Paradoxes of Faith

This weekend marked a very unique ruling by the World Court regarding the conflict during the precious decade in the Balkan region, particularly in the former Yugoslavian region of Bosnia. One can read the New York Times Article here.

Though there may be some peace and possibly some semblance of reconciliation that may emerge from the recent ruling finally saing that the crimes of Srebrenica were, in fact, genocide. As if the systematic extermination of 8,000 Muslim men by Bosnian Serb troops in a UN ’safe zone’ with little to no resistance and protection by the UN could be called anything else.

During the war in Bosnia, from 1992 to 1995, the United Nations declared Srebrenica a haven and promised to protect it. But in July 1995, Bosnian Serb forces overwhelmed 370 lightly armed Dutch peacekeepers, seized control of the enclave and killed almost every Bosnian Muslim man and boy captured there.

That massacre led to the ruling Monday, which also stressed that other large-scale killings and abuse of Bosnian Muslims had taken place with the financial and military support of Serbia during the 1990s war that broke up Yugoslavia.

However the ruling now raises huge, and I do mean huge issues in regard to how the world prosecutes purveyors of genocide, both within and without of said government’s borders. As the crimes were labeled as genocide, and as Serbia was accused and chastised for both funding and equipping those who committed the heinous massacres 12 years ago, Serbia itself was acquitted of the indictment of genocide against its Bosnian neighbors due to a ‘lack of evidence’ of direct intent of genocide, etc.

So, if governments can equip and finance the ethnic cleansing, extermination, and even genocide, in whole or in part, of its unwanted citizens in any of its territories or neighboring regions, and then not be held morally responsible for the deaths of entire populations, what is to hold rulers back from purging their nations of their unwanted populations?

The court said that other offenses committed against Bosnians might amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity, but that it had no jurisdiction over those issues. It did not list specific killings or the number of victims. International organizations say more than 100,000 people died between 1992 and 1995, two-thirds of them Bosnian Muslims.

What does this mean for Darfur, Sudan? In a possibly an ironic twist of fate this week, two individuals have officially been named as possible war criminals by the International Criminal Court, which may seek to prosecute them for their genocidal actions in the western regions of the Sudan.

But what basis will there be for holding a government accountable for the actions of those it supports after this week? Will the ICC have better punitive jurisdiction over Sudan than the WC did over Serbia? Will al-Bashir and his government get away with war crimes, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, and genocide by funding and equipping ragtag militias, the janjaweed, and other anti-Darfurian forces, but without actually firing a shot themselves? Will we ever get to a point where we can try crimes of genocide and ethnic cleansing under the realities of ’sins of omission’ rather than active sins of commission?

And for those who don’t have faith in the UN, ICC, WC or any other international governing body or institution, how does one get away with the current threats against Iran for its equipping and funding of insurgents in Iraq, but won’t press for the same punitive restrictions against Sudan, Burma, Zimbabwe, or any other nation that oppresses its citizens by hiring mercenaries to do its dirty work of cleansing the country and the lands of its neighbors of their ‘undesirables’? Does the US or the UN have the moral authority to confront Iran at this point in time when neither entity can ensure justice to Bosnia, Darfur, Liberia, and other regions around the globe?

Quoting Miroslav Volf in his wonderful work Exclusion and Embrace, “When innocent blood cries out before heaven, is not a prophetic rage called for?” Amos would have much to say about the crimes of nations against their citizens and those of their neighbors.

3 This is what the LORD says:
“For three sins of Damascus,
even for four, I will not turn back [my wrath].
Because she threshed Gilead
with sledges having iron teeth,
4 I will send fire on the house of Hazael
that will consume the fortresses of Ben-Hadad.

5 I will break down the gate of Damascus;
I will destroy the king who is in [b] the Valley of Aven [c]
and the one who holds the scepter in Beth Eden.
The people of Aram will go into exile to Kir,”
says the LORD.

6 This is what the LORD says:
“For three sins of Gaza,
even for four, I will not turn back [my wrath].
Because she took captive whole communities
and sold them to Edom,

7 I will send fire on the walls of Gaza
that will consume her fortresses.

9 This is what the LORD says:
“For three sins of Tyre,
even for four, I will not turn back [my wrath].
Because she sold whole communities of captives to Edom,
disregarding a treaty of brotherhood,

10 I will send fire on the walls of Tyre
that will consume her fortresses.”

11 This is what the LORD says:
“For three sins of Edom,
even for four, I will not turn back [my wrath].
Because he pursued his brother with a sword
and slaughtered the women of the land,
because his anger raged continually
and his fury flamed unchecked,

Do we have eyes to perceive and ears to understand?

Will we stand by and find ourselves complicit as agents of ’sins of omission’ over which we have the power to prevent, but choose not to? Where will we stand while our neighbors, made in the image of God, are ‘threshed with implements of iron’ and ‘pursued with the sword’?

How will we respond?