Stratfor comes through with another deadly (in its accuracy)<g> report, check out the final two words...
New War Crimes Indictments in The Hague Reflect Politics, Not
Justice
By George Friedman
Summary
The indictment of two Croatian officials by the international war
crimes tribunal last Friday appears aimed at pre-empting former
Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic's defense strategy in which he
will likely charge the tribunal with limiting those prosecuted to
Balkan leaders who resisted the NATO alliance. The two Croatian
former generals are accused of mass killings of Serbs in 1993 and
1995. What is happening at the war crimes trials represents the
willing subjugation of the Balkans to the European Union and the
West. It is not being done out of respect for law but out of
expectation of rewards.
Analysis
When Carla del Ponte, chief prosecutor at the war crimes tribunal
in The Hague, announced last Friday the indictment of two
Croatian generals for alleged war crimes during their country's
war with Serbia, the action widened international law toward non-
Serbian combatants in the Balkans, but it also went far beyond.
Indeed, the subsequent announcement by Croatian Prime Minister
Ivica Racan that he would respect the wishes of the tribunal
triggered an immediate political crisis in Croatia, where
military commanders are widely revered as defenders against the
minority Serbs who rebelled against Zagreb in 1991 when Croatia
announced it was leaving the Yugoslav federation. Racan has asked
the Croatian Parliament to give his government a vote of
confidence later this month, but the five-party coalition still
faces its biggest political challenge since coming to power 18
months ago.
Racan on Sunday described his government's decision to approve
the extradition of indicted war crimes suspects in terms of
avoiding conflict with the rest of Europe and the international
community. "The alternative was to reject the court's request, to
begin a conflict not only with the court, but with Europe and the
international community, to suffer [economic] sanctions," the
prime minister said.
+++++++++++++++ NOTICE TO GIU RECIPIENTS ++++++++++
You're receiving a free, full-length version of the Global
Intelligence Update. This full-text report offers what you'll be
missing after August 1st: In-depth, objective analysis on the
globe, delivered straight to your Inbox.
stratfor.com
Use This Link To Subscribe For Only $59.95/Year and Start Taking
Advantage Of Our Full Range Of Offerings.
+++++++++++++++ NOTICE TO GIU RECIPIENTS ++++++++++
But the underlying motivation for the tribunal's action against
the two Croatians is clearly aimed at its most important target:
former Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic. It has been obvious
that Milosevic's legal defense will focus on the issue of
selective prosecution. His likely argument is that in a region in
which all sides have committed atrocities, the court's focus on
Serbians amounts to political retribution against those who
resisted the NATO alliance, as those who ultimately cooperated
with NATO have been permitted to remain free from prosecution.
In other words, Milosevic is going to claim that the war crimes
tribunal is simply a victors' court, in which the powerful
justify their own actions by coercing weak and defeated nations
to turn over former leaders for a self-serving showcase. This
could be a powerful argument if Milosevic were to craft it well,
and it could even erode the legitimacy of the international
tribunal.
It is obvious that former President Bill Clinton will to be
indicted for the 1999 U.S.-led air war against Serbia, but it
became necessary for the prosecutors to cut out the ground under
Milosevic before he could raise such a defense. The counter-
argument, i.e. that other non-Serbians have previously been
indicted and tried for actions in the Balkans, wasn't enough.
Those detainees were not high-ranking enough nor did their arrest
cause the kind of political pain that Milosevic's arrest did in
now-friendly Belgrade. Someone else had to be found.
While the tribunal has not yet publicly identified the two
generals who reportedly were indicted in secret a month ago,
press accounts in Croatia have identified them as retired Gen.
Ante Gotovina, a commander during a 1995 Croatian offensive
against Serbia, and Gen. Rahim Ademi, accused of killing dozens
of Serbs during a 1993 offensive. If Rahim is indeed an indictee,
he will serve a dual purpose because not only is he a Croat, but
he is also of Kosovar Albanian origin. For The Hague, this
permits the indirect indictment of a Kosovar.
One of the purposes of the war crimes tribunal is education --
not simply to educate brutish officials as to the consequences of
their crimes -- but also to teach the world that there is such a
thing as international law. The most important audience for this
morality play is the nations that were the victims and
victimizers.
But as Racan's statement made clear, that is not what has
happening here. Racan capitulated to the tribunal out of fear of
the economic and political consequence of resistance. He did not
act out of support for the tribunal process and certainly not
because the Croatian public stands behind that process. The real
lesson being presented is not about the sanctity of international
law but that The Hague has the combined force of the European
Union and NATO behind it. If The Hague requires sacrifices at the
alter of justice in order to keep the aid and financial relations
going, then those sacrifices will be made.
This is not to say atrocities of massive proportions did not
occur in the Balkans. But a sharp distinction has to be drawn
between what prompted the post-World War II Nuremberg trials (on
which the current process is roughly modeled), and the Balkans
situation of the 1990s. Nuremberg was a trial of men who led a
nation that committed atrocities against ethnic groups and other
nations that had done nothing against them. The Jews did not kill
millions of Germans, but Germans killed millions of Jews. In
contrast, Serbs killed thousands of Croatians, and Croatians
killed thousands of Serbs.
This is a fundamental moral distinction with profound
geopolitical implications. The Nuremberg trials were seen as
speaking for the victims and against the victimizers. In a region
where everyone is at one time a victim and at another time a
victimizer, the clear-cut distinctions that were present at
Nuremberg simply do not exist. What is intended as justice in The
Hague appears more as a random throwing-to-the-wolves of certain
individuals in order to assuage the powerful.
What is happening in The Hague represents the willing subjugation
of the Balkans to the European Union and the West. This is not
being done out of respect for international law but out of
anticipation of economic rewards. There is a myth in the Balkans
that having good relations with the West will dramatically lead
to improved standards of living. The fact is that it will take a
generation just to begin the process and generations to achieve
it.
When the realization sinks in that little of substance will
actually occur, the pro-Western politicians in the Balkans will
likely be swept aside in an anti-Western and nationalist rage.
Apart from the opportunity of Russia to take advantage of the
situation, the fact is that it will create a situation that will
make the 1990s pale. The danger of The Hague is that it is
threatening to create the exact situation it wants to prevent:
more bloodbaths. |
