Pierre-Richard Prosper, US special ambassador for war crimes, spent six years as a prosecutor pursuing street gangs and drug lords in Los Angeles before he was assigned as prosecutor at the UN war crimes tribunal for Rwanda. In 1998, at the age of 34, he won the first genocide conviction in history against the mayor of a Rwandan town. He then returned to Washington to become deputy in the State Department’s new office of war crimes. When the President Bush took office, many believed the office of war crimes would be abolished. Thanks in part to Prosper’s convincing, the Bush Administration kept the office open. In February 2002, Prosper announced in a Congressional hearing that his office would like to see the UN tribunals wrap up their work and dissolve – a position that has sparked controversy among Washington’s European allies. In an interview with Roy Gutman, diplomatic correspondent for Newsweek and co-founder of the Crimes of War Project, Prosper talks about his office’s role in the possible creation of military tribunals to try terrorist suspects, the Bush Administration’s opposition to the ICC, and the prospect that the two most prominent indicted war criminals in Bosnia will soon be before the Hague Tribunal.

Q: A number of people in the administration think that so-called "international justice" is not a fit business of the American government. So how do you explain that your office is still here?

I think the ideal world is that an office such as this does not exist...My goal is to work myself out of a job. My hope is that we can work hard, work with the affected States so that they begin to revive their institutions and their institutions are able to strictly enforce and promote the rule of law so that these issues are, again, issues of the past.

Q: Will this happen any time in the near future?

I think it is realistic to say that the issue of war crimes in the Balkans will be put behind us. I feel that that can be done in the near future. I also believe that the issue of war crimes in the Great Lakes region of Africa with a strong push can be put behind us.

Q: did 9/11 give you a new lease on life?

I think 9/11 definitely increased the work that I have and put more issues on my plate. So rather than being focused on the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan pre 9/11, all the African conflicts, studying Iraq, I now add to it the Sept 11 events themselves and then the ultimate question of where are we going from here in accountability for grave abuses.

Q: Where do you think we are going from here?

My hope is that we can create the international political will that will allow each and every state to use their unilateral tools to put a sharp focus on this problem in order to remedy it so that we can put an end to these abuses.

Q: Justice Richard Goldstone (first chief Prosecutor at the UN Tribunals) has urged there be some kind of an international tribunal to deal with the many Al Qaeda suspects under arrest. Is that rejected out of hand?

Well, right now, it’s not under consideration…I’m not sure an international mechanism is necessary for this. There are mechanisms in place. If everyone would just do what they are empowered to do and have the ability to do, that is a far more effective approach to address atrocities committed by terrorists than creating an international body that may not have the full reach and strength of the law that the combined states would have.

Q: What advice has your office given President Bush on his proposal to try them before military tribunals?

My job was to look and see a)if it was legally permissible and b) what type of offenses or perpetrators would be subjected to this military commission. We studied the issue carefully, both in current law and historical law, and decided that it was an option that the President had at his disposal.

Q: Is it clear now what type of protections will be afforded?

We’re still working on the procedures and rules of evidence and the composition of the court, but it will be…full and fair as ordered by the President. I expect that the proceedings will generally be open except for in cases where for national security reasons it is required to be closed…I expect a fair and transparent process.

Q: How many defendants do you expect to come before these?

The President will have to decide who will be brought before the military commission. It is possible that some will be brought before a federal court. That will reduce the numbers. Then there may be a limited number that the United States will choose to prosecute. Those we decide not to prosecute, we will be looking to the States of their nationality and work with them, ask them if there any charges that can be brought against these individuals, and what are the factual circumstances? Obviously there may be cases where there are no facts to support a prosecution for a particular individual, and they’ll be released. It is difficult to put a precise number on it.

Q: What is the size of the group over which decisions will be made?

It will be in the 500-600 range that we’ll have to take a look at and decide how to dispose of their cases.

Q: What help did the US government give in bringing the case against Slobodan Milosevic before the Hague Tribunal?

We have provided some assistance and some information…When the Office of the Prosecutor has asked us for particular information, be it information on the events in Kosovo, we have tried to be in a position to provide it. They are asking for possibly access to some of our officials to be witnesses. And we are entertaining those requests as we speak. We’ll make a decision in the near future.

Q: Does this administration reject the new International Criminal Court? Will it ever ratify the treaty signed by the Clinton administration?

I don’t expect we will ever ratify or ever send the treaty up for [Senate] ratification…We have some fundamental concerns about the treaty, the treaty regime. We negotiated in good faith for several years to see if we could change it in order to protect our particular interests. That has not occurred. Therefore our position is one of continued opposition to the treaty, that it will not be sent for ratification and that we will not support the process…Essentially, the process has come to an end as far as we’re concerned.

