Tweet
TRANSCRIPT: GEOFFREY ROBERTSON ON HIS LATEST BOOK THE INCONVENIENT GENOCIDE
ABC, Australia
Show: Lateline
Oct 20 2014
Elgin Marbles should be reunited in Athens
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Broadcast: 20/10/2014
Reporter: Emma Alberici
Human rights barrister and author discusses his attempt to have the
Elgin Marbles in the British Museum returned to Greece, and his latest
book , The Inconvenient Genocide
Transcript
EMMA ALBERICI, PRESENTER: My guest tonight is Geoffrey Robertson QC,
human rights lawyer, academic, author and broadcaster. In case you
missed it, he spent much of last week in Greece with his barrister
colleague, the new Mrs Clooney, Amal Alamuddin. The pair have worked
for three years to try to have the Elgin Marbles returned to Athens.
Almost 50 per cent of the sculptures that once decorated the exterior
of the Parthenon are at the British Museum, which continues to reject
requests to send them home. Geoffrey Robertson is back in Australia
and I caught up with him a little earlier tonight.
Geoffrey Robertson, welcome to Lateline. Good to have you here in
person, not via satellite for once.
GEOFFREY ROBERTSON, HUMAN RIGHTS BARRISTER & AUTHOR: Or in Athens.
EMMA ALBERICI: Indeed. You've just been to Greece in an effort to
have the Elgin Marbles returned to Athens from London. They've been
in British ownership now for something like 200 years.
GEOFFREY ROBERTSON: Well ownership is stretching the point. They were
stolen by Lord Elgin ...
EMMA ALBERICI: But that is a point of contention, I guess, because
the British ...
GEOFFREY ROBERTSON: No, it's not really. i think - we have the licence
that he extracted wrongly because he was ambassador and bankrupt
and wanted to make some money and it gave him permission to pick up
stones and make drawings. It didn't give him permission to rip the
Parthenon apart to get at these extraordinary marbles - sculptures.
EMMA ALBERICI: So is there a legal right? Does Athens have a legal
right to demand them back?
GEOFFREY ROBERTSON: Well, it's important to understand what they are
before - because the law operates on the fact that this is like a kind
of snapshot of what civilisation was like when it started. Because
I snuck into the British Museum the other day and I was astonished
by the fact that here, 2,500 years ago, 500 years before the birth
of Christ, is a picture of civilisation when it started. They were
communicating, they were having discourse, they were making love,
showing affection. They were drinking a lot of wine, which obviously
lubricated the beginnings of civilisation. But it's like a photograph.
And 55 per cent of these extraordinary sculptures made by Phidias are
in the British Museum and 40 per cent are in Athens where they belong
in the shadow over the Parthenon, which is this marvellous temple. And
in the British Museum, they're lit in bright white light and they're
like bodies in a mausoleum. They're like as if they were set out on
a mortuary slab. So, it's all wrong. And what we're trying to do is
to reunite this extraordinary picture. The British Museum is kind of
ripping it apart and we want to put it back together to understand it.
I mean, you get the body of Poseidon, the God of the sea - half of
it is in London and half of it is in Greece. Well, it all ought to
be there under the blue Attic sky in the shadow of the Parthenon at
the New Acropolis Museum. And that's the object, actually, to reunite
perhaps the most important work of art in the world, which - not for
the sake of Greece, particularly, but for the sake of the world.
EMMA ALBERICI: Well this British intransigence comes from the
very highest levels. David Cameron has said he has no intention of
repatriating them. The Mayor of London has said similar things. Do
you have any confidence at all that there's some movement likely?
GEOFFREY ROBERTSON: Yes, but most British people are in favour of
sending them back. The opinion polls always say 88 per cent of the
British want it - want them returned. And the great thing about
Britain, what makes it great, is that they do accept the umpire's
finger. If you're out, you're out. If you're given out by a court and
there is doctrine developing in international law about the return
of cultural property. There are courts - the International Court of
Justice, the European Court of Human Rights - that have acknowledged
this. We're seeing a lot of the Nazi art being returned under threat
of court action. UNESCO has given Britain six months to agree to a
mediation. If they don't agree, then I think a legal action will be
the way forward.
EMMA ALBERICI: Your colleague on this trip to Athens last week was
Amal Alamuddin, now known as Amal Clooney, after she married that
actor chap. Was it intentional, the timing of this particular trip,
given the media frenzy around the wedding?
GEOFFREY ROBERTSON: No, it was purely fortuitous, actually. We were
- I was asked to advise the Greek Government three years ago. And in
writing my opinion then, I brought in a very brilliant young associate,
Amal, who is a terrific international lawyer. She counter-signed the
opinion. And when we were asked to go and see the Greek Government
again, it just happened to be her first job after her honeymoon and
that's the way the world is.
EMMA ALBERICI: You have to say from a publicity perspective, it was
brilliant if you were trying to exert a little more pressure on the
British Government.
GEOFFREY ROBERTSON: Well it has had focus, it has caused - the way
the world is, it's caused a lot of attention to be drawn to this very
important matter. But we had to - we decided actually to cancel a
trip to the Parthenon itself, which was not necessary for the work
that we did, but because it would've simply provided an opportunity
for photographs to grace magazines around the world.
EMMA ALBERICI: Let's change gears now. I want to talk about your
latest book, The Inconvenient Genocide. It's about the massacre of
Armenians during the Ottoman Empire in 1915. Is it still illegal in
Turkey to recognise this as a genocide?
GEOFFREY ROBERTSON: Pretