The war in Libya has been under way for months, without any indication of when it might end. Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's faction has been stronger and more cohesive than imagined and his enemies weaker and more divided. This is not unusual. There is frequently a perception that dictators are widely hated and that their power will collapse when challenged. That is certainly true at times, but often the power of a dictator is rooted in the broad support of an ideological faction, an ethnic group or simply those who benefit from the regime. As a result, naive assumptions of rapid regime change are quite often replaced by the reality of protracted conflict.
This has been a characteristic of what we have called "humanitarian wars," those undertaken to remove a repressive regime and replace it with one that is more representative. Defeating a tyrant is not always easy. Gadhafi did not manage to rule Libya for 42 years without some substantial support.
Nevertheless, one would not expect that, faced with opposition from a substantial anti-regime faction in Libya as well as NATO and many other countries, Gadhafi would retain control of a substantial part of both the country and the army. Yet when we look at the situation carefully, it should be expected.
The path many expected in Libya was that the support around Gadhafi would deteriorate over time when faced with overwhelming force, with substantial defections of senior leaders and the disintegration of his military as commanders either went over to the other side en masse, taking their troops with them, or simply left the country, leaving their troops leaderless. As the deterioration in power occurred, Gadhafi — or at least those immediately around Gadhafi — would enter into negotiations designed for an exit. That hasn't happened, and certainly not to the degree that it has ended Gadhafi's ability to resist. Indeed, while NATO airpower might be able to block an attack to the east, the airstrikes must continue because it appears that Gadhafi has retained a great deal of his power.
The International Criminal Court
One of the roots of this phenomenon is the existence of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which became operational in 2002 in The Hague, Netherlands. The ICC has jurisdiction, under U.N. mandate, to prosecute individuals who have committed war crimes, genocide and other crimes against humanity. Its jurisdiction is limited to those places where recognized governments are unwilling or unable to carry out their own judicial processes. The ICC can exercise jurisdiction if the case is referred to the ICC prosecutor by an ICC state party signatory or the U.N. Security Council (UNSC) or if the prosecutor initiates the investigation him or herself.
The current structure of international law, particularly the existence of the ICC and its rules, has an unintended consequence. Rather than serving as a tool for removing war criminals from power, it tends to enhance their power and remove incentives for capitulation or a negotiated exit. In Libya's case, Gadhafi's indictment was referred to the ICC by the UNSC, and he was formally indicted in late June. The existence of the ICC, and the clause that says that it has jurisdiction where signatory governments are unable or unwilling to carry out their own prosecutions, creates an especially interesting dilemma for Gadhafi and the intervening powers.
Consider the case of Slobodan Milosevic of Yugoslavia. Milosevic, like Gadhafi, was indicted during a NATO intervention against his country. His indictment was handed down a month and a half into the air campaign, in May 1999, by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), a court that was to be the mold, to a large extent, for the ICC. After the intervention, Milosevic clung to power until 2001, cracking down on the opposition and dissident groups whom he painted as traitors during the NATO air campaign. Milosevic still had supporters in Serbia, and as long as he refused to cede his authority, he had enough loyalists in the government who refused to prosecute him in the interest of maintaining stability.
One of the reasons Milosevic refused to cede power was the very real fear that regime change in Serbia would result in a one-way ticket to The Hague. This is exactly what happened. A few months after Serbia's October 2000 anti-Milosevic revolution, the new and nominally pro-Western government issued an arrest warrant for Milosevic, finally sending him to The Hague in June 2001 with a strong push from NATO. The Milosevic case illustrates the inherent risk an indicted leader will face when the government falls in the hands of the opposition.
The case of Radovan Karadzic, the Bosnian Serb political leader, is also instructive in showing the low level of trust leaders like Gadhafi may place in assurances from the West regarding non-prosecution. Serbian authorities arrested Karadzic in July 2008 after being on the run for 12 years. He claimed in court proceedings at the ICTY that he was given assurances by the United States — denied by Washington — that if he were to step down and make way for a peace process in Bosnia, he would not be prosecuted. This obviously did not happen. In other words, the likely political arrangements that were arrived at to initiate a peace process in Bosnia-Herzegovina were wholly disregarded by the ICTY.
