International Justice?

Nearly three years ago, an extremist Hutu group in Rwanda reportedly gouged out the eyes of children and massacred their parents in a systematic effort to exterminate an estimated 500,000 Rwandans who belonged to the Tutsi minority. Some call it ethnic cleansing, but the international community calls it genocide.

- Augustin Banyaga
professor of mathematics and Rwandan native

The tribunal, which operates under a United Nations mandate, is trying suspects who played a major role in the genocide. The Rwandan national courts are trying the "intermediary" suspects.

"Those sentenced in the Rwanda genocide trials have not had fair trials," said Amanda Barnes, press officer at Amnesty International in the United Kingdom. "They have had no access to legal counsel, and a four-hour hearing cannot have fully considered the charges."

While some are calling the Rwandan courts "show trials," the tribunal is striving to ensure fair trials. The tribunal began prosecuting its first case last week. Those convicted by the tribunal can be sentenced to life in prison because the international community came to the consensus against the death penalty. The tribunal has indicted 21 people.

"There lies the irony," said David Forsythe, political science professor and chair of the department at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

This irony has forced the same international humanitarian groups who fought for international intervention during the genocide to aid the very people who caused it. In the aftermath of a genocide which exterminated people at a greater rate than the Nazis did during the Holocaust, an opportunity for the world to condemn the act and promote accountability has emerged. However, there are several factors that are prohibiting this from happening.

The International Criminal Tribunal is sluggishly moving toward justice -- plagued by rumors of corruption, overlapping jurisdictions and logistical problems.

According to U.N. documents, the United Nations investigated the tribunal late last year on charges of hiring unqualified relatives and friends of the tribunal staff, discriminating against non-Africans, using resources without authorization and delaying the disbursement of funds. Andronico Adede, the registrar of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, was accused of such misconduct last week.

Randall Newnham, assistant professor of political science at the Berks Campus, said the allegations do not surprise him for two reasons.

First, some of the African people do not view hiring unqualified relatives and friends as wrong, Newnham said. Nepotism, he said, is a part of some cultures. If a Rwandan is part of the tribunal, he may be able to take back enough money to support a family of 20, Newnham said.

"After (African nations) obtained their independence, it became a question of who gets the loot," he said.

Thus, loyalty to one's ethnic group became stronger than loyalty to the national government. Africans had to survive, Abrokwaa said.

"When the European governments come in (and set up a justice system), there is a culture clash," Newnham added.

Second, the Rwandans want to be part of the organization that will prosecute the people who massacred their families. This is why many may want to discriminate against non-Africans; they were not directly affected by the genocide.

"It would be like the Jews investigating the crimes of the Germans after World War II," Newnham said. "It would be hard to be objective."

Augustin Banyaga, a University professor of mathematics and a native of Rwanda, said that corruption may be going a bit further. Banyaga, a Hutu, said the courts may be convicting innocent people and letting the guilty go untried.

The Hutus are not the only people to commit atrocities during the civil war, he said. The Tutsis also did, but the courts are not prosecuting these people because they are in power right now.

"In a war, both sides commit crimes," he said.

The Tutsis' potential motive for revenge also leads to the problem of overlapping jurisdictions. The Rwandan courts and the tribunal cannot agree which defendants will be tried in which court -- despite the fact they agreed the "intermediary" suspects would be tried nationally, and the major players who organized the trials would be tried in the tribunal, Forsythe said.

"Rwanda is a very nationalistic country," he said.

Forsythe said it is difficult for the Rwandan government to allow other countries to try criminals who committed crimes within the boarders of Rwanda.

In addition to the jurisdictional chaos and the corruption, the courts are experiencing technical problems.

According to the Coalition for International Peace, the tribunal has been "plagued by financial and logistical difficulties." The prosecutor does not have enough staff or translators. The official languages of the tribunal are French and English, so this makes it difficult for an investigation, said John Heffernan, the chief operating officer for the coalition.

However, Forsythe doubts that the technical problems are a major stumbling block for the tribunal.

"In The Hague," Forsythe said, "they have modern, high-tech translation."

International justice

The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda is the latest step toward an international justice that has dated back to the Nuremberg trials after World War II, but its future is somewhat foggy.

Newnham said traditional international standard of justice has usually been international anarchy -- victor's justice. When the Nazis were tried in Tokyo and Nuremberg after World War II, it marked the first time the world recognized there were certain crimes against humanity that most people must be held accountable for. The victorious sides were not always punished by the vanquished.

"The United States has always pushed for setting a standard of morality," Newnham said.

However, the Cold War hindered the evolution of enforcing morality. The world was divided into blocs, communist and capitalist, and the governments backing these blocs made morality a political question.

Now that the Cold War is over, Newnham said he expects to see a revival of the tribunals. But, Forsythe does not foresee the tribunals gaining a great deal of power.

Countries such as the United States do not have a direct stake in the matter. However, nations such as Great Britain and France do have a stake in Africa, Abrokwaa said. France and England were busy dividing up Africa during colonialism, and now that the era is over, they consider those areas which speak their language part of their influence.

Rwanda is a French-speaking nation, comprising mainly Hutus. The Tutsis fled to neighboring countries and learned English. Abrokwaa said this is why the French support the Hutus, and the British support the Tutsis. Though they are not overtly affecting the tribunal system, they are ensuring neither influences the situation in any way, he said.

If this judicial system were to extend beyond Africa, key members of the United Nations might object.

"Don't look for the U.S. to encourage this," he said. "It has no political interest in the area," he said.

Still, the United States has committed $21 million to the tribunal for Rwanda and has sent 10 experts to help investigate the allegations against the tribunal. But, some believe that is as far as the United States will get involved.

Forsythe said he does not believe the United States would ever allow an international court to pass judgment on them.

"The international rule is whoever has the power makes the rules," Newnham said.