WE ARE ALL EQUAL – September 30, 2007

- interview with Mr. Pierre Richard Prosper, former war crimes prosecutor at the U.N. Tribunal for Rwanda and former U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues (2001-2005).

Sebastian Aulich: I read an article in “San Francisco Chronicle” from 2005 saying that the reason you left the Department of State was to pursue political career in California and to take part in a race for attorney general position. Do you have any political plans for now? Do you plan to be a candidate in 2008 congressional elections?

Pierre Richard Prosper: For the next year no. I left in 2005 to explore running for attorney general in California in 2006. But after campaigning for over 6 months, I decided that timing was not right for me to succeed in California. So I left the race and moved to the private sector, where I am focused more on business issues. For 2008, right now I am more focused on presidential campaign.

SA: Do you support any particular candidate?

I am advising Governor Mitt Romney. I am assisting him in foreign policy issues. It’s not a political position. Governor Romney asked for my ideas about foreign policy and I am contributing.

SA: Why do you believe Governor Romney is a good candidate for the President?

I like his approach to foreign policy issues, which is a very problem solving approach. He wants to look at the issues to see what is the most effective way to solve the problem that the United States and the world is facing. When it comes to the foreign policy, one of the things that he is focused on is how to work with multilateral organizations to make all our efforts more effective.

SA: So what are, in your opinion, the most important goals for the U.S. foreign policy in the future?

Some of the most important issues are safety and security. That is the number one issue for everyone. Then it is important to address problems we are facing with various conflicts and humanitarian issues.

SA: You became the Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues in 2001. Is it a position, which gives you a possibility to influence U.S. foreign policy in the field of human rights?

It is a post that enables to influence foreign policy as it is related more particularly to conflicts, war crimes issues and crimes against humanity. I think we were able to make substantial difference when you talk about the Balkans and Rwanda, because thanks to U.S. efforts over one hundred war criminals were transferred and brought to justice.

SA: Did you have any specific agenda when you assumed your office in 2001?

Yes. My focus was on many levels and I will give you a few examples. When it is related to the Balkans or Africa, I wanted to see specific countries to begin to accept responsibility and seek stronger domestic activity in arresting war criminals and prosecuting them. The reason I did this is because I believe that the rule of law has a broader, greater reach if you have more institutions using it rather than relaying only on the Tribunal in the Hague or the Tribunal for Rwanda. My other goals were related to the use of the rule of law to try to establish stability in many places around the world and to press other governments to begin to exercise their responsibilities.

SA: In your interview for CNN in 2005, you said that back in 2001 President Bush decided to make a strong push to bring war criminals to justice. However when we speak right now, people like Radovan Karadzic or Ratko Mladic, perhaps some worst war criminals in recent history, are still at large.

Well, when I came into office in 2001, countries like Serbia, Bosnia and Croatia were not transferring people to the Tribunal in the Hague. They also were not prosecuting people domestically. So what we did was we made a diplomatic effort to encourage and persuade these countries to begin to arrest the war criminals. We were able to make Slobodan Milosevic to go to the Hague during my tenure. And also, Ante Gotovina and other people. In respect to both Rwanda and Bosnia over a hundred of individuals were transferred either to the Tribunal in the Hague or Tribunal for Rwanda. It was a result of the strong push we did and the leadership we showed. We were effective. But you are right that the job is not finished yet and we still have Karadzic and Mladic, who need to be brought to justice.

SA: Do you believe that Karadzic and Mladic will be captured and tried?

I hope so. I am no longer in this position. I can only tell you that when I was there I worked on that issue every single day. To give you an example, I would travel to the Balkans – Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, Montenegro – at least seven times a year during all my years as the ambassador. I launched a “reward for justice” campaign to give money for information which would lead to their arrest. We pressed the governments for actions on these individuals and there were some raids, which we believed were close to capturing them. I also met with Karadzic’s family, this is with Luka Karadzic and talked to him to have his brother Radovan surrender. I was working hard every day to find a way to bring those individuals to justice. However what is happening right now, I don’t know, I am no longer with the government.

SA: International Herald Tribune published recently an article in which they said that Richard Holbrook negotiated in 1996 with Radovan Karadzic that he stepped down from the politics. Why didn’t the U.S. negotiate his surrender instead?

I don’t know. I was not with the government at that time. In 1996, I was in Rwanda so I can’t comment on that. But I spoke directly with Ambassador Holbrooke and he assured me that there was no deal with Radovan Karadzic. However I cannot explain what happened in these negotiations and why Karadzic did not surrender. In 1996, if you remember, nobody was being arrested or transferred to the Tribunal and the Tribunal itself didn’t have any successes on that issue. If you take a look at the history, you will see that the success of arrests and transfers began after 2001, this is after I took office.