Gadhafi is obviously aware of the Balkans precedents. He has no motivation to capitulate, since that could result in him being sent to The Hague, nor is there anyone that he can deal with who can hold the ICC in abeyance. In most criminal proceedings, a plea bargain is possible, but this is not simply a matter of a plea bargain.
Regardless of what a country's leader has done, he or she holds political power, and the transfer of that power is inherently a political process. What the ICC has done since 2002 — and the ICTY to an extent before that — is to make the political process moot by making amnesty impossible. It is not clear if any authority exists to offer and honor an amnesty. However, the ICC is a product of the United Nations, and the authority of the United Nations lies in the UNSC. Though there is no clear precedent, there is an implicit assumption that the UNSC would be the entity to offer a negotiated amnesty with a unanimous vote. In other words, the political process is transferred from Libya to the UNSC, where any number of countries might choose to abort the process for their own political ends. So the domestic political process is trumped by The Hague's legal process, which can only be trumped by the UNSC's political process. A potentially simple end to a civil war escalates to global politics.
And this is not simply a matter of a leader's unwillingness to capitulate or negotiate. It aborts the process that undermines men like Gadhafi. Without a doubt, most of the men who have surrounded him for years are guilty of serious war crimes and crimes against humanity. It is difficult to imagine anyone around Gadhafi whose hands are clean, or who would have been selected by Gadhafi if their hands weren't capable of being soiled. Each of them is liable for prosecution by the ICC, particularly the senior leadership of the military; the ICC has bound their fate to that of Gadhafi, actually increasing their loyalty to him. Just as Gadhafi has nothing to lose by continued resistance, neither do they. The ICC has forged the foundation of Gadhafi's survival and bitter resistance.
It is not a question only of the ICC. Recall the case of Augusto Pinochet, who staged a coup in Chile against Salvador Allende and presided over a brutal dictatorship. His support was not insubstantial in Chile, and he left power in a carefully negotiated political process. A Spanish magistrate, a minor figure in the Spanish legal system, claimed jurisdiction over Pinochet's crimes in Chile and demanded that he be extradited from Britain, where Pinochet was visiting, and the extradition was granted. Today the ICC is not the only authority that can claim jurisdiction in such cases, but under current international law, nations have lost the authority to negotiate solutions to the problem of transferring power from dictators to representative democracies. Moreover, they have ceded that authority not only to the ICC but also to any court that wants to claim jurisdiction.
Apply this to South Africa. An extended struggle took place between two communities. The apartheid regime committed crimes under international law. In due course, a negotiated political process arranged a transfer of power. Part of the agreement was that a non-judicial truth commission would review events but that prosecutions would be severely limited. If that transfer of power were occurring today, with the ICC in place and "Spanish magistrates" loose, how likely would it be that the white government would be willing to make the political concessions needed to transfer power? Would an agreement among the South Africans have trumped the jurisdiction of the ICC or another forum? Without the absolute certainty of amnesty, would the white leadership have capitulated?
The desire for justice is understandable, as is the need for an independent judiciary. But a judiciary that is impervious to political realities can create catastrophes in the name of justice. In both the Serbia and Libya cases, ICC indictments were used by Western countries in the midst of bombing campaigns to legitimize their humanitarian intervention. The problem is that the indictments left little room for negotiated settlements. The desire to punish the wicked is natural. But as in all things political — though not judicial — the price of justice must also be considered. If it means that thousands must die because the need to punish the guilty is an absolute, is that justice? Just as important, does it serve to alleviate or exacerbate human suffering?
Consider a hypothetical. Assume that in the summer of 1944, Adolph Hitler had offered to capitulate to the allies if they would grant him amnesty. Giving Hitler amnesty would have been monstrous, but at the same time, it would have saved a year of war and a year of the holocaust. From a personal point of view, the summer of 1944 was when deportation of Hungarian Jews was at its height. Most of my family died that fall and winter. Would leaving Hitler alive have been worth it to my family and millions of others on all sides?
