|
Jewish World Review July 5, 2001 / 14 Tamuz, 5761
Michael Ledeen
I would hate that, even if it were Bill Clinton and Madeleine
Albright, hauled up for aiding and abetting genocide in North
Korea. And I would hate it even more if it were, as some of
the America-haters are urging, George Bush the Elder and his
evil henchmen Powell and Cheney, for genocide in Iraq. If
you think such events are utterly fanciful you're not spending
enough time online with the new New Left. If that crowd has
its way, one A. Greenspan will stand trial for mass murder.
That's why all those folks who are gushing and cooing over
the wonderful expansion of the "rule of law" had best remind
themselves that dreams-come-true often have unintended
consequences, although in this case they are certainly not
unimagined. The United States refused to sign the Genocide
Convention for more than a generation precisely because of
such fears, and those resisting included some fairly cautious
souls from both parties, from Hubert Humphrey to Jacob
Javits and Clifford Case, for example. When we finally
signed, we stipulated reservations strong enough to convince
several of our close allies that we hadn't really agreed to
anything. We insisted that no American can stand trial without
the formal approval of the U.S. government, and that in no
case can any American be tried for something that is not
criminal according to the Constitution. The wise Americans
who insisted on such reservations had the same nightmare
visions I do. And they insisted that the "rule of law" is best
exemplified by the Constitution, and we're not going to
expose American citizens to somebody else's view of what is
criminal.
The kidnapping of Milosevic and his delivery to The Hague
tribunal seems to me utterly unnecessary, because he was
going to be tried by his own countrymen (the Genocide
Convention, for example, requires enforcement by the nations
involved, and permits the creation of special tribunals only
when the law is flouted). The seizure of Milosevic was
probably carried out to favor one side in the intense internal
political struggle between Milosevic's successors in Serbia
and the virtual country called "Yugoslavia" (Serbia plus
Montenegro), and, more ominously, to show the world that
the U.N. — or, in this case, the countries offering financial aid
to Serbia — can enforce its will.
Never mind that Milosevic was removed from power by the
Serbs (you may recall that, as in Iraq, we shrank from the
dirty deed, preferring to leave the scene and hope that good
things would happen), and that a duly elected Serbian
Government has insisted on its authority over the former
tyrant. This is quite different from the situation in Africa,
where Rwanda simply lacks the resources to try their own
mass murderers; Serbia is able and willing to try Milosevic.
We are denying Serbia the same rights we have claimed for
ourselves, and it's quite remarkable that so few chatterers
and, so far as I can tell, not a single member of the American
government, has spoken against the clear violation of Serbian
sovereignty. Richard Holbrooke, in a remarkable essay in the
Washington Post, regrets only that this happy turn of events
was produced by Congressional meddling in foreign policy.
Not even Henry Kissinger, who is likely one day to be
indicted by one of these self-righteous tribunals (if Lou
Lapham and Christopher Hitchens have their way), has
denounced it. Is no one concerned that the U.N. — the same
bunch that declared Israel guilty of racism, and that removed
us from their human rights institutions — may kidnap our
citizens and drag them before some self-appointed judge?
The current trend toward trying fallen dictators is thus far
limited to the former rulers of small countries, and has a
distinct political tinge to it. No one is clamoring for the trial of
former Communist tyrants from the Soviet Union or
Central/Eastern Europe. The fashionable intelligentsia cheers
when Pinochet gets gobbled up, but no one demands that
Gorbachev or other Soviet Communists stand trial, as simple
intellectual consistency demands. And don't hold your breath
waiting for the International Court of Justice to indict Fidel
Castro or the vicious regime in Beijing (although you may
recall that Fidel was so upset by the indictment of Pinochet
that he cut short a trip to Spain and hightailed it back to
Havana before some local judge brought charges).
All this is simply one more example of the global victory of
the legal class. The lawyers and judges are asserting their
supremacy over all possible competitors for power, from the
businessmen to the politicians and the generals and colonels.
They have claimed the authority to decide who gets indicted,
and who enforces "the rule of law," here and everywhere.
The politicians, who mostly come from the legal class, aren't
inclined to contest the issue. The military, at least north of the
Equator, accepts civilian rule. Who is left to defend us against
the impending assault of politicized lawyers with a grudge
against America?
Maybe we should enlist the trial lawyers. Somebody should
tell them that if this trend continues, all the fees from the
"patients' bill of rights" boondoggle will go to some attorneys
in Brussels or the Netherlands. Then we might get to see a
real
05/30/01: Anybody out there afraid of the Republicans?
|