Last week’s arrest of Serbian General Ratko Mladic signals an important development for the slow healing process of the countless victims of the bloodiest conflict on European soil since World War II. The disintegration of Yugoslavia and the conflagration of the Balkan civil war of the 1990s once more demonstrated the horrors of ethnic conflict and the unspeakable crimes that man is capable of in the name of colour, creed and race.
Ratko Mladic, the General who led the Bosnian Serb army during the 1992-1995 conflict was a principal protagonist in a dirty war that left more than 100,000 dead and drove another 1.8 million from their homes. Mladic is accused of war crimes especially connected to the siege of Sarajevo and the butchery of thousands of Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica who were cut down mercilessly without redress or basic protection. Sixteen years of a cat and mouse game came to a sudden end on Thursday 26 May when a frail and sick 69-year-old Mladic was finally arrested by Serbian forces in an remote village in the north of Serbia. Mladic joins the five other most wanted individuals who chiefly represent the atrocities committed during Balkan war − Milosevic, the Serb President (now deceased), Radovan Karadzic, the Bosnian Serb leader, and Croatian General Ante Gotovina are among the imprisoned. There is still one ‘big fish’ to catch − Goran Hadzic. An estimated 150 other individuals have faced or are facing trial in The Hague for crimes relating to the conflict. Slowly but surely the process of justice is finally in place, hopefully bringing closure and peace to the families who have suffered throughout this fierce and unforgiving war between neighbours, families and friends.
The principal institution that handles these notorious international war crimes today is the International Criminal Court (ICC) established on 1 July 2002 and located in The Hague. Its principal purpose is to investigate actions that go beyond the parameters of what is ‘acceptable’ war behaviour (Jus Bello). It identifies and investigates war crimes and crimes against humanity and seeks to bring individuals responsible for such crimes to justice. The ICC does not replace national tribunals but seeks to restore justice where it appears lacking and to reveal the truth behind events that have terrorised many victims of bloody conflicts around the world. Among its principal cases are the 1994 conflicts in Rwanda and the present trial of former Liberian president Charles Taylor. Ironically, although the list of member countries has swelled in recent years, nations such as the US, Russia and China are non-signatories.
The roots of the ICC are over a 100 years old. They go back to The Hague Convention of 1907 when, for the first time, it was recognised that beyond the horrors of war there were actions that were deemed criminal and those who had committed them had to be held accountable. War crimes tribunals were established in the aftermath of World War I followed by those of the Nuremberg trials. Further courts were established to identify crimes committed in wars such as those of Algeria (1954-1962) and Vietnam (1968-1973)
Later on, conflicts such as the Cambodian civil war, the wars in Afghanistan and conflicts in Africa have been investigated with some, or sometimes very little, success. The ICC’s basis revolve around a body of laws, namely the Geneva Convention which stipulates that wilful murder, extermination, enslavement, mass rape, torture and genocide constitute the principal crimes against humanity. Its tasks are often complex and delicate as they span across continents and require a deep understanding of the conflicting issues and the actions that lead to these abominable crimes.
The tribunal has its critics! Costing around £90 million to run each year, it is criticised as slow and bureaucratic. Even worse, it is accused as being selective and offers only victor’s justice. Sometimes charges are bloated and due process takes a very long time targeting specific individuals while many others get away scot-free for a myriad of political, economic and historical reasons. Furthermore, some complain that trials do little to bring about transformations in fractured societies and contribute very little to the reconciliation process.
I personally believe that this criticism is unjust. There are many positive sides to the continued establishment of war crimes tribunals. Firstly, such an institution as the ICC must represent humanity’s deep revulsion for the agents and perpetrators of crimes against humanity. It must shoulder the responsibility of governments to ensure that justice is served. It offers the chance for mankind to understand the motives, reasons and motivations that drive individuals to such extremities. Furthermore, it helps victims and their families to regain a sense of power and help in the process of closure. Finally, masterminds of such crimes will not enjoy impunity and are reminded that they will not be allowed to rest.
Mladic’s arrest is crucial in strengthening the arguments for a reinforced ICC. It makes it clear that perpetrators of war crimes have few if any safe havens. Certain crimes should never be forgiven let alone forgotten.
[email protected]