|
http://bosco.foreignpolicy.com Do the Libya arrest warrants change anything? A panel of International Criminal Court judges today gave ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo what he sought: arrest warrants against Moammar Gaddafi, his son Saif, and his intelligence chief. The judges concluded that there was a reasonable basis to believe that the three were responsible for crimes against humanity. The Gaddafi regime has been dismissive of the court's role from the beginning, labeling it a tool of the Security Council and the West. A regime spokesman yesterday depicted the court as fundamentally politicized. “Is it really trying to protect the people from war crimes? Or is it just conducting a hidden agenda for the West?” The rebels, for their part, were very pleased. The Western reaction thus far has been to insist that the warrants reinforce the justification for the intervention. British Foreign Secretary William Hague said "the warrants further demonstrate why Gaddafi has lost all legitimacy and why he should go immediately." NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen echoed the theme: "It reinforces the reason for NATO's mission to protect the Libyan people from Gadhafi's forces." But will the warrants play any role other than bolstering the justification for the military campaign? The BRICS--who voted for the referral on the Security Council--have said almost nothing about the indictments. The Western powers may have welcomed the warrants but do they feel any responsibility to ensure that Gaddafi and the other indictees end up at the Hague? Or are they now so intent on extricating themselves from the crisis that they'll willingly ease Gaddafi's exit to a place beyond the reach of the court? One of the most serious problems the ICC faces is that it attracts plenty of support in the abstract and at the outset of its investigations. But when states are asked to support--and to prioritize-- its work in the midst of complex crises, the picture changes.
|
