Jason Ralph: Justice should not get lost in quest for peace in Syria

THE images of alleged torture victims in Syria have shocked the conscience of humankind. They increase the pressure on the international community to punish the perpetrators. Indeed, the International Criminal Court was created for these kinds of situations. Where a state is ”unwilling or unable” to prosecute the court would step in. And yet there is no referral of the Syrian abuses. Why?

The conflict in Syria raises many complex issues. There are jurisdictional issues. Because Syria has not signed up to the ICC, the court cannot act without UN Security Council authorisation.

And then there are political issues. The UN Security Council includes states, like the US, that have refused to sign up to the court. What right does it have to instruct the Court to investigate?

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The Security Council also includes Russia, which has backed the Assad regime during the conflict. It would probably veto any resolution authorising the ICC to act.

Finally there are complex moral issues. The liberal conscience demands justice but it also recognises that any indictment of political leaders complicates the process of securing peace. The Security Council is tasked with maintaining peace and security. It may well be justified in blocking ICC action if it threatens to undermine the delicate peace process.

This is not an uncommon problem. It was a consideration during the Bosnian crisis and the 1995 peace negotiations in Dayton, Ohio. As the American political academic Gary Bass reminds us in his book Stay the Hand of Vengeance: “The Americans were prepared to do a limited amount of business with indicted war criminals if that would serve the interests of the peace settlement.”

It was also a consideration during the 1999 Kosovo crisis. The fact that Milosevic was wanted by an international tribunal did not prevent a de facto political solution that left him in power.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

More recently, speculation surrounds the international prosecution of Kenya’s leaders for their alleged role in post-election violence, and the possibility that it might be delayed because of Kenya’s importance to East Africa’s security.

These are the kinds of dilemmas confronting the diplomats meeting to discuss Syria. Foreign Secretary William Hague has urged all sides “to commit themselves to the aim of a mutually agreed settlement”. Baroness Warsi echoed this in the House of Lords. The Dewsbury peer responded to a question about the torture allegations by insisting this “matter can be resolved only through a political solution. Geneva II is really the only show in town”.

This emphasis on peace does not mean the UK has betrayed the victims. Hague also insisted that “there must be accountability for the appalling crimes committed in this conflict, including those reported by distinguished jurists this week”.

He did not specify what form “accountability” would take or when we could expect it, and the government will come under pressure to be more specific. For now, however, its formulation allows for political flexibility and its aid programme means the justice agenda will not disappear.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Warsi also noted, for instance, that the UK is supporting the Syrian opposition through human rights training to document abuses “so that one day those who committed them will be brought to account”.

This is important. Prudence is diminished as a virtue if it forgets the victim. Conflict resolution is vitally important, but forgetting the victim is not only an injustice, it is a cause of future conflict.

This is reflected in philosopher Immanuel Kant’s Sixth Article in his essay Perpetual Peace: “No state shall, during war, permit such acts of hostility which would make mutual confidence in the subsequent peace impossible.”

These kinds of acts have surely taken place in Syria. So, just as it is impossible to imagine peace with ICC involvement right now, it is equally difficult to imagine a long term peace without some form of redress for Syria’s victims.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The UK compares favourably with others when it comes to the provision of humanitarian aid. But now the UNHCR – the United Nations refugee agency – is appealing for Western countries to resettle 30,000 of those trapped in the region around Syria.

The UK should respond positively to that appeal, not least because its seat on the UN Security Council bestows the trappings of a great power. Great powers have great responsibilities and in this instance that means extending what Kant would have termed “hospitality to these strangers”.

Of all the difficult decisions on the government’s Syria desk, this should be the easiest one to make.

*Jason Ralph is Professor of International Relations at the University of Leeds and Senior Research Assistant at the Foreign Policy Centre.

Related topics: