Charli has been writing about international justice, arguing against ‘myths’ – and comparing the efforts to bring Mladic to justice as opposed to the rush to shoot Osama bin Laden in the face. Others, such as John Feffner at Foriegn Policy in Focus have made similar arguments.
I agree and disagree with some of the points being made. However I am concerned that that many of these arguments seem to completely ignore or fail to appreciate the different context of the Mladic and OBL raids. I just don’t think we can pretend these are at all similar situations – even looking beyond “status” issues, (who was/is a combatant/civilian etc). Rather, I think the core issue here is time and context.
For lack of a better term, bin Laden was caught and killed “during” the War on Terror, a period of active hostilities between the US and al-Qaeda. Mladic was captured over a decade and half after the Dayton Accords. The situation in the Balkans is far from perfect, but it’s certainly calmer. People have been able to get on with their lives as they rebuilding their homes, villages – even if scars can never perfectly heal.
The ICTY was established in 1993 (- a great way for the West/UN/European countries to look like they were doing something about the ethnic slaughter when they really weren’t). Mladic was indicted in July 1995 and surely was eligible to be captured and extradited from that point on.
There’s no question that it’s been a painful and horrible wait, but I wonder if it is also one that has allowed cooler heads to prevail? There have been protests in Serbia, of course. But they have not been on a truly significant scale. Mladic has been caught, charged, extradited (despite appeals) in under a week. Would this have actually been possible in 1995? Possible without tearing apart a freshly signed peace treaty? Aggravating a tense situation? And an angry population?
I’m not saying that international justice does not work – but I do not think 1) it always needs to take the form of an international court 2) that it should be done immediately.
Although it’s been nearly a decade since 9/11, the fact that the War on Terror has been ongoing makes the OBL situation different. bin Laden was a leader of a terrorist group actively planning attacks against the United States and other targets. Mladic, clearly a jerk of international proportions, was guilty of crimes but had returned to civilian life – and so have many others. The Hague will not become the centre of terrorist attacks or even protests. I’m not sure the same could have been said for OBL. Does this mean a trial for both was impossible? No. Does this mean the circumstances were very, very different? Yes.
The bottom line – you can’t make a fair comparison between Mladic and bin Laden when it comes to international justice.
The other reason this consideration is important is that the UN has released a report saying that both sides have conducted war crimes in Libya. Is it the best idea to indict individuals now? Or wait until the conflict is over, the country has a chance to catch its breath and then begin to take a good hard look at what has happened on its territory? Time may or may not tell.
I’m not so sure. Lesser Balkan PIWFCs and associates have been shot and killed during the course of arrest. I’m thinking specifically of Operation Tango (yes, it was really called that) in Prijedor in 1997 – the SAS operation against Milan Kovacevic.
URL: https://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=151682
According to the White House captioning of the purpose of the Abbottabad raid, there’s not a lot to differentiate between the two; what distinguishes the Bin Mladic details, really, are political priorities, from which all over issues, concerns, and actions are derivative.
You are
certainly right that the peace vs. justice problem has to be evaluated separately
in each case and according to the circumstances. But I do quite not see what
kind of moral difference that makes for the rightness or wrongness of each
action. I mean – you are certainly not implying that Obama should have waited
to arrest OBL until good ol’ Osama would have settled peacefully in a small
Pakistani village working as a hairdresser, right (since, in that case, it
would have been a comparable situation?)? And you are certainly not implying
either that, on the other hand, Clinton should have ordered Navy SEALS to kill Mladic
in late 1995 (again, the more comparable situation?)? Both scenarios do not
make much sense to me (and I am sure not to you either), but somehow it seems
to me, that they logically follow from your argument. If they do not, please correct
me.
Stephanie, I do appreciate what you’re saying. And FWIW, my OBL piece was originally written in its own right – I’m willing to admit I only tacked Mladic on that week because it happened to be the big news story, you know how these things go.
But ultimately I don’t agree that your point invalidates my argument on its merits at all. Actually, I like the way you put it: “Does this mean a trial for both was impossible? No. Does this mean the circumstances were very, very different? Yes.”
Basically, I’d just say the exact same thing only reverse the emphasis. Were the circumstances very very different? Yes. Does this mean a trial for both was impossible? No. That’s basically all I’m saying. And I argue that for OBL, a trial was not only possible but the right course of action – on it’s own merits, the comparison to Mladic was convenient but not necessary. The international tribunal model has been used for all kinds of events – probably the most persuasive analogy to your mind would be the hybrid tribunal for the Hariri assassination. So you may be right but I don’t see what difference it makes to my argument.
I’m more interested in your argument, from an earlier comment, that trials have never worked. Since my argument hinges on the notion that they do work – at least at certain things – I wonder if you’d like to take on some of my empirical points or tell me why you see it differently.
Cheers!