|
CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS FOUNDATION
Bill of Right in Action Summer
1996 (12:3) Keeping the Peace After the Cold War More than 50 years ago, World War II ended. The allies took actions to prevent another war. They founded the United Nations. They set up war crimes tribunals in Tokyo and Nuremberg. As the Cold War began, the Western nations formed NATO, an alliance to counter the Soviet threat in Europe. Did these actions help prevent war? Do NATO, the United Nations, and war crimes tribunals have relevance in today's world? This edition of Bill of Rights in Action examines these questions.
This issue of the Bill of Rights in Action is made possible by a generous grant from the W.M. Keck Foundation. The United Nations: Fifty Years of Keeping the Peace In 1995, representatives from 185 countries gathered at the United Nations in New York to celebrate the 50th anniversary of its founding. Fifty years earlier, much of the world lay in ruins. Millions of people (including 406,000 Americans) had lost their lives in the most destructive war in human history. The hope for an international organization to effectively enforce the peace in the postwar world was mainly an American idea. President Franklin D. Roosevelt believed the peace could be kept by the major allied powers of the war, the "Big Five"—the United States, Soviet Union, Great Britain, France, and China. In Roosevelt's vision, they would become the world's "policemen." Fifty nations meeting in San Francisco in June 1945 unanimously approved the U.N. Charter. The preamble of the charter set down the most important purpose of the world organization: "We the peoples of the United Nations are determined to save the generations of people yet to come from the horrors of war." After the charter was approved, the delegates rose spontaneously from their seats and cheered. How well has the United Nations kept the peace? Does it deserve our cheers today? Or do we need to rely on different organizations to keep the peace in today's world? The Security Council Under the U.N. Charter, the Security Council is granted the power to "take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security." The Security Council today consists of 15 nations including the five wartime allied powers. The "Big Five" are permanent members of the Council, each with veto power. This means that by voting "no," any one of these nations can stop the Security Council from acting. Other U.N. members take turns filling the remaining 10 seats on the Security Council, but do not have veto power. As a practical matter, the "Big Five" must all agree (or at least not exercise the veto) before the United Nations can act against threats to world peace and security. The assumption in 1945 was that the five major allies in war would continue to work together on the Security Council to enforce the peace. This assumption, however, proved wrong. As the Cold War developed, most of the nations of the world found themselves divided into two camps: the Western powers, led by the United States; and the communist powers, led by the Soviet Union. Most nations not aligned with either camp were in the Third World, the developing nations of Africa and Asia. Cold War Limits The United Nations quickly became a Cold War battleground between communist and non-communist countries. Since both the United States and Soviet Union held vetoes, the Security Council could not act without their joint permission. This limited U.N. peacekeeping efforts to situations where the national interests of the superpowers were not in conflict. Such was the case in 1948 when fighting erupted between Arabs and Jews after the United Nations created the state of Israel. Ralph Bunche, an American working as a U.N. diplomat, negotiated a cease fire, which involved sending the first U.N. peacekeepers to separate the warring sides. Once, however, the Security Council did act against Soviet interests. After communist North Korea attacked South Korea in June 1950, the Security Council granted President Truman authority to send American troops to defend South Korea. This happened due to a fluke of history. The Soviet Union was boycotting the Security Council because the permanent seat held by China was then occupied by the anti-communist government on Taiwan rather than the communist mainland government. As a result, the Soviet Union failed to exercise its veto. Although about 15 U.N. member nations participated with the United States in the Korean War (1950—B1953), American troops did most of the fighting. In another instance, the United States and Soviet Union teamed up to thwart two Western powers—France and Great Britain. In July 1956, Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser seized the Suez Canal. Although the canal ran through Egyptian territory, it was owned primarily by the British and French. To get the canal back, Britain, France, and Israel invaded Egypt. Most of the world opposed the retaking of the canal. The United States and Soviet Union, in a rare case of Cold War unity, voted for a Security Council resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of British, French, and Israeli troops. But Britain and France vetoed this resolution. The United States then took the unusual step of submitting the withdrawal resolution to the General Assembly where every U.N. member had one vote and no country had the veto power. The resolution passed overwhelmingly. An armed U.N. peacekeeping force, the "Blue Helmets" (peacekeeper helmets have the same color as the U.N. flag), was