger’s focus is on the hunt, he never looses perspective on the reasons for it. He colors in the stark words of criminal indictments with vivid eye-witness descriptions of rape, ethnic cleansing, torture and cold-blooded murder. And he fits these crimes into the main political programs they served: primarily the Croatian and Serbian efforts to carve up Bosnia.
By dying in 1999, Croatian President Tudjman escaped accountability for his concerted efforts to force Bosnia’s Muslims away from his borders and annex territory where the Bosnian Croats were in the majority. Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic wasn’t so lucky. Defeated at the polls in 2000, he was shipped to The Hague in 2001 for trial at the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), a precursor of the International Criminal Court. Borger’s account of how and why the Serbian government took on that responsibility is compelling, as is his description of how Serbian security forces continued to provide protection for Karadzic and Bosnian Serb commander Ratko Mladic.
Borger is keen to make a sharp distinction between the judicial bungling of the Tribunal–whose trials are lengthy and unedifying, with highly variable and sometimes reversible outcomes–and the critical role of its chief prosecutors (especially Louise Arbour and Carla del Ponte) and their small intelligence units in tracking down war criminals and pressuring Croatia, Serbia and Bosnia into handing them over, often with leverage provided by the European Union and the United States. His point is well argued, but it is unlikely to save the Tribunal from those who think it should have done far more far faster to hold its indictees accountable.
It would be hard for any court–even a well-established one–to proceed expeditiously and still provide due process to the butchers Borger describes so well. ICTY has proven unequal to those demanding criteria. But it has still set an important precedent of holding at least some people accountable for the horrors they perpetrate. And, as Borger is right to emphasize, it removed homicidal leaders from countries in which they would have otherwise played spoiler roles. That is, he rightly emphasizes, the Tribunal’s major contribution.
You decide
Shpend Limoni of Pristina daily Gazeta Express asked some questions today. I answered:
Q: The political stalemate in Kosovo is continuing for months. The opposition parties and the government are still in the opposing positions regarding the demarcation process with Montenegro and Brussels Agreement on the Association of Serb Municipalities. Do you think that early general elections are a solution for this crisis?
A: Whether to hold early elections is a choice Kosovars need to make, not foreigners. That is what parliament is for.
On the merits of the two issues, I’m surprised either one has aroused so much passion and have my doubts that early elections will lead to their easy resolution.
Q: Mr. Thaçi is insisting on becoming President of Kosovo as a fulfilment of the governing coalition agreement. Yesterday he met with State Secretary John Kerry which is seen as a decisive moment for his candidacy. Do you think that Thaçi has US support in his intentions to become next President of Kosovo?
A: You will have to ask US government officials about official US government support. Generally Washington tries to stay out of choices of this sort in countries with democratic systems. We really do believe in government of the people, by the people and for the people. I realize that in Kosovo that principle may have been violated in the past, but I don’t really see any good reasons for violating it now.
Q: Considering the large international support for Mrs. Jahjaga do you think that she has a chance for a second mandate as President of Kosovo?
A: I think President Jahjaga has done a great job of representing Kosovo both to the international community and in her domestic capacity. But to get a second mandate she needs to find the support required in parliament.
Q: Do you believe that the Special Court somehow could affect the election of the President and the overall situation that is Kosovo is facing right now?
A: I imagine that the cases the Special Court might consider will be a factor in the minds of at least some of the parliamentarians who elect the President and who need to find a way out of the current situation. But it is impossible to predict now precisely who will be indicted and for what. That will attenuate somewhat the impact of what the court might do.
My main point throughout this interview, and in many others, is that people in the Balkans need to start taking responsibility for their own decisions. The unipolar, imperial moment is over. Washington has a lot of other things to worry about. Friends and allies who want to make a serious contribution will be taking care of their own business, not leaning on Washington to make decisions for them.
Diminished West revisited
Hisham Melhem published a bold and compelling piece over the weekend about Western interactions with Iran that has garnered a great deal of praise from people I respect. Hisham lambasts the Italians for covering up nude statues during the visit of President Rouhani, mocks Rouhani for asking the Pope to pray for him, praises the French for insisting that any meal they serve has to include wine, excoriates the Supreme Leader for Holocaust denial, and decries the Iranian humiliation of American sailors. He appears to have convinced most that these recent incidents with Iran have diminished the West, perhaps irreversibly.
I think he is wrong on the merits, most notably the notion that anything that happened last week suggests diminished the West. If I have to live in a civilization in decline, let it be this one.
But let me respond to his points one-by-one.
On the statues and the wine: we all bend a bit to the preferences of our guests. I am a pork eater, but I wouldn’t serve it during a meal with Kosher or Muslim guests. I don’t know anyone who would. The French are entitled to their view that wine is essential to a meal, but I find that attitude rather intolerant and inhospitable. I bet their businessmen aren’t insisting on wine served at meals if their Iranian Airbus customers object. As for the statues, what the Italians did is at least as laughable as what John Ashcroft did in covering statues at the Justice Department, but that didn’t convince me America is in decline. Italian spinelessness shouldn’t convince anyone that the West is diminished.
As for the Pope, I bet Francis wishes he had a dollar for all the visitors who ask him to pray for them. What else does one ask of the Pope?
The parts of Melhem’s lamentation that have some merit are the complaint about showing photographs of the US sailors, who so far as I can tell really did violate Iran’s territorial integrity, as well as the complaint about Khamenei’s Holocaust denial.
My understanding is that display of prisoners is a violation of 1949 Geneva convention. The Americans should have objected, vigorously. I take it they did not because they were relieved to get them back quickly after they entered Iranian territory and did not want to undermine those who had made the arrangements for their return. That is screwy, as we need the Iranians reminded that the nuclear deal, and more generally Tehran’s return to the international community, entails responsibilities as well as privileges.
On the Holocaust, I thought Khamenei’s video seemed less committed to denial than previous utterances. He says “it is not clear whether the core of this matter is reality or not… Even if it is a reality, it is not clear how it happened.” That’s far from a resounding denial and might even be interpreted as an implicit retreat from it. I won’t be satisfied until Iran accepts not only the reality of the Holocaust but also one of the consequences: creation of the state of Israel. But listening to your enemies is at least as important as denouncing them. I’ll leave to Iran experts whether I have misheard.
I realize of course that Hisham’s tirade is in defense of the West and its liberal values. But I don’t think on close examination that it works. Insisting that others accept your standards and beliefs is not a liberal value. Listening to them and talking with them about why we believe what we do is. But that won’t attract anywhere near the same notice as a broadside.