Immediate Establishment of Syrian War Crimes Tribunal Resolution

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I convened a subcommittee hearing on the desperate plight of Christians and other religious minorities in Iraq and Syria.

As images of beheaded American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff are seared into our consciousness, we would do well to honor their memories by recalling that they saw it as their mission to alert the world to the horrors committed by the fanatical Islamist terrorist group ISIS in Syria and Iraq: Children forced to view crucifixions and beheadings; women bartered, sold, and raped; prisoners lined up on their knees to be shot--this is ISIS' legacy.

Today Christians and other religious minorities, such as Yezidis, Shabaks, and Turkmen Shiites are not just facing a long winter without homes. They are not just hungry and thirsty and wandering from village to village in Northern Iraq and Kurdistan.

They are facing annihilation--genocide--by fanatics who see anyone who does not subscribe to its draconian and violent interpretation of Islam as fair game for enslavement, forced conversion or death.

If the phrase ``Never Again'' is to be more than well moving sentiment we simply give lip service to, then we must be prepared to act when we see genocide unfold before our very eyes.

After the U.S. pulled out of Iraq in March 2011 we left in charge a prime minister hostile to political inclusion of all Iraqis beyond simply Shiites. The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL--also known as the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS-saw an opportunity to exploit Sunni resentment at this treatment, and surged to fill the gap.

We withdrew, they surged.

This is not the ``Junior Varsity'' team of terrorists, as the President dismissively asserted earlier this year. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Iraq and Iran Brett McGurk has described ISIL as having ``unprecedented'' resources in terms of funds, weapons, and personnel.

We have seen what ISIS is doing in Syria, beheading and crucifying Christians and political opponents, taking hostages and kidnapping religious leaders, blowing up churches and mosques, and forcing religious minorities to convert, flee with the clothes on their backs, pay an exorbitant tax for infidels--or die.

When ISIS overran Mosul in June, Mosul's 35,000 inhabitants not too old or sick fled for their lives. At checkpoints leaving the city, ISIS took the Christians' wedding rings, money, travel papers, and medicines--even their cars. Families walked carrying their children, pushing wheelchairs with elderly parents, mile after mile into the hot, barren, Nineveh Plain. As ISIS continued to gain territory in July and August, the Christians fled further north, joining Yezidi and many other minorities trying to find safety in the Iraqi Kurdistan Region.

More than 1.7 million people have been displaced in Iraq this year. Many were Christians who fled the brutal Syrian civil war, now on the run again.

Where will they be safe?

Kurdistan, a region of 8.35 million people currently hosts nearly 750,000 refugees. The Kurdish Peshmerga militias are underfunded and under-armed, now that ISIS has captured U.S. heavy weaponry across Iraq. Yet they soldier on.

I have received emails from Bishops and nuns chronicling the dire needs of their flocks who are being ``exterminated'' and ``expelled'' from regions their people have occupied for millennia.

The U.S. has in the last few weeks geared-up for the humanitarian crisis. As of September 5, the U.S. had dedicated nearly $140 million in humanitarian assistance to Iraq--and USAID airlifted more than 60 metric tons of humanitarian aid into Kurdistan's capital of Erbil.

We need, however, to make sure that aid gets to people who need it most. This means working with religious leaders who are closest to those in need.

We may also need to invest more in our relationship with the Kurdish Regional Government--a regional government which has taken on the aspects of a de facto national government, and one whose brave militia men have stood up against ISIS while members of the Iraqi Armed Forces have folded and fled.

It must also be remarked and remembered with gratitude that the Kurdish Regional Government has extended protection to Christians

and other victims of religious persecution. While their record has not been perfect, the Kurds appear to be more tolerant of diversity of thought and belief than many of their neighbors.

But aid alone is not the solution. The U.S. has already spent $2.4 billion on the Syria humanitarian crisis that rages on.

We need shrewd power--a strategy for action that is in touch with reality on the ground. A strategy born of thinking ahead and preparing in advance for contingencies so that we are not playing catch-up while the enemy rapes, pillages, kidnaps, massacres--and amasses wealth and weapons.

The reality for religious minorities is that their very lives are at risk as long as ISIS controls territory and continues to gather strength on the ground, drawing funds and fighters from around the globe.

As Pope Francis has noted with regard to this crisis, ``where there is unjust aggression . . . it is licit to stop the unjust aggressor.''

This may indeed require the use of force, but it also requires using other means at our disposal. I have called for the establishment of a Syrian War Crimes Tribunal, and introduced H. Con. Res. 51 to hold all sides accountable for the heinous atrocities they have committed.

H. Con. Res. 51, introduced last September, 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.

With a Herculean diplomatic push by the United States and other interested nations, past success in creating war crimes courts can indeed be prologue. Such a tribunal would also draw upon past experience, creating a justice mechanism robust enough to right the most egregious wrongs, yet nimble enough not to derail chances for peace due to rigidity.

The Foreign Affairs Committee approved H. Con. Res. 51 on April 30, and I hope this measure will come before the House for a vote at the earliest possible time.

As ISIS does not respect borders, committing atrocities in both Iraq and Syria, the jurisdiction of such a tribunal could and should be expanded to hold ISIS accountable for its evil acts on either side of the border.

Today the Black Flag of ISIS flies over vast swaths of northern Iraq and even cities such as Fallujah, which we had won at such great cost. Indeed, ISIS says that they intend to see the Black Flag fly over the White House. Where the Black Flag flies, there is death and misery.

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 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.

Mr. Speaker, the two-year-old Syrian civil war has produced increasingly horrific human rights violations, including summary executions, torture and rape. Most recently, both government and rebel forces have targeted medical and humanitarian aid personnel. Snipers are reportedly targeting pregnant women and children. Since the Syrian civil war began, more than 100,000 people have been killed and nearly seven million people have been forced to leave their homes. By December of this year, it is estimated that neighboring countries such as Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq could see as many as 3.5 million Syrian refugees.

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 consequences.

H. Con. Res. 51, introduced on September 9th, 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. This hearing will examine the diplomatic, political, legal and logistical issues necessary for the establishment of such a court. Today's hearing will examine controversial issues such as sovereignty, the ICC versus ad hoc regional tribunals and the sponsorship of such a tribunal.

Perhaps the most famous war crimes tribunals were the Nuremburg and Tokyo trials--the post-World War II trials of Axis military officers and government functionaries responsible for almost unimaginable crimes against humanity. The Cold War rivalry between the United States and the former Soviet Union prevented the international cooperation necessary for war crimes tribunals to be convened by the United Nations. After the end of that international political conflict, there have been three particularly notable international tribunals to hold accountable those guilty of genocide or crimes against humanity: in the former Yugoslavia, in Rwanda and in Sierra Leone.

Each of these tribunals has achieved a level of success that has escaped the International Criminal Court. The Yugoslavia tribunal has won 69 convictions, the Rwanda tribunal has won 47 convictions and the Sierra Leone tribunal has won 16 convictions. Meanwhile, the ICC-- costing about $140 million annually--has thus far seen only one conviction.

The ICC process is distant and has no local ownership of its justice process. It is 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. Russia in the UN Security Council would likely 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 and 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 will also address.

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.

David Crane, one of today's witnesses, has suggested five potential mechanisms for a Syrian war crimes tribunal: An ad hoc court created by the United Nations; a regional court authorized by a treaty with a regional body; an internationalized domestic court; a domestic court comprised by Syrian nationals within a Syrian justice system; or the