put together with troops contributed by a number of U.N. member nations. Faced with such massive international opposition, the British, French, and Israelis withdrew their forces from the canal. Due to Cold War limits on U.N. action, the world organization played an insignificant role in some of the most dangerous threats to world peace. The Security Council took no action in 1962 when the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred. The Security Council also remained stalemated during the Vietnam War. The New Third World Majority In 1945, the United States assumed that the United Nations would share its interests and that U.N. members would follow the American lead. This assumption was shaken by the Cold War. But the United States still managed to win important votes in the General Assembly. For example, for years the General Assembly voted to keep communist mainland China out of the United Nations. This changed, however, in 1971. Despite U.S. efforts, the majority of U.N. members voted to replace anti-communist Taiwan with communist China in both the General Assembly and the Security Council. By this time, U.N. membership had more than doubled. Most of the new member nations were former colonies. They increasingly sided against the United States and its allies. While the United States still had the veto in the Security Council, the General Assembly consistently voted against American positions. Many ambassadors from the new Third World countries literally danced in the aisles of the General Assembly when the U.S. stand against seating communist China was outvoted. Since the General Assembly controlled the U.N. budget, new programs and agencies aimed at aiding the economies of poor Third World countries greatly increased spending. In the area of human rights, the United Nations constantly attacked apartheid in white-controlled South Africa, but ignored episodes of genocide in several black African countries. At this time, the General Assembly majority usually sided with Arab interests over Israel, a longtime U.S. ally. In 1975, the General Assembly passed a resolution condemning Zionism (the movement for a Jewish nation) as "a form of racism." Stanley Meisler, author of a recent history of the United Nations, concluded that, "Nothing in U.N. history so diminished the organization in the eyes of Americans as the vote for the Zionist resolution." [In 1991 after the Gulf War, the General Assembly voted to revoke this resolution.] By the time Ronald Reagan became president in the early 1980s, some American critics of the United Nations were charging that the world organization had become anti-American, anti-West, and anti-free enterprise. The critics also argued that the United Nations was plagued with corruption, out-of-control spending, and a bloated bureaucracy. During the Reagan presidency, the United States began to reduce and delay its annual payments to the United Nations to pressure the organization to change its ways. [Today, the United States owes $1.5 billion in back payments to the United Nations for its regular budget and its peacekeeping budget.] Peacekeeping After the Cold War In 1989, the communist world started crumbling. The Berlin Wall fell. Soon communist governments began toppling: East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Poland, and Hungary. Finally in 1991 the Soviet Union disbanded. Russia took the Soviet Union's seat on the Security Council. After 45 years, the Cold War had ended. After years of Cold War paralysis, it seemed the Security Council could now act decisively. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, the Security Council passed a dozen strong resolutions against Saddam Hussein's violation of the peace. They included an ultimatum to Iraq to either withdraw its troops or face an overwhelming multinational military force authorized by the United Nations and led by the United States. The United States and the Soviet Union voted together on this key resolution along with Britain and France. The fifth permanent Security Council member with veto power, China, abstained from voting. Shortly after the quick victory in the Gulf War, President Bush declared that a "new world order" was coming into existence "where the United Nations, freed from Cold War stalemate, is poised to fulfill the historic vision of its founders." But this optimism was soon diminished by U.N. peacekeeping interventions in Somalia and Bosnia. With Security Council backing, President Bush ordered American troops to Somalia at the end of 1992. President Bush saw the purpose of this mission as ensuring the safe delivery of food and relief supplies to the starving Somali people who were terrorized by clashing military factions. But U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali insisted that American and other troops sent to Somalia under U.N. authority needed to disarm the fighting factions. After 24 Pakistani peacekeepers were killed in an ambush in 1993, the Security Council authorized a manhunt for the Somali military leader who was responsible. More violent incidents occurred including one in which 18 American soldiers were killed. This led President Clinton to order the withdrawal of American troops from Somalia, which crippled the U.N. peacekeeping mission. In 1992, U.N. peacekeepers (not including U.S. troops) were sent to protect civilian food convoys in the middle of a vicious civil war in Bosnia. Authorized only to defend themselves, these Blue Helmets were powerless to stop violence directed against the civilian population. U.N. peacekeeping in this civil war soon proved to be totally ineffective. Finally, the United States and its NATO allies helped negotiate a peace treaty that called for American troops and soldiers from 30 other countries to supervise its implementation. The UN has also chosen to intervene in Kosovo, an area currently experiencing an uneasy peace after years of conflict. Since the dissolution of the Yugoslav Federation in 1992, the Balkans have been a hotbed of border wars, civil unrest, and the so-called "ethnic cleansing" of the Muslims. In Kosovo, the Kosovo Liberation Army, supported chiefly by Albanians, rebelled against Serbian rule, thus plunging the country into violent civil war in 1998. On 10 June 1999, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution authorizing the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) to act as the transitional administration for the region. To pave the way for self-government, civil registration is in progress throughout Kosovo with municipal elections scheduled in the latter part of 2000. All three Kosovo-Albanian political parties have endorsed the UN Mission in Kosovo and have committed their support for a multi-party democracy in the territory. Back in 1945, the founders of the U.N. looked upon the Security Council as the mechanism to prevent and stop wars of aggression in which nations attack other nations. After all, this was the way World War II had taken place. But today most threats to peace involve civil wars, ethnic conflicts, and gross violations of human rights within nations. The United Nations has no standing army to suppress these breeches of international peace and security. The U.N.'s Blue Helmet peacekeeping missions are only as effective as the commitment of those countries that contribute troops. Today, there are nearly 70,000 U.N. peacekeepers in about 15 areas of the world. Some argue that U.N. peacekeeping should be limited to separating armies and monitoring peace agreements after the fighting has stopped. During the last half-century, most of the nearly 40 U.N. peacekeeping missions have taken this form. Such missions have been effective in places like Cambodia and El Salvador where civil conflicts once raged. But should the world stand by while fighting factions slaughter one another and children die from artillery shells and starvation? From its beginning, the purpose of the United Nations has been to keep the peace. Its effectiveness was hindered at first by the Cold War. Its future depends on the support of member nations, particularly the United States. How much or how little the United States will support U.N. peacekeeping in the future is uncertain. But in the words of Abba Eban, former Israeli foreign minister and U.N. diplomat, "Nothing can happen without the Americans. Everything can happen with them." For Discussion and Writing
For Further Information The United Nations Home Page: The official home page of the United Nations headquarters in New York. United Nations System of Organizations: This web site lists all United Nations Organizations (UNOs) with their abbreviations and city locations of headquarters sites, in addition to other useful information. A C T I V I T Y Who Belongs on the Security Council? In 1945 at the end of World War II, the five allies from the war—United States, Soviet Union, China, France, and Great Britain—were selected as the permanent members of the Security Council. Each of these "great powers" has a veto. Today, more than 50 years later, which countries of the world do you think belong on the Security Council? Imagine that your class is the U.N. General Assembly and you are going to vote on which countries deserve to be members of the five-member Security Council.
The Cold War, which divided Europe for more than 50 years, ended with a series of astounding events. In 1989, the German people tore down the Berlin Wall and celebrated. The following year, communist East Germany collapsed and united with West Germany. One by one, the Soviet-dominated communist governments of Central and Eastern Europe fell. In December 1991, the Soviet Union itself dissolved into a number of non-communist countries. Suddenly, the Cold War was over. At the beginning of the Cold War in 1949, the United States helped establish the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). This military alliance obligates the United States to come to the defense of Western European nations if attacked. Today, with the end of the Cold War, the security threats of 1949 have disappeared. This new reality in Europe has raised questions about NATO: Should it expand to include the former communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe? Should the United States continue to participate in the alliance? Is NATO even needed in today's world? The Beginning of the Cold War Following the defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945, Soviet troops occupied much of Central and Eastern Europe. Communist governments soon controlled this area. The Communist Party was also gaining strength throughout war-torn Western Europe, especially in Italy and France. Talks among the four major wartime allies—Britain, France, the Soviet Union, and the United States—collapsed over the future status of Germany. Speaking in Fulton, Missouri, in 1946, Winston Churchill, the British prime minister during the World War II, warned of an ominous division taking place in Europe: From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. . . . [A]ll these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I might call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject. . . [to] a very high and in some cases increasing measure of control from Moscow. In 1947, President Truman responded to Soviet military pressure on Turkey and a threatened communist take-over in Greece with a promise of military support to "free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation." This Truman Doctrine together with the Marshall Plan, a massive American economic program to aid war-weakened Western Europe, were designed to "contain" any Soviet aggression. But the next year, a communist minority with Soviet military support took control of the government of Czechoslovakia. Soon after that, the Soviets tried to get their way in Germany by blockading all land transportation routes leading into the British, French, and American occupation zones of Berlin. The Cold War had begun. U.S. Involvement in NATO Western European nations needed some sort of defense arrangement to assure their freedom and independence. But these nations were not strong enough, either individually or collectively, to defend themselves against a major Soviet attack. Shortly after the Berlin Blockade began, representatives of Great Britain, France, Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, and the United States met in Washington. They discussed issues affecting the security of Western Europe and North America. One issue was how to make Western Europe strong enough to balance the power of the Soviet Union. Another problem involved the future of Germany in Europe. After the war, Germany and its old capital city, Berlin, had been divided and occupied by the four major allies. Military occupation would have to end sometime. What would be the role of Germany then? The representatives knew that Germany would regain its economic power and prominence in Europe. They didn't want Germany to become once again a military threat. To the Western Europeans, there was only one solution to the potential threats of an aggressive Soviet Union and a remilitarized Germany. This was the permanent involvement of the United States in the security of Europe. The United States would provide the balance of power preventing either the Soviets or the Germans from dominating Europe. The Washington talks resulted in the drafting of the North Atlantic Treaty. On April 4, 1949, the foreign ministers of Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Great Britain, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, and the United States signed the treaty in Washington. Its key provision states that the signing nations "agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all. . . . " In the event of an attack, each party to the treaty also agree to take "such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area." The following October, Congress authorized $500 million in military aid to strengthen America's Western European allies. The United States also led the effort to establish an organization (the "O" in NATO) to operate the new military alliance. General Dwight D. Eisenhower was appointed the supreme allied commander of all NATO forces in Europe. In April 1951, the U.S. Senate passed a resolution supporting President Truman's decision to permanently station four U.S. Army divisions in Europe (in addition to the two divisions already occupying Germany). Over time, NATO expanded to include Greece, Turkey, West Germany, and Spain for a total of 16 member-nations. The American military forces on European soil eventually grew to over 300,000 troops. The unqualified success of NATO can be measured by the fact that the defense alliance was never challenged during the 50 years of the Cold War. NATO's Future With the end of the Cold War and Soviet Union gone, a debate developed over the need for the United States to remain involved in the defense of Europe. Some called for withdrawing all U.S. troops from European soil and even the disbanding of NATO itself. According to this view, NATO had done its job and no longer had any purpose. Others, however, argued that the fall of communism in Central and Eastern Europe had produced new dangers. Political and economic instability in Russia (a nuclear power), ethnic conflicts in the nations formed from the old Soviet Union, and civil wars like the one that engulfed former communist Yugoslavia could still threaten the security of Western Europe. In addition, if U.S. forces withdrew from Europe, the new reunified Germany would probably feel the need to build up its own military defense, perhaps even including nuclear weapons. Such a development would undoubtedly scare its neighbors. For all of these reasons, the Western Europeans, including the Germans, have unanimously favored the continuation of NATO with full American participation. At the NATO summit in January 1994, President Clinton reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to NATO and the defense of Western Europe. "The security of the North Atlantic region," he declared, "is vital to the security of the United States." He went on to promise that the United States would keep at least 100,000 American troops stationed in Europe. President Clinton also promoted "Partnership for Peace." Under this plan, the former communist countries of Europe could participate with NATO in joint planning, training, and military exercises. They could also "consult" with NATO if threatened or attacked. "Partnership for Peace" was envisioned as a pathway for old Iron Curtain countries to someday become full members of the NATO alliance. Some foreign policy experts have raised