It is high time to set up International Criminal Court

By Jonathan Power

LONDON (JP): Now that the American presidential election is done and Bill Clinton can concentrate on the aching void of international leadership, the way is clear for a big push on world justice -- starting with Bosnia and Rwanda and going on to deal with Iraq and Libya. The goal is straightforward -- laws should operate internationally as well as locally. Genocide, torture, rape, murder and blowing up airlines in the sky must be beyond the pale abroad, just as, in most countries, they are at home.

Indeed, very few nations in principle are against the extension of the laws of civilization into the foreign realm -- that's why we have the signatures of an overwhelming majority of nations on the Genocide, Torture and Air Hijacking Conventions and almost unanimous support for the ex-Yugoslavia and Rwanda War Crimes Tribunals.

But action is another matter. The mental block right at this moment is Bosnia. And the blocker has been in the White House as long as re-election was the agenda Bill Clinton did not want to risk anything in the Balkans that could upturn the electoral apple-cart at home. The White House, consistent to a fault, made it abundantly clear that part of the American terms for American participation in the NATO operation in Bosnia was that the other partners would not push for the implementation of an important part of the American-brokered peace agreement negotiated in Dayton. There was to be no seeking out of war criminals and turning them over to the War Crimes Court in The Hague. Thus we have regular sightings of indicted war criminals Radovan Karadzic and his general, Ratko Mladic, and no one lifts a finger to apprehend them.

The whip has to be cracked now, otherwise the credibility of the ex-Yugoslavia War Crimes Tribunal will be irreparably damaged. And without that functioning properly in the bosom of western civilization what chance is there for its sister body in Arusha, Tanzania, now starting on the trials of alleged Rwandan war criminals?

Beyond that is the question what hope is there for an International Criminal Court which is entering a crucial stage in the discussion about its formation? The idea behind this, in circulation since the days of the Nuremberg and Tokyo war crimes trials at the end World War II, is to have a permanent court rather than these ad hoc ones. Then, whenever there is genocide, torture, war crimes and such terrorist acts as blowing up the Pan Am jumbo jet over Scotland there is a forum for justice, agreed upon by the world community, ready and able to act.

It shouldn't have taken so long and it was never intended that after Nuremberg and Tokyo that international justice would be put on the back burner for two generations. Blame Stalin and the Cold War. Blame America, which held up ratification of the Genocide Convention for 45 years. Blame the rest of the world for becoming almost mute on the subject. But thank Muammar Qaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic and the Rwandans for rubbing our noses in injustice so deep that at last something is stirring in the annals of diplomacy.

At last, there is growing recognition that one of the troubles with the UN is that it suffers from an insufficiency of judicial teeth. The UN can sit on its hands or it can call for a blockader or, as it did with Iraq, order a war. Between these two extremes there's too big a void.

There are also, belatedly, signs of a penny dropping -- the realization that ethnic wars don't simply happen because, as the press usually reports, of "deep-seated hatreds" and "ancient animosities" but because the waters have been actively stirred. As Human Rights Watch astutely observed last year, "the present- day outbursts of ethnic hatred are due more to government manipulation than ancient animosities."

The commonly received wisdom is that very little can be done to stop two ethnic communities intent on mayhem killing each other. But this ignores that nearly always the killing is orchestrated by a relatively small group. This is why a court, if properly functioning, can be a real deterrent. At the outset of a conflict the ringleaders can be warned through diplomatic channels of the consequences of their action. If they persist international warrants, with attendant publicity, can be put out for their arrest and they warned that if they ever go abroad for either business or pleasure they could be arrested. Meanwhile, their assets stashed abroad will be seized. Since many war criminals seem to have a penchant for traveling and high living, all this could be quite effective.

Those who ply the communal-violence card must be made to realize that from now on they are being watched. This won't stop all wars or render still-born the likes of Hitler, Saddam Hussein or Milosevic. But it may give some of their entourage pause and it will be one more useful weapon in the armory of civilized nations.