I was shocked by a statistic mentioned in the article “My Neighbor the Suspected War Criminal” — “Decades after passing the first substantive human rights statutes that make it possible to prosecute war criminals for crimes like torture and genocide, the U.S. has successfully prosecuted only one person under the laws.” Yet on some level, this statistic also makes sense. I’ve previously written about how the U.S. has long held pragmatic interests that prevent the prosecution of war crimes (last week, I mentioned this in the context of Israel-Palestine, and after the events of the weekend, prosecution seems even less likely…). Indeed, if the U.S. still functions as the “world’s policeman,” then the U.S. should hardly be the “world’s judge.”

But what country should step in to take its place? We hear about the efforts of two Syrian refugees to hold the Assad regime in Germany, thanks to the German legal system’s concept of universal jurisdiction. But prosecution in Germany only goes so far — even if Germany has no pragmatic/realpolitik objection to prosecuting war crimes — the New Statesman article notes that “most Syrians …  cannot follow it in detail in their home country.”

Actually, this observation gets at what I’ve been curious about regarding war crimes prosecution. If the most “justice” Syrian refugees will get is to come from trying Assad in abstentia, to a largely uncaring international audience, then what is the point of holding a trial in the first place? That is, what is the point of holding a trial if nobody will be deterred from committing war crimes in the future, nor will anyone have to suffer real consequences as a result of the trial? On the other hand, there are cases where Syrian officials have been held responsible in Germany, as The New York Times article discusses. But this, too, is an imperfect process: Witnesses are intimidated and refugees are afraid to speak up about their trauma in court.

I’m also deeply curious about the level of moral responsibility that we should attribute to leaders given the weight of historical context. Take the events of this weekend in Israel: There’s a fair argument that the extreme right-wing government of Israel, by refusing to respect the possibility of a two state solution and brutally trampling on the rights of Palestinians, bears some level of responsibility for provoking the Hamas to engage in increasingly violent terrorism. Of course, the brunt of the responsibility for taking hostages and killing civilians falls squarely on the shoulders of the Hamas — but should the actions of the Netanyahu government be any sort of mitigating factor in any war crimes trials that arise in the future? To what extent should past historical context influence the level of moral responsibility? Should the number of Palestinians oppressed and killed by Israeli soldiers be weighted against the number of Israelis killed and taken hostage this weekend? And, if a trial happens under universal jursidiction, should the German court system be the one responsible for determining the answers to all of these questions?

I find this weeks readings really interesting because it further complicates the issue of accountability.  When we see overwhelming support for Ukraine its seems difficult to understand why an ICC can’t join to prosecute Putin.  On the flip side even though I see this clear interest in holding Putin accountable he does seem a bit untouchable.  Like how could they realistically convict and imprison him and his highest leaders.  Ukraine is fighting for the right to convict Putin in the international court but there are so many roadblocks to achieving this.  What was interesting is how in the UN vote a lot of countries that generally condemn Russia abstained in the vote for a international tribunal to prosecute Russia. This introduces the political and economic incentives that make it difficult for people to choose between two opposing Powers.  With the US and Western Powers on one side and Russia, China, etc on the other.  These developing countries have to try to align themselves in the best interest of their countries.  This while it seems obvious now was not apparent in many of the earlier pieces we read in the past few weeks.  The US and Western Powers or even just developed nations have the privilege to be able to condemn Putin without facing consequences to their economy.  While this sets them apart to be leaders of the cause but also due to the democratic nature of international law puts us in a difficult position.  We can’t reach a democratic majority when the power imbalance exists between Nations outside of the apparent situation.

While the focus is on Ukraine in their present battle in the Russian War on Ukraine it is important to think about the justice that hasn’t been served.  Syrian people are still fighting for the crimes against their families to be tried and for their killers and tortures to be convicted. I really admire the lawyers that were not afraid to speak up in the face of the brutal regime.  And that even once they were able to reach safety are still fighting for justice.  It was cool that there is a place that has immense documentation of the torture that is kept secret to protect it. While we are key to try to prosecute Putin we should not forget about the past.  All war crimes should be prosecuted.  Whats more is that the Crimes of Aggression article brings up how only Blacks and Africans have been prosecuted.  This further adds this racial aspect and furthers the point that people in powerful countries can get away with crimes.

