War Crimes Tribunal and Selective Prosecution
by Dragan Milovanovic
(1) Summary of "UN War Crimes Tribunal Downplays Study on NATO Acts in Balkans"
(Chicago Tribune, 12/30/99, p. 24.)
Summary (Dragan Milovanovic): Officials of the UN War Crimes Tribunal have
conducted an "internal" investigation about the involvmment of the US and
NATO forces in the bombings in Kosovo and Yugoslavia. It is being studied
by the Chief Prosecutor of the Tribunal, Carla Del Ponte. In an interview
she said: "It's not my priority because I have inquiries about genocide,
about bodies in mass graves." The article states: "The tribunal can charge
only individuals with crimes, not states, institutions or organizations."
The secret report looked at the US and NATO's bombings of civilian power
stations and bridges [and a bus and convoy of farm tractors] and its use of
cluster bombs, especially those which hit the hospital in the center of the
city, Nis.
..........
(2) Legal case brought to the UN War Crimes Tribunal against the US and
NATO: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/icty.htm
..........
(3) "Justice in the Balkans"
December 30, 1999
Dragan Milovanovic
(Dragan Milovanovic is Professor of Criminal Justice at Northeastern
Illinois University, Chicago, Illinois)
Recently the UN Tribunal investigating war crimes in the Balkans conducted
an "internal" investigation as to whether war crimes were committed by the
US and the NATO forces in the bombings in Yugoslavia and Kosov (see Chicago
Tribune, 12/30/99, p. 24). Although this secret study is "being studied"
internally by the procecutors, no official indictments are expected. Part
of the apparent limitations is that States, institutions and organizations
cannot be charged, only individuals can. Some months ago a group of
international lawyers submitted a petition urging the International
Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia to investigate NATO's alleged
war crimes under the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious
Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of
the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 (see http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/icty.htm).
This was established by the UN. They seek indictments for violation of
international laws. The language of the UN statute clearly states various
grounds for investigation: "attack, or bombardment, by whatever means, of
undefended towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings"; "extensive
destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military
necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly"; "seizure of,
destruction or willful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion,
charity and education, the arts and sciences, historic monuments and works
of art and science, " to name a few. It further stipulates grounds for
individual responsibility: "the official position of any accused person,
whether as Head of State or Government or a responsible Government
official, shall not relieve such person of criminal responsibility or
mitigate punishment." The United Nations' Charter also specifies that
"should the parties to a dispute...fail to settle it by the means indicated
in that Article [#33], they shall refer it to the Security Council." This
was further solidified in the World Court's judgement against the US led
secret war in Nicaragua in organizing, training, supporting, and directing
the Contras to attack Nicaragua after the Sandinista led revolution
(judgement on June 27, 1986). The US's position, we might recall, was that
the Court had "no jurisdiction."
The petition charges that NATO targeted civilian installations such as
television and radio towers, bridges, railroad, oil refineries, power
stations "on the grounds that they are or could be of military application."
What has NATO's response been? First, that they are legitimate targets, and
second, when things go wrong it is "collateral damage." The civilian
causalities of both ethnic Albanians and Serbs due to "collateral damage"
and the "air campaign" (note, not "bombing campaign") has run into the
hundreds (we recall: hospitals, buses, conveys of Albanian civilians,
residential areas, and bridges being bombed, not to mention the Chinese
Embassy as well as radio and TV installations).
Justice needs to be done. Clearly, all parties to violence directed to
unarmed civilians should be at risk given the International Criminal
Tribunal's mandate. What NATO has propagated is terrorism directed toward,
in many cases, innocent civilians in its attempt to bring Yugoslavia to its
knees, rather than seeking a non-imposed resolution to the problem as
mandated by the United Nations Charter. Discussions in Paris were only
superficially carried out, with the US wielding the big stick rather than
encouraging the various parties to negotiation. Negotiations are
necessarily difficult in complex situations, but nevertheless they
ultimately can lead to a peaceful, and lasting co-existance. We have
already seen historically the results of these types of impositions in the
development of new, more extensive wars that develop after one party feels
it has not been adequately heard. The US proclaims its distaste for
terrorism and violence with Clinton often preaching to school children the
importance of dialogue and discussion rather than violence, but when its
own self interest is involved (establishing hegemony in the newly
developing states in the Balkan) the ends justify the means. We have seen
this form of demonizing in Vietnam, Nicaragua, Iraq, and Yugoslavia; the
usually State tactic being depicting the other as a communist, insane loose
canon, not in touch with the people of their State, etc. The so-called "CNN
War" furthers the State's ideology by not presenting critical analysis of
the events; in its ommission it is an accomplice to continued violence.
But will justice be served? In a recent Federal court decision (Tom
Campbell, et al, v. William Jefferson Clinton, 1999) brought by 26 members
of the House of Representatives attempting a halt to the bombing, ruled
against the representatives because they had no "standing." Interesting, in
the Court's opinion, no discussion existed concerning the status of the
KLA, no connection between the people of Yugoslavia and Milosevic was
implied ("Milosevic's forces drove thousands of ethnic Albanians from their
home..."), no acknowledgement that the amount of refugees increased by 6 to 7
fold after the bombing began, no discussion by the Court as to the innocent
human casualties due to the bombing. The Court did mention that on two
occasions the will of the representatives seemed to go against Clinton's
action (a 213 to 213 vote on a resolution in support of the aerial bombing;
a 427 to 2 vote defeating a resolution declaring a state of war between the
US and Yugoslavia), but quickly noted two other resolutions and concluded
that these were "contradictory" and inconsistent and therefore sufficient
"standing" was not established for the Court's further intervention. This
is pure hyperbole. If there was no "war" between the US and Yugoslavia, and
hence, ostensibly a "police action," then even under police action
officials have standards of care. Thus legalistically we could argue that
the US and its officials participated at the minimum in various acts of
"police brutality," gross negligence, "negligent homicide," "manslaughter,"
etc.
The President of the US is Commander-in-Chief of the military, and by the
logic of the Calley trials in Vietnam should be held ultimately responsible
for the deaths of innocent human beings, destruction of non-military
targets, the terrorism sustained, and acts generally against humanity
without the support of international law. Personally, being a former
combatant in the Vietnam War (and seeing first hand our human destruction
and distortions propagated by high State officials) and having participated
in Nicaragua as a "brigadista internationalista" (an international group of
volunteer "hostages" who helped harvest the coffee during a year that the
CIA had directed the Contras to terrorize the coffee pickers in order to
undermine their economy), I could say that the US has proven a lawless
animal with self interest allowing any means (even supported by the Courts)
toward its ends. As the most powerful country we should set an example, not
by war, terrorism, overt human destruction, but by the importance of
understanding differences, and by using peacemaking alternatives already
stipulated in Article 33 of the United Nations Charter ("...negotiation,
enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement...or other
peaceful means of their own choice"). Discussions in Rambuillet can hardly
be called "discussions" where the US was holding the threat of the big
stick if parties didn't agree with its plan. The time has come to resort to
an international standard of justice that recognizes regional differences,
but which can also mediate solutions. Let's invest in peacemaking not
war-making.
Dragan Milovanovic, Ph.D
Professor
Editor, International Journal
for the Semiotics of Law
Department of Criminal Justice,
Sociology and Social Work
Northeastern Illinois University
5500 N. St. Louis Ave
Chicago, Illinois. USA 60625
Work phone: (773)794-2629
Maintained by: Jim Thomas - critcrim@sun.soci.niu.edu