Truth, Justice and the American Way
Over the weekend, the war crimes trial of Slobodan Milosovic ground to yet another halt over concerns for the health of the former dictator. Some fear it may have derailed completely, as Milosovic is acting as his own attorney before the tribunal and is apparently unfit, due to high blood pressure, to perform that function. All of this raises questions about the problems of international justice at a time when the fate of another notorious war criminal, Saddam Hussein, is being decided under an entirely different jurisdiction.
If the International War Crimes Tribunal can’t get justice for the victims of Milosovic, it is argued, what do other genocidal dictators have to fear from the international community? Doesn’t this justify actions like those of the United States to remove Saddam Hussein (leaving aside for a moment the other fraudulent and fabricated arguments for the war), since only a strong world leader has the will and the capabilities to enforce democratic principles on bloodthirsty tyrants? In short, doesn’t the potential fiasco in the Milosovic trial constitute the strongest liberal (e.g., humanitarian) case against internationalism?
I’m tempted to say yes. There has not been a successful international tribunal since Nuremburg. The complexities of international courts have put on display the very worst aspects of litigious Western institutions. Cases often take years to decide, and are hung up on technicalities that would spin the head of Johnny Cochrane. International prosecution of war criminals is not effective as a deterrent or as propaganda, since the accused often has a larger platform for his appalling views. One shudders to imagine Saddam Hussein in the dock at the Hague, on a European stage predisposed to be sympathetic because of the nature of his overthrow and the agent of his defeat.
However, the failures of the international justice system as it currently stands don’t constitute an indictment of the basic idea of international justice. Leaders who commit crimes against their own people or their neighbors must be held to certain standards of justice beyond, or realistically, perhaps in addition to, the will of the stronger. Those who suffer under misrule need to know that someone is willing to vouch for their dignity and seek both justice and truth on their behalf.
Most of all, war crimes trials are not just for the victims and the perpetrators, but for the world. War crimes trials can bring to light details about how systems are abused, ideologies perverted, institutions corrupted to suit the needs of a criminal state. This is information we need to know so we can recognize it in our own societies. The ideology of Naziism was permanently discredited by the atrocities of the Holocaust, which is why crypto-fascists around the world are bound and determined to “revise” the historical record. Without the undertones of ignorant racism and the stain of savage mass murder of innocent populations, Nazi Germany was merely a brutal and effective police state with grand territorial ambitions, a problematic but not indefensible regime. By bringing the activities of the Nazis to light in an orderly and fair judicial proceeding, however, the Allies were able to link right wing authoritarianism with genocide in a way that may have inhibited the return of specifically Nazi forms of government. Or, at least, they gave populations some idea of what to look for and what to expect.
A fair and open prosecution of Saddam Hussein, under whatever auspices, could do the same for pan-Arab authoritarianism, or at least one of its most odious practitioners. Certainly Saddam’s victims demand justice, which may not be forthcoming from an international court. But we also require truth, which may not be the priority of the so-called Iraqi authority that currently has custody of Saddam. Perhaps by January, the United States will have a new government – one with less of a vested interest in achieving a convenient and quiet judgment on Saddam for their own political reasons, and one which can perhaps get us closer to the real story.
The American people have invested hundreds of billions of dollars, lives, and our international reputation in Iraq, and Saddam is about the only prize at the bottom of this oily Cracker Jack box. There are really good reasons to keep him out of the hands of the gang at the Hague, as the Milosovic situation demonstrates. But opposition to excessive internationalism should not be taken as a license to conduct a show trial for political expedience. It is up to America to see that truth and justice remain linked in the case against Saddam.
1:57:48 PM 
|
|