Enemy of Mankind is also a really good listen to understand the reasoning behind international trials in America.  Jurisprudence is a precarious thing that strikes the balance between precedent, constitutional review and changing eras.  The Alien Tort seems as much of a constitutional  review as a political response to outside pressure.  It is also interesting that laws that are largely forgotten can take new purpose.  That in taking this court case we could establish new precedent that could set of new commitment to human rights.

Universal jurisdiction is an interesting proposition for international justice. On the one hand, it provides an opportunity to bring accountability for crimes against humanity in a way that would not have been possible in the country where the crimes may be occurring. On the other hand, it feels hypocritical for Western imperial countries to make these judgments when they are sitting on crimes of aggression, as the podcast points out. Further, these judgments are made into the abyss with little meaningful consequences except for bridging to justice for low-ranking perpetrators within a huge system of unspeakable cruelty. 

In a world where indifference is the political status quo, at least beyond the mark of a performative tweet or a virtue-signaling announcement, I am moved by the argument that legitimizing war crimes in a court has significant value in that it makes it harder for other countries to continue about business as usual. The court proceedings and their coverage keep public attention, otherwise short-lived, on the case. Sometimes, it seems among the daily, hourly, minute-by-minute atrocities that occur in war, we lose track of the magnitude of each hurt. To organize it all, spell it out, and prove it makes it real on the public record. How can a government, while maintaining its public image, continue to make trade deals when these truths are in the news?

Further, acknowledging these experiences by a legitimate judicial power means a lot to survivors. As the New Statesmen article captured, “This is not a Syrian issue, but a European issue.” If the thousands of Syrian refugees in Europe, most of whom fled Assad, begin to lose faith in accountability and start to believe that “justice is fake” and nobody cares about their suffering, then “they will easily turn to extremism.”

Further, it reminded me of a scene from the reading from weeks back, where a Yazidi survivor in Germany saw her captor in a Berlin market. If for no other reason, universal jurisdiction has immense value in protecting her, the refugee,  from that fate in their new safe haven country. 

As The Reveal News piece notes, though human rights statutes have been in place for decades, only one individual has actually been prosecuted under these stautues. However, that hasn’t stopped civilians from taking action.  Reveal News’ discussion brought forward the example of civilians seeking accountability in the Sri Lankan civil war. A privately hired investigator in America found Rajapaksa. Victims utilize the Al Capone method and try war criminals for lesser crimes than genocide and tortue, with Sri Lankans filing cases in civil court due to a lack of action from the government on criminal prosecution. Linking this to my original discussion on the value of judicial validation of atrocity, I do think the Al Capone strategy keeps offenders in public attention and levies some some semblance of consequence, but does it minimize the actual crimes against humanity? They will still be left unacknowldeged under this model of justice, which causes me to pause when considering is this is a good alternative/method of resistance.

I’m curious about the relationship between Ukrainian refugees and Afghan refugees. I’ve seen news reports that Afghans have been forced out of government-provided housing in Germany to make room for Ukrainian refugees, and while there have been Afghans quoted in the media as being (understandably) frustrated by the German government’s prioritization of Ukrainian refugees, I wonder if Afghan and Ukrainian refugees have actually had direct contact with each other. That is, do the two groups encounter each other in Berlin at all? Are they able to communicate with each other, and if so, do tensions arise?

This is an especially relevant topic now that winter is approaching and refugees will need to be housed; I know Berlin has also been experiencing a housing crisis, meaning that housing is in short demand in general, especially for refugees.

