Month: March 2016
The arguments are worse than the verdict
The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) today acquitted Serbian politician Vojislav Selselj of all charges against him, by an overwhelming majority. Instead Judge Antonetti convicted the ICTY prosecution of confusion and incompetence.
Those disappointed in the outcome should read at least the trial judgement summary, which says the prosecution failed to prove that the political effort to create Greater Serbia constituted a “joint criminal enterprise” or that Seselj was in charge of those who committed crimes pursuing that goal. Even fighters called “followers of Seselj,” the Tribunal says, were arguably under the control of the Yugoslav National Army and the Serb armies in Croatia and Bosnia.
This should be little comfort to the Belgrade government, which has been anxious to avoid any hint of responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Croatia and Bosnia. Seselj’s acquittal can be read as a forceful indictment of the three Serb armies and governments, including the one led at the time by Slobodan Milosevic, and might raise again the question of compensation or reparations.
Essentially ICTY is saying a guy who inspired, recruited and deployed volunteers to go fight in the war was not responsible for any crimes those volunteers committed, because he was not in the chain of command. This certainly implies that the Yugsolav National Army, which at the time controlled the Serb forces in both Croatia and Bosnia, was responsible.
But the acquittal will be read by Serb nationalists as vindication, because it clears their Greater Serbia political program of responsibility. Rather than being inherently discriminatory, it is judged to be just one more political proposition, morally no worse than Croatian and Bosnian secession from Yugoslavia, whose fulfillment would not necessarily have violated anyone’s rights. Nor are many of the means chosen to fulfill that program found to be criminal, though the Tribunal finds that some crimes were committed, for which it held Seselj had not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be responsible.
At times the Tribunal indicts itself in making its case against the prosecutors. It suggests there was no widespread Serb attack on civilians in Bosnia and Croatia and says:
…the majority cannot dismiss the Defence’s argument–amply supported by some of the testimonies–according to which these civilians had fled the combat zones to take refuge in villages inhabited by members of the same ethnic or religious group; that the buses that were provided for this purpose did not constitute operations to forcibly transfer the population, but were in fact provided on humanitarian grounds to assist the non-combatants fleeing combat zones in which they no longer felt safe….the SRS pursued the objective of a Greater Serbia which was to include all the Serbs, whether they were of the Orthodox, Catholic or Muslim faith….There is a reasonable possibility that the sending of volunteers was aimed at protecting the Serbs.
… were made in a context of conflict and were meant to boost the morale of the troops of his camp, rather than calling upon them to spare no one.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Walk the talk
Kosovo President-elect Thaci spoke recently at the Hague Institute for International Justice. A friend urged me to have a careful look at his speech, I suppose in part because of my open letter to him upon his election to the Presidency.
I’m not inclined to respond in detail on the first four historical points Hashim makes. I’ll leave it to others to offer evidence on whether he is correct or not in claiming that the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) during its rebellion against Serbian rule in the late 1990s did not use terrorism against civilians, did not rely on revenue from criminal activities, truly embraced Western values and kept away from religion. I would prefer that all these things be true, but I understand that some will want to challenge them, especially the first, second and third of these points.
Hashim makes a fifth historical point of particular relevance today: that Kosovo independence was a compromise between Belgrade, which wanted the former autonomous province re-incorporated into Serbia, and those among the Albanians who wanted Kosovo to join Albania. I think he is basically correct: the Kosovars accepted a deal with the international community (Serbia never signed on) that permitted independence but prevented union with Albania.
Maintaining that deal is vital to a good relationship with the Americans and Europeans, not least because any departure from it in the direction of union with Albania (or surrender of the northern municipalities to Serbia, which would ensue) would provide Russia with the justification it seeks for its several border change propositions: annexation of Crimea and its de facto rule in Ukrainian Donbas, South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transnistria. The Kosovar political movement known as Vetvendosje! (Self-Determination) is challenging the deal that led to independence, along with some Serbs who want to incorporate the northern part of Kosovo into Serbia. In doing so, they risk opening Pandora’s box and making Kosovo into a pariah.
When the President-elect looks to the future, he makes four points: Serbia and Kosovo should
- help Europe, especially on immigration, extremism and organized crime, which he associates in part with Russia;
- cooperate economically, in particular to create jobs;
- engage regionally, especially on security (including via NATO) and infrastructure;
- establish the rule of law, including the Kosovo Special Court that will look into allegations of post-war KLA crimes some believe implicate Thaci himself.
He makes lots of other points along the way, but I wanted to strip the talk down to its policy-relevant essence, which seems to me eminently reasonable.
