These were the reasons provided by NATO to justify its 'humanitarian war' in Yugoslavia, and the hunting down of Serbian and Croatian warlords, the plans for an
international war crimes court and the establishing of the war crimes tribunal in The Hague by the United Nations.
In 1993 with great fanfare and much rhetoric, the UN Security Council passed
resolutions 808 and 827. These two resolutions brought into existence The Hague tribunal to prosecute war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity.
They were passed primarily to cover the Bosnian conflict, which was seen at the time, as a major threat to international peace and security.
It was this clearly stated drive by the western democracies to make war crimes and human rights abuses answerable internationally that inspired a citizen-led attempt to
prosecute the Chilean Dictator Augusto Pinochet. However the proponents of this new doctrine of 'International Responsibility' have, while demonising the likes of
Milosevic and Pinochet remained remarkably silent on other notable violators of human rights, particularly in the Middle East. The most glaring example of this failure to see,
is their silence to call Ariel Sharon, one time General and now Israeli Prime Minister, to account for his well documented and acknowledged crimes against humanity. (See
accompanying eyewitness account of the massacres in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon).
Of course, he is not the only individual that should be tried, though currently, he is
the most prominent one. The remarkable blindness of America and its allies to the crimes committed by Sharon and others like Peres and some Arab leaders,
demonstrates the West's, particularly America's double standard when it comes to dealing with war criminals and human rights violators. So long as they are on the side
of, and support America's and the West's global agenda, they are not merely tolerated but are celebrated and listened to. What other reason could justify
America's, and its allies support of Israel's continued occupation of most of Palestine, although it has been declared illegal by the United Nations, or their failure to take
action against this State that consistently deprives another peoples of their human rights.
While there have been many examples of the United States and its allies turning a
blind eye to dictators and human rights abusers when it suits their strategic interests, Israel's aggressive and brutal suppression of the Palestinians offers the rest
of the world an instructive current example of just how cynical it can be. It's failure to condemn Israel or indict Sharon while at the same time relentlessly pursuing war
criminals in former Yugoslavia, particularly Milosovic, is based on politics rather than a genuine desire to pursue and bring to justice other violators of human rights. If the
West was sincere in its commitment to justice, then it would do all in its power to see that Ariel Sharon is arrested and brought to court in exactly the same way that
Milosovic has been. In fact, he should have been indicted and brought to trial long ago along with many other Israeli leaders, all of whom have a long and well
documented history of terrorism, violence and murder against unarmed Arab civilians and prisoners of war.
But there are no indictments of Sharon, no official expressions of outrage at Israeli
abuses in Palestine, no one is denouncing Israel's record of ethnic cleansing, no Western pressure is being brought to bear on Israel to quit the occupied territories.
For Israel, there are no tribunals, sanctions or punitive bombings to put pressure on it to stop its human rights abuses and hand over its war criminals.
Let there be no mistake - Israel's current Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, is a war criminal. He is responsible for a long list of atrocities, all of which are worthy of war
crime indictments, the most renowned being the Sabra and Shatila massacres. His crimes can be traced all the way back to 1953 when the commando unit he was
leading dynamited homes in the Jordanian town of Qibya, killing 69 civilians. In 1982 he led the illegal invasion of Lebanon by the Israeli army. But in a world of power
politics where 'might makes it right', he will not be facing a war crimes tribunal any time soon.
Israel is not alone. NATO has its own war crimes and criminals to confront,
particularly in the conduct of its war on Serbia, and its actions in regard to Iraq and Libya. Other examples are its supplying highly sophisticated weaponry to countries
such as Israel where they are used to surpress the civil population and support for the dictator Augusto Pinochet who 'disappeared' many thousands of his own
countrymen and abused the human rights of millions.
It is unlikely that the UN tribunal will investigate crimes such as these, let alone indict
NATO leaders. The War Crimes tribunal has too many connections to Washington, London and other capitals of the western world. It is interesting to note that the first
war crimes Justice was appointed by Madeline Albright, US Secretary of State, during the NATO bombing campaign. She is also renowned for her strong support of Israel.
The current tribunal is more of a star-chamber, than anything else, allowing the NATO Allience to pursue its policy aims through branding selected opponants "War
Criminals". This is illustrated by the blatant disregard by its Chief Prosecutor, of calls for an investigation into NATO war crimes brought forward by Amnesty International,
and her unwillingness to hear evidence brought by a group of Canadian lawyers against Sharon.