troubling questions about enlarging NATO: Are the United States and its current NATO allies really prepared to defend a much larger area in Europe? Would U.S. troops be stationed in Central and Eastern European countries? Would NATO position nuclear weapons there? Although the Russian foreign minister vowed early in 1996 to oppose any plan that included former Soviet bloc nations in NATO, the "Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation" was signed by NATO and Russia in May of 1997. This act formed the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council, the venue for cooperation and consultation between Russia and NATO. This act also affirmed the joint commitment of Russia and the Alliance to the formation of a lasting and inclusive Euro-Atlantic peace. The NATO-Ukraine Charter and the Mediterranean Dialogue also encouraged communication and consensus-building between NATO and non-Western European nations. Furthermore, in 1999, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland joined NATO, bringing its membership to 19 nations. NATO in Bosnia and Kosovo Another problem facing NATO is the ethnic civil war in Bosnia. In 1992, following the collapse of communism, Bosnia declared its independence from Yugoslavia, one of the former communist states of Europe. Civil war broke out among Bosnia's ethnic groups—Muslims, Serbs, and Croats. The war was marked by "ethnic cleansing," the massacre and forced exodus of innocent civilians. Although no NATO country was attacked, this war could have easily spilled over into NATO territory, particularly Greece. The war in Bosnia raised a new question for NATO. Just how far should NATO go in preserving the peace of Europe when alliance members are not directly threatened? Several NATO members wanted to intervene. They argued that NATO could not simply stand by while genocide was taking place in Europe. Most members, however, urged caution because the conflict was based on old ethnic hatreds. If NATO entered the war, they argued, it would sink huge amounts of troops and resources into a mess it couldn't hope to solve. Further, they noted, NATO would probably have to intervene against the Serbs who were winning the civil war. The Serbs are traditional allies of Russia. So NATO took the position that it would help to bring about and then implement "a viable settlement reached in good faith." Starting in 1993, NATO aircraft began to fly combat missions to protect civilian "safe areas" and U.N. forces trying to bring about an end to the fighting in Bosnia. These were the first combat engagements ever by NATO forces. As a result of both NATO's military and diplomatic efforts, the warring parties agreed to negotiate a peace agreement, which was finally signed in Paris on December 14, 1995. A few days later, NATO's Implementation Force (IFOR) began to carry out the military elements of the peace agreement. This involved sending 60,000 troops from about 30 NATO and non-NATO countries (including Russia) to separate the fighting armies in Bosnia and maintain the peace. The United States contributed one-third of the combat troops to this peacekeeping effort. IFOR, completed its work in December 1996 and was replaced by a smaller Stabilisation Force (SFOR), which is working to lay the basis for the implementation of the Peace Agreement in its entirety. Since the 31,000 SFOR troops cannot remain indefinitely in Bosnia, NATO has also established the Security Cooperation Programme (SCP), which is working to create a peaceful Bosnia, independent of NATO involvement. Some have called IFOR and SFOR "dream teams" because of the participation of so many countries and the inclusion of Russian troops under NATO command. IFOR and SFOR could become models for peacekeeping throughout all of Europe. Others, however, argue that neither the United States nor NATO has any business interfering in conflicts taking place outside NATO territory. NATO’s recent involvement in Kosovo has raised another important question: Does NATO have a role in the internal affairs of sovereign nations? In 1998, nine years after the abolition of Kosovo’s autonomy, the Kosovo Liberation Army, chiefly supported by ethnic Albanians, rebelled against Serbian rule. While the international community supported the idea of autonomy, it opposed the violent tactics employed by the Kosovo Liberation Army. In October 1998, NATO threatened air strikes on Kosovo if the Serb-controlled regime did not make greater efforts to restore peace. In 1999, these air strikes were launched, marking the first attack on a sovereign European country in NATO’s history. Opponents of NATO’s involvement in Kosovo have claimed that NATO should not have interfered in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation, while supporters have argued that gross human rights violations justified the involvement. Bosnia and Kosovo provide tests for whether NATO has any meaningful peacekeeping role to play in Europe now that the Cold War is over. Furthermore, NATO’s involvement in these two troubled areas raises important questions about the appropriate role of the international community in civil conflicts in which human rights are being violated. For Discussion and Writing
For Further Reading NATO’s Home Page: An official introduction to NATO’s policies and programs. A C T I V I T Y Should NATO Expand? The former communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe have expressed interest in joining NATO. Imagine NATO has appointed a commission to decide on whether these countries should be allowed to join.
Do We Need a Permanent International Criminal Court? According to witnesses, Dusan Tadic raped at least one woman, beat more than a dozen people to death, and made his victims drink mud and motor oil. If this were a typical criminal case, Tadic would be charged with rape, murder, mayhem, and assault and battery. But Tadic's case is not a typical criminal trial. The victims were prisoners of war. The alleged incidents took place in a concentration camp in Bosnia—a country fractured by a violent civil war since it split from the former Yugoslavia in 1992. Tadic's trial is taking place in The Hague, Netherlands, before a special international tribunal (court) established by the United Nations. Dusan Tadic is the first individual prosecuted before an international court since the famous Nuremberg and Tokyo war crimes trials following World War II. By international agreement, war crimes generally involve the intentional killing or mistreatment of prisoners of war and other noncombatants during wartime. One of the purposes of the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials was to warn those who might commit such acts in the future that they would be held accountable and punished by international law. Yet Tadic is the first person to be prosecuted by an international court in almost 50 years. Why haven't there been other war crimes trials? Do we need a permanent international criminal court? The Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials As World War II drew to a close, the allies debated what to do with the top Nazi and Japanese war leaders. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill wanted to simply put them all before a firing squad. But the other allies, including the exiled leaders of countries occupied by Germany and Japan, called for "organized justice" rather than summary executions. When Harry S. Truman became president in 1945, he opposed vengeful justice and supported the idea of an international war crimes tribunal. The U.S. War Department developed the plan to prosecute "the highest ranking German leaders." In December 1945, the trial of 22 top Nazis began in Nuremberg, Germany. In the midst of the war-ravaged city, the International Military Tribunal met in one of the few buildings still standing, the Palace of Justice. A panel of jurists, one each from the United States, Britain, France, and the Soviet Union (the major wartime allies), sat in judgment. The Nazi leaders were charged with war crimes and with two new violations of international law: waging "an illegal war of aggression" as well as "crimes against humanity." This last accusation centered on the Holocaust in which 6 million Jews along with members of other ethnic, religious, and political groups were systematically murdered. The Nuremberg trial ended with the conviction of 19 Nazi war criminals; 12 of them were sentenced to hang. A similar trial of high-ranking Japanese military and civilian leaders took place in Tokyo between 1946 and 1948. In addition, another 185 German military and civilian officials, death camp commanders and doctors, Nazi judges, and businessmen who exploited slave labor were prosecuted in a series of trials at Nuremberg lasting until 1949. The most important legacy of these trials was that, for the first time, those guilty of perpetrating heinous acts with no military purpose were called to account and punished by a court of international law. The Record Since 1945 Since the Nuremberg and Tokyo war crimes trials, most countries have signed international agreements outlawing war crimes. In 1948, the U.N. General Assembly voted to prohibit genocide, which it defined as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group." Also, the Geneva conventions of 1949 identified specific crimes against POWs and other noncombatants during wartime. Several incidents of genocide have occurred since the U.N. General Assembly prohibition of genocide, and many of them have occurred without subsequent enforcement of the prohibition. There have been appalling atrocities and more are still occurring today. For example, in 1965, the Indonesian army along with civilian vigilante groups slaughtered a half-million Communist Party members, atheists, and foreigners. In 1972, in the African country of Burundi, the government controlled by the Tutsi minority attempted to exterminate the educated class of the Hutu majority. Up to 200,000 were murdered. During the 1971 civil war in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), over a million people, mostly civilians, were killed. The worst case of genocide since World War II took place in the Southeast Asian country of Cambodia. In 1975, a Cambodian communist revolutionary movement of radical students and peasants, the Khmer Rouge, seized control of the country. Within hours of taking power, the Khmer Rouge drove millions of Cambodians out of the cities, which the new rulers believed were evil creations of the capitalist West. The city dwellers, even the old and sick, were forced to march into the countryside to take up new lives as peasants. Those who resisted were shot. Hundreds of thousands died of exhaustion and starvation. The Khmer Rouge shot anyone even remotely associated with the old regime—civil servants, soldiers, doctors, lawyers, merchants, landowners, Buddhist monks, teachers, high school students. The terror finally ended in 1978 when the Vietnamese army entered Cambodia and overthrew the Khmer Rouge government. Within a period of three years, between 1 and 2 million Cambodians, perhaps 20 percent of the total population, had been annihilated. Indeed, the recent incidents in Rwanda constitute the only case of genocide that has spurred the international courts to invoke the genocide prohibition. In 1994, an incredible