Human Rights and International Justice
I am deeply honored to speak on United Nations Day here at Dartmouth College. I
particularly want to thank my host, the Dartmouth United Nations Club and its
co-president, Michelle Chui, for her kind invitation. I had little difficulty
accepting her invitation when I knew that it would afford me the opportunity not
only to speak to a New England audience about some important issues, but to take
in the fall foliage. I also struck up a friendship years ago with your esteemed
Professor Emeritus Laurence Radway and wanted to visit him on his home turf.
This is my first visit to Dartmouth, a college where I know excellence in
education and the beauty of your campus are powerful magnets for the nation's
best students.
The United Nations today faces so many challenges worldwide that any recognition
of its work necessarily can convey only a partial story. One of the most
visible achievements of the United Nations throughout its history has been the
promotion and protection of human rights. Beginning with the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and continuing with the numerous human rights
conventions, the work of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights and the
U.N. Human Rights Center in Geneva, the reporting of Special Rapporteurs
deployed to countries across the globe, the responses to human rights
catastrophes throughout the world, and the creation of international criminal
tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda, the United Nations has been
a dominant champion of human rights in our time.
Secretary Albright, now and during her years as the U.S. Permanent
Representative to the United Nations, has been a tireless advocate and protector
of human rights. She has never shrunk from the challenge of human rights in a
violent and complex world where so many political, economic, social, and
security considerations must be considered in shaping policy choices. I have
worked for her for almost 6 years now, and I know her personal commitment to
this issue. For example, she has pressed hard for women's rights and for the
protection of children. One of her highest priorities is to obtain ratification
of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against
Women, which has been delayed far too long. Secretary Albright has deplored the
plight of women and girls in Afghanistan. She is the architect of the two
United Nations' international criminal tribunals and has sought to ensure that
peacekeeping operations respond to human rights violations. And she has pushed
hard for freedom of religion and for the building of democracy, both of which
give human rights the best chance to flourish.
If the United Nations is to continue its essential support for the protection
and advancement of human rights worldwide, it needs to be a well managed and
well financed international institution. Secretary Albright has worked hard to
streamline U.N. management and administration. Enormous progress has been made
in recent years. Meantime, however, this nation's arrears to the U.N. system of
more than $700 million continue to cause us severe difficulties. This situation
ill serves the cause of human rights and the many other missions entrusted to
the United Nations, particularly by this nation. Our foreign policy is being
crippled by the loss of U.S. credibility in the face of such staggering debts to
the United Nations.
Despite the Clinton Administration's sustained efforts to obtain the requisite
funding, this could not be resolved with Congress in the omnibus funding bill
adopted this week. Nonetheless, the President and Secretary Albright remain
firmly committed to paying our debts to the United Nations. It is a top U.S.
foreign policy priority and we will continue to work with Congress toward this
end.
I hold a position in the United States Government that has a very short history,
as there has never before been an Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues,
either in this country or any other nation. President Clinton and Secretary of
State Madeleine Albright appointed me to bring a sharp focus to accountability
for and prevention of atrocities wherever they may occur in the world. No one
can survey the events of this decade without profound concern about worldwide
respect for internationally recognized human rights. We live in a world where
entire populations can still be terrorized and slaughtered by nationalist
butchers and undisciplined armies. We have witnessed this in Iraq, in the
Balkans, and in central Africa. Internal conflicts dominate the landscape of
armed struggle today, and impunity too often shields the perpetrators of the
most heinous crimes against their own people and others. As the most powerful
nation committed to the rule of law, we have a responsibility to confront these
assaults on humankind. One response mechanism is accountability, namely to help
bring the perpetrators of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes to
justice. If we allow them to act with impunity, then we will only be inviting a
perpetuation of these crimes far into the next millennium. Our legacy must
demonstrate an unyielding commitment to the pursuit of justice.
The touchstone of our work today are two documents framed 50 years ago at the
United Nations. At the conclusion of World War II, the global collective
conscience was devastated by reports of hitherto unthinkable atrocities
committed during the war. It is from this dark period in history that both the
international human rights system and international humanitarian law gained
prominence on the world scene. In the space of 2 days in December of 1948, the
U.N. General Assembly adopted both the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. These two instruments are the backbone of all that has followed in the
fields of human rights and international humanitarian law.
