[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 5]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 6760-6761]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            H. CON. RES. 51

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                          Friday, May 2, 2014

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I, as no doubt all of you, have 
been shocked by images of horrific human rights violations, including 
summary executions, torture, rape, and chemical weapon attacks in 
Syria. Since the Syrian Civil War began, perhaps as many as 150,000 
people may have been killed and more than 9 million people have been 
forced to leave their homes, 6.5 million of them internally displaced. 
By the end of last year, it is estimated that neighboring countries 
such as Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq were holding nearly 3 million 
Syrian refugees.
  Who is culpable for such heinous acts, and how can they be held 
accountable, be they members of the Assad regime or Islamist radicals 
from neighboring countries? Those who have perpetrated human rights 
violations among the Syrian Government, the rebels, and the foreign 
fighters on both sides of this conflict, must be shown that their 
actions will have serious, predictable, and certain consequences. They 
need to learn the lesson that Charles Taylor learned when he got a 50-
year sentence when he was brought to trial and convicted by the Special 
Court for Sierra Leone.
  H. Con. Res. 51, introduced on September 9, calls for the creation of 
an international tribunal that would be more flexible and more 
efficient than the International Criminal Court to ensure 
accountability for human rights violations committed by all sides.
  Such a tribunal would draw upon past experience, creating a justice 
mechanism robust enough to hold perpetrators accountable for the most 
egregious wrongs, yet nimble enough not to derail chances for peace due 
to rigidity.
  Beginning with the Nuremburg and Tokyo tribunals, a body of law has 
developed concerning war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. 
Since the end of the Cold War, we have seen examples of ad hoc 
tribunals in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and hybrid mechanisms such 
as the Special Court for Sierra Leone. As chair of the subcommittee on 
human rights, especially during the 1990s, as well as the Helsinki 
Commission Chairman, I held a series of hearings on the Yugoslav 
courts, and those that were in Sierra Leone and Rwanda, and often had 
the chief prosecutors testify at those hearings, including Carla Del 
Ponte from the Yugoslav court and others from the Special Court for 
Sierra Leone, including David Crane. We brought David Crane back this 
past October 30 to ask him what his view would be on such a court, and 
he gave riveting testimony, as did other experts, as to the absolute 
need for the immediate establishment for this kind of flexible court.
  Each of these tribunals has achieved a level of success that has 
escaped the International Criminal Court. The Yugoslavia tribunal has 
won 67 convictions, the Rwanda tribunal has won 47, and the Sierra 
Leone tribunal has won 16 convictions. Meanwhile, the ICC--costing 
about $140 million annually--has thus far seen only one conviction.
  One thing we do not want to do is go down the ICC route. The ICC 
process is distant and has no local ownership of its justice process. 
It is far less flexible than an ad hoc tribunal, which can be designed 
to fit the situation. The ICC requires a referral. In the case of the 
President and Deputy President of Kenya, it was Kenya itself that 
facilitated the referral. That is highly unlikely in the case of Syria. 
Since Syria is a Russian client state, this U.N. Security Council 
member would oppose any referral of the Syria matter to the ICC, but 
might be convinced to support an ad hoc proceeding that focuses on war 
crimes by the government, as well as the rebels--one that allows for 
plea bargaining for witnesses and other legal negotiations to enable 
such a court to successfully punish at least some of the direct 
perpetrators of increasingly horrific crimes. And Syria, like the 
United States, never ratified the Rome Statute that created the ICC, 
which raises legitimate concerns about sovereignty with implications 
for our country, which this panel also addresses.
  There are issues that must be addressed for any Syria war crimes 
tribunal to be created and to operate successfully. There must be 
sustained international will for it to happen in a meaningful way. An 
agreed-upon system of law must be the basis for proceedings. An agreed-
upon structure, a funding mechanism and a location for the proceedings 
must be found. There must be a determination on which and how many 
targets of justice will be pursued. A timetable and time span of such a 
tribunal must be devised. And there are even more issues that must be 
settled before such an ad hoc tribunal can exist.
  Those who are even now perpetrating crimes against humanity must be 
shown that their crimes will not continue with impunity. Syria has been 
called the world's worst humanitarian crisis. One might reasonably also 
consider it the worst human rights crisis in the world today. 
Therefore, the international community owes it to the people of Syria, 
and their neighbors, to do all we can to bring to a halt the actions 
creating these crises for Syria and the region.
  We have the opportunity to give hope to the terrorized people of 
Syria. The subcommittee I chair held a hearing last October 30 where we 
heard from some of the most experienced voices concerning international 
justice mechanisms. We have met several times with the State 
Department, and we have worked diligently with the House Committee on 
Foreign Affairs--especially Ranking Member Eliot Engel and Chairman Ed 
Royce--in shaping a

[[Page 6761]]

lean, muscular resolution that can be adapted to address the situation 
in Syria as it currently exists, providing broad latitude for the 
administration to conduct foreign policy.
  The suffering of the Syrian people must end, and we have the 
opportunity to help achieve that. H. Con. Res. 51 is a means to that 
end, and again, those who are committing these horrific crimes need to 
know that they face the certitude of punishment.

                          ____________________