The usual response of world leaders and the UN is to sit on their hands in the face of accountability for war crimes ... However, Libya has prompted a different response ... Easy to be brave about values when Gaddafi is the enemy ... Australian Lawyers for Human Rights comments
In 2010, Amnesty International used the foreword to its International Report to lament that for reasons of self-interest nation states eschewed legal accountability for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
UN Security Council: feeling bold about LibyaThe focus of that discussion was the actions of the United Nations Human Rights Council in turning a visionless eye to the strong evidence of crimes by the government of Sri Lanka in crushing the LTTE opposition to end the country's civil war.
The Amnesty report also noted that while the International Criminal Court has the benefit of 110 countries adopting its Rome Statute, large and powerful nations continued to hold out - notably China, India, Russia, Indonesia, Turkey and the United States.
Amnesty's report conveyed a strong message that while the cause of legal accountability for the wrongdoings of governments had made singular progress over recent decades too frequently the self interest of nations and their politicians held sway.
A month or so ago, the other human rights behemoth Human Rights Watch, released its World Report 2011.
In its introduction, HRW pursued the theme of the "façade of action [whereby] the expected champions" of human rights fail to respond to and stand up against those perpetrating abuse.
HRW documented the extent to which countries and international agencies remain silent or "discuss in private" other countries' human rights abuses. The report speaks of:
"ASEAN's tepid response to Burmese repression, the United Nations' deferential attitude towards Sri Lankan atrocities, the European Union's obsequious approach to Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan ... India's pliant posture towards Burma and Sri Lanka, and the near universal cowardice in confronting China's deepening crackdown on basic liberties".
Amnesty and HRW have snap-shotted the public morality of the planet. We care about legal accountability and human rights, but almost never enough to risk any other material value to support their advancement.
Australia finds its own reasons for keeping silent. We would rather talk to President Rajapakse of Sri Lanka about "stopping the boats" of asylum seekers than about a fair and open inquiry into possible war crimes by his government.
Recent events in the Middle East illustrate both this prevailing morality and the rays of hope.
As the citizens of Egypt demonstrated against the west's torture regime of choice, leaders of governments knew not what to say, afraid to offend allies of the past and possible allies of the future.
The pariah in Libya, Colonel Gaddafi, provided similar but less pronounced hesitation. Now that the tide is convincingly turning against Gaddafi, the causes of legal accountability for crimes against humanity and public condemnation of human rights abuses find their champions among world leaders.
So we have seen voices of condemnation raised. A unanimous United Nations Security Council resolved to refer the ongoing violent repression of civilian demonstrators to the International Criminal Court.
Those countries on the Security Council, including the United States, who refuse to recognise the jurisdiction of the ICC for their own citizens, are keen to acknowledge its legitimacy for the suspected public criminals of Libya.
The latest piece of ex post facto bravery is to suspend Gadaffi's Libya from the Human Rights Council. Its presence there has for long been a blot upon the credibility of this most important UN institution.
Cynicism is not the correct response in these encouraging times. Those who believe in values of democracy, respect for human rights and accountability in fairly conducted tribunals for serious alleged wrongdoing should celebrate when these values find expression.
It is a long argument that none is too powerful to answer for his or her actions.
There will be many more Amnesty and HRW press releases drawing attention to fresh wrongs and more spilled blood. There will be more blind eyes turned to the wrong doing of allies. No battle is ever finally won. However, the recent actions by world leaders against the falling dictator of Libya constitute another important milestone.
We should expect of our leaders that this flash of inspiration on their part should light their path of international diplomacy as they face other challenges in other, less convenient, corners of the globe.
We can be sure that Amnesty and HRW will help light the way.
Stephen Keim and Anna Haynes
Australian Lawyers for Human Rights