Milosevic's Legacy

Milosevic’s Legacy

A Fair trial means a fair approach too. Milosevic’s death has put spotlight on the workings of the international tribunal in Hague.

By John Narayan Parajuli

Slobodan Milosevic was no angel. Implicated in some of the most heinous crimes in history, he had been fighting his battle before an international tribunal in the Hague. The law was taking its course, until death enigmatically intervened.

The mysterious circumstances under which Milosevic died hasn’t helped the reputation of the international community. Among the theories circulated: Drugs smuggled into prison, a poisoning plot, and the possibility of Milosevic undermining his own health. No matter what caused his death, it definitely has emboldened the critics of the tribunal in particular and the West in general.
The West has emerged as a champion of human rights in recent years. As a result, the moral consciousness in the public domain has expanded beyond national boundaries. Human rights violations in one country triggers reaction in a global scale. That in itself is a positive development in the history of human kind. Having said that, one shouldn’t forget the varying scale employed to measure what constitutes the rights violation in different countries.

It won’t be wrong to say that there is a rule of thumb: An American life is worth a dozen European, a couple of hundred Asian and a couple of thousand Africans or Hispanics. Proximity plays a big role in these discriminatory standards, or so it appears.

Unwritten guidelines of discrimination not only waters downs the claim of humanity of the West in particular, it also makes people cynical about even the West’s noblest intent, let alone controversial policies like “Iraq democracy” project.

Milosevic’s sudden death is doubly damaging: One, the tribunal hadn’t established that Milosevic was indeed guilty. Second, it has provided red-meat for its critics. The criticism is not so much that he was tried in a court of law; he was denied proper care. It has come to light that not long before his death; his request to go to Moscow for treatment was turned down.

Milosevic had appealed to the tribunal in December for permission to seek heart treatment in Moscow. That request was denied after tribunal officials expressed concern Milosevic might not return. He repeated the request last month. Even apologists of the U.N. tribunal have derided the tribunal for the death.

Serbian President Boris Tadic said the U.N. war crimes tribunal was responsible for Milosevic's death, though he added that it would not hamper Serbia's future cooperation with the court.

"Undoubtedly, Milosevic had demanded a higher level of health care," Tadic said in an interview with The Associated Press. "That right should have been granted to all war crimes defendants."

The U.N. tribunal feared that Milosevic might not return, if he were granted permission to go to Russia. Which essentially casts aspersions on the integrity of the Russian government as a whole—which happens to be one of the permanent members of the Security Council. This is symptomatic of “holier than thou” complex that the West suffers from. The sooner the West gets over it, the better for world’s “moral community.”

Milosevic may be dead now, but his infamous legacy has not. Worst, for many it is a borderline case between good and bad legacy. It is also likely to leave a lasting scar on the Hague tribunal and the humanitarian mission of the Western countries as a whole. The fact that he might have been the scum of the Earth wouldn’t matter as much as the denial of proper care or the last wish, for that matter, of a dying man. That’s what contradicts the West’s humanitarian grandstanding.

There is one more case is in the offing that has the potential of becoming Milosevic-style fiasco: Saddam Hussein’s trial in Iraq. So far the court proceedings have been exemplary. Although many wonder why he wasn’t summarily executed, it’s in the interest of fairness that he is accorded the same rights that a normal offender would be entitled to. The legal principle of innocent until proven guilty must not be brushed aside in the blinding rage of revenge or contempt. That’s problematic for the quest of a more just and moral world.

I see a problem with the Hague tribunal and all such tribunals that tries individuals on the basis of its forgone conclusion that these individuals are guilty unless proven otherwise. A fair trial means a fair approach too, or at least methodical suspension of conviction during the trial period. A legacy of Milosevic’s death certainly will be and should be more scrutiny on the workings of these ad hoc tribunals.