slaughter took place in Rwanda. As in neighboring Burundi, the Tutsis and Hutus have hated each other for centuries. Unlike Burundi, however, a Hutu majority ruled Rwanda. In 1990, the Tutsi revolted in Rwanda. The Hutu government armed militia groups to attack Tutsis and anti-government Hutus. During a 100-day frenzy of bloodletting in 1994, Hutu militias sought out and killed perhaps as many as 800,000 Tutsi men, women, and children. In the words of one Hutu militia member, "We were told to kill them all." With so many incidents, why have so few war criminals been prosecuted? One answer rings out: International politics makes it difficult to do. At the end of World War II with Germany and Japan defeated, all the major powers agreed on the decision to try German and Japanese war criminals. But then came the Cold War with the two superpowers—the United States and Soviet Union—squared off in fierce international competition. Each had its own allies and client states. Under these circumstances, it was difficult to get an agreement about war crimes and who was guilty of committing them. Today, the Cold War has ended and the possibility of international cooperation has increased. But what can the world community do when war crimes take place during a civil war? This is what happened in Indonesia, East Pakistan, Burundi, and Cambodia. There is no "police force" that can enter a country and arrest its suspected war criminals. This was the problem in Rwanda and most recently in Bosnia. The Bosnian civil war pitted three ethnic groups against one another—Serbs, Croats, and Muslims. Each side has charged the other with atrocities and war crimes. Much attention, however, has focused on the side winning the civil war—the Bosnian Serbs. To carve out a separate state for themselves, Bosnian Serbs adopted a policy of "ethnic cleansing." As Serb fighters moved into a Bosnian Muslim area, they raped and terrorized civilians to force them to flee from their homes. Serbs rounded up military-age Muslim men and boys and held them in detention camps. In 1992, the international press exposed starvation and other mistreatment of these prisoners. Suddenly, many in the world saw the image of concentration camps in Europe once again. Stung by press criticism, the Bosnian Serbs dismantled many of their prison camps. But in July 1995, when the Bosnian Serb army captured the city of Srebrenica, about 8,000 Muslim men and boys disappeared. Witnesses say that they were all shot and buried in mass graves. In May 1993, largely at the urging of the United States, the U.N. Security Council authorized an international war crimes tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), which includes Bosnia. This is the first such court to be established since Nuremberg. In November 1994, the United Nations also set up a war crimes tribunal for Rwanda. Since the inception of the ICTY, tribunal lawyers have been gathering documents, videos, witness interviews, and other evidence. In April 1996, investigators began to excavate suspected mass grave sites in Bosnia. The ICTY’s latest list of outstanding public indictments lists 67 indictees. Among those charged have been the Bosnian Serb political leader and the top army commander. The tribunal does not have the power to try defendants in absentia. Nor does it have the means to seek out and arrest suspected war criminals. It's also having problems collecting evidence. So only Dusan Tadic and a handful of others have faced trials. Tadic, a Bosnian Serb, made the mistake of fleeing the war to Germany, where Muslim refugees identified him. His trial, the first war crimes trial since Nuremberg, began on May 7, 1996 and ended one year later. Thirty-one counts of persecution, murder, cruel treatment, and inhuman acts were brought against Tadic, who was found guilty of 11counts and was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment. These 11 counts included crimes against humanity and violations of the laws and customs of war established by the Geneva Convention, but did not include any counts of genocide. As of now, no verdicts on genocide have been delivered by the ICTY, although the Rwanda tribunal has delivered such verdicts. Richard Goldstone, a respected South African judge, has been appointed chief prosecutor for both the Yugoslav and Rwandan tribunals. The prosecutor hopes that by trying "little fish" like Tadic, he will expose the war crimes of higher officials and perhaps they too can be brought to justice. The success of war crimes prosecutions, says Goldstone, "will be a powerful argument for the creation of a permanent international criminal court." For Discussion and Writing
For Further Information The ICTY at a Glance: Links to recent indictments, trials, and cases that have gone or are going before the ICTY. A C T I V I T Y A Permanent International Criminal Court? For an international court to be effective, what powers should it have? Form small groups. Decide which of the following powers an international war crimes tribunal should have. Record the reasons for your decision so you can report them to the class.
Officers: Susan Troy, President; Knox Cologne, Immediate Past President; Publications Committee: Jerome C. Byrne, Chairperson; Paul Cane, Gerald Chaleff, Peggy Saferstein, Marvin Sears, Eugene Shutler, Lloyd M. Smith, Marjorie Steinberg, Lois Thompson, Susan Troy, Carlton Varner. Staff: Todd Clark, Executive Director; Marshall L. Croddy, Director of Program and Materials Development; Carlton Martz, Writer; Bill Hayes, Editor; Cristy Lytal, Web Editor; Andrew Costly, Production Manager; Carlton Varner, CRF Board Reviewer. © 1996, Constitutional Rights Foundation,
601 South Kingsley Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90005, (213) 487-5590
|