Re: Prosecuting Genocide
I’m not sure universal jurisdiction for war crimes is a great idea, writ large. For one thing, it’s not clear that criminal prosecution is the solution to war crimes. It is, after all, small consolation to the victims for whom it’s too late and the actual deterrent effect on potential war criminals of knowing they will be prosecuted is much debated. In fact, some argue that impending prosecution is likely to prolong conflict and inhibit negotiated peace. For an excellent illustration of universal jurisdiction run amok, simply look at Belgium’s recently repealed law on the subject.
The way the US has traditionally handled war criminals on our soil–at which point we have personal jurisdiction over the individuals, if not jurisdiction over their crimes committed abroad–is through immigration and extradition proceedings. The DOJ’s Office of Special Investigations operated from the early 80′s through 2000 or so to identify and either deport or extradite dozens of WWII war criminals living comfortably in the US. Whether those individuals were ultimately prosecuted for their crimes, or simply died in comfort on state pensions, depended on the politics of their home country. My research on this several years ago revealed that former communist states, like Lithuania, Latvia and Croatia, had a pretty lousy record of dealing out justice to octogenarian abusers, many of whom were treated like national heroes for having “resisted communism.”
The point is simply that universal criminal jurisdiction for prosecuting war crimes is a tool, which means it could be a very good thing, or a very bad thing, depending on how it’s used. While I am certain I do not want such jurisdiction in the hands of this country’s harshest critics, including those in international organizations, I don’t think the solution is to take over the business of prosecuting international crimes ourselves. Like any time you deal with the tricky business of prosecutorial discretion, the real issue here is whether we trust the authorities to zealously pursue the right cases, even if they have all the legal backing they need.
Related posts:
I suppose you have some evidence to support your offensive assertion that “former communist states” have a “pretty lousy record of dealing out justice” to war criminals. But then your assertions are so vague that they couldn’t be supported with evidence anyway.
Comment on July 23, 2007 @ 6:57 pm
Try clicking on the second link in the posting above. It will take you to an article I wrote a few years back that will provide all the evidence you need. The record is far from vague.
However, I think it only fair to observe that while western countries lacked territorial jurisdiction over Nazi crimes, they did often have physical custody of the perpetrators, and failed in most cases to do anything for decades between Nuremberg and the 1980′s, during which time the fugitives (and much of the world) naturally assumed their crimes had been forgotten. And the West, unlike the Soviet bloc, did not have the excuse of a concerted government PR campaign to suppress the then still sensitive ethnic dimensions of WWII.
Comment on July 24, 2007 @ 5:37 am
Okay. But the emphasis on Eastern European failings still seems unfair. I think, for instance, your article much too easily dismisses the realities of Russian oppression–indeed genocide in some areas, not least in “Kaliningrad”– in Latvia and Lithuania as of course in Estonia, presumably Croatia, and elsewhere. If there were comparable concern in the U.S. and elsewhere about Russian atrocities, the political will to prosecute collaborators in German atrocities would almost certainly be stronger in Eastern Europe. The situation in Eastern Europe during and after WWII was much more complicated and difficult than your writing implies, especially in regard to “resistance to Communism.” I’m sure you know about the Katyn Forest massacre–there were many instances of similar massacres, albeit on a smaller scale, including torture, in Lithuania, not to mention the mass deportations to Siberia. There was also resistance to the German occupiers, including a refusal to form an SS unit, and many Lithuanians hid Jewish children. Probably you’ve heard this before, but maybe the time has come for each side of this question to stop accusing the other and make some attempt to understand.
Comment on July 24, 2007 @ 9:51 am
It’s certainly a fair point that many in Eastern Europe resisted both Soviet and Nazi occupation, and sought only to protect or restore their national sovereignty during WWII (and even after). There was, for instance, a little-known but fascinating period of outright civil war in Western Ukraine during the 1950′s, which was only marginally linked to the fallout from Nazi recruitment of Ukrainian, Belorussian and Russian units during the war itself.
But, in answer to your point: Understanding is essential indeed. I am especially disappointed at the most recent absence of understanding between Russia and Estonia over the communist legacy viz WWII (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6273117.stm). There is nothing worse for friendly international relations than minimizing the historic suffering or wartime sacrifice of another group–and I think in the above case both parties are guilty of exactly that. My point in this blog has been that simply painting returned WWII war criminals (whose crimes were documented in US courts as part of deportation proceedings) as “good” because they were allied with those who fought the Soviets is the worst kind of oversimplification. The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend. That is especially true in what you rightly deem a very complex place and time.
Comment on July 24, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
Dear Mr. Rojansky,
I tried your Stanford e-mail address, but it didn’t work, so I’ll use this for a personal communication. I appreciate the openness and reasonableness of your answers to me–you sound like a reasonable guy. As you probably guessed, my main concern in responding to your blog involves what seems to me some unfair judgments about Lithuania that go back at least as far as Ryan’s book, and that were less widely circulated but nevertheless very damaging in Holocaust writings that began to emerge right after the
end of WWII. I married into this (hence the hyphenated name), and it has become very important to me. I have read and written about Lithuania, learned the language, visited there, been adopted by my wife’s relatives, etc. Right now, I’m just started on a project that I hope will draw attention to the prolonged (1944-mid 50′s)armed resistance to the Russian occupation of Lithuania. Nothing is likely to come of that for several months, but if things seem to be working out, I hope you won’t mind if I let you know about it sometime in the future. In the meantime, I will read some of what you’ve written, and perhaps continue a conversation with you when it seems appropriate and if you’re interested. I’m a professor of English at the University of St. Francis in Joliet, IL–I live in Chicago–mkatilius@stfrancis.edu.
Viso geriauso (all the best),
Vin Katilius-Boydstun
Comment on July 25, 2007 @ 12:05 pm