|
The case of Charles Taylor
I think I should preface this by saying I think this guy is certainly a crook, and although I havent seen all the evidence, I think very likely DOES have blood on his hands.
But I wondered what people's thoughts were about the impact on the decision to pursue Charles Taylor for crimes against humanity on the recent chaos and violence in the middle east?
There has always been an understanding in mosts coup's and revolts that the leader and his family can be allowed to slip away to a friendly country to allow power to transfer cleanly.
As an example, look at Idi Amin. No one would deny he was a butcher who's crimes and abuses far outreached anything Taylor or the likes of Gadhaffi could be accused of... allowed to live to old age in The Kingdom, with a harem of "wives" and eating nothing but oranges in the belief it increased his sexual stamina into his old age. This mad man who had 100,000s of deaths on his conscience, was allowed to live out an adolescent fantasy in his old age while the West stood by and did NOTHING.
Why? Because it prevents civil war and however offensive we might find it that someone like Idi Amin does not face any kind of justice, its a price that we decided was worth paying to prevent further violence and death and instability.
_
We do not need to consider the hypocrisy element (ie Pinnochet is a "strong man", Gadhaffi is a butcher, Mugabe is just "anti-colonialist", etc...) but to me its the practical element also.
_
With Charles Taylor dragged out of exile to face the consequences of his actions, does this not put every leader who could be judged in breach of international law (and lets be honest, this half of the world leaders out there) in a position where they will fight tooth and nail to hold on power because they know this is the only protection for themselves and family personally?
|