ext_114329 (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
malasadas.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
talkpolitics2011-05-26 05:31 pm
malasadas.livejournal.com) wrote in talkpolitics2011-05-26 05:31 pm
Entry tags:
Ratko Mladic and International Justice
One of the world's longest standing manhunts ended today with the arrest of Ratko Mladic, the former head of the Bosnian Serb Army during the war between Bosnian Serbs, Croats and Muslims in the 1990s. General Mladic will be now turned over to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia which indicted him in 1995 for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Among the many brutal actions he is accused of, Mladic is alleged to have ordered and overseen the Srebenica massacre in 1995, widely regarded as Europe's worst massacre since World War II.
While some in Belgrade still regard Mladic as a hero of the Serbian people, observers in the capital note that the general feeling among people is one of relief. Cynics may also note that Mladic's arrest and transfer to the Hague clears the way for Serbia to join the E.U. and perhaps finally normalize its relationship with the rest of Europe, a process that has included the arrest and trial of Slobodan Milošević and Radovan Karadžić, and which may have never gotten to Mladic without the enticement of EU membership.
I suppose it is true that any monster can be convenient until he is no longer so. Western powers were slow to insist upon the departure of Hosni Mubarak earlier this year until it became clear that his own army had turned against him and would not protect the regime with violence. While Colonel Gaddafi's military HAS protected his regime with violence, he has no honest friends in the international community and the Arab League gave NATO plenty of cover to take a case for the no fly zone to the UN by condemning Gaddafi's response to Libyan protests. I remember when the Rwandan genocide took place in 1994 that western leaders tripped over themselves to not call it a genocide lest anyone remind them that they had all signed on intervene in cases of genocide.
Mladic is certainly inconvenient to Serbia with dwindling supporters willing to take up the cause of Greater Serbia compared to greater ties to the rest of Europe. It is, I suppose, fair to assume that cynical self interest is more at work than justice.
But how much does that ACTUALLY matter? When the Allied Powers convened war crimes tribunals against the defeated Axis leaders, they were in a familiar and powerful place: they had crushed their enemies in conventional war and were holding them account for atrocities and in that case, atrocities that blanched even the indelicate sensibilities of the recent Colonial and Imperial powers of Europe. Had the Allies conducted atrocities themselves? No doubt, but I think it is also undoubted that their enemies had perpetuated genuine evil and they were on the right side of the war, even including Stalin in the equation.
Today's war crimes tribunals operate in a different sense altogether. They are rarely convened by conquering powers in the wars -- Rwandan and Yugoslavian war criminals are tried not because a victorious army has captured them but because agreements have been made to empower a tribunal outside the war zone altogether. The only reason the tribunal can do any of its work is not through force but through agreement that it can -- agreement that parties harboring the accused can rescind at any time.
The same applies to the befuddling choices in the face of multiple regimes commiting multiple bad acts against their own people in very different political situations. The Arab League is not lining up to condemn Syrian violence against protesters, and Saudi Arabia is more or less directing Bahrain in its crack down. It is not convenient to do more than vigorous diplomacy to try to dial these atrocities down. That inconvenience is not a spectacularly moral ground to play from, but I am not clear about alternatives. Since no justice can be had in these kinds of cases without cooperation, the best way forward seems to be to acknowledge that...and live with it.
But that also doesn't seem to bode well for the Serbian people as a whole. The Serbs that I have known tend to take a very long view of history -- in the 1990s they were quick to point out Serbia's role in turning back the Ottoman Empire in Europe and that it was Serbians who took it on the chin under Nazi occupation. I have to wonder how helpful it is for SERBIA at this time for a monster like Mladic to be taken off of their hands for trial by people not at all connected to the atrocities he commited. Will Serbia's remaining Black Shirts simply fade into the background...and wait for another time when Greater Serbian nationalism and ambitions have a more receptive audience? Will Serbians just turn the page on this chapter, enjoy the benefits of joining the E.U. and be able to say "It wasn't us -- it was him?"
Is there, in short, a better way forward for societies like this other than to turn their monsters over to the Hague?
While some in Belgrade still regard Mladic as a hero of the Serbian people, observers in the capital note that the general feeling among people is one of relief. Cynics may also note that Mladic's arrest and transfer to the Hague clears the way for Serbia to join the E.U. and perhaps finally normalize its relationship with the rest of Europe, a process that has included the arrest and trial of Slobodan Milošević and Radovan Karadžić, and which may have never gotten to Mladic without the enticement of EU membership.
I suppose it is true that any monster can be convenient until he is no longer so. Western powers were slow to insist upon the departure of Hosni Mubarak earlier this year until it became clear that his own army had turned against him and would not protect the regime with violence. While Colonel Gaddafi's military HAS protected his regime with violence, he has no honest friends in the international community and the Arab League gave NATO plenty of cover to take a case for the no fly zone to the UN by condemning Gaddafi's response to Libyan protests. I remember when the Rwandan genocide took place in 1994 that western leaders tripped over themselves to not call it a genocide lest anyone remind them that they had all signed on intervene in cases of genocide.
Mladic is certainly inconvenient to Serbia with dwindling supporters willing to take up the cause of Greater Serbia compared to greater ties to the rest of Europe. It is, I suppose, fair to assume that cynical self interest is more at work than justice.
But how much does that ACTUALLY matter? When the Allied Powers convened war crimes tribunals against the defeated Axis leaders, they were in a familiar and powerful place: they had crushed their enemies in conventional war and were holding them account for atrocities and in that case, atrocities that blanched even the indelicate sensibilities of the recent Colonial and Imperial powers of Europe. Had the Allies conducted atrocities themselves? No doubt, but I think it is also undoubted that their enemies had perpetuated genuine evil and they were on the right side of the war, even including Stalin in the equation.
Today's war crimes tribunals operate in a different sense altogether. They are rarely convened by conquering powers in the wars -- Rwandan and Yugoslavian war criminals are tried not because a victorious army has captured them but because agreements have been made to empower a tribunal outside the war zone altogether. The only reason the tribunal can do any of its work is not through force but through agreement that it can -- agreement that parties harboring the accused can rescind at any time.
The same applies to the befuddling choices in the face of multiple regimes commiting multiple bad acts against their own people in very different political situations. The Arab League is not lining up to condemn Syrian violence against protesters, and Saudi Arabia is more or less directing Bahrain in its crack down. It is not convenient to do more than vigorous diplomacy to try to dial these atrocities down. That inconvenience is not a spectacularly moral ground to play from, but I am not clear about alternatives. Since no justice can be had in these kinds of cases without cooperation, the best way forward seems to be to acknowledge that...and live with it.
But that also doesn't seem to bode well for the Serbian people as a whole. The Serbs that I have known tend to take a very long view of history -- in the 1990s they were quick to point out Serbia's role in turning back the Ottoman Empire in Europe and that it was Serbians who took it on the chin under Nazi occupation. I have to wonder how helpful it is for SERBIA at this time for a monster like Mladic to be taken off of their hands for trial by people not at all connected to the atrocities he commited. Will Serbia's remaining Black Shirts simply fade into the background...and wait for another time when Greater Serbian nationalism and ambitions have a more receptive audience? Will Serbians just turn the page on this chapter, enjoy the benefits of joining the E.U. and be able to say "It wasn't us -- it was him?"
Is there, in short, a better way forward for societies like this other than to turn their monsters over to the Hague?