Consider This from NPR - Meet the man in charge of prosecuting war crimes

Episode Date: September 27, 2024

NPR's Mary Louise Kelly talks with Karim Khan, the lead prosecutor for the International Criminal Court, about the pager explosions and conflict in the Middle East.For sponsor-free episodes of Consider This, sign up for Consider This+ via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org. Email us at [e-mail] more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

To understand the origins of today's international criminal court, it's worth going back in time to September 1947 to listen to a man by the name of Benjamin Ferencz. Vengeance is not our goal, nor do we seek merely a just retribution. Ferencz was the chief prosecutor, and that was his opening statement in the Einsatzgruppen case during the Nuremberg trials after World War II. We ask this court to affirm by international penal action man's right to live in peace and dignity, regardless of his race or creed. The case we present is a plea of humanity to law. That case was the prosecution of 22 defendants charged with the

murder of more than a million European Jews. It was Ferencz's first case. He was 27 years old at the time. Ferencz reflected on that momentous prosecution in an interview with Vice News, released after his death last year. I rested my case two days because I had the most overwhelming evidence. I didn't need witnesses. Here were guys, according to their own reports from the Eastern Front, over a million people killed. Were you at all nervous or were you confident? No, I wasn't nervous. I didn't kill anybody. They were nervous.

I had these guys called. Ferencz's case was one of 13 trials, part of an international military tribunal agreed upon by the Allied powers, the United States, Great Britain, France, and the Soviet Union. The goal? To hold the Nazi regime and those acting on its behalf accountable for crimes against humanity. Here's Ferencz again, speaking to Vice News. These trials were an enormous step forward because they were saying that what had been a national right to go to war against your neighbor, aggression, was in future to be an international crime. Ferencz spent the next several decades of his life advocating for an international system of criminal justice that he believed was essential

for world peace. Then I worked for at least 50 years to see them set up a permanent international criminal court. So it takes a while to push this rock up the hill. Not only did Ferencz push that rock up the hill, he was there to present the closing statement at the International Criminal Court's first case in 2011. As an American soldier, I survived the indescribable horrors of World War II and served as a liberator of many concentration camps. Shortly thereafter, I was appointed a prosecutor at the Nuremberg war crimes trials, which mapped new rules for the protection of humanity. I was 27 years old then. I am now in my 92nd year. It took more than six decades after he'd tried his case at Nuremberg, but the chief prosecutor of the Einsatzgruppen case got his international system of justice.

The law can no longer be silent, but must instead be heard and enforced to protect the fundamental rights of people everywhere. Consider this. The International Criminal Court is the dream realized of one man, and a system meant to protect the dignity of humanity throughout the world. But is it working? And can it really hold people to account when its mission is not universally supported? Coming up, we talk to the current prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. From NPR, I'm Mary Louise Kelly. It's Consider This from NPR. When thousands of pagers and walkie-talkies exploded throughout Lebanon

last week, it was a success for the planners of the audacious attack. Was it also a war crime, with dozens of people killed and some 3,000 people injured? Well, that type question, along with all the ensuing questions about whether and how to prosecute, they fall to Kareem Khan. He's the lead prosecutor for the International Criminal Court, which was set up two decades ago to investigate war crimes and crimes against humanity. Kareem Khan joins us from our studios in New York. Mr. Khan, welcome to All Things Considered. Mary Louise, thank you for the honor of having me on your show. I do want to get into the broader war unfolding in the Middle East, but let's just start with these pager explosions. And that

question I just posed, based on what you know now, does this look like a war crime? Well, I need to be very disciplined, Mary Louise, in terms of what I say. We don't have jurisdiction in relation to Lebanon. Lebanon is not a state party unlike Palestine. The law makes it clear that there must be distinction in terms of who are the targets of attack in terms of conflicts, but I'm not going to speculate. Academics and others can pontificate or give their views. Is your office looking into it? No, we have jurisdiction only in cases that are provided by the Rome Statute, which created the International Criminal Court. Lebanon has not accepted the jurisdiction of the court, and accordingly, we're focusing on situations that are clearly in the explosions, but a U.S. official not authorized to speak publicly told NPR that Israel did notify the U.S. it was responsible.