Q: The Tribunal may come into existence as soon as this July. What will the United States do?

We’ll be on the sidelines. The advocates of the ICC…are going to have to do what it takes to make it work, and that includes funding it, giving it the political support it needs to make it a viable process. What they need to understand is that the United States will not be there, and the United States will not be paying any monies toward the ICC… that’s an important point. If you look at the [UN Tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda], we’re paying close to I believe 28 per cent of the bill. And that’s a lot of money when you’re in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Q: In December, the US Senate briefly approved the "American Serviceman’s Protection Act," which sanctions foreign governments that join the ICC. Does the administration favor that Act?

We agree in principle that our [military] service members need to be protected. It’s just a matter of working out the details of how best to achieve that protection.

Q: Do you think it will come up again pretty soon?

I cannot give a date. But it would not surprise me to see something coming up to the President. There appears to be firm commitment on Capitol Hill to move something forward, and again for our purposes, it is a matter of seeing what the final document looks like before making an official recommendation to the President as to whether it should or not be signed.

Q: Nearly all US allies support the Tribunal, and I gather they are shocked and horrified that this could come about. Is that your impression?

I know there is concern internationally regarding the American Serviceman’s Protection Act. Those concerns have been expressed to us… Some people who are more vocal than others. At the same time they recognize it is a domestic process afoot and it concerns US interests and US unilateral action that may be needed.

Q: It looks like unilateralism once again.

What it looks like is a government or a legislature taking the steps it feels necessary to protect US interests. It is important to note this is not a unilateralist administration. We are engaged in multilateralist activities. The war on terror is a good example. But there are moments we need to go it alone. We need to make those tough decisions represent and respect US views and interests. So you’ll see that occasionally.

Q: Back to the Balkans, which started this judicial process. Some of the very big fish are missing, on the lam. What do you expect to happen with Bosnian Serb Gen. Ratko Mladic, political leader Radovan Karadzic, and the three Serb officers indicted for the destruction of Vukovar, Croatia?

I expect to see Mladic and Karadzic brought to The Hague for sure. That has to happen in order for the process to be deemed a successful conclusion. The Vukovar three I would put in the same upper category. Beyond that we’ll have to see what happens. We were very curious and interested in a lot of proposals that are out there regarding transitioning the justice back to the States. I think it is important to look at States’ responsibility in this regard. I’m hopeful that the prosecutor also sees this and is entertaining the idea of sending some cases back to the States.

Q: Is administration committed to capturing Karadzic and Mladic?

Yes.

Q: Why should we take this more seriously than what’s been going on for the last 10 years?

Well I think it’s a matter of waiting and seeing. The diplomatic efforts have been doubled. I personally have been out to the region three times in the past several months. I expect to be out there again shortly. We have revitalized our rewards program, focusing on Karadzic and Mladic. I think if you look at this past year, the number of indictees who have been either arrested or surrendered are greater than any other year. We are at a record pace for 2001, and that’s based on our efforts, primarily our diplomacy and our other activities. If you go on the ground in Bosnia, Sarajevo, the Republika Srpska, there is momentum toward persons indicted for war crimes being brought to The Hague. So I think momentum is in our favor. That should be a strong indication that the tide has turned and there is a strong commitment to resolving these issues once and for all.

Q: But Karadzic is NATO’s power in Bosnia. Why doesn’t NATO just arrest him?

The Karadzic case has been a difficult case in the past because he has received protection from the [Bosnian Serb] community; his whereabouts remain unknown. But we feel we have made progress in this regard, and I think that his days are numbered, and he’ll be brought to The Hague.

Q: Are the Serbs about to give up Mladic?

I think the Serbs in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia realize that in order for this issue no longer to be a front burner issue for them…they must take significant action. I hope that that results in Mladic being transferred to The Hague by the FRY or the Serbian government, or be encouraged to surrender. We’ll just have to wait and see. I firmly believe he will find his way to The Hague in the not too distant future.

Q: You served in the last administration. Are you more confident now?

Definitely. The timing of Karadzic and Mladic going to The Hague … will be simultaneous. I believe when one goes, the other will shortly follow.

Q: Doesn’t that mean NATO will have to take risks to arrest those guys?

And we will.

Q: Are they terrorists the way the term is being defined?

We shouldn’t really focus on the labels but look at their conduct. I can easily say that both groups, Karadzic and Mladic, and the terrorists are alleged to have committed atrocities at levels that shock the conscience.

Related Links

"Experts Dispute Bush Aide's Criticism of War Crimes Panels",
By Barbara Crossette
The New York Times, March 2, 2002