The Office of War Crimes Issues, which I head at the State Department, has
supported since its creation in August of 1997 efforts to bring to justice war
criminals or, more precisely, those suspected of committing genocide, crimes
against humanity, and serious war crimes. The challenge is so enormous we can
never do enough; we can never respond to all of the needs. I sometimes liken
war crimes to a growth industry, sadly enough. Every day we awaken to another
report of a mass killing or a mass grave or an emerging conflict that holds the
potential of another atrocity. It is grim business. But we are
determined to
do all we can to achieve justice and prevent further atrocities.
I want to share with you some of the contributions the Clinton Administration
has made to this issue and what comprises the work of my office.
Yugoslav War Crimes Tribunal
One of Madeleine Albright's first achievements at the United Nations in February
of 1993 was her leadership in the creation of the International Criminal
Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Our support for the Yugoslav War Crimes
Tribunal has been second to none ever since. Through the efforts of our
government and the Stabilization Force in Bosnia, we have helped increase the
number of indictees taken into custody from 1 when NATO entered Bosnia in
January 1996 to 34 today. Twenty-nine public indictees remain at large. Two
prominent figures in the Bosnian conflict, Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic,
remain at large. This is a reality that is certainly frustrating to us and to
the victims of their alleged crimes. But their day will come and they will face
justice in The Hague. U.S. policy remains constant. Neither of these indictees
should assume anything else. We would have hoped that they had shown the
courage to voluntarily defend themselves before the Tribunal rather than cower
from the international community. In the meantime, we are confident of the
Tribunal's continuing progress. Six judicial proceedings covering a large
number of indictees currently are underway in The Hague in three courtrooms, one
of which was recently built with voluntary contributions from the United States
and the Netherlands.
We are working to increase the number of indictees brought into custody in The
Hague. Last week Congress adopted new legislation that we sought to provide a
rewards program for information leading to the arrest of suspects indicted by
the Yugoslav Tribunal. Our diplomatic pressure 1 year ago led to the voluntary
surrender of 10 Bosnian Croat indictees as well as other voluntary surrenders.
The United States is the largest financial supporter for the Yugoslav Tribunal.
International justice is no less expensive than domestic justice. In fact,
because of the investigative requirements of an international criminal tribunal
and other factors, the costs of international litigation can be high. Since
1993, the United States Government seconded more than 30 lawyers, investigators,
and analysts to the Yugoslav Tribunal. It can fairly be said that without that
expert assistance, the Tribunal would be nowhere near its stage of development.
The United States also continues to make, in addition to its assessed
contributions through the United Nations, critical voluntary contributions of
computer equipment and software, and support for mass grave exhumations, the
review of case files submitted by the Parties to the conflict, and
investigations in such places as Kosovo. The total U.S. funding for the
Yugoslav Tribunal since its creation now totals more than $64 million. We also
use our diplomatic clout to strongly support the Tribunal's annual budget at the
United Nations, which for next year should be about $90 million.
Another vital contribution is information, which we provide to the Tribunal
through special procedures that have been worked out under Rule 70 of the
Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and Evidence. This information is used by the
Prosecutor for background and investigative leads.
Since last March, we have been deeply engaged with responses to the conflict in
Kosovo. We have provided the Prosecutor with financial, diplomatic, and
information support. We also have pressed hard and successfully to support the
Prosecutor's stated declaration that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to
investigate and prosecute serious violations of international humanitarian law
in Kosovo.
I believe we have turned the corner with the Yugoslav War Crimes Tribunal. An
enormous amount of work remains to be done -- more investigations, more
indictees, more trials. But progress has been made and the Tribunal's
professionalism and credibility are well established.
Rwanda War Crimes Tribunal
The 1994 genocide in Rwanda was a horrific event from which we have learned
many lessons. One is that we have to do a much better job responding to
genocide as it unfolds and, even more importantly, to incipient genocide as its
warning signals are recognized. Last March, in Kigali, President Clinton said,
"We did not act quickly enough after the killing began. We should not have
allowed the refugee camp to become safe haven for the killers. We did not
immediately call these crimes by their rightful name: genocide. We cannot
change the past but we can and must do everything in our power to help you build
a future without fear, and full of hope."