If other participants in these attacks are part of your jurisdiction, does that fall into your basket at all? Well, the Rome Statute in my office is part of the international architecture. This is also the 75th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions. So the Geneva Conventions also include provisions that are part of what we call customary international law. There are grave breaches. There are other breaches. So it's not an unregulated space. There's always law, whether it's domestic law, other parts of international law, or the jurisdiction of the

International Criminal Court. And I'm focusing my activities in relation to the situations where we say we have clear jurisdiction because of either the Security Council has referred matters to us like Libya and Sudan, or the states have accepted the jurisdiction like Ukraine, or that we have state parties like Palestine and many other countries in the world. So let me turn you to a conflict where you do have jurisdiction. The ICC applied, as you know, back in May, for arrest warrants against leaders of Hamas, also against Israeli leaders, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Galant. On Friday, Israel's foreign ministry filed a petition to appeal the warrant, and the

foreign ministry says that you failed, and I quote, to provide Israel with the opportunity to exercise its right to investigate by itself the claims raised by the prosecutor before proceeding. So I'll put that to you. Did you fail to provide Israel with that opportunity? Well, no, is the short answer. My predecessor in 2021, March, made it clear that there was an investigation. The judges of the International Criminal Court said we have jurisdiction. And I've been engaging with a variety of state parties and non-state parties, including Israel, for the past three years. And I've been as clear as mud, as we say in English, that since October the 7th, the terrible crimes committed against so many innocent children in Israel.

So I've been to the Kibbutzim. This is an area that we had jurisdiction in relation to because we have jurisdiction when the perpetrator is the national of a state party, namely Palestine. And I've said it repeatedly publicly that we're investigating that also not only the crimes alleged against Hamas that were subject to warrant applications by me, but also that Israel and leaders in Israel have responsibilities to comply with international law and that I was investigating and there was no applications by Israel since 2021 until today. But we'll deal with the filings in the normal way. It would only be right to respond first to the judges and not to say more, but I think we operate as lawyers. I'm a King's Council in England and Wales. I'm an experienced member of the Bar of more than 30 years, and I'm

quite aware of the very properly heavy responsibilities to independently investigate these cases impartially so that the international community can have confidence that what we're doing is driven by evidence, not by any other factor. Practically speaking, how confident are you that member countries will execute on this arrest warrant that you would like? If Netanyahu, for example, were to fly to Europe, are you confident he would be arrested? Well, I don't want to get ahead of myself. I'm a party to proceedings as the chief prosecutor of the ICC. We have submitted applications for warrants and the judges have to rule upon them. Until such time as the issue is decided, there's no warrant. It's simply something I have asked for based upon the evidence and the investigations that we've carried out. But for those that think that there

is an area of impunity, I always say this, that people didn't think that Milosevic of former Yugoslavia, of Serbia, or Karadzic, or Miladic, or Hisenissenhabre of Chad or Jean-Paul Cabanda of Rwanda, also a former prime minister, that they would see the inside of a courtroom. And yet, because of the legacy of Nuremberg, because it is a Nuremberg principle that there's no statute of limitations for war crimes, those individuals that were very powerful and had great influence were subjected to the application of the law. It's not a walk in the park. Although I'm thinking, for example, of Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia,

who visited Mongolia this month. Mongolia is a member of the ICC. There is an ICC arrest warrant for him. He was not arrested. On the contrary, Mongolia rolled out the red carpet. Indeed, but it's also the first time that President Putin has set foot in the territory of a state party since the judges issued warrants. And there was a time, you'll recall, and your listeners will perhaps remember, when there was a powerful leader in Monrovia called President Charles Taylor. There was a warrant for his arrest issued by the special court for Sierra Leone. He wasn't immediately arrested. In fact, he went to Nigeria. He was given refuge in Nigeria. He was a fugitive for some period. But in the end, he appeared in the special court for Sierra Leone in Freetown. He was tried in The Hague and is now serving time in Durham Prison in the northeast of England. So, you know, we need to be persistent. We need to make sure that we do

