Is hypocrisy Western civilization's most distinguishing characteristic? — war criminal Slobodan Praljak departs with defiant dignity

© 2017 Peter Free

 

30 November 2017

 

 

Theme — let's take a look at the ethics of proportionality

 

I contrast the radically differing treatments of three examples of war criminality.

 

 

Premise

 

War is always serial endeavor composed of "mini" and "midi" (usually reciprocal) atrocities.

 

If you want to make an effective example of holding war criminality to account:

 

 

nail the leaders who irresponsibly start the conflicts

 

as well as

 

those who are attached to the proportionately most-foul hands.

 

 

First example — former Croatian general, Slobodan Praljak

 

He was hammered by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Hague:

 

 

Slobodan Praljak, a commander of Croat forces during the 1990s war in Bosnia [see here], swigged poison from a flask moments after a panel of appeals judges upheld his 20 year sentence for war crimes on Wednesday morning.

 

He was pronounced dead two hours later.

 

Praljak, 72, was jailed in 2013 for his role in war crimes including a massacre of [a reported 37] civilians in central Bosnia and the deliberate destruction of Mostar bridge during the siege of the city by Croatian forces in 1993.

 

© 2017 Roland Oliphant, Bosnian war criminal dies after drinking poison in court as he loses Hague appeal, The Telegraph (29 November 2017)

 

 

Praljak departed life in admirable fashion

 

At least according to those of us who reject Western hypocrisy as a bane of genuine civilization.

 

Praljak defiantly told the court:

 

 

Slobodan Praljak is not a war criminal. I reject your judgment with contempt.

 

© 2017 Marlise Simons, Croatian War Criminal Dies After Swallowing Poison in Court, New York Times (29 November 2017) (quoting former Croatian general Slobodan Praljak, just before he intentionally swallowed poison)

 

 

Well spoken.

 

Part of a maelstrom of violently conflicting ethnicities, Praljak had killed about 37 people, allegedly caused the rape and removal of multiples, and blown up an old bridge.

 

Let us contrast his record with two more.

 

 

Second example — former U.S. presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama

 

Those two are responsible for:

 

 

hundreds of thousands of deaths

 

the inarguably illegal devastation of Iraq and Libya (among other places)

 

continuing massive, murderous instability in the Middle East

 

a shared drone murder program that continues to "lift" hundreds to thousands of innocents from life into death or permanent disability —

 

as well as,

 

the evidently permanent institutionalization of war criminal policies into the American fabric.

 

 

One of those esteemed "celebrities" was even awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

 

Do you see either of them in the international judicial dock?

 

 

To make this disproportionate treatment of war criminality worse — a scent of kangaroos

 

Former general Praljak's appeal for a reduction in sentence was rejected (just before he drank poison). Despite the fact that the Court agreed that he was indeed innocent of some of the charges.

 

Evidently the legal "kangaroos" at the judicial helm in the Hague did not mind playing loose with the fact that sentences generally are directly connected to each charge.

 

Consequently, when some of those charges are rejected as unwarranted, logic argues that the overall sentence — which had been previously imposed upon the total number of alleged crimes — should be reduced.

 

The result of the Court's decision not to reduce?

 

Arbitrariness doubled.

 

 

The unexpected moral? — Get nukes while you can

 

Power exclusively determines who is guilty of what.

 

The lesson is not lost on North Korea. Or on anyone else with a lick of common sense.

 

Western hypocrisy drips proliferation and political counter-reaction.