The Nuremberg precedent makes the case for punishment. But applied rigorously, it undermines the case for political solutions. In the case of tyrannies, it means negotiating the safety of tyrants in return for their abdication. The abdication brings an end to war and allows people who would have died to continue to live their lives.
The theory behind Nuremberg and the ICC is that the threat of punishment will deter tyrants. Men like Gadhafi, Milosevic, Karadzic and Hitler grow accustomed to living with death long before they take power. And the very act of seizing that power involves two things: an indifference to common opinion about them, particularly outside their countries, and a willingness to take risks and then crush those who might take risks against them. Such leaders constitute an odd, paradoxical category of men who will risk everything for power, and then guard their lives and power with everything. It is hard to frighten them, and harder still to have them abandon power without guarantees.
The result is that wars against them take a long time and kill a lot of people, and they are singularly indifferent to the suffering they cause. Threatening them with a trial simply closes off political options to end the war. It also strips countries of their sovereign right to craft non-judicial, political solutions to their national problems. The dictator and his followers have no reason to negotiate and no reason to capitulate. They are forced to continue a war that could have ended earlier and allowed those who would have died the opportunity to live.
There is something I call judicial absolutism in the way the ICC works. It begins with the idea that the law demands absolute respect and that there are crimes that are so extraordinary that no forgiveness is possible. This concept is wrapped in an ineluctable judicial process that, by design, cannot be restrained and is independent of any moderating principles.
It is not the criminals the ICC is trying who are the issue. It is the next criminal on the docket. Having seen an older dictator at The Hague earlier negotiate his own exit, and see that negotiation fall through, why would a new dictator negotiate a deal? How can Gadhafi contemplate a negotiation that would leave him without power in Libya, when the Milosevic case clearly illuminates his potential fate at the hands of a rebel-led Libya? Judicial absolutism assumes that the moral absolute is the due process of law. A more humane moral absolute is to remove the tyrant and give power to the nation with the fewest deaths possible in the process.
The problem in Libya is that no one knows how to go from judicial absolutism to a more subtle and humane understanding of the problem. Oddly, it is the judicial absolutists who regard themselves as committed to humanitarianism. In a world filled with tyrants, this is not a minor misconception.
Libya and the Problem with The Hague is republished with permission of STRATFOR.
- Handling Big Contradictions
- Tax Havens: Shady Deals
- Environment: Worlds of Water
- Environment: Rebuilding Sandcastles
- Economic Cost in Yemen
- Egypt and Palestine: Internecine Alliance
- In New Egypt Old Conspiracies Live On
- Show Stolen From Egyptian Superstar in Anti-Mubarak Drive
- Russia Has Syrian Blood on Its Hands
- Syrian Revolution Gets Islamic Seal of Approval
- Muslim Brotherhood Challenges Jordan's King
- A Dumb and Dumber War in Libya
- Libya and the Problem with The Hague
- Are Palestinians Getting Cold Feet on Independence?
- Tent Camp Rises in Tel Aviv To Protest Home Costs
- Open Air Market at Heart of Jerusalem's Downtown Revival
- Rwanda: A New Rwanda?
- Somalia's Pirates: Ransom Cash 'Easy Come Easy Go'
- Al-Shabaab Offer Somalis Kinder and Gentler Face
- Mogadishu Hospitals Running Out of Medicine
- Kenya Feels the Strain as Somali Refugee Numbers Soar
- Ethiopia: Floods Pose New Threat to Food Security
- Understanding Nigeria's Boko Haram Radicals
- Turkey: Constitutional Overhaul?
- European Action Service: Europe Eats Its Young
- Spain: Playing at Revolution
- Spain May Change Tone on Latin America
- Britain's Tabloid Scandal Sounds Familiar
- Britain's Metropolitan Police Commissioner Quits Over News Corp Phone Hacking Scandal
- News of the World Editor Brooks Arrested
- Headed to Europe This Summer? It's Going to Be a Riot
- Europe This Summer: Go, But Carefully
- South Korea's School Tablets -- a Test for All
- Bombs Before Bread in North Korea
- 'Unprecedented' Drug Trafficking Heightens Risk To Youth
- Never-Say-Die Attitude Propels Japan to Victory Over USA In Women's FIFA World Cup Finals
- Three Venezuelan Scenarios -- None of Them Good
- Mexican President Congratulates Troops for Huge Marijuana Discovery
- On Humanitarianism: Is Helping Others Charity or Duty or Both?