SA: Let me change a topic for a moment. Let’s talk about Saddam Hussein and his trial and the trial of Slobodan Milosevic. Milosevic was tried by the Tribunal in the Hague and under international law, while Saddam Hussein was tried under domestic Iraqi law. Those two trials ended completely differently. Milosevic’s trial wasn’t finished and he wasn’t sentenced at all, while the trial of Hussein was very speedy and fast. Is it harder to prosecute and sentence a war criminal under international law than under domestic law? Doesn’t it also show that the U.S. has ambivalent approach toward international criminal justice system?

The first thing I would say is that there was no international tribunal to hand Saddam Hussein to. No one had jurisdiction. If someone wanted to prosecute Saddam in international court then a separate international tribunal would have to be created, what actually is difficult and costly. Second thing is that the Iraqi people, made it very clear both, before and after he was captured, that they wanted to prosecute him because he committed crimes against them and they wanted that. So we decided to help them. We encouraged international involvement and I would travel to European countries to ask them to participate but unfortunately, because of the politics of Iraq, they did not decide to participate. The last point I want to say is that you should not assume that the process would have been better if Saddam was handed over to international tribunal. And I say that because when you look at the trial of Milosevic, he went to the Hague and his process went on for years and it never concluded, he was never truly brought to justice. His trial became a circus. Therefore I do not think that trying Saddam in international court would be a clearer process.

SA: Let me ask a question about International Criminal Court. When Bill Clinton was leaving his office in 2000 he signed the Rome Treaty establishing ICC. However when George W. Bush assumed his office in 2001 he withdrew Clinton’s signature. And subsequently the U.S entered in many bilateral treaties with other countries securing that the U.S. citizens will not be handed over to International Criminal Court by those countries. From my perspective it looks like an attempt to obstruct international criminal justice system or at least to prevent it from working efficiently.

First of all, what Bill Clinton did is when he signed the treaty he also had an accompanying note saying that “I am signing this but I will not send it to the U.S. Congress to be ratified”. So the purpose of his signature was no longer valid because when you sign a treaty you say that you intend to have it ratified. So Clinton’s message was a mixed one. He signed the treaty but he said he would not send it for ratification because there is some problem. When Bush came in, he agreed with Clinton that he would not send it to the Congress to be ratified. Instead he sent a letter to Kofi Annan to make it very clear that the United States will not ratify the treaty. The letter itself was not a sort of the “un-signing” of the treaty. Its’ purpose was to make clear that we are not under the jurisdiction of the Court.  I think that the problem is that there are some people, who believe that everyone should be under the jurisdiction of the Court. However what the United States believes is that the Court is a treaty Court and once it is a treaty you can be under its jurisdiction only if you consent to that. The United States did not consent and wanted to make it very clear. It also wanted to reach agreements with other countries saying that if you capture one of our people and she or he is accused they should be sent back to the United States for prosecution and not to the International Criminal Court.

SA: Let’s go back to the Rwanda’s issues. Do you believe that establishing of International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda was a good idea? Almost 800,000 people were murdered during the conflict so you have 800,000 crimes, which need to be dealt with and at least thousands of perpetrators of war crimes, who should be brought to justice. How one Tribunal only can deal with such a task? Shouldn’t this problem be addressed differently?

I think it was a good idea. At the time Rwanda was destroyed because of the genocide, so there were no legal institutions left to prosecute all these people. Therefore there was a need for international tribunal to do it. Of course as I look back in the history, there were things we could have done differently, actually with both Tribunals. I think it was a right idea to go after the leadership, but then what international community needs to do now is to support Rwanda as it goes after the lower level people. We have to make sure that Rwanda has not only resources but also that Rwanda does it in proper manner.

SA: However Tribunals like those for Rwanda and former Yugoslavia don’t have any own resources and are fully dependent on foreign governments. It is a big disadvantage because it slows them down and allows the governments to control in which directions the prosecution is going. The process becomes politically influenced.

That’s the biggest problem. The problem with international criminal justice system is that it is 100% dependent on cooperation of states. It is not only dependent on those countries where the scene of the crime is located but also upon countries like the U.S., China and others. And because the tribunals don’t have their own police to arrest people, they don’t have their own money and have to be funded by the United Nations, they are dependent on political will on all states of the United Nations.

SA: So such situation creates a possibility to politically steer those Tribunals. It enables governments to prevent prosecution of certain individuals…

It makes it harder for the Tribunals. What I did was I tried to help the Tribunals to overcome the politics and that is why I would travel to the Balkans many times a year to try to press the governments to arrest these people and transfer them to the Hague. Every year we would not certify and we would not give financial aid to Serbia unless they showed they were cooperating with the Hague. There were hundreds of millions of dollars we would withhold unless they are cooperating. When I was in Africa, I traveled to Congo, Kenya and other places to press them to arrest the fugitives and we were able to arrest them. But it takes a lot of diplomacy to get these countries cooperate.

SA: America signed and ratified Charter of the United Nations, which puts on it an obligation to save people from war. Then, you have this situation with Rwanda and Bosnia when the U.S. did not act at all or did not act on time. How is it that the U.S. takes a legal obligation on itself which later on it does not fulfill?

