Letters.

Russia:

Stephen Sestanovich portrays the U.S. government as engaged in a vigorous diplomatic effort to press Russia to rein in its abusive troops in Chechnya ("Where Does Russia Belong?", Winter 2000/01). In response, he claims, Russia took some grudging steps, "and because other steps that were urged (such as launching an effective investigation of atrocities) were not taken, the United States and the EU co-sponsored, and secured passage of, an anti-Russian resolution at the annual meeting of the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva in April 2000."

But what did that resolution require of the Russians? That they launch an effective investigation of atrocities. Sestanovich not only oversells the Commission resolution, he also neglects to mention that the United States has stood meekly by while Russia has completely ignored the relatively mild demands the resolution did contain.

The resolution called for the creation of a Russian national commission of inquiry, access for UN human rights monitors, and cooperation with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Council of Europe in their efforts to monitor the region. After securing passage of the resolution, President Clinton met four times with Russian President Putin, yet none of those meetings yielded any progress on Russian compliance with the UN demands.

Nearly one year later, no UN monitors have been admitted and a Russian promise to invite the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights back for a visit has not been honored. The OSCE's Assistance Group in Chechnya sits in Moscow, barred from the northern Caucasus. The Council of Europe has a mere three monitors seconded to the staff of the Russian government's human rights envoy for the region. Their work undoubtedly makes some positive contribution to the human rights situation, but they have no authority or capacity to pursue justice.

Most significant, the Russian government has taken no steps to establish a national commission of inquiry. Its prosecutorial authorities have begun some investigations, but made no serious attempt to get to the bottom of the war's worst abuses: the three well-known massacres claiming more than 130 lives; indiscriminate bombing and shelling; and widespread torture. Relatives and witnesses of these atrocities have not been questioned. Bodies have not been exhumed. A number of investigations, hastily commenced once the victims filed suit at the European Court of Human Rights, have been subsequently suspended.

Sestanovich's account of the pressure the United States brought to bear on Russia ends with the UN resolution adopted last April--about the time that the hot war ended in Chechnya and fell off of the front pages. Since that time, Russia has not only thumbed its nose at the UN demands, it has presided over ongoing widespread abuse in Chechnya. Though large-scale bombing has ceased, routine Russian mop-up operations, characterized by arbitrary detention, torture and disappearances, continue to strike fear in the hearts of ordinary Chechens.

When the UN Commission on Human Rights convenes its annual meeting again in March, the United States should take stock of its utter failure to promote accountability and respect for human rights in Chechnya. The past year has proven without a doubt that accountability cannot be left to the Russian government. The United States should once again join with the EU to push through a new resolution, this one establishing an international commission of inquiry, empowered to investigate and document atrocities committed by both sides of the conflict in Chechnya.

ELIZABETH ANDERSEN

Europe & Central Asia Division

Human Rights Watch

Sestanovich replies:

Ms. Anderson is right that Russia has ignored international condemnation of its war against the Chechens. She is not right that the U.S. and European governments have "meekly" accepted this state of affairs. (Last November, for example, the OSCE foreign ministers meeting broke down precisely because we and others rejected Russia's insistence that the ministers not issue a critical joint statement on Chechnya.) Whether the Russian government sticks to its guns on this issue depends, of course, on whether it encounters a credible and unified Western position. The UN Human Rights Commission is just one of the forums in which Russia's isolation should be made clear.

Sovereignty:

I have read with interest the article "American Sovereignty and the UN" by Senator Jesse Helms, chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, in the Winter 2000/01 issue. His observation on the office of the prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia invites a short comment.

My office has not conducted an "investigation of alleged NATO war crimes during the Kosovo campaign." Contrary to what the article suggests, I have decided not to conduct such an investigation.

The tribunal was established by a unanimous Security Council resolution in May 1993, not by the General Assembly or by treaty. The Security Council defined the jurisdiction of the tribunal and its organs through the adoption of a report on its establishment and its statute. The Security Council determined that the jurisdiction of the tribunal extends to the entire territory of the former Yugoslavia, Kosovo included, and that its temporal jurisdiction is open-ended until the Security Council decides otherwise. My predecessor, Justice Louise Arbour of Canada, felt obliged at the outset of the Kosovo operation to remind states that the Security Council had not changed the scope of the tribunal's jurisdiction in connection with that operation in a way that would place some serious violations of international humanitarian law committed within the territory of the former Yugoslavia outside the tribunal's mandate.

When Justice Arbour received reports addressed specifically to our office alleging that war crimes were committed by NATO forces during the Kosovo operation, she was obliged to preliminarily assess the accuracy and seriousness of that information. She ordered the commencement of such an assessment, the conclusion of which was that no investigation was required. Had Justice Arbour not ordered such a preliminary assessment, she would not have fulfilled her obligations under the statute, and, as such, she would have undermined both the legitimacy and efficacy of the Security Council's international judicial intervention through the establishment of the tribunal. Operating outside or in contravention of the statute would put at risk the powers that the Security Council has endowed the tribunal with under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. It is precisely these powers that have enabled the tribunal to make such dramatic progress in its efforts to bring to justice those individuals from the former Yugoslavia who are r esponsible for serious violations of minimum standards for civilized conduct in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Kosovo. Without those powers, and the continued support from the Security Council, its member states and other states, the tribunal would not succeed in bringing fugitives such as Ratko Mladic, Radovan Karadzic and Slobodan Milosevic to justice.

CARLA DEL PONTE

Prosecutor, International Criminal Tribunal...