Is the ICC keeping Gaddafi in power?
Today’s Wall Street Journal examines (firewalled) whether the threat of an international trial might be compelling Gaddafi to fight rather than cede power and slide into comfortable exile: When Nigeria delivered exiled Liberian leader Charles Taylor to an international court in 2006, Libya’s Col. Moammar Gadhafi, whose regime had armed and funded Mr. Taylor, called ...
Today's Wall Street Journal examines (firewalled) whether the threat of an international trial might be compelling Gaddafi to fight rather than cede power and slide into comfortable exile:
Today’s Wall Street Journal examines (firewalled) whether the threat of an international trial might be compelling Gaddafi to fight rather than cede power and slide into comfortable exile:
When Nigeria delivered exiled Liberian leader Charles Taylor to an international court in 2006, Libya’s Col. Moammar Gadhafi, whose regime had armed and funded Mr. Taylor, called it an "immoral act" and warned that "every head of state could meet a similar fate."
Now that the International Criminal Court has opened an investigation into Col. Gadhafi himself, such fears may well be a reason why the Libyan leader has chosen to battle his own people instead of seeking exile like Mr. Taylor or Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali, the former Tunisian president now residing in Saudi Arabia.
Col. Gadhafi’s behavior illustrates a thorny moral dilemma: An international drive to ensure ousted dictators answer for their crimes may, perversely, end up prolonging their rule—and extract a heavy toll in human lives.
The article offers no hard evidence that this dynamic is at work; instead, it’s mostly a collection of musings from outside observers. But it’s certainly plausible that the ICC investigation could be contributing to Gaddafi’s determination to cling to power (although, as the piece points out, the dictator’s messianic self-image could have the same effect).
The possibility that the court could be drawing out the bloodshed is an uncomfortable reality for advocates of international justice, and they’ve normally either denied that this dynamic would occur in practice or insisted that, on principle, achieving justice will always serve the interests of peace and stability. Because there’s so little empirical evidence on the effect of international justice processes, debates like these quickly become an exchange of anecdotes.
If the perception does take hold that the ICC is complicating a resolution to the crisis, the Security Council always has the option–provided under Article 16 of the Rome Statute–of delaying the investigation in the interests of peace. But even this may not be enough to ease Gaddafi’s mind. The Council can only delay investigations for a year and must affirmatively renew the delay on an annual basis thereafter. Would Gaddafi feel confident that the Council would keep renewing his reprieve? It’s not a provision designed to assure dictators of a comfortable retirement.
David Bosco is a professor at Indiana University’s Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies. He is the author of The Poseidon Project: The Struggle to Govern the World’s Oceans. Twitter: @multilateralist
More from Foreign Policy
Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.
The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.
Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.
How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