Many readers will want to raise questions about the President-elect’s sincerity, about post-war attacks on Serbs and destruction of Serb churches and monuments in Kosovo, about criminal allegations against and convictions of some KLA commanders and fighters, and widespread perceptions of corruption and illicit enrichment. I have no objections to those issues being raised and hope that the President-elect will respond in the same even-tempered tone as his speech in the Hague.
But I think it is appropriate to remind that diplomacy is getting other people to say, and do, what you want them to say and do.
Hashim is saying a lot of the right things, at least so far as the international community is concerned. Kosovo needs to govern effectively, clean up corruption, grow its economy, protect Serbs as well as other minorities, and end the trafficking, organized crime and extremism that are giving it a bad name. What it boils down to is instituting much improved governance.
That requires more than saying the right things to convince the skeptics. It requires doing the right things. Even with the best of intentions, it will not be easy: the president in Kosovo is elected in parliament and has limited powers. Many will be skeptical that Thaci is really committed to doing rule of law in a serious way. But Hashim has set his sights high. That’s good. Now let’s see if he can walk the talk. That would be far better.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Europe a soft target for terrorists
My colleagues at the Middle East Institute asked me for this Friday and published it today, along with finer pieces by Charles Lister on Palmyra/ISIS, Paul Salem on Mosul/Iraq and Allen Keiswetter on Trump/Saudi Arabia:
The Islamic State is losing territory in Iraq and Syria, but expanding affiliates in Libya and other parts of Africa, and striking soft targets in France, Belgium, Turkey and elsewhere. As most of its revenue comes from extortion in territory it controls and its recruits from a record of successful advances, loss of territory likely puts the jihadists in a tight spot. Momentum matters.
Hitting soft targets is cheap, requires few people and is relatively easy to plan and execute. Europe is readily accessible from the Middle East and houses lots of poorly integrated and marginalized Sunni Muslims. Prisons there, and elsewhere, appear to incubate terrorists; witness the brothers who participated in last week’s Brussels attacks. Europe, where internal borders have been weakened without a concomitant strengthening of external borders, can expect more attempts by terrorist groups to kill and maim ordinary civilians as well as security forces.
The United States is not immune, but has advantages: two large oceans, toughened intelligence and law enforcement since 9/11, and a Muslim population thought to be better integrated than in Europe. Homegrown terrorists, many non-Muslim, have had more success here than foreigners. The charged political atmosphere of the presidential primary campaigns could, however, generate resentments and incentives for spectacular attacks. ISIS would surely not pass up a good opportunity to demonstrate its reach and strike against Americans and American interests.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The truth goes to jail
This note, which appeared in my inbox this morning from Belgrade with 104 civil society signatures, goes a long way to explaining why the former spokesperson for the Hague Tribunal is spending a week in prison. Note that it supports her without suggesting that the punishment is contrary to the law. I imagine she will wear the imprisonment as a badge of honor.
The former spokeswoman of the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Florence Hartmann, was arrested on Thursday, 24 March, outside the ICTY building and taken to serve a seven-day jail term. Hartmann was arrested by ICTY security officers on orders of the chamber that rendered a final judgment against her. Civil society representatives from the region of the former Yugoslavia hereby voice their support for Florence Hartmann and her uncompromising struggle for truth.
Florence Hartmann was not given the jail sentence because she did something that is usually considered to constitute contempt of court, such as tampering with witnesses or refusal to give evidence before the international court, but because of exposing and countering the practice of concealing documents in order to protect the interests of some states. Namely, in her book “Paix et Châtiment” [Peace and Punishment] and the article entitled “Vital Genocide Documents Concealed’, published in January 2008, Hartmann revealed information relating to the decision of the ICTY Appeals Chamber ordering that the documents created by the Supreme Defence Council which Serbia supplied to the Tribunal during the trial of Slobodan Milošević be filed as confidential.
Let us quote the statement that Hartmann has recently given to the N1 TV Station during the Pressing talk show: “I discovered a decision in which judges say ‘we are concealing very important archives of the Milosevic regime because should Bosnia seek reparation, Serbia would have to pay millions of dollars, which would affect Serbia’s economy (…) This is the only part I used. The judges later removed the classification from these documents themselves, because I had said that was an unlawful thing to do. They disgraced themselves by accusing me, by issuing an arrest warrant for me. What matters is that we now have access to these documents“.
We are profoundly convinced that what Florence Hartmann did may be contrary to the ICTY Statute but is certainly not contrary to justice. Quite the opposite. Therefore we stand by her in her commitment to the pursuit of truth and efforts to make official state archives available to the public.
