Subject: Re: WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: The Transnational Radical Party List
Dear Friends
Mirjana Petrovic should have continued:
The "selective vision" of those in power in the present world order makes
some of us very uneasy about the setting up of War Crimes Tribunals. Shall
we have a situation where the greater criminals go free because they are
more powerful?
It is imperative that we who are demanding justice be very clear about what
our demands are and very clear about who counts as a criminal. I hope the
following example makes it clear:
In World War 2 many atrocities were committed and not only by the Nazis and
their allies. Still, all in all, it was not hypocritical for the Allies to
try some (not all) Nazis as War Criminals. Those who were tried and
convicted clearly went outside the (all too looose) bounds of behavior even
in wartime. Those who judged had blood on their hands, but also had a
record that could make an impartial observer hope for justice, not
vengeance or expedience.
Who will the judges be now? As an American, I would be appalled to think
that anyone associated with my government in the past decades should judge
others on war crimes. In addition to our unprovoked wars againt Nicaragua,
Grenada and Panama, we have engaged in morally dubious campaigns in many
parts of the world, such as Iraq. Worse, we are the sponsors of some of
the most vicious criminals of the current period -- I am thinking of the
Haitian thugs and of Savimbi's mass murderers in Angola who are still
active and many Central American fascist militias who are relatively
quiescent for now. The evidence is pretty clear that these bloody
activities were condoned by our government officials for reasons of
politics -- something which fits my definition of war crimes. So, as I
say, I would resist having any "official" Americans as judges for fear of
polluting the proceedings of any war crimes tribunal. But who should be
the judges? And what procedure can ensure that the goal of justice is kept
foremost in mind?
I would like to suggest that we need a first step to take prior to the
establisment of a general tribunal on war crimes (the argument is not
intended against a specific tribunal for Yugoslavia, Angola, Haiti, or
whatever). This step is a campaign to ban international arms production
and trafficking. (One must ban production as well as trade). One reason
why the 1990s are so bloody is that the arms merchants have been selling
extraordinary amounts of weapons -- and very nasty weapons -- for 25 years.
If we can put a dent in this trade in any way, it will help save lives.
And those people/nations which show good faith in truly stopping the death
trade will be the natural "moral vanguard" to judge war criminals of all
nationalities.
Ed Reed
Lancaster, PA