A good starting point for this might be Berlin’s Tempelhof Airport, where both Ukrainian and Afghan refugees are housed together — I could wander around and interview refugees staying in the container homes there. I’d also be curious to learn about the German government’s thinking on Ukrainian vs Afghan refugees — I wonder if I could get a source from BAMF, the Federal office overseeing migrants and refugees. (I already have leads from Deb for two people who have an understanding of the situation on the ground, which should give me somewhere to start on this idea once I’m in Berlin.)

Another good place to go might be Tegel Airport, which still seems to be the site of Ukrainian refugee processing. (Interestingly enough, at Tegel, Ukrainian refugees are sent to different federal states, but trans refugees are specifically kept in Berlin — I’m curious about why.) I also wonder if any Afghan refugees are still trickling into Berlin — I sort of doubt it, but I think I could ask around about that, too.

Finally, if there are community centers for Afghan people, I think it would be worthwhile to make a visit and see if I could just do interviews with anybody there.

As for Princeton people to talk to, I have contact with Ambassador Raz (the former Afghan ambassador to the U.S., who’s now at the Afghan Policy Lab housed in the University) and Wolfgang Danspeckgruber, the founding director of the Liechtenstein Institute of Self-Determination — he’s worked extensively on Afghanistan issues and he’s been great to talk to. There’s also Wahid Wafa, of course. Since I haven’t written about Ukrainian refugees yet, I’m less sure of who to speak to for that topic, so I’d appreciate any help on that front.

If my idea about the relationship between Ukrainian and Afghan refugees doesn’t work out, I could also consider going to Hamburg (also known as little Kabul) to try and report on that community. I’m less eager to take that on, though, because that would involve six hours of travel in a single day. I’d also have to set up everything beforehand (to avoid wasting my time), and I’m not sure if I have a clear enough angle about Hamburg to justify the trip there.

In Berlin, I hope to focus on the stories of Palestinian refugees. Neukollon is one of the city’s most diverse boroughs, located in the southeastern part of the city center towards Berlin Schonefield Airport. The area is characterized as having one of the highest percentages of immigrants in Berlin. On the edge of the district, Sonnenallee is the artery of a thriving Arab community with shops from across the Middle East. Being such a diverse borough, different dialects of Arabic can be heard and most signs feature both Arabic and German. Many Palestinians, Moroccans, and Syrians dine on traditional food in this area and have a sense of community. There are many Palestinian-run businesses in the area, including stores selling “I Heart Palestine” scarves and trinkets next to miniature statues of Che Guevara, the Arabic bookstore Khan Aljanub, AL Berlin, a cafe-bar-nightclub with a Palestinian owner, and popular restaurants, like Azzam, which serves shawarma and falafels.

Also located in the neighborhood, Al-Huheh was set up in 1995 as the city’s first Palestinian society and been a first point of call for many Palestinians (and other Arab migrants) in Berlin. This organization shows Palestinian refugees how things work in Berlin and helps them meet people. It also hosts events with food and dancing and offers legal advice and relationship counseling. 

Though this place may be deemed a “cultural hub,” Germany does not recognize Palestinians as an official nationality, so most people remain underrepresented in government statistics. Despite Palestinian impact, Palestinians in Germany are often reduced in German media to a single political entity: hostile opponents of Israel, a state that Germans shouldering historical guilt for the Holocaust feel compelled to outspokenly support. In response, events such as the Saot Festival have been formed as an “interdisciplinary festival for solidarity with Palestine and intersectional struggles” for activists as tensions rise. Last week in Berlin, there was a rally for Palestine that was confronted by police repression. How do Palestinians confront a diverse city home to many refugees that they may not necessarily be welcome to?

