Accountability for war crimes
Mladic’s actions were as monsterous as Bin Laden’s. Why was a criminal trial for Bin Laden deemed out of the question?
This has certainly been a good year for tracking down international villains. First, the Americans tracked down and killed Osama bin Laden after a 10-year hunt and now the Serbian government has handed over war criminal Ratko Mladic, who had been in hiding since 1995. Mladic was believed to be behind the Srebrenica massacre of 1995 in which Serbian forces massacred 8,000 Bosnian men and children. If ever there was a person who deserves to face the wrath of the law, it is Mladic. Mladic will surely be found guilty in a court of law, most likely the international court of justice, but there is one lingering questioin. Mladic’s actions were as monsterous as Bin Laden’s, yet a criminal trial for the latter was always deemed out of the question. Why the double standard?
There are two possible explanations for this. Since Mladic’s crimes were committed, first UN forces in Bosnia and then Nato troops in Kosovo helped put an end to the massacres in the Balkans. Then, Slobodan Milosovic, the leader who was chiefly responsible for this attempted genocide, was overthrown. Thus, unlike with Osama, there is little chance that Mladic’s trial will lead to public retaliation from his followers.
At the same time, it is hard not to note that Mladic’s victims were all Muslim while Osama’s greatest crime, the 9/11 attacks, targeted the US and primarily killed Americans. By denying Osama the trial that Mladic will be given, the implication seems to be that killing Americans is worse than massacring Muslims. Ideally, the example of Nuremburg, when genocidal Nazis were all given a fair trial, should be heeded in all cases. That would silence those who speak of victor’s justice and set the example that justice is delivered from courts and not bullets. That Mladic will face trial does not make his actions any less vile; it simply establishes the supremacy of rule of law.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 28th, 2011.
There are two possible explanations for this. Since Mladic’s crimes were committed, first UN forces in Bosnia and then Nato troops in Kosovo helped put an end to the massacres in the Balkans. Then, Slobodan Milosovic, the leader who was chiefly responsible for this attempted genocide, was overthrown. Thus, unlike with Osama, there is little chance that Mladic’s trial will lead to public retaliation from his followers.
At the same time, it is hard not to note that Mladic’s victims were all Muslim while Osama’s greatest crime, the 9/11 attacks, targeted the US and primarily killed Americans. By denying Osama the trial that Mladic will be given, the implication seems to be that killing Americans is worse than massacring Muslims. Ideally, the example of Nuremburg, when genocidal Nazis were all given a fair trial, should be heeded in all cases. That would silence those who speak of victor’s justice and set the example that justice is delivered from courts and not bullets. That Mladic will face trial does not make his actions any less vile; it simply establishes the supremacy of rule of law.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 28th, 2011.