By July of 1994, 4 months after the genocide began, we were moving swiftly to
create an international criminal tribunal to hold responsible the leaders of the
genocide in Rwanda. The Rwanda War Crimes Tribunal was established by November
and is now entering its 5th year of operations. Despite severe management and
staffing problems in its early years, and despite the fact that some of these
problems persist, the wheels of justice are beginning to churn in the
Tribunal's courtrooms in Arusha, Tanzania. Last month, a three-judge panel
handed down the first judgment in history on the crime of genocide and other
crimes. Jean-Paul Akayesu, a former mayor of a town in Rwanda, was found guilty
of genocide. Jean Kambanda, Rwandan prime minister during the genocide, pled
guilty to genocide and other crimes and received the tribunal's maximum sentence
-- life imprisonment. Other indicted officials of the Rwandan Government are
being tried on charges of genocide and other serious violations of international
humanitarian law.
In fact, the number of publicly indicted individuals in custody in Arusha is 31,
while only 8 public indictees remain at large. Most of those in custody come
from the leadership ranks of the former Rwandan government and society. The
United States can take some credit not only for the establishment of the Rwanda
War Crimes Tribunal but also for getting it back on track. At our
encouragement, the UN's Office of the Inspector General launched investigations
of the Tribunal's operations that resulted in significant staff changes and
reformed operations.
As with the Yugoslav Tribunal, our financial contributions, both assessed and
voluntary, have underpinned the Rwanda Tribunal's operations. We have also
seconded investigators and facilitated the hiring of seasoned U.S. prosecutors
to work in the Office of the Prosecutor. Their performance has been exemplary.
For example, it was a prosecutor on a leave of absence from the Department of
Justice who led the prosecution which resulted in the first conviction for
genocide by an international tribunal.
Let me also say that one indictee of the Rwanda War Crimes Tribunal is currently
in detention here in the United States, in the State of Texas. His name is
Elizaphan Ntakirutimana. He is charged with genocide and other crimes. Before
being indicted, he entered the United States to join members of his family in
Texas. Since September of 1996, we have waged a long battle in federal courts
to achieve his transfer to the Tribunal in Arusha. This has been an historic
case that will confirm our authority to cooperate with an international criminal
tribunal. In early 1996, the Clinton Administration successfully obtained
legislation to underpin our ability to cooperate in the transfer of indicted
individuals from the United States to either the Yugoslav or Rwanda Tribunal.
The Ntakirutimana case tests that proposition. A federal district court
recently ruled that he could be extradited. We hope that Mr. Ntakirutimana will
be transferred to Arusha to stand trial without unreasonable further delay.
Cambodia
Let me say a brief word about Cambodia. The Clinton Administration has not
forgotten the Pol Pot era of the late 1970's. We had hoped to bring Pol Pot to
justice this year, but fate intervened to deprive Pol Pot of his life and us of
our opportunity to bring him into custody. Nonetheless, senior Khmer Rouge
leaders continue either to remain at large. They must be brought to justice.
We are hard at work to achieve that objective and are pleased to see renewed
activity at the United Nations on this as well.
Iraqi War Crimes
We are also looking at Iraqi war crimes. For example, we are focusing renewed
attention on Saddam Hussein and the senior members of his regime. His record is
a long one. As Secretary Albright has often said, he is a repeat offender. It
is extremely important that the pattern of Saddam Hussein's conduct be well
known by the international community. That pattern of conduct has been criminal
in character. It involves the actions of Saddam Hussein's regime during the
Anfal campaign of the late 1980's against the Iraqi Kurdish people. It includes
what he did to the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war. It includes the invasion
and occupation of Kuwait, and the torture and killing of Kuwaiti civilians, and
it involves actions that Saddam Hussein's regime has taken against the Marsh
Arabs in southern Iraq following the Gulf war.
Our government is working with others to pull together the record of Saddam's
regime in a way that can be useful to a prosecutor. For example, some years
ago, Human Rights Watch and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee helped
collect 5.5 million pages of Iraqi documents captured in northern Iraq. The
U.S. Government has now scanned and indexed these 5.5 million pages into
computer-readable form on 176 CD-ROM disks. Our goal now is to make this
information accessible to investigators and prosecutors looking into Saddam's
activities.
The Clinton Administration recognizes that the record of Saddam Hussein's
conduct under international law is deplorable. We are taking measures to insure
that this record becomes better known to the world at large.
World War II
Another development in the past year brings us back to echoes of the Holocaust.
We learned in April of the case of Dinko Sakic, who admitted on Argentine
television on April 6 that he was the commander of the Jasenovac death camp in
World War II Croatia. Some consider Sakic to be the most notorious World War II
era war criminal still at large today. At least tens of thousands, and perhaps
hundreds of thousands, were killed at Jasenovac. According to a captured German
document, in December 1943, Nazis in the Balkans were reporting to Berlin midway
through the war that 120,000 people had already been killed at Jasenovac. The
camp obviously continued to operate almost through the end of the war. By any
account, whoever commanded the camp must be put on trial.