I hope to explore what life is like for Palestinian refugees and how these tensions have affected their transition into German culture. Though I do not have a concrete specific source list just yet, I want to visit the borough of Neukollon, speak with the owners of these Palestinian-owned businesses to start, and then hopefully get connected to Palestinian refugees. I think an exact angle to my story will reveal itself once I am able to venture through the borough more and speak with people. Though they’re a smaller population in Berlin than Afghans, Syrians, and Ukrainians, their story, mixed with a complicated relationship with Germany that hasn’t been shared too much in the media, makes me want to cover them. In addition to covering potential tensions, I really want to focus the story on these cultural hubs that they consider home, and how they’ve found community in such a big city. I do worry about potential language and communication barriers in Berlin, but I hope that I will still be able to connect with many people.

For my article reporting out of Berlin, I want to write an article that updates German efforts to resettle Yazidi women and which parts of the program have worked or may not have worked. In August 2020, Time Magazine released an article titled “A Radical German Program Promised a Fresh Start to Yazidi Survivors of ISIS Captivity. But Some Women Are Still Longing for Help” – I imagine my article as a continuation of the analysis and reporting done in this article, but three years later. The world has changed significantly since the release of the original article, with growing anti-immigrant spreading across Europe, worsening refugee crises around the world (meaning there are more refugees in Germany), and the economic shocks of the COVID-19 pandemic. While these circumstances may prove challenging for Yazidi women in Germany, there is also growing hope. German courts are holding the perpetrators of their people’s genocide accountable. For my own piece, I want to interview women on their thoughts on the ongoing prosecution of crimes against Yazidi women and understand what it means to them to get legal justice. From there, I want to zoom out and consider the successes and failures of the Yazidi resettlement program in Germany and how Yazidi women feel about their future in their new country. If possible, I’d also love to get in touch with people working on the cases to understand what legal challenges may lie ahead.

The following quote from that article particularly stood out to me as something to expand on:

“Before she left Iraq, Hanan said she was given a piece of paper with information about what awaited her in Germany. “I wish I could find that paper now,” she says, “because the promises they gave us, they didn’t keep all of them.”

I want to speak to women about their experiences with the German resettlement program, the resources it offers, and if the quality is dipping as anti-immigrant sentiment rises in Germany. The German program and the figureheads it produced, such as Nadia Murad, have been widely lauded and used as an example in other countries, but it is not without fault. Specifically, I’d be interested in what therapy and mental health services have looked like for Yazidi women, given how much cultural sensitivity training it may require. The Time Magazine article also mentioned gynecological issues that Yazidi women dealt with during their time in captivity were not being tended to. At the time, the article reported that poor psychosocial care was the greatest misgiving Yazidi women had with German resettlement.  Finally, I want to investigate the future of Yazidi women in Germany. From my understanding of the conservative nature of Yazidi culture, I imagine that forging an economic future for themselves when many had to leave their male family members behind (or may have lost male family members) may be a challenge. I want to learn more about small businesses they may run, where they may be seeking employment, and the education rates for young Yazidi women growing up in Germany. 

Final project idea: Impunity for Russia’s war crimes in Syria caused a repeat in Ukraine.

I aim to analyze Russia’s involvement in Syria and its invasion of Ukraine. I want to draw parallels (and point out differences) between the weapons, the method of warfare, the objective of warfare of Russia in Syria and Ukraine. The goal is to show how the world’s legal or other inaction on Russia’s worst crimes allows it to commit them all over again (because repetition is if not prevented, certainly hindered by punishment). I want to include withness accounts of war crimes, open source intelligence reports of Russia’s war crimes, published stories, and perhaps if I can find sources who are currently preparing the legal case for Russia’s war crimes in Syria and Ukraine to interview.

