The principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states does not qualify as a loop hole legitimising crimes against humanity, Ayman El-Amir writes A wave of excitement recently swept across Europe as rumour spread that the notorious Serbian war crimes fugitive, General Ratko Mladi�, had been arrested and hauled before the International War Crimes Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Although the government of Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) was quick to quash the rumour, it seemed to be only a matter of time before the indicted war crimes general would be brought before the court in The Hague for trial. With 64 per cent of polled Serbs wanting to join the European Union to benefit from employment opportunities and investment inflows, the government had pinned high hopes on talks for associate status with the EU, which have been postponed indefinitely. It could not afford to wager this prospect on Serb nationalistic fervour. From a regional perspective, the 10-year hunt for the indicted general is an indication of how deep emotions still run in that caldron of ethnic cleansing known as the Balkan. From a global perspective, it epitomises the dilemma of the use and abuse of power by those who wield it over their peoples under the guise of sovereignty, without democratic safeguards. General Mladi� and his boss, Radovan Karadéi�, president of the Republika Srpska, are held responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing and genocide that were committed during the so-called Bosnian war (1991-95). General Mladi�, in particular, has been indicted on charges of master-minding and executing the cold-blooded massacre of 8,000 unarmed young Muslim inhabitants from the town of Srebrenica in 1995. Many a horror story recounted the ghastly nights of 11-14 July 1995 during which men and boys were separated from their families, loaded onto trucks and shipped to torture centres and later to the killing fields near the Drina River. Blind-folded and with their hands tied behind their backs, they were shot in the back of the head. A 17-year-old survivor of the night massacres later told a New York Times reporter that as he lay motionless among the piles of dead Muslim civilians he heard a Serbian soldier declare cheerfully, "that was a good hunt. There were a lot of rabbits here." It took UN forensic teams four years to dig up mass graves, identify the dead and deliver the remains to their bereaved next of kin. By all measures, Srebrenica was the second largest act of genocide in Europe since World War II. The crime of genocide and other crimes against humanity have been codified and included in the statues of international law since, and probably because of the Holocaust and the post-war Nuremberg trials. However, low- intensity crimes of political persecution, arbitrary detention, torture, forced disappearances, extrajudicial executions and human rights violations by everlasting dictators against their opponents continued to be left out of the reach of international jurisdiction. Since these practices were regarded as matters of internal affairs and hence not subject to introspection by other countries, except superficially at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, authoritarian regimes got away with many abuses of power. For decades, countries of South America experienced some of the worst cases under military dictatorship. Now, many of them offer shining examples of how nations can defeat their oppressors and install self-correcting political mechanisms. It was not until mass persecution and ethnic cleansing of Kosovars by the regime of President Slobodan Miloöevi� of Yugoslavia, which climaxed in 1999, that a seemingly domestic affair of one country became a major concern for others, particularly those that had been torched by the Balkan powder-keg. There was, of course, the classical example of India's complaint to the UN in 1946 against the segregationist policies of South Africa's apartheid regime imposed on nationals of Indian origin. At the time, South Africa protested that the matter was an internal affair and that the UN Charter barred interference of member states. The international community, composed of 51 members of the UN, saw otherwise, legitimising an international campaign against apartheid that rolled on until the symbol of that struggle, Nelson Mandela, was released from his Robin island jail in February 1990. With the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states still a pillar of international law, the watershed mark between national sovereignty and violation of the fundamental human rights of populations by despotic regimes has been rudely transgressed. The resolution of this tension between the provisions of the international humanitarian law and the prerogatives of national sovereignty were articulated by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Speaking before the World Economic Forum in Davos in January, he reminded the global gathering of his statement before the UN General Assembly in September 1999, following NATO's controversial massive air campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to force President Miloöevi� loosen his grip on Kosovo. "I called the General Assembly's attention to this in 1999", he said, "that such mass atrocities can never be treated as purely domestic affairs, and governments should not be allowed to hide behind the shield of sovereignty to brutalise their own people." "Being rightly called crimes against humanity", he added, "they demand collective response from humanity." The world is brimming with movement for democratic change. In the Arab world, the unbridled powers of autocratic regimes continue to cause instability which further encourages external intervention. Elections are rigged, constitutions are amended to indefinitely extend the term of the incumbent and the political arena is evacuated of any serious contenders. With few exceptions, there has been no democratic Arab regime change in the past 50 years through free and fair elections. Monarchies rule by divine right and republican regimes by emergency powers. Change comes only too little too late, and usually only to maintain the status quo. The Middle East is a region of both great interest and concern for outside powers and its instability could drag it into the horrific blood- letting experience of the Balkan. Unlike the Balkan, however, centuries-old ethnic animosities are not a factor in inter-Arab relations. But Iraq and Lebanon are sending out disturbing signals of civil war. Contrary to conventional wisdom, power does not corrupt, but corrupt rulers abuse power. Besides, the lure and privilege of power are so irresistible that those in the seat are reluctant to abandon it willingly. With the abuse of power, rotation becomes inconceivable and a dichotomy of resistance to change is inevitable. What is needed is action to unveil national sovereignty when human rights abuse is proved to be hiding behind it. This will require a solid mechanism for detection and swift intervention in situations where human rights violations are committed by national governments. The standard of accountability should be nothing less than the case of the Chilean dictator General Augusto Pinochet. Sick and frail at the age of 89, Pinochet is still being hounded by human rights activists for the kidnapping, torture and murder of 4,000 of his countrymen following a 1973 CIA-assisted military coup. The ultimate moral should be that brutal dictators are ill advised to look forward to any statute of limitations, or refuge, from criminal actions committed against their peoples.