We have commended the Government of Argentina for extraditing Sakic to face
justice. The United States Government is committed to seeing that Dinko Sakic
is vigorously prosecuted in Croatia and that he receives a fair trial. In order
to assist the Croatian government's prosecution, I personally delivered
documents compiled by the U.S. Government on the Sakic case to senior Croatian
officials in Zagreb. The Sakic case shows, as Secretary Albright has said, that
there is no statute of limitations for genocide. The American people and their
government will be paying close attention to this case to see that, in the end,
justice is done in Croatia for crimes committed during the second World War,
just as it has been done elsewhere in Europe.
International Criminal Court
An event of major importance in the evolution of international humanitarian law
occurred this past summer in Rome, where more than 160 nations met to craft a
treaty that would result in the creation of a permanent international criminal
court. The international community sought a noble and worthy objective whose
time has clearly arrived. That objective is to hold accountable and bring to
justice the perpetrators of the most egregious crimes against humankind:
genocide, crimes against humanity, and serious war crimes.
At the diplomatic conference in Rome we deliberated as to how that objective
could be accomplished in a world comprised of sovereign governments, each with
its own penal system but each bound together with the cords of customary
international law, reflected both in international treaties and in common
practice.
The treaty that emerged from the Rome conference has many provisions that we
support and the United States can be proud of the many significant contributions
by the U.S. delegation to the treaty text. We in the U.S. Government, however,
have reluctantly concluded that the treaty, in its present form, contains flaws
that render it unacceptable. Most problematic is the extraordinary way the
court's jurisdiction was framed at the last moment. A country whose forces
commit war crimes could join the treaty but escape prosecution of its nationals
by "opting out" of the court's jurisdiction over war crimes for 7 years.
By
contrast, a country that does not join the treaty but deploys its soldiers
abroad to restore international peace and security could be vulnerable to
assertions that the court has jurisdiction over acts of those soldiers.
Consider this scenario:
A State not a party to the treaty launches a campaign of terror against a
dissident minority inside its territory. Thousands of innocent civilians are
killed. International peace and security is imperiled. The United States
participates in a coalition to use military force to intervene and stop the
killing. Unfortunately, in so doing, bombs intended for military targets go
astray. A hospital is hit. An apartment building is demolished. Some
civilians being used as human shields are mistakenly shot by U.S. troops.
The State responsible for the atrocities demands that U.S. officials and
commanders be prosecuted by the international criminal court. The demand is
supported by a small group of other states. Under the terms of the Rome treaty,
absent a Security Council referral, the court could not investigate those
responsible for killing thousands, yet our senior officials, commanders, and
soldiers could face an international investigation and even prosecution.
Clearly, such a scenario is not acceptable to a country such as ours with its
unique responsibilities for the maintenance of international peace and security.
Having considered the matter with great care, the United States will not sign
the treaty in its present form. Nor is there any prospect of our signing the
present treaty text in the future.
Just yesterday I was in New York discussing the international criminal court and
the treaty text in a meeting of the U.N. General Assembly's Sixth Committee. As
I said there in New York, it is our view that governments must be afforded the
opportunity to address their more fundamental concerns. The advantages that
would derive from strong United States support for the international criminal
court should not be sacrificed for a concept of jurisdiction that may not be
effective and even runs the risk of dividing the international community on an
issue-international justice -- that will be difficult enough to achieve if the
international community is together. The international community's willingness
and ability to prevent and, where necessary, respond effectively to atrocities
is of fundamental importance. The opportunity remains for the international
criminal court to achieve its full potential. The U.S. holds the stakes for
international peace, security and justice to be too great to accept anything
else.
Conclusion
I have not touched upon other atrocities we are focusing on, including those in
the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sierra Leone, Burundi, Afghanistan, and
elsewhere. It is a very large agenda, but one that we cannot walk away from. I
have not spoken of our emerging efforts to build a better system of early
warning and prevention of genocide, a goal President Clinton is determined to
see addressed. But I hope I have given you some idea of the challenges that
confront us. I hope that some of you, in the future, will have the opportunity
to help the international community address these challenges. We must make
every effort to ensure that the worst crimes of the 20th Century are not
repeated in the 21st century.
Thank you.