There are many well-known Russias practices like bombing critical infrastructure in key cities to force people to flee or shelling entire towns until they are razed to the ground that Russia performed in Syria and then did again in Ukraine. What was done in Aleppo was done again in Mariupol. The lack of a way to hold Russia accountable for its war crimes in Syria caused them again in Ukraine. The world had more than half a decade to develop or seriously consider building international machinery for accountability for the worst of crimes that can possibly be committed but they didn’t (for reasons I may explore in my piece). I want to go into the details of what was done in Syria, and then exactly how it was repeated in Ukraine, and if I can find evidence for it what could’ve been done in Syria to prevent the repeat in Ukraine — it is perhaps true that Russia would’ve invaded Ukraine despite being punished for Syria because the objectives of the two wars do, at face value, appear different. Syria was done for retaining its only way to have an influence in the Middle East and Ukraine was to assimilate territory Russia believed to be its own. Determining the extent to which each of Russia’s most well documented war crimes in Syria could’ve been prevented in Ukraine had they been punished by the international community in concrete ways (which I also hope to enumerate) is essentially what the core of my piece will be. The parallels in the war crimes themselves will be the context.

My source list at the moment is: Tobias Schneider, Lubna Alkanawati, Mouaz Moustafa, Fred Kaplan, and Syrian and Ukrainian refugees I can meet in Berlin. (And more contacts Professor Amos gave me in our meeting today that I didn’t have the time to type up).

For my Final Project I am interested in focusing on Syrian refugees.  Right now I am mostly leaning towards looking at educational attainment and the difficulties of it.  I know there is always a discussion of forced migration and its effect on educational attainment.  From what I have seen in my research it can be quite difficult for Syrian refugees to adapt once in Germany.  I think over the entire course of education from grammar school all throughout higher education there is a struggle for people.  I think I would particularly focus on from the age around 12 and up.  This is because children born in the 2010s are at the age to have been apart of the crisis as well and be entering into their teenage years in the coming years.  There is however particular interest in Syrians aged 15–24 “whose higher education, professional development, and technical training has been disrupted as a result of the violence and general deterioration of Syria’s high schools, its public and private universities,”.  This is starting even before they were refugees in Germany.  We can then add in the burden of having to learn a completely new language and even having to repeat grades.  In the courses Syrian refugees are put into they often don’t focus on math and sciences which arguably in this day and age is very important to many careers. In higher education there is no distinction between an asylum seeker or refugee and an international student.  For the sake of equality this is not exactly an honest representation of their experiences.  I think also adding in the trauma and stress that can impact performance and ambition I think this is a worthwhile pursuit.  I think speaking to students across the specified age demographic would be helpful.  Also maybe talking to school officials in places that particularly have Syrian populations would be enlightening about how Germany accepts Syrian children.  Additionally maybe looking into the mental health aspect would be enlightening or resources to help.

I think that this could be a part of the greater discussion of the German integration regime.  My thesis is focusing on Post-interment social mobility of Japanese Americans.  This involves the discussion of assimilation ideas of Japanese Americans and opportunity and the imagined social structures that Japanese people were expected to uphold.  I think education and citizenship play a role in Germany seeing Syrians as a part of their country.  Right now Syrians make up almost 1% of the German population.  It would maybe suggest that Germany’s policy of integration over multiculturalism obscures the needs of Syrian refugees in order to actually succeed successfully in Germany. As I did research it showed that some Syrian refugees that desired higher education instead took up apprenticeships because there were so many barriers to education.  I think talking to immigration lawyers in Germany or even policy makers around the crisis might be enlightening to my final project endeavors.  This might be a bit expansive right now but I think starting big might allow me to hone the final topic.

I think this problem of accountability in wars of aggressions is so important but it can almost feel futile to attempt.  I want justice for the people who have faced horrible atrocities but across international borders it is so hard to do.  In my environment class last year we talked about treaties and laws and what it took for some to succeed and why most failed.  It went back the fact that even though national laws are binding, international laws can’t be enforced unless the countries apart of it agree to enforce it.  It is often easy to walk away from treaties that are not convenient to you countries agenda and often there isn’t a means to penalize that country in order to induce enforcement.  It is at this inability to enforce treaties or require participation that  we have this difficulty.  Most of the articles really hit home how difficult it would be to even establish the court to even prosecute the war crimes.  But then the question that is next is who will actually be prosecuted.  I mean even in America our country has committed war crimes that will never be prosecuted and what does that mean for anyone else.

