Institute explores justice as part of peace
process
By ARTHUR JONES
San Diego
In a gently delivered yet withering critique, former President
Jimmy Carter deplored President Bushs orders establishing military
tribunals for dealing with suspected foreign terrorists. His comments came
during a Dec 6-7 conference at the University of San Diego on sustaining peace
with justice.
The following day, South African jurist Richard Goldstone, chief
prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and former
Yugoslavia, said of Bushs restrictions on civil liberties, In
Beijing theyre probably popping the champagne corks.
With those comments as openers, a small Catholic university
with big dreams of making a contribution to world peace -- to quote its
president Alice B. Hayes -- dedicated its new Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace
and Justice.
The two-day session with international participants was not aimed
at garnering headlines but at exploring ways to insert justice into peace
processes.
In quiet rooms beyond media access, international peace
negotiators heard key figures from the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Guatemala, Macedonia and Nepal analyze their countrys progress in efforts
to emerge from internal strife or external aggression.
Joyce Neu, executive director of the institute, said the goal of
the working sessions was to help provide guidelines to the way ahead,
especially to nations just beginning to deal with their problems. Neu, who
worked in Kosovo with President Carter on negotiating a ceasefire in Bosnia in
1994, said that countries such as Nepal, faced with an internal Maoist
insurrection and the assassination of royal family members -- might benefit
from being exposed to the experiences of other nations grappling with similar
conflicts.
If theres a time for off-camera negotiation, theres
also one for speaking out -- and President Carter took it. As a former
president who several times publicly lambasted President Clinton, also a
Democrat, for his conduct while in office, Carter did not lightly approach
criticizing Bush -- though he quipped, Im not seeking public office
in the future and I do have Secret Service protection.
I have been commander-in-chief, Carter said, I
can understand why you dont want to criticize the incumbent president at
a time of crisis like we have, but I think I can point out that we might be
partially laying the ground to undo what I think is an inevitable military
victory if we subvert the basic principles the United States has always
espoused for justice.
I think the recent order for military tribunals, which I
have read very carefully, is a serious mistake, said Carter, who was a
submarine officer. The Uniform Code of Military Justice, for instance,
calls for a public trial. It calls for the right of the accused to have a
choice of counsel, to have a conviction based on truth that is believable and
without reasonable doubt. It calls for a death sentence only by a unanimous
decision of the judges, and it guarantees the right of appeal to a civilian
court.
In the existing Bush order, said the former president, every
one of those principles is missing. We Americans are citizens of an
unchallenged superpower. If we continue to expound shortcuts in the
administration of justice, there is a global effect set in motion. It is going
to be difficult in the future to condemn another country -- China for instance
-- which might have a secret military tribunal and convict an American accused
of, say, spying. I believe we should send the highest possible signal on human
rights.
South Africas Goldstone, war criminals prosecutor at the
international tribunal, decried what he described as the U.S.
administrations resort to government by opinion poll at home,
and endangering young democracies worldwide as they watch the
United States debase the civil liberties enshrined in its Constitution.
I cant help but refer to the suggestion, he
said, that because two-thirds of the American people support the military
tribunals and the profiling of Middle Eastern people that this justifies the
invasion of civil liberties.
The U.S. Constitution, insisted Goldstone, is a threshold that
does not shift, and even if the majority of Americans want to cross it, they
cannot. These are your fundamental values enshrined in your Bill of
Rights.
He explained the two-edged sword of ruling by popular opinion --
it depends on what questions are polled. South Africas constitution
opposes the death penalty and Vice President DeKlerk -- who favored the death
penalty -- went behind President Nelson Mandelas back to argue that it be
put to a referendum.
Mandela shot back: If you want majority rule, I dont
mind, Ive got a healthy majority. But lets ask two questions -- the
death penalty, and if white citizens should be able to keep the land
theyve acquired in the past 370 years.
Said Goldstone, Rule by opinion polls is very popular for
the majoritarian, but not for the minorities, the people imperiled by the
invasion of fundamental rights. Democracy is a difficult system and a very
expensive one, as were finding out in South Africa.
The institutions [that] democracy is required to maintain
are costly, he said. And when the United States, which is regarded
as one of the bastions of democracy, goes back on its own values, it imperils
and makes more difficult the ruling of a human rights culture in young
democracies.
The recent presidential orders can only encourage
undemocratic processes in non-democracies, Goldstone said.
Several of those young or would-be democracies Goldstone referred
to were represented at the Kroc Institute gathering. And the meeting closed
with reports from four of the key session nations, outlining the complexities
not only of negotiating their way out of internal and external military and
other conflicts, but of trying to work justice-based democratic systems into
the final peaceful resolution.
Arthur Jones is NCR editor at large. His e-mail address
is ajones96@aol.com
National Catholic Reporter, December 21,
2001
|