Arabs & Israelis Ponder Milosevic Trial; Heads Of Sharon & Saddam For A Better ME.

*** Colin Powell Ended His 2nd Middle East Tour With A Nod To Arafat's Call For Int'l Truce Observers, But His Top Aide Qualified It To Keep Sharon Satisfied

*** The Violence Which Will Follow Could Weaken The PA And The Chances Of A Peace Accord

*** Saddam, Who Has Played The Palestinian Card To His Advantage, Is Getting Nervous Now That Milosevic Is In The Dock

*** Will He Fan The Fires Or Lie Low And Watch What Happens At The Hague?

NICOSIA - The electrifying precedent of a ruler like Slobodan Milosevic being tried by the UN court in The Hague has opened up a debate in both Israel and the Arab World on the legitimacy of a man accused of war crimes becoming prime minister in the Jewish state and of self-appointed regimes on the other side. In Iran, the debate between those who call for the rule of law and the ones who insist on the rule of God has already gotten less silent and could soon become noisy.

Throughout the world, those who are watching the way Milosevic's trial progresses will be able to have a clearer focus on the tragedy between the Palestinians and Israel. The current round of Israeli-Palestinian violence, in which hundreds have been killed with 15,000 injured, began on September 28, 2000 when Likud leader Ariel Sharon defiantly visited one of the most sacred shrines of the Muslim World. The shrine, known to Muslims as Haram Al Sharif, is a most sacred spot for the Jews who call it Temple Mount.

The survivors of the September 1982 massacre of unarmed Palestinians at Beirut's refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila have taken Israeli Premier Sharon to court in Brussels on charges of crimes against humanity (see Recorder No. 25). Where Israel is concerned, there is no way that Sharon would go to court Milosevic-style. But when one delves deeply into Israeli society one finds many who would be willing to sacrifice Sharon if this is to lead to what they perceive as cleansing the Arab World of dictators and other types of self-appointed rulers. In the Arab World - even in Libya and Syria where satellite dishes are now almost everywhere - there are many who have the same perception. The intellectual elite among them has already said openly that these rulers have been oppressing their people for too long.

The Milosevic trial has opened up a range of possibilities for others deemed as war criminals by the big powers. President Saddam Hussein of Iraq would be on the top of the list, but the chances of him surrendering are virtually zero, and the possibility that he may be handed over after an uprising by the Iraqi public - as happened in the case of Milosevic in Yugoslavia - are even less. This opens up a third option, a trial in absentia, which may begin to seem increasingly attractive to those who want to see the end of Saddam's regime.

In fact, the option of a war crimes tribunal to try Saddam and the Baathist elite had been floated in Washington in the final months of the Clinton administration. But it did not move forward partly because the focus shifted to campaigning for the presidential election by Albert Gore, and because Clinton wanted to end his second term without any further controversy, and on a positive note through farewell visits to various regions, etc.

The Bush administration, which has taken a tough approach towards the Iraqi regime - as opposed to the Iraqi people - via the "smart sanctions" approach, is likely to favour the idea of a trial in absentia as one way of squeezing Saddam and the top circle of the Iraqi leadership by preventing their ability to travel outside the country, among other things. Currently, top Iraqi officials freely travel overseas - especially to Europe - and these visits are often used as incentives by Saddam to maintain the loyalty of the inner circle of Baathists.

The key issue here, however, is absolute neutrality in choosing who is to be tried. Even the most liberal of public opinion in the Arab World would be willing to see Saddam tried only if the Israelis would permit Sharon to be tried as well, and vice versa. But in the current atmosphere in the Middle East, with Saddam taking maximum advantage by playing the Palestinian card and the Israelis having elected Sharon, there is not much scope for such liberal opinions to come to the forefront.

Thus few in Israel would openly support trying Sharon in an international court. Yet survivors of the Sabra and Shatila massacres, led by Lebanese lawyer Chibli Mallat, have initiated legal proceedings against Sharon in Belgium for crimes against humanity (see Recorder No. 20). The investigation is being carried out under Belgian law to determine whether he should face charges related to the massacre. Sharon started a European tour on July 4, but left Brussels - the headquarters of the EU and the current holder of the EU presidency - out of his itinerary.

The precedent set by the motion against Sharon could backlash against the Palestinians as well. An Israeli may begin a case against Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, charging him with terrorism. Moreover, some Israelis have pointed out that a domestic inquiry into the Sabra and Shatila massacre by the Kahan Commision found Sharon indirectly responsible and he had to resign as defence minister at the time. There has been no such Palestinian action against Arafat. Moreover, it has been noted that the 52-page complaint submitted by the massacre survivors accuses Israeli and Lebanese officials, but the only other one named in the complaint is Amos Yaron, then the Israeli army's commander in the Beirut area, while Lebanese individuals personally involved remain unnamed.

International Criminal Court: One idea that has been proposed, with strong lobbying by human rights organisations, is for the setting up of a permanent international criminal court (ICC). The objective is to have a neutral body which would impartially try all those accused of crimes against humanity. But the idea has been facing obstacles from the start, with political considerations as well as the interests of individual countries considered as paramount by leading members of the UN.

There is no global consensus for an ICC, which is opposed by dictatorships as well as by democracies such as the US and India on the grounds that such a court may then be used to press frivolous charges, among other things. Washington is concerned, for instance, that people that it considers statesmen, like former foreign secretary Henry Kissinger, may be taken to such a court for war crimes related to his conduct of US policies which affected Laos during the Vietnam War.

There are practical issues to be addressed as well in setting up such a court. In theory, a permanent court can initiate investigations, name suspects and arrest people outside their own countries with almost no oversight. Critics ask, for example, on what basis would such trials be organised? They point to the fact that the tribunals on Yugoslavia and Rwanda are ad hoc bodies formed specifically to prosecute those accused in the fighting that affected those countries. If democracies have a greater say in setting up such a court, that would relegate all authoritarian states to a second tier status in its formation - i.e. rule out significant participation from much of the Arab World.

Like the Kyoto Protocol for the environment, there are indications that the ICC may move ahead regardless of opposition. An annual assembly of whichever nations choose to ratify the treaty will govern the ICC. But once it comes into existence, the court will claim jurisdiction over nationals even of countries that do not ratify. Thirty-six of the needed 60 UN members have already ratified, and many more are close to doing so. Optimists project the ICC may be opened within the next two years.