our job in terms of investigations. If judges issue warrants, they are judicial orders. They're not something light. It's a judicial order. And then it's down to the parents of the ICC, the states, that talk about a rules-based system, that talk about the equal application of the law and equal value of human life everywhere in the world that must act to support the institutions they've created. And, you know, that's really a work in progress, I think, in terms of ensuring that the architecture built since the Second World War is seen by people around the world as being fit for purpose. But to those that thumb their noses at it, I think that would be a very complacent attitude, and history shows that. Briefly, I'd like to discuss Sudan. You addressed the UN Security Council last month regarding the civil war there, and said the ICC is not and never has been a silver bullet that to solve crises of the

world, it requires the support of states. What support do you need? What international support do you need to do your job in Sudan? Well, I think, I mean, this is a fundamentally important question. We promised collectively, after the horrors of the Second World War, after the gas chambers, after the bodies of starving people that were treated so awfully by the fascists, we gave a promise of never again. We had a Nuremberg court, that tribunal that gave life to that promise. And one thing I've said is, you know, to leaders, you know, these big issues, these big ticket items in terms of whether it's Russia, Ukraine, or Palestine, Israel, if we're to give confidence to people around the world that we don't just give platitudes

and give promises of never again, how do we build that confidence if there's not a proper solution in Darfur? At the moment, people are being hunted down and killed because of the color of their skin, because of a sense of impunity that has built up over 20 years. We don't have a police force. We don't have military. We need states to live up to their responsibilities. That's first and foremost Sudan. And then also African Union, the United Nations and powerful states, including the United States of America, the United Nations and powerful states,

including the United States of America, the European Union. All countries in the region have a role, whether it's Egypt or Turkey. Everybody should care that the allegations are so horrendous of famine, of starvation, of rape on a big scale. And it requires a determination not just to shed tears or crocodile tears or real tears, but to enforce these basic principles of humanity. And we need that support in terms of the enforcement, and we haven't seen it. It's such an interesting point you make about building confidence. And I would love to flip that question on you. What gives you confidence you are on the right side of history? Because these cases you are charged with

prosecuting are by definition the toughest, the most complex, and unfolding in wars where the history books haven't yet been written. I think what gives me confidence is victims that have been raped around the world, that have lost their homes, that have had their churches or synagogues or mosques or temples razed to the ground or attacked, that have been persecuted because of their race, their faith, their political views or their religion. They perhaps hope over experience. They demand justice. They cling to this belief that accountability is a very important part of their future. And I think what we show is these are times of courage, of objectivity, and of focus. You know, Churchill wanted to execute people after the Second World

War. He said, we know that these are major criminals. We had processes. And what we've seen is the process of Nuremberg created a record that nobody can deny the Holocaust. We saw the utility in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and the special court for Sierra Leone. It doesn't solve it all. But what it does show is that every human life matters and certain types of conduct are simply unacceptable in any situation. And I think that's the important thing for us in terms of our moral compass and our legal clarity of thought. Karim Khan is the lead prosecutor for the International Criminal Court. He was speaking with us from the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York. Thank you.

Thank you so much. This episode was produced by Megan Lim and Vincent Accovino. It was edited by Tenbeat Ermias, Nick Spicer, Patrick Jaron-Wadananen, and Courtney Dording. Our executive producer is Sammy Yinnigan. And one more thing before we go, you can now enjoy the Consider This newsletter. We still help you break down a major story of the day, and you will also get to know our producers and our hosts and some moments of joy from the All Things Considered team. You can sign up at npr.org slash consider this newsletter. It's Consider This from NPR. I'm Mary Louise Kelly.