War crime court itself may also be on trial

THE HAGUE: The war crimes trial starting today is unprecedented in the seniority of the accused but it is also likely to be …

THE HAGUE: The war crimes trial starting today is unprecedented in the seniority of the accused but it is also likely to be the Hague court's swan song, writes Chris Stephen

The landmark war crimes trial with the former Yugoslav president, Mr Slobodan Milosevic, in the dock, begins today amid uncertainty about whether the process will lead to a fully-fledged permanent war crimes court.

Never before has a head of state stood before a court accused of such grave crimes and this trial promises to be a monster.

With more than 200 witnesses and a charge sheet that runs to more than 30 pages, the chief prosecutor, Swiss lawyer Ms Carla del Ponte, expects the case being heard at the international war crimes court in The Hague to last two years.

READ MORE

Mr Milosevic is accused by many of being the architect of a decade of chaos in the Balkans, using his position as head of a disintegrating Yugoslavia to wage war in Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and finally Kosovo. More than 150,000 people died, and more than four million became homeless in a decade of carnage that sent ripples across the globe.

He is charged with crimes during three of those wars: first will come the Kosovo case, with the Croatian and Bosnian indictments being folded-in during hearings this summer.

The Kosovo accusations are grim enough: as head of state and head of the armed forces, Mr Milosevic is blamed for ordering a string of gruesome massacres of ethnic Albanian Kosovans, including 45 civilians butchered by special forces on a hillside near the village of Racak in January 1999.

This killing, which led directly to a crisis which itself saw NATO go to war in Yugoslavia, has left a permanent stain on Kosovo, with hatred still boiling between Albanians and Serbs.

Mr Milosevic (60) is charged along with four of his lieutenants - all still at large in Yugoslavia - on two counts: crimes against humanity and violations of the laws and customs of war.

Stripped of the legalese, the accusations are that although Milosevic did not himself pull the trigger, he is responsible for the massacres, and also the mass deportation of 750,000 Kosovo Albanians, as commander in chief.

The Hague has no death penalty but, if found guilty Mr Milosevic's sentence is expected to exceed the longest yet given out by the court - 46 years.

But even amid the courtroom drama, the lawyers and judges and officials of the nine-year-old war crimes court will be keeping one eye over their shoulder. The Milosevic trial may be the biggest this court has ever held. But it will also mark the swan song.

With the Balkan wars now apparently over, the world has lost interest in prosecuting those responsible. The United States has indicated it wants the tribunal wound-up in 2007. Russia says it wants the court to stop work even earlier.

All of this augurs badly for attempts to make the war crimes court - now confined to prosecution crimes from the wars in the Balkans and Rwanda - into a permanent body.

A permanent war crimes court with a world-wide brief is in fact close to being agreed: the International Criminal Court is likely to come on-line this summer. But so far the ICC lacks the heavy-weight support of the United States without which it may be stillborn. The International Criminal Court was agreed by more than 100 nations at a conference in Rome four years ago.

Last week Portugal became the 52nd nation to ratify it formally, joining most of the European Union. If this number reaches 60, as expected some time this summer, the ICC will become permanent and the world will have a global judicial authority. But many states, notably China, Russia and the United States, are sceptical.

On his final day in office, the former US president, Mr Bill Clinton, signed the ICC treaty last year. However, the Bush administration and Congress are nervous about the prospect of US troops or their commanders ending up in the international dock.

The US Congress is, therefore, likely to refuse support it, creating the sort of division which could leave a world court hamstrung.