Lastly, we would like to draw attention to the fact that the Hague Tribunal made a decision to arrest Florence Hartmann at the moment when it showed weakness with respect to Vojislav Šešelj’s decision not to appear before the court for the pronouncement of the judgment against him and Serbia’s refusal to hand over Šešelj and another three members of the Serbian Radical Party accused of contempt of court for tampering with witnesses, to the ICTY. The Hague Tribunal used to apply the same standards to all accused persons in the past, so it should do so in this case too.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks March 28-April 1
- Future of the U.S.-ROK-Japan trilateral relationship | Tuesday, March 29th | 10:30-11:30 | Brookings | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The strengthening of the U.S.-ROK-Japan trilateral relationship comes at a critical time when North Korea’s unabated nuclear ambitions pose a growing threat to peace and security in the Asia-Pacific. Moreover, transnational challenges will require a concerted approach from all three allies. On March 29, the Center for East Asia Policy Studies at Brookings will host The Honorable Antony J. Blinken, Deputy Secretary of State, for a discussion on the United States vision for the future of the U.S.-ROK-Japan trilateral relationship and the next steps for improving and expanding cooperation. Katharine H.S. Moon, the SK-Korea Foundation Chair in Korea Studies, will offer welcoming remarks and Brookings President Strobe Talbott will provide introductions. Deputy Secretary Blinken will take questions from the audience following his remarks, which will be moderated by Richard Bush, director of the Center for East Asia Policy Studies.
- The Nuclear Summit and Beyond: Progress or Regress? | Tuesday, March 29th| 11:00-12:00 | Wilson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | In a landmark speech in Prague in April 2009, President Obama laid out a bold agenda to move toward a nuclear-free world. Over the next seven years, his Administration reached a treaty with Russia to reduce strategic arm stockpiles, convened international summits to secure nuclear materials against transfer or theft, and concluded an historic nuclear agreement with Iran. But some developments were less encouraging: arms control with Russia stalled; China, Pakistan, and North Korea significantly increased the size of their arsenals; and the rise of ISIS accentuated the threat of WMD terrorism. Against this evolving backdrop, the United States is refurbishing its nuclear weapons— what critics characterize as a destabilizing move toward smaller, more precise weapons that would be tempting to use in a crisis. On the eve of the Nuclear Security Summit and the Prague speech’s anniversary, join us for a National Conversation with top experts in arms control, taking stock of the Administration’s progress toward its lofty arms control goals. Speakers include Jane Harman, Wilson Center Director, Ambassador Robert L. Gallucci, former Assistant Secretary of State for Political Military Affairs, Franklin C. Miller, former National Security Council Senior Director for Defense Policy and Arms Control, Frank A. Rose, State Department Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control, Verification and Compliance, and Robert S. Litwak, Directory of International Security Studies.
- Democracy in Crisis in Turkey | Tuesday, March 29th | 2:00-3:30 | Bipartisan Policy Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party has been increasingly successful in muzzling the country’s once outspoken press. The dramatic decline in press freedom in Turkey has included government-imposed bans on reporting on controversial topics, witch hunts against journalists amid accusations of “terrorism,” and prosecuting journalists for stories perceived to be insulting to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. This assault on media freedom has escalated dangerously in the past several months, with the Turkish government demonstrating a willingness to seize control over entire news outlets—on March 4, a Turkish court ordered the seizure of one of Turkey’s most widely circulated opposition newspapers, Zaman. A new Bipartisan Policy Center report, Mechanisms of Control: How Turkey is Criminalizing Dissent and Muzzling the Press, discusses the issue.
- Conference on Syrian Refugee Crisis with a Keynote Address by H.E. Mrs. Emine Erdogan | Wednesday, March 30th | 9:45-3:00 | SETA Foundation | Lists of panels and speakers may be found here.
- A Conversation with Afghanistan’s First Lady Rula Ghani | Thursday, March 31st | 9:30-10:30 | Atlantic Council | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center invites you to a conversation with Afghanistan’s First Lady Rula Ghani about the challenges and opportunities facing Afghanistan. Rula Ghani’s commitment to activism, women’s rights, and social justice cannot be overstated. As a woman, a Lebanese Christian, and First Lady, she has taken a central role in elevating national discourses on violence against women, the rule of law, and the power of religion. A scholar and educator in her own right, she breaks many conventions in Afghanistan as the first presidential spouse in decades to be so publicly outspoken. Time Magazine, citing Ghani’s commitment to improve Afghan women’s living standards, named her among the top one hundred most influential people in the world in 2015. Drawing on her years of activism, Rula Ghani will discuss Afghanistan’s efforts to overcome the challenges the people of Afghanistan face and the new government’s efforts to usher in a new era of prosperity for Afghanistan.
