Chicago Tribune

Tuesday, May 2, 2000

COURT FOR WAR CRIMES A SLOW PROCESS

By M. Cherif Bassiouni.

M. Cherif Bassiouni, a law professor at DePaul University, was the driving force behind the treaty to establish the International Criminal Court.

May 2 is the Jewish Holocaust's day of remembrance. As we honor that memory, we must keep faith with the victims of this and similar tragedies and prevent their reccurrence.

World War I, which left more than 20 million casualties in its wake, was to

be "the war to end all wars." However, a relatively short time later the

world found itself embroiled in a conflict of wider proportions. After the

atrocities of World War II were revealed, a new promise emerged: "Never

again." Since then, some 250 international, regional and internal armed

conflicts have occurred. These, along with large-scale victimization

perpetrated by repressive regimes, have produced casualties estimated at

between 70 and 170 million deaths. These consequences of genocide, crimes

against humanity, war crimes and torture are almost beyond comprehension.

Regrettably, most of the perpetrators have benefited from impunity instead

of being held accountable for these international crimes. These terrible

realities must be addressed so that we are not condemned to witness their

repetition.

Since the trial of the Nazi leadership at Nuremberg, governments have for

the most part continued the convenient practices of realpolitik, whereby

accountability and justice are bargained for political compromises. One of

the outcomes of this approach has been that international crimes such as

aggression, genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, slave-related

practices and torture, have increased in almost all parts of the world.

Moreover, governments in a position to prevent or mitigate these tragic

events, or to pursue restorative and retributive justice, have regrettably

for the most part remained passive, indifferent and at times even

supportive of regimes engaged in these practices.

International civil society has increasingly expressed its growing

discontent with the practices of granting impunity to the leaders who

ordered the commission of atrocities and to senior commanders who carried

them out. But, as the demand for justice is increasing, realpoliticians can

hardly overlook it.

Since World War I, five international investigative commissions and four ad

hoc international tribunals have been established. These tribunals were set

up by the victorious to try the vanquished, even though those who were

tried deserved it. The United Nations' Security Council in 1993 and 1994

set up tribunals for the Yugoslavia and Rwanda conflicts. These ad hoc

commissions and tribunals have benefited from the support of governments

motivated by humanistic values and by governments who recognized the

importance of criminal accountability as a way to preserve world order.

Nevertheless, international action has not been consistent, and the

Security Council has failed to act in the aftermath of many conflicts,

including Cambodia and Sierra Leone. These conflicts have resulted in an

estimated 2 million Cambodians killed and 300,000 people slain in Sierra

Leone.

The pursuit of international criminal justice on an ad-hoc basis is less

than satisfying because it does not treat all who commit the same crime in

the same way. To avoid the pitfalls of ad-hoc justice, international norms

and standards for accountability need to be clearly established and

consistently applied by a permanent international criminal court.

International accountability for genocide, war crimes and crimes against

humanity is necessary to achieve peace and reconciliation between people in

conflict-torn areas. Indeed history reveals that there cannot be peace

without justice, for the victims will not forget. Above all, when the

international community fails to redress past victimization, it breaks

faith with the bonds of humanity. And when that happens, we are condemned

to repeat our worst mistakes.

On July 18, 1998, the Rome Treaty on the Establishment of an International

Criminal Court was opened for signature at the Campidoglio in Rome and 26

states signed it on that day. Since the end of WWI, the international

community has worked for the ICC, and this achievement is to the credit of

the United Nations. The ICC will enter into force after 60 states have

ratified it. As of early April, 96 states have signed the Rome Treaty,

eight have ratified it, and some 30 states have taken initiatives toward

ratification. Moreover, several intergovernmental organizations have

encouraged their members and other states to sign and ratify the treaty.

As worldwide support for ratification is gaining momentum, expectations are

high that the treaty will enter into force by the end of 2002. Regrettably,

the United States opposes it essentially for domestic political reasons.

Justice, whether at the national or international levels, never comes easy.

It needs constant support and reinforcement. Above all, it needs to be

politically independent, impartial toward all persons, fair to the accused

and to the victim. Without these characteristics, the ICC will not have the

moral authority needed to have its orders respected and also to have the

deterring effect on potential future violators. The U.S. can make sure that

this happens. Maybe then we can redeem the promise of "never again."

President Clinton should have the moral courage to live up to his many

speeches in support of the ICC and sign the ICC treaty. It may be his most

important legacy.