This week in us looking at how civilian data and footage has been sued to find and prosecute war crimes and criminals I thought of my own research I have been doing.  I am apart of the Just Data Lab and have been doing research on the use of cell phones for tracking citizens.  I specifically look at how law enforcement tracks protestors.  We see the ways that the government can gain access to so much personal information through facial recognition, license scanner,  consumer data etc.  And every time I look up these sources there is an article about the danger of the ease of accessibility.  Then when  it comes to horrific atrocities  we are ok with allowing privacy to be breached in pursuit of these criminals.  I myself felt vindication in seeing how they were able to track important war crimes and locating the concentration camps in China.  Even when it came to the insurrection both private citizens and the FBI were able to use social media, data , geolocation etc. it was a collective effort.  I thought a lot about how we are able to reconcile these two similar uses of data.  I think as the Bellingcat documentary said its partly because when it is citizens doing it there is a lot more transparency in open source journalism that makes people more comfortable.  And then also of course our sense of law and order.  That if you commit these crimes you in a moral sense forfeit the right to privacy and we got to any means in order to bring justice to those impacted.  I think however the work of open source journalists is really cool and important.  Particularly I though it was so amazing how the architects were able to use the memories of blindfolded formerly imprisoend Syrians to recreate the inside of the Sednaya prison.

I thought it was quite interesting that international criminal proceedings — especially war crimes prosecution — bears so many differences from U.S. domestic law. There is, of course, the difference of trying to actually prosecute war crimes, but I was also struck by how much public opinion matters for international  justice — the Forbes article mentioned that a primary Russian strategy to stave off a war crimes investigation is running a public misinformation campaign. As journalists, this difference is something worth paying attention to — jurors in a U.S. trial are specifically prohibited from reading news coverage, but it seems like the media actually has an active role to play in enabling (or not enabling) prosecution of war crimes.

But perhaps the biggest difference is the countless political considerations that factor into play. The Western world has strong political incentive to prosecute Russia for war crimes in Ukraine — but when political and legal considerations intersect (i.e. in other parts of the world), what happens? For example, there is documented evidence of human rights abuses in the Israel-Palestine conflict, but because the U.S. has historically been a strong supporter of Israel, I doubt any prosecutions are coming anytime soon. With that consideration in mind, I wonder if journalism organizations ought to report on international crime proceedings as judicial proceedings or simply political proceedings — I worry there’s some level of danger to obfuscating war crimes prosecution with, say, the Justice Department’s prosecution of a white-collar criminal because of the highly politicized nature of the former.

On a separate note, I think this type of OSINT provides an interesting counterpoint to the type of reporting we discussed a few weeks ago — the type of reporting that just involves a journalist wandering around a war-torn country and getting slice-of-life details. Although I noted the ethical problems that “drive-by reporting” poses, is OSINT necessarily a more ethical way of doing journalism? If it is more ethical (because it relies completely on open-source intelligence and doesn’t rely on perhaps biased perspectives), is it a more effective way of doing journalism? Does it provoke the same response among readers? What I’m getting at, I think, is whether the majority of newsreaders nowadays read to be informed or read to be entertained/emotionally provoked — so I’d be curious to learn which type of reporting (on-the-ground vs OSINT) is more commercially viable or gets more clicks online.

I’m also interested in the commercial model behind Bellingcat’s journalism; I checked on Bellingcat’s website and it says a significant chunk of their revenue come from private donations. Actually, this seems to be a wider trend in new journalism ventures; the Texas Tribune is another prominent example of a nonprofit newsroom that I can think of. I wonder if the source of funding behind a newsroom influences the editorial decisions it makes (despite the supposed business/editorial firewall all newsrooms profess to have); I’d be interested in learning whether financial constraints ever play a role in determining what gets investigated — does a newsroom like Bellingcat ever give up on an investigation because there aren’t enough funds, or will they specifically raise funds until an investigation/story can get completed? (The second option would imply that a newsroom specifically funds coverage story-by-story.)