The real problem is the double-standards of pretty much everyone involved in international relations. We don’t want to upset democratic governments, particularly if they are a key ally in an unstable region, even if they do violate the principles of international law. (...) This is not just about democracies, though; we have had plenty of allies over the past few decades who did nasty things to their own people, and at the time we didn’t want to upset them either (think Saddam Hussein, although there are plenty of others). (...)Og tænker, at det var et af argumenterne for Irakkrigen dengang, og ikke mindst en af Blairs: At man ikke længere skulle tolerere en verden, hvor diktatorer kunne slippe afsted med folkemord, bare fordi de var ved magten i deres eget land. En ny verdensorden. Og her er vi så.
Yet, this was the whole point of the modern concept of universal jurisdiction: to stop governments breaching what were, after the second world war, regarded as univeral moral truths, encoded in the Geneva convention.
Hvis de virkelig vil tillade i Pakistan, at Musharraf og Zardari kan retsforfølges for korruption, så bliver USA nærmest nødt til at tilbyde dem asyl, da de begge er eller har været USAs politiske spydspids i pakistansk politik. Ellers vil det blandt den politiske elite blive set som dybt illoyalt, og USA vil få svært ved finde andre troværdige spydspidser. Men kønt bliver det ikke.
0 kommentarer:
Send en kommentar