Comments on: Milosevic guilty of genocide?

By: Doug Muir

Doug Muir — Sat, 28 Feb 2004 15:59:21 +0000

But it doesn?t provide the function of a teapot, in roughly the same way that the Hague promised, but did not provide the functions of a court. Yeah… I mean, it’s only convicted 47 people, so far, for terms ranging from 2 years (suspended) to life. “Doesn’t work as well as it should, takes too long, costs too much”—I’d agree, actually. “Not producing the results I want, was supported by people I disagree with”—that seems to be your real grudge, as far as I can tell. As noted, I agree that there’s plenty to criticize about the ICTY. But “does not function as a court”? Sorry, twaddle. Doug M.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Sat, 28 Feb 2004 13:39:19 +0000

Some use after all maybe? Well a chocolate teapot is some use; I had a novelty one once and I used it to store pencils in. But it doesn’t provide the function of a teapot, in roughly the same way that the Hague promised, but did not provide the functions of a court. On the Hitler comparison, all I’ll say is that the connections and command lines between Milosevic and Karadzic were much less obvious than those between Hitler and Heydrich. A “smoking gun” in this case would have been any evidence at all that K took orders from M and there weren’t any. And although the prosecutors didn’t have access to the archives in Belgrade, it’s funny that they didn’t find anything at the other end either. (The point of mentioning Chris in the story, btw, was to establish that reasonable people can disagree on this one)

By: Doug

Doug — Sat, 28 Feb 2004 09:41:25 +0000

Everyone should take an hour or two and read The Porcupine, Julian Barnes’ dramatization of the trial of a fallen Communist leader. The accused is wily, amoral, used to domination and still backed by people who liked things the way they were. Rule-of-law liberalism has a tough time coping with people like that.

By: Danger

Danger — Fri, 27 Feb 2004 22:53:12 +0000

My instincts are with Chris here – when I read the piece I had the exact same thought about the lack of a smoking gun document ‘proving’ that Hitler ordered the mass extermination of Jews. This has allowed Irving and similar creeps to claim that he was innocent – but it’s hard for fairminded people to dispute that Hitler was responsible. So too, Milosevic. That’s some dangerous reasoning. I would say that it is impossible to dispute the fact that any court would have found Hitler guilty. But as the Milosevic trial shows it is possible to dispute about the extend to which it can be proven that Milosevic is responsible for the crimes committed. Even suggesting that a court (like the one in The Hague) might have shown any doubts about the evidence against Hitler is almost like giving credibility to loons like Irving.

By: ethan

ethan — Fri, 27 Feb 2004 20:51:22 +0000

Thanks for changing the font on this site. It was awful before.

By: Henry

Henry — Fri, 27 Feb 2004 20:31:45 +0000

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Fri, 27 Feb 2004 19:57:43 +0000

Not sure how to react, Daniel, since you’ve mentioned my views explicitly. But I’m not sure that I understand how your “useful as a chocolate teapot” jibe is consistent with your belief that M will be found guilty on some charges (and will likely be locked away for the remainder of his natural life). Some use after all maybe? As for Kosovo, my view is roughly this: that after Bosnia we knew how this one was going to go. IMHO, intervention in Bosnia has been well justified anyway. Remember that Kosovo came after Srebrenica: should the outside world just have waited to see how this one turned out? Of course not. As for M being as guilty as hell. Sure he was. He started the whole appalling process going with the suppression of Kosovan autonomy back in 1989. So there is no smoking gun? So what? AFAIK there are no documents linking Hitler directly to the gas chambers – do you want to give him the benefit of the doubt on that account?

By: David

David — Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:49:20 +0000

I suppose the conditions would have to be like those at Nuremberg—where the prosecuted party kept good records, and where the prosecution could hold the damning evidence in their hands. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/imt.htm However, the string-them-up-let-God-decide option strikes me as unjust. The victims need their courtroom vindication. And the perpetrators their courtroom condemnation.

By: jacob

jacob — Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:48:37 +0000

Arguably, the purpose of the ICTY wasn’t so much to address crimes of the past (although that’s obviously the primary stated purpose) but to show potential future war criminals that they will be punished for their actions. Whether or not Milosevic is found guilty of genocide, he will be found guilty and imprisoned, and thus will serve as warning to other potential war criminals. We don’t know whether this future-looking purpose to the tribunal will be successful.

By: Robert Lyman

Robert Lyman — Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:35:23 +0000

That would have had some effect on the prosecution’s ability to press a genocide charge. Yes, and it casts doubt on the usefulness of international courts generally, if they can’t compel production of crucial evidence. Things like subpoenas make the rule of law possible; in the absence of them, simply stringing mass-murdering dictators up as a political policy may make more sense and produce more justice.

By: David

David — Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:22:09 +0000

From the linked article: “Del Ponte said Belgrade authorities had jeopardized the case for genocide by failing to provide the prosecution access to documents from the state archives.” That would have had some effect on the prosecution’s ability to press a genocide charge.

By: Doug Muir

Doug Muir — Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:14:46 +0000

Surely the point of the tribunal, even for those on the left, was to see whether he was guilty or not. Hear, hear. If the prosecution cannot prove that he was after such a long trial, then maybe he wasn?t. Well… that’s something else again. I lived in Serbia for two and a half years, and IMO Milosevic was and is guilty of the most appalling crimes. However, being able to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt, many years later and a couple of thousand km away, against a highly intelligent and absolutely amoral defendant, is no easy task. If the utility of the trial was merely to act like we were being fair (rather than actually being fair), then we might as well have strung him up to begin with. Bless your heart. So many people—both in Serbia and in the West—seem to have forgotten this. Dan included, it seems, alas. —For the record, I’m a Serbophile—albeit a critical one—/and/ I think the Kosovo intervention was justified and even necessary. As to the Hague, nuance nuance. One, I think they’ve got a very important and difficult job to do. Two, in evaluating their performance, one does have to keep in mind the rather tremendous difficulties they’re labouring under. Three, IMO they’ve taken about twice as long—and cost about four to five times as much money—as they should have. And, Four, IMO Carla Del Ponte was a very dubious choice for chief prosecutor, and has not covered herself with glory. I can go into more detail if anyone cares. Like most everyone who’s lived in Serbia, I’ve been following the Hague with fascination. Doug M.

By: BP

BP — Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:07:31 +0000

Agreed. International kangaroo courts are undesirable things, and the Hague Tribunal has just proven itself to be admirably impartial. If the prosecution cannot prove Milosevich’s complicity in Karadzic’s actions, then they cannot prove it, period. Either the prosecution is incompetent or the case really isn’t as clear cut as it was hyped prior to the war.

By: jdsm

jdsm — Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:00:37 +0000

Surely the point of the tribunal, even for those on the left, was to see whether he was guilty or not. If the prosecution cannot prove that he was after such a long trial, then maybe he wasn’t. If the utility of the trial was merely to act like we were being fair (rather than actually being fair), then we might as well have strung him up to begin with.