But Monday’s decision by a panel of judges in The Hague also underlines a disturbing bias in the international justice system. Arguably, many world leaders commit what the ICC defines as crimes against humanity. Yet only losers and outsiders are called to account.
The powerful, and those supported by the powerful, never have to face the music.
Gadhafi is a classic example. Over his 42-year rule, he has been treated by the West as variously a kook, a terrorist, a pariah, a loyal ally in the war against terror, and a pariah again.
When Gadhafi was an official friend of the West, all his sins — including his role in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing — were forgiven. That he jailed or killed dissidents was overlooked.
When Gadhafi was an official friend, no one asked the world court to investigate him. No special tribunals were set up.
Tellingly, the current indictment names only the dictator, his son and his head of military intelligence. Other long-time stalwarts, such as his former interior, justice and foreign ministers, have been given free passes — not because their hands are necessarily clean but because they switched sides to join Libya’s Western-backed rebels.
Gadhafi’s crimes, according to the court, are twofold. First he is accused of setting up a system that resulted in the death of civilian demonstrators. Second, he is accused of persecuting an identifiable group — his political opponents — by jailing them.
The hypocrisy of charging Gadhafi while ignoring the even more repressive tactics of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad is obvious. So are the reasons for this hypocrisy. Assad is deemed useful by the West. Gadhafi is not.
An added irony is that one of the countries decrying Gadhafi’s crimes, the United States, does not recognize the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction (a dubious honour shared by Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Israel — and Libya).
But the charges also raise important questions about the ability of governments to deal with domestic upheaval. At what point does the quelling of civil unrest become persecution? Are the actions of Russia in Chechnya, or India in Kashmir, or China in Tibet, or Israel in the occupied territories, crimes against humanity? If not, why not?
International justice has long been tempered by politics. After the Second World War it was easy to convict leading Nazis of waging illegal war. It has proved more difficult to indict former U.S. president George W. Bush for the same crime.
In 2001, Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic was properly brought before a special United Nations tribunal to face justice for his role in the Yugoslav mayhem. But those NATO leaders (including Canada’s Jean Chretien), who without UN authorization made illegal war on Serbia, were not.
The establishment of the International Criminal Court in 2002 gave hope that this double standard might change. So far, it has not. World leaders tut-tut Gadhafi for his odious practices. They say nothing about Bush’s decision to authorize torture domestically. Nor do they chastise Bush’s successor, Barack Obama, for continuing to outsource torture offshore.
Instead, the world court zeroes in on those third-world figures who no longer have friends. Certainly, these small-time thugs should be held to account. But so should the big guys.
Thomas Walkom writes on national issues for Record news services.