- Challenges to the future of the EU: A Central European Perspective | Thursday, March 31st | 10:00-11:00 | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Today, the European Union faces critical risks to its stability. The possibility of a Brexit. The ongoing Ukraine/Russia conflict. The strain of mass migration. ISIL and other terrorism threats. The lingering financial crisis in Greece and beyond. These issues pose distinct challenges for the EU, its 28 member countries, and their 500 million citizens. How will these developing problems affect Europe? On March 31, Governance Studies at Brookings will host Czech Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka to discuss the current status of the EU as seen through the lens of a Central European nation, close U.S. NATO ally and current Chair of the Visegrad Group. Prime Minister Sobotka will offer insight into how the EU will address these issues, and where its future lies. After the session, Prime Minister Sobotka will take audience questions.
- U.S.-Mexico Economic Cooperation for a Competitive Region: A Conversation with Mexican Secretary of Economy Ildefonso Guajardo | Friday, April 1st | 9:15-10:15 | Wilson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The Wilson Center’s Mexico Institute invites you to join Mexican Secretary of Economy Ildefonso Guajardo for a discussion on U.S.-Mexico trade and economic cooperation; North American competitiveness; and the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
- The emerging law of 21st century war | Friday, April 1st | 10:00-12:00 | Brookings | REGISTER TO ATTEND | As the threats posed by violent extremism rise worldwide, governments are struggling to respond in ways that are both effective and in conformity with international and domestic laws. Halting terrorist financing, online recruitment and radicalization, and cyberwarfare are just some of the areas that demand a careful balancing of multiple interests including the protection of freedom of speech, religion, privacy and the Internet. Tools employed in more recent warfare such as the use of drones, private security contractors, and controversial detention tactics add further complexity to the delicate tension between protecting security and human rights. The transnational nature of terrorism requires better international cooperation and coordination across multiple disciplines, as well as greater coherence amongst legal regimes. We are also honored to feature Ard van der Steur, the Netherlands minister for justice and security and current chair of the European Council of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers, who will provide a national and European perspective on these issues. Ingrid van Engelshoven, deputy mayor of The Hague will provide brief opening remarks. Following the keynote presentation, Koh, Minister van der Steur, and Michele Coninsx, the president of Eurojust, will join a panel discussion moderated by Abi Williams, president of The Hague Institute for Global Justice. After the program, the speakers will take questions from the audience. This event will be live webcast. Join the conversation on Twitter at #BreyerLecture.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Accept, acknowledge, move on
Yesterday’s Serbian government statement responding to the guilty verdicts against former Republika Srpska leader Radovan Karadzic walks a tightrope. It implicitly acknowledges the legitimacy of the court’s decisions in this particular case but refuses any implication of collective responsibility and complains about the failure to hold people responsible for crimes against Serbs:
…every crime must be punished, as well as any individual who took part in them, but that any kind of politicisation and placing collective guilt on individual nations for the crimes committed by people with names and surnames is impermissible.
…the Serbian government does not want to react to the content and explanation of any single verdict of the Hague Tribunal, but that, after many years of work of that court, a bitter taste remains due to the fact that the masterminds of the policy of crimes against Serbs have not been punished in any way.
I know lots of people who might have liked the statement to have been more explicit and to have accepted Serbian government responsibility. In particular the Srebrenica genocide was carried out under the command of a Yugoslav National Army (JNA) officer, Ratko Mladic, who was at least equally responsible alongside Slobodan Milosevic as well as Karadzic. But I am tiring of waiting for Belgrade to acknowledge official responsibility and confident history will record the truth of the matter. I even hope it will some day be taught in Serbian schools.
Americans should be understanding: it is only recently that we are acknowledging official responsibility for atrocities against our continent’s indigenous peoples and enslaved Africans.
The Serbian government is correct in rejecting collective guilt. While those who voted repeatedly for Slobodan Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic bear some indirect responsibility for what they did with the power entrusted to them, I know lots of Serbs who had the courage and dignity to object. I’m reminded of Zoran Djindjic’s first appearance in Washington after the fall of Milosevic. When an audience member prefaced a question by stating that Serbs were not collectively responsible, he responded that it would nevertheless be necessary for history to consider how Milosevic came to power and the extent of the support he enjoyed.
The complaint about the failure to hold others responsible for crimes against Serbs is unfortunately accurate. It would be a mistake to view everyone as equally guilty. But Albanians, Croats and Bosniaks unquestionably committed crimes against Serb civilians in the 1990s, for which their commanders should have been held responsible. The International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) will not be fondly remembered for many reasons: it has been too slow, too inconsistent, too aloof and too wedded to tortuous process rather than just outcomes. Maybe each of its individual decisions can be defended as just, but I fear the overall result is justice that looks dictated by victors rather than facts.
Karadzic was unquestionably guilty morally and now legally of genocide, crimes against humanity and crimes of war. While well within its rights to complain that others have not been held accountable for their own misdeeds, the Serbian government is wise to accept, acknowledge and try to move on.
RSS - Posts