- Financial Rebalancing Act: Stop Worrying About Global Flow of Capital
- Globalization and Unemployment
- The Divided States of Europe
- The Secrets of Germany's Economic Success
- Russia's Evolving Leadership
- Does Obama Have a Grand Strategy?
- The Crisis in Clean Energy
- Why Middle East Studies Missed the Arab Spring
- Egypt's Military and Upcoming Elections
- Taliban Hotel Attack: Low Death Toll, High Psychological Value
- Bin Laden's Re-branding of al-Qaida
- Perfidious Pakistan
- Effects of the American Drone Program in Pakistan
- NATO After Libya: The Atlantic Alliance in Austere Times
- South Africa's Land Reform Crisis
- Defending Democracy in Cote d'Ivoire
- Greece and EU Attempt to Avoid Disastrous Default
- Greece Passes Second Austerity Legislation
- Greek Parliament Narrowly Approves Austerity Program
- Greece Should Not Be About Austerity, It's About The Future Of Democracy
- Greek Crisis: Brace for More Volatility in Financial Markets
- Violence Mars Strikes in Greece
- Papandreou Seeks Greek MPs Support For Austerity Plan
- Ten Million at Risk as Drought Strikes African Horn
- South Sudan Teeters Weeks Before Independence
- Moroccan Voters Asked to Approve Reforms
- Myanmar Open To Microcredit Expansion
- Thousands Protest in Bangladesh Against Islamic Constitution
- New Evidence Not Sufficient to Retry Filipino Senator's Son For Rape and Murder
- Government Boosts Disaster Preparedness as Latest Storm Subsides
- Health Personnel Spreading Hepatitis in Pakistan
- Pakistan: More Polio Cases Despite Efforts to Contain It
- Brotherhood Gets Out Muslim Message with Movies
- Rejecting IMF Loan Egypt Risks Undermining Economy
- Arabs Divided on Prospects for Change
- Arab Spring: From Textbook to Tahrir Square
- Palestinian Inmates Put Away Their Textbooks
- Israel's Army Becoming God's Army
- Lebanon's New Leaders Face Economic-Credibility Problem
- Lebanon's Clerics Attack Domestic Violence Law
- Is Syrian Unrest an Invitation for Al-Qaeda?
- UK Public Workers Strike Over Pension Changes
- Belarus Holds Lessons for Syria's Asssad
- Libya and America's Commitment Problem
- Afghanistan: How Much Easier It Is to Start a War Than to Finish One
- Obama's Afghanistan Plan and the Realities of Withdrawal
- Confusing Reports of a Battle in Matamoros
- Implications of El Chango's Arrest
- All Wheat Varieties Will Have To Be Replaced
- In the Desert Kingdom: No Grassroots Politics
- Fear and Trembling in Saudi Arabia
- Minister's Resignation Highlights Jordan's Tense Relations
- Muslim Brotherhood Walks Democratic Path With Caution
- Mentoring Tomorrow's Middle East Youth Movement
- Saab Unable To Pay Employee Wages
- KLM To Power European Flights With Used Cooking Oil
- Mindanao Aid Plan Underfunded Says United Nations
- Philippine Airport Operator Looks for Body Scanners
- NATO Chief Welcomes Obama Decision To Withdraw Troops
- Afghanistan Bracing For Reduced Wheat Harvest
- Bangladesh Ethnic Communities Protest Islamization Of Constitution
- Former Mexican Attorney General Suspected of Helping Drug Cartels
- Canada to Issue New $50 And $100 Plastic Bills In November
- Conflict In Sudan's Southern Kordofan Region
- Michael David: 'My Duty Was Cleaning Guns And Shining Boots'
- Insecurity and Land Conflicts Threaten Peace In Sudan's Upper Nile State
- Children Unprotected as Polio Spreads in Chad
- Muslim Brotherhood Walks Democratic Path With Caution
- The Afghan Money Pit
- United States and Pakistan: Afghan Strategies
- Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad Admits Opposition Has Legitimate Grievances
- Syria: The Last Domino
- Turkey in Position to Lead Region Out of Tumultuous Century
- Lebanon's Opposition Feeling Threatened
- New Mexican President, Same Cartel War?
