BEIRUT — Lebanon and Sudan are two Arab countries that have suffered tumultuous modern histories, and continue to bear the burdens of a combination of their post-colonial structural weaknesses as well as the crime and incompetence of many of their own leaders. Yet today Lebanon and Sudan also stand out as two potentially historic Arab societies where the suffering and waste of the last half century may finally start to shift towards a more decent future, because the killers and tyrants who have terrorized these lands may finally be brought to justice.
These two countries are on the way to experiencing a historic process that many of us have dreamed of for decades: a legitimate, credible court of justice that holds accountable those who are accused — credibly and with evidence — of grievous crimes. In Sudan, the Hague-based International Criminal Court (ICC) has accused two people, a Sudanese government minister and a militia leader in Darfur, of organizing and implementing much of the killing and mass displacement of civilians in Darfur — the first time that the ICC has indicted an incumbent government minister for war crimes and crimes against humanity. In Lebanon, the UN Security Council has voted unanimously to establish a Lebanese-international court to try those who will be accused of killing former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and dozens of other people since February 2005 — the first time the UN investigates a crime by probing into the workings of sovereign states and their security agencies.
These historic developments are also very controversial. They reflect the will of the international community to penetrate the inner workings of Arab societies and regimes, to identify, try and punish people who are accused of systematically carrying out murder and mayhem. They raise two important questions: How much right does the international community have to interfere in domestic issues such as the killings and mass crimes committed in Sudan and Lebanon? Is it reasonable that the world go after the killers and criminals in these two countries, but not do the same in other countries and to officials who have been responsible for crimes of equal or even greater magnitude?
We must diligently discuss these issues, but not confuse them or hold them hostage to one another. Lebanon and Sudan on their own have been unable to stop the killings that plague them, and it is perfectly reasonable to request the assistance of the international community in this respect. Yet such international intervention ideally must be based on two vital factors: legitimacy and universality. Lacking these elements, it will be fiercely opposed.
Legitimacy demands that any intervention in the internal affairs of a country, especially detaining and trying individuals accused of crimes, be based on an international consensus anchored in credible institutions, primarily the UN Security Council. That mandate has been fulfilled in the cases of Lebanon and Sudan. Some parties complain of unfair interference or hidden political agendas, including the Sudanese and Syrian governments and elements of the Lebanese opposition; yet the overwhelming international and local consensus correctly supports these courts.
Universality demands that ending the impunity of killers and tyrants be implemented without partiality or bias, i.e., some Arab regimes or groups should not be singled out for judicial and political accountability while others, who savage entire societies, are left alone to commit their crimes with abandon.
Many in the Arab world in recent years have rejected international interference in our domestic affairs on the grounds that the same standards of intervention were not applied to other purveyors of death and destruction, such as the Israeli government in Palestine and Lebanon, the Americans and British in Iraq, or the Russians in Afghanistan years ago. Those powerful arguments are also a recipe for stalemate, and thus license for our own Arab murderers and Anglo-American-Israeli killers to carry on with their criminality.
We must break out of this stultifying stalemate. The imminent judicial trials to end the impunity of assassins in Lebanon and Sudan provide just the opportunity, which is why we must all protect and promote these courts, ensure their impartiality, and see them through to fruition. We must also simultaneously — not conditionally — demand and work for application of such accountability mechanisms in a wider arena, regardless of the nationality of the accused.
The emperors will resist, as they always do. Anglo-American-Israeli neocolonial impulses will try to block the application of accountability standards to their own governments, leaders and armies. The most powerful tool available to a world that rejects such blatant imperial arrogance is the combination of legitimacy and universality that we in the Arab world must vigorously champion by bringing to justice the killers who have long terrorized Lebanon and Sudan. Justice, like charity, is most effective and credible when it starts at home, for it then become infectious.
Rami G. Khouri is an internationally syndicated columnist, the director of the Issam Fares Institute at the American University of Beirut, editor-at-large of the Beirut-based Daily Star, and co-laureate of the 2006 Pax Christi International Peace Award.
Copyright ©2007 Rami G. Khouri / Agence Global
—————-
Released: 12 March 2007
Word Count: 796
—————-
For rights and permissions, contact:
rights@agenceglobal.com, 1.336.686.9002 or 1.212.731.0757