Making Amends

With the brou-ha over Mrs. Pain Palin since Friday (and anyone who still thinks that being Commander in Chief of the Alaska National Guard constitutes command experience, check out this post at Armchair Generalist), it was easy to miss this story::

Libya and Italy signed an accord on Saturday under which Italy will pay $5 billion in compensation for colonial misdeeds during its decades-long rule of the North African country.

"This accord opens the door to the future cooperation and partnership between Italy and Libya," Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi said at the signing ceremony at a palace which was once the headquarters of the Rome government's senior official during the 1911-1943 colonial rule.

Wow.

Anthony Clark Arend has this take on it all:

"Needless to say, this is all part of Libya's "rehabilitation" and its movement away from "rogue" status, which began several years ago.

But on a related note-- can you imagine what would happen if Spain, Portugal, Great Britain, the Netherlands, and indeed, the United States were to "compensate" states for the "misdeeds" of colonialism?"

Hmm. There's an idea... in fact, this is not lost on various other former colonies of both Italy and other European powers.

One Day for the Watchman is more cautiously optimistic:

"One has to wonder how the human social, cultural, and personal toll of colonial oppression can be translated into a dollar figure, and one that might be seen as rather small. Otherwise, I personally think that compensation is important symbolically and politically, and in some instances could be very useful economically. Other nations will be right to begin to press their cases for compensation, especially when in so many instances, the majority in fact, formal colonial rule ended only in the last 40 to 50 years, with a significant mass of humanity (even if not the majority) having been born as colonial subjects."

Crime and What Punishment?

One of the big stories in the world this past week, until Clinton opened her mouth, was the spate of apologies issued by the US Government (first by Brig. Gen. Jeffery W. Hammond and then by President Bush )for a US soldier's use of a Qu'ran for target practice in Iraq.

At least there is some general consensus that apology was an appropriate response. The NY Times reports a general bipartisan consensus the act was wrong, and the apology the right thing to do. It's also the smart thing to do: social science evidence documents the importance of formal apologies for smoothing over relations between aggrieved groups, and reproducing collective standards of appropriate behavior. Some of it is documented in this book.

So an apology was in order. But was it be enough? Seems not. Interestingly, the dance of contrition seemed to be more of a news-story than the shooting itself. The USG has emphasized the apology but carefully protected the identity of the offending soldier and whisked him(her?) out of the country.

Iraqis didn't ask for a mere apology and Afghani protesters don't seem satisfied with one. The Sunni Association of Muslim Scholars made a very simple request: that the soldier receive the "most severe punishment possible." It's worth considering what that would be.

Though it is often said (and I seem to have read)that desecrating religious objects is a crime under international law, I've had a hard time identifying the clause in the laws of war that would actually cover this type of behavior. Even if it does, it would not be considered a "grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions, so the US isn't actually required under treaty law to prosecute the individual in question.

So the question becomes: how will Soldier X be tried under the Uniform Code of Military Justice? I am not well versed in military law (Cleitus?) but it strikes me that since Lieutenant William Calley got only three years of house arrest, and a quick pardon, for butchering 500 civilians, and since the US has decided not to prosecute those responsible for the deaths of that the "most severe punishment possible" under US law for shooting a Koran might not be as severe as Iraqis hope.