- Limited Options for United States in Yemen
- Yemenis Look To Tribes As Force For Change
- In Arab Spring Chill United Arab Emirates Puts Bloggers On Trial
- Hamas Leader Urges Fatah To Abandon West
- Somalia Power Struggle Could Intensify As Premier Quits
- Ousted Tunisian Leader Denies Charges Before Trial Begins In Absentia
- Tunisia Risks Controversy with Travel Ads
- New Insight Into Male Sex Work and HIV Epidemic in Africa
- Angola's 'Sans Papiers' Violently Deported In New Wave Of Expulsions
- Severe Drought and High Food Prices Hit Pastoralists In Africa
- The Hidden Cost Of Piracy In Somalia
- Flood-hit Mindanao Battles Water Lilies
- No Clear Route Out Of Servitude For Indentured Girls
- IMF Urges EU Leaders to Act Now on Greece Bailout
- European Finance Ministers Delay Second Greek Bailout To July
- European Union Assures Greece Bailout Funds
- Spaniards Protest Against Euro-Pact and Austerity Measures
- Greece Is The World's Least Credit Worthy Nation
- A World of Three Reserve Currencies -- Good or Bad?
- Europe Is Warning Us
- United States Has Trust Issues With China
- The United States - Russia Missile Defense Impasse
- Al Qaeda's New Video: A Message of Defeat
- Why Sudan's Peace Is in Jeopardy
- Egypt's Interim Rulers Learn the Democracy Game
- Egyptians Back Keeping Clerics Out of Politics
- House Pushes Obama on Libya
- Ignoring the War Powers Act
- Congress' Bipartisan Vice Is Cowardice
- Outgoing Robert Gates Outlines Future US Presence in Asia
- Robert Gates: Parting Shot on Afghan Policy
- An Invitation to Leave Afghanistan
- Obama Undermines Prospects for Middle East Peace
- Forty-Four Years Later, Israeli Attack on USS Liberty Provokes Strong Response
- Saudi Arabia Orders Men Out of Women's Clothing
- Gulf Becomes Fault Line for Sunni - Shiite Tensions
- Double Whammy for Bahraini Peace and Prosperity Drive
- The Human Cost of the Yemen Conflict
- Yemeni President Saleh Is Out But Yemen's Future Uncertain
- Turkey's Dilemma: Economy or Constitution
- Turkey: Elections and Strained U.S. Relations
- A Bad Day That Never Changes
- G8 Leaders Vow Billions in Aid to Egypt and Tunisia
- What 'Arab Spring'?
- Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood on the March -- Cautiously
- International Law, Palestinian Statehood and Israel's Security
- The Palestinian Move
- Israel's Borders and National Security
- Netanyahu's Message Is Self-Defeating
- Justice for a General -- At Last
- Protective Intelligence Lessons from an Ambush in Mexico
- Corruption: Why Texas Is Not Mexico
- Politics Behind Thai - Cambodian Conflict
- Re-examining the U.S. Withdrawal from Afghanistan
- The Bin Laden Operation: Tapping Human Intelligence
- Inside Pakistan After bin Laden
- The Kaspersky Kidnapping - Lessons Learned
- A Political Vision for Israel
- 3 Ongoing Conflicts You May Not Be Paying Attention To But Should
- Visegrad: A New European Military Force
- Turkey Setting Poor Example for Other Arab Nations
- IMF's Crisis-Management Challenge
- Dominique Strauss-Kahn Scandal an Embarrassment for France
- Going Cold on Bin Laden
Available at Amazon.com:
Aftermath: Following the Bloodshed of America's Wars in the Muslim World
Displacement and Dispossession in the Modern Middle East (The Contemporary Middle East)
The End of History and the Last Man
The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
The Tragedy of Great Power Politics