Arab News
15 July 2003

The decision by the Belgian government to withdraw a controversial new law which gave Belgian courts the power to try war crimes cases wherever committed, regardless of the nationality of those involved, has been greeted with dismay by human rights groups. The New-York based Human Rights Watch has accused the re-elected government of Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt of giving in to pressure from Washington, calling the move hypocritical and irresponsible.

Despite having been used to try and indict Ariel Sharon for human rights crimes against the Palestinians, the law was in fact wrong, and it is wrong to lament its rapid passing. Though there can be no doubt that the Belgian government did give in to US pressure, the law was fundamentally flawed. Yes, there needs to be somewhere to try people suspected of human rights abuses if their own country or the country where the crimes took place will not or cannot do anything about it. But it has to be a recognized international court that deals with such cases, not the courts of a particular country.

There has been enough controversy — and rightly so — about the US unilaterally deciding what ought to happen in other countries. What is the difference in this case? Just because Brussels is the seat of the European Commission does not give Belgium the right to dispense justice around the world. Its assumption that its courts are superior to those of every other country is nothing short of a new imperialism. Worse, the law was open to abuse; the case launched under the law by a left-wing Belgian lawyer against Gen. Tommy Franks and efforts to indict both George W. Bush and Tony Blair were blatantly political. It would not have stopped there. There would have been nothing to prevent opponents of any government in the world from attempting to indict the relevant prime minister and other ministers in the Belgian courts, purely for political gain. It would have created diplomatic chaos — with Belgium paying the price in bad relations with all concerned.

There has to be a difference between cases dealing with genuine human rights abuses and those motivated by political considerations.

There already exists an international court to try human rights abuses: The recently established International Criminal Court. The fact that the US defiantly refuses to have anything to do with it — last month it got another year of immunity from the United Nations Security Council — does not alter the wrongness of any one country being the arbiter of international justice. What supporters of human rights should do is campaign to get the US to accept the authority of the international court, not lamenting the demise of a flawed Belgian law.