Justice?

Saddam's trial should begin tomorrow. All I can say is that it's about time.

However, I do have my qualms about the whole process of international law that incriminates leaders such as Saddam and Pinochet. I'll leave Saddam for the future - once results start rolling in, but since the Pinochet case has been under public scrutiny for some time, I'll deal with that.

The main issue that irks me is the politicized view of justice and international law. The semi-realpolitik part of me understands why these things are only applied to some, but the (dying) semi-idealist in me wants to scream out.

The Pinochet case set an amazing and extremely dangerous precedent at the time - heads of states (or rather, former heads of states) can be held accountable for their actions. However, this view is seen by some as creating a potential pitfall for international relations, and that immunity should always be invoked. In the words of someone who was interviewed with regards to the Pinochet case, "It would ruin the international system. How can we, for example, invite the Chinese head to Britain, with him fearing that, 6 months from when he resigns, he could potentially be indicted?" Compelling argument? Maybe.

But on the other hand, knowing that you could BE punished for current crimes can be a potential deterrent. However, such "indictments" are too politically oriented. After the judicial win in the Pinochet case, Jack Straw decided that enough was enough, and overruled the result by saying that Pinochet can claim immunity - a position he was originally against.

Another person claimed that "Pinochet brought many good things to Chile. He ended communism, introduced democracy, helped the economy. Yes, he also attacked citizens, but this was a necessary and imperative action in order to sustain the country." This brings to mind the age old problem of how many lives can be sacrificed to save others. If a million people have a certain fatal disease, and the only way to save them is to test an antidote on 1 person (who might die, while saving the rest), is that justifiable? How about testing it on 10 people? 100? 1000? Where do you draw the line?

Something else that was also brought up in the Pinochet case was how involved Pinochet was in the actual disappearances. Was it, as he claimed, the actions of his subordinates, and not the result of his direct orders? Can he be held responsible? Will such claims be used in Saddam's case? What about the other leaders, whose crimes have been ignored? The Uzbekistan recent massacres? Putin's behavior in Chechnya? France's actions in Algeria? Qaddafi? Sharon? Should such incriminations only be limited to the behavior of a leader in his country? Can people be held accountable for the results of wars that are waged on other states? Or is, as is currently the case, a war waged by people in uniforms and expensive weapons, hiding under the banner of a "higher moral ground" forgivable? I still don't accept that moral culpability is relative. What about the issue of sovereignty versus international accountability?

It's a shame that the international court and opinion is remiss in incriminating the different mass murders - if it was up to me, then I'd say to put all of them on trial. But it isn't. I could go on with more questions, more names, yet provide even less answers ... but I don't see the point - not as long as justice is a product of might.

posted by Lazarus, 10:43 AM