Duch before Cambodian tribunal

After years of red tape and disputes over legal jurisdiction, the first accused Khmer Rouge war criminal spoke before a tribunal in Cambodia. The defendant is Kaing Guek Eav (commonly called Duch), a 66 year old man, and one of five men charged with crimes against humanity in the deaths of 1.7 million people.

“Under his authority, countless abuses were committed, including mass murder, arbitrary detention and torture,” said a presiding judge, reading the indictment to the court.

He listed methods of torture that included beating, stabbing, suspension from ropes, removal of fingernails and drowning in pits filled with water.

Converted in 1996 by American evangelical missionaries, Duch has become a born-again Christian, apparently ready to confess his sins. When he was discovered in 1999 by journalists he admitted at length to ordering and taking part in atrocities. Comparing himself to St. Paul, he told the journalists, “After my experience in life I decided I must give my spirit to God.”

When the trials begin, his testimony could be damaging to some of his fellow defendants.

Ironically, Duch was appearing before the panel of five judges to lodge an appeal, stating that his human rights had been violated as he’s been held without trial for over eight years. Not surprisingly, the host of Cambodian spectators who were watching on closed circuit TV merely laughed.

Of foxes and henhouses

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Former Secretary of Defense Willian Cohen will be co-chairing a new task force to develop guidelines to prevent future genocides. Referred to as the Genocide Prevention Task Force, the group is being implemented by the U.S. Institute for Peace, the United States Holocaust Museum and the American Academy of Diplomacy.

“Because we live in this age of information … we can no longer live in a state of denial or willful indifference,” he said. “And so the purpose of this task force is to look to the past, to be sure, but to look forward to say, ‘What are the signs, what are the options that will be available to the United States as one of the leading forces to help shape multilateral action, to energize people of conscience, to say that this cannot happen, this is not tolerable?’ ”

The international community heaped a lot of criticism on the United States for not becoming involved in Rwanda’s 1994 internecine war and for again reacting too late to Sudan in 2004, when then-Secretary of State Colin Powell labeled the situation there a genocide. The Sudanese government has denied that label is accurate.

“Things haven’t worked,” Albright said. “And watching Darfur [Sudan], I think, is one of the things that has led us all to say, ‘OK, let’s give this all another try to see if there are some guidelines and if — speaking of the United States government — if there is some way to organize ourselves better to deal with it.’ ”

She said the idea for the task force came from the unfortunate history of failure of efforts to prevent genocide around the world.

“I would frankly say that this is as a result of frustration,” she said. “That no matter what we say, there are mass killings and genocide. And we want to see what we can do to make some reality to the words ‘never again’.”

At the time of the Rwandan genocide, Albright was serving as the United States Ambassador to the United Nations. She argued in a PBS interview (years later), that “in retrospect, it all looks very clear. But when you were [there] at the time, it was unclear about what was happening in Rwanda.” Later, as she served as Secretary of State, she was largely responsible for the United States position in the Balkans.

In addition, Albright and Cohen were both signers of a letter discouraging a U.S. declaration of genocide in Armenia, a fact that was the center of the Genocide Prevention Task Force’s first news conference:

Albright and Cohen spent much of the news conference’s question-and-answer session defending a letter they sent to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, earlier this year, in which they spoke against a House resolution that would have labeled as genocide the mass killings of Armenians in 1915 by what is now Turkey. The letter, signed by eight former Cabinet secretaries, including Albright, Cohen and Powell, stated that discussion of the bill on the floor could “strain our [United States] relations with Turkey, and would endanger our national security interests in the region, including the safety of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

All of which opens the question, can officials trained in a climate of ignoring genocide for political reasons come together to create future policy that may impact nations in a positive way?

Genocide should have priority

“We must agree, at a continental level to start with, on the menu for action in case of the threat of genocide. What non coercive measures to take, the threshold for intervention, and the operational principles in the case of intervention in advancement of human security. We must determine that genocide is a threat to our collective security, and give it the priority it deserves in our institutional security architecture at national, regional and continental level. We must move it from the margins of the security agenda to the centre, and mobilize the requisite resources for it.”

— President Paul Kagame’s Special Envoy to the Great Lakes Region, Ambassador Richard Sezibera, speaking at a five day workshop for the Committee of Intelligence and Security Services of Africa.