Justice Geoffrey Robertson. |
|
Geoffrey Robertson Q.C. has been counsel in many landmark cases in constitutional, criminal and media law in the courts of Britain and the Commonwealth, and he makes frequent appearances in the Privy Council and the European Court of Human Rights. In 2002, Robertson was appointed as an appeal judge for the new UN war crimes court in Sierra Leone, and served as that court’s first president. He is the author of “Crimes Against Humanity – The Struggle for Global Justice”.
QUESTON: In your book “Crimes Against Humanity”, you argue that there is no place for cultural relativism. How fair do you think it is to say that the human rights movement has swept cultural differences under the carpet in a bid to universalise fundamentally western rights?
ANSWER: I do not accept that basic civil and political rights are "fundamentally western": freedom from torture and genocide; freedom from hunger and persecution; freedom to worship and to express opinions; the right to fairness at trial, and so on, are not western inventions - they are your entitlement as a human being, whether you live in London or Nairobi, Timbuktu or Tuvalu.
On this issue there can be no compromise, no excuse of "cultural relativism". There was a bogus "Asian values" debate some years ago, set up by Kuan Yew and Suharto, but that has been seen off by Asians themselves, who demanded so-called "western" rights; e.g. to protest. There are some backsliders in the human rights movement who think that evils like female genital mutilation can be excused as "culturally relative" because they have happened to a lot of women in Africa, for a long time. That does not justify the practice; it is a form of torture, for which there can be no justification. There was a case in Australia the other day where an Aboriginal elder brutally raped a 14-year-old virgin and claimed a tribal right to do so; he was jailed, and rightly so. There are plenty of opportunities to take cultural differences into account in respect to economic and social rights, indeed, the "right to be different" requires a degree of multiculturalism. But tribal or national practices that are, objectively, barbaric and primitive, cannot be countenanced.
Q: Do you think that the US’s abstention on the Security Council vote with respect to an International Criminal Court (ICC) investigation of Sudan is evidence of a softening of their position?
A: I certainly hope so. There was a living memory of how the US, and the UK for that matter, pretended 10 years ago, to the UN Security Council, that what was happening in Rwanda was not genocide. There was a genuine wish to avoid that mistake, and a calculation that only the ICC was in place and equipped to investigate. There was a dim recognition, which I hope will become brighter as the years pass, that the ICC can be a valuable institution for prosecuting mass murder and torture and genocide; and is never going to indict American politicians or generals.
Q: The amount of money expended on international tribunals is money that could have been invested in improving infrastructure in those countries affected by conflict, as well as increasing police forces and the rule of law. Are international tribunals justifiable expenditure?
A: This is always an attractive argument at first blush. But then you realise it is an illegitimate alternative. The money that is being invested in global justice would simply not be made available for infrastructure or policing, or even for compensation for victims. The international community chooses to invest in international tribunals because by prosecuting those who have committed crimes against humanity, they may bring some closure to victims, and may deter others from committing such crimes in the future. Also, they may assist re-establishment of the rule of law in war-ravaged societies. If they achieve these goals, even to a limited extent, then the money will be well spent. It is an act of faith, I suppose, but just as we have faith in national criminal laws to deter local crime, so we should have faith that international criminal law may deter horrendous crime in the future.
Q: Certain people we have spoken to in Angola have stressed that they want to put the past behind them and that they are not interested in transitional justice. Do you think it is fair for external players to override their wishes?
A: “Certain people” in every society have vested interests in forgetting, but the dead have a tendency to come back and haunt. In Argentina and the Latin American states, the early cover-ups did not work. The people wanted justice, no matter how little or how late. Even in places like Spain, where Franco¹s crimes were swept under the carpet for 50 years, they are now being exposed and condemned. In Northern Ireland, relatives of the death squad victims are asking where the bodies are buried. Besides which, it is not up to local interests to forgive crimes against humanity. These crimes are so heinous, that the very fact that a fellow human can conceive and commit them diminishes us all as human beings, wherever we live, in Angola or Anguilla, in Andorra or Argentina or the Artic Circle. The international community is, for that reason, entitled to intervene and to punish barbarities, irrespective of the wishes - which may be induced by fear - of locals.
Q: You came under a lot of criticism in the Sierra Leone Truth Commission report for preventing Hinga Norman from testifying. Do you think the criticism was warranted?
A: I did not prevent Chief Hinga Norman from testifying to the Truth Commission. On the contrary, I facilitated that testimony by permitting him to give it on affidavit, and to meet with the TRC in the detention centre for further discussion. What I rejected was an exorbitant TRC request to commandeer our courtroom and to permit indicted men to address the nation for several days, just before their trial was due to start, in a country where the security situation was tense, and in circumstances where they would have no protection against self-incrimination. To take an extreme example, can you imagine the Allies allowing Hermann Goering to broadcast to the German people for several days, just before his trial at Nuremberg? In order to understand my reasoning, you will have to read my judgement, but I have to say that most impartial commentators, and TRC supporters, agree with it. I should also make clear that this was the only subject of disagreement between the Special Court and the TRC, otherwise, [it was] a very co-operative relationship and [we] did not tread on each others toes. I think the Sierra Leone experience showed that Special Courts and TRCs can work together fruitfully.
Q: In post-conflict societies, you speak in terms of challenging impunity, prosecutions and other forms of retributive justice. Do you think that this can have the effect of furthering rifts in society as opposed to helping heal them?
A: Well, I suppose you can always have rifts with those who are corrupt, or those who are prepared to kill and torture to seize or keep power. I think they are necessary rifts to have. I do not believe in “healing” if it anoints mass-murderers with the balm of forgiveness. You can forgive a repentant thief or a one-off tax cheat, but I do not consider that crimes against humanity can or should be forgiven.
Q: Can truth commissions alone ever be satisfactory?
A: I doubt it. Certainly there has been no TRC report anywhere that has been regarded as a sufficient single answer to genocide or mass murder. The record shows that human rights violators very rarely confess or ask forgiveness at TRC sessions. They usually justify their crimes by some warped appeal to the national interest. TRCs serve useful purposes in allowing victims to tell their stories, in tracing the history of conflicts and providing blueprints for the future. But they are not, like courts, instruments of accountability and deterrence.
[ENDS]
|