Peace versus Justice in Kosovo and the Balkans

Carla Del Ponte - the chief prosecutor of the Hague's War Crimes Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia has apparently stated - to Serbian media, no less - that Kosovo's independence should be delayed because it may interfere with the running of the Tribunal.

A classic illustration of the age-old debate: PEACE vs. JUSTICE.

On one hand, many suggest that pragmatism must win out - and when the opportunity arrives to bring peace one must do so with full vigor, whilst others suggest that the pursuit of peace is secondary to the pursuit of justice. In this case, the "justice" is getting the final four suspects and indictees to the Hague for trial --- all said to be hiding out in Serbia. "Peace" - being Kosovo's independence and formal legal separation from Serbia.

"U.N. war crimes prosecutor Carla del Ponte is urging the Security Council to put off deciding the future of Kosovo until top Balkans war crimes suspects are in custody. From U.N. headquarters, VOA's Peter Heinlein reports the prosecutor noted increasing Serbian cooperation with efforts to bring top fugitives to The Hague for trial."

I think it is also sadly a result del Ponte thinking a little selfishly about her "baby" --- she has unquestionably been the driving force behind the War Crimes Tribunal, and wants to see it wrap up its prosecutions ASAP. I think she's missing the big picture personally.

I'm inclined to believe the peace versus justice debate is a false dichotomy, based on misunderstandings of what "peace" and "justice" mean. Once we have better - more holistics - definitions to work with, the debate becomes moot. Peace and justice are two sides of the same coin.

Israel-Syria Peace Deal Imminent?

Well, "imminent" is probably a little too hopeful. But add up all the informal gestures, private talks, private shuttle diplomacy going on, and even public pronouncements by Israel and Syrian leadership ... and you've got to think that prospects for some genuine negotiations between these two warring countries is a distinct possibility.

Latest report says that Israeli government has convey to Damascus its willingness to "give up" the Golan Heights in an peace deal.

Whilst this may have been patently apparent to many outsides as necessary step for peace to prevail, do not discount the deep abiding attachment many Israelis have for the Golan Heights --- sometimes described as Israel's playground. It's natural beauty is phenomenal, and for a hiking-mad country like Israel, its terrain, springs, waterfalls, rivers and mountains have been the scene of millions of vacations over the years.

Lets also not forget the strategic value of the Heights.... they don't call them the "Heights" for nothing.

An eventual deal will probably include, in my view, three elements:
(1) Complete demilitarization of the Golan Heights. Early warning systems - of both countries - could stay. Some residual international force could also remain (the UN blue helmets have been keeping the peace on the Golan for decades.)

(2) Israel to relinquish any sovereign claim to the Golan, and Syrian sovereignty to be affirmed.

(3) Some arrangement - lease-back? Bi-National Park? - to allow Israelis to continue to enjoy travelling to the Golan, and perhaps even maintaining farmlands and wineries on it too.

In my view, peace needs to be cemented by people - former enemies - interacting, not just their leaders proclaiming peace is at hand. Therefore I'd suggest adding a fourth element - perhaps not seen as critical, but in my view just as important for the long-term

(4) Create bi-national economic/industrial cooperation zones on the Golan Heights. Allowing collaboration and partnership between Arabs and Jews and Druze, and Syrians and ISraelis on a variety of money-making ventures ---- the Peace Dividend.

ETA Ceasefire ends - what's best policy in handling "terrorist group" ceasefires?

ETA - the group labelled "terrorist" by US, Spanish and other governments and institutions - struggles for an independent Basque homeland - to be carved out of Spanish sovereign territory.

They've had a 15 month ceasefire, and even launched negotiations with the Spanish government - seeking a diplomatic resolution.

Today they announced an end to their truce and a spokesman said it would “take action on all fronts to defend the Basque Country.”

(pic: Time Inc.)

Of course, they blamed the Zapatero Spanish government for their latest action.

Rather than engage in the blame game for this depressing development, let me pose a larger question:- how should governments respond when their terrorist-enemies declare ceasefires and truces? What is the best way to respond to them? --- accept them at face-value, use the opportunity to negotiate? or reject it out of hand as a ploy - perhaps to buy more time or ingratiate themselves with others?

In other words, how should governments react when their avowed enemies suddenly offer to lay down their arms????????

This question obviously is not confined to Spain. Israel, the US, turkey, Phillipines, Thailand and many other governments are fighting groups they call terrorists and insurgents.

My personal thoughts - generalized:- ceasefires and truces by all such groups should be supported by governments and others. Most of these conflicts do not have a military solution - inevitably it will be diplomats that forge a political solution - yes, a compromise - between the warring parties. Faced with that truth, the question then becomes one of timing:- when do we begin those negotiations - at the first opportunity? or delay for more advantage?

I don't think Spain made a mistake in talking to ETA. I can only hope that over the months of negotiations some good-will was established between the respective leaderships that may be preserved until the next ceasefire and inevitable round of negotiations. Let's hope they'll be more successful.