What I can say is that it is a shame and embarrassment that the United States did not act in Rwanda. President Clinton could have and should have done something. In Bosnia I think the problem is a little bit more complicated because the Europeans wanted to act and as you known the UN was there in Srebrenica and did nothing. And only after that the United States came in and began to become more aggressive. I think the issue of preventing and stopping genocide is a problem today for the whole world. But we need to come up with a better mechanism to stop this. Look at the situation in Darfur. Back in 2003 or 2004, we declared it genocide with Secretary Colin Powell and we pushed the United Nations for action, but to this day the problem continues. People continue to be killed so the UN efforts have been ineffective to stop genocide.

SA: So you believe that the United States showed good leadership in confronting the Darfur crisis? As far as I know the U.S. is not sending any troops to the region. Is a correct approach?

Darfur is at hands of the United Nations and the UN has approved over 20 thousands troops to go over there. As you know there were problems with Sudan and with getting its consent. And I think there will be many countries around the world that will contribute the troops. What is important is that we do not want to live in a world where everyone expects the United States or want the United States to send troops to prevent genocide. We have a responsibility to do our share, but I think other countries need to understand that they have a role and responsibility to do their jobs as well. For example if you go back to the situation in Rwanda, of course we can say that the United States should have done more, that the Belgians should have done more, the French should have done more, but you can also say what about the Kenyans, what about the Tanzanians, what about the Ugandans? Why didn’t they do more to stop the genocide? So it is more a collective problem for the whole world.

SA: But the United States is presently the only country in the world, which can stop such a crisis in any place of the world. Countries like Kenya and Uganda do not have enough resources, either military or financial, to do it.

This is why we need to develop a different strategy and approach. When you look at Liberia, it is a good example how the United States worked and how its strategy evolved. We did not only send an aircraft carrier off the shores to be prepared to battle, but we also provided other support to stop the conflict and atrocities in there. But there are other roles that different countries should play as well.

SA: So you disagree with this notion that the United States should be a global policeman?

The United States should not be the only country, which acts as a policeman. I think other countries need to do their part as well, whatever it may be. They may have not all the resources but there are still things they can do. What I don’t want to see is that other countries sit and watch while the United States is doing something when they could be doing something as well. They may be able to send small number of people or they may be able to help otherwise. So there is a function for everyone. We can not turn only to one country to do it all.

SA: Do you believe that the U.S. foreign policy should be based more on multilateralism rather than unilateralism?

I think we need to be more multilateral. Of course there will be times that a country needs to do what is in its national interest. However when we deal with international problems, if these are problems that affect the world, multinational approaches are usually the best. I am distinguishing between multilateral approach and the United Nations. We need to look at, for example, what the transatlantic community could do, what the United States and NATO could do, how we can work together because sometimes when things go to the United Nations they become very flawed because of the politics and diplomacy in New York. So sometimes it is better to go straight to the multilateral institutions like EU, NATO, AU and others to see what we can do at that level.

SA: With that being said, do you believe there should be a change in President Bush’s strategy in Iraq?

I think that what we need to do is to really make sure that we have a stable, as stable an environment in Iraq as possible, because we need to have a political process for the takeover. Iraqis must find a way to live and govern together. Otherwise you will have a chaos. I think the political situation is critical and we need to create the best environment that will allow for the political situation to succeed.

SA: How do you think the U.S. should act in respect to Iran’s nuclear program? Do you believe that the U.S. should attack Iran if the diplomacy fails?

First of all, I think that Iran is the problem for the whole world. It’s not only the problem for the United States. I think the Europeans and every one else should be concerned with Iran developing nuclear program. We need to work together to fight this problem. Now, what to do in the end? I think the United States needs to be vigilant and work with everyone to assure that Iran will not become a greater threat to the global community.

SA: Would you support military intervention in Iran as a last resort?

I don’t want to go hypothetical. But what I think is that the international community or the multilateral community, let it be the U.S., the EU and others, need to be prepared to do together what is necessary to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons or using nuclear weapons.

SA: Let’s go back to the Rwanda’s issues. The Declaration of Independence says that all men are created equal. Do you still believe in that after all your experiences? For example, in Rwanda in 1994 when the genocide started the U.S. evacuated all its personnel, all white people. So did the Belgians and the French. However Tutsis, even those few who were the workers at the U.S. Embassy, were left behind to be slaughtered later on.

Personally, I believe in that. We have to believe. That is what we fight for; this is what we argue for. The international community, the human race, needs to understand that we are all created equal. We cannot allow another Rwanda to happen. As I said, Rwanda is embarrassment for the world. The world left Rwanda alone and allowed the genocide to happen. It should not have happened.

-------------------------

Mr. Pierre Richard Prosper is a graduate of Boston College and Pepperdine University School of Law. During 1996 to late 1998 he served as a war crimes prosecutor for the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Since 2001 until 2005 he served as the U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues in Bush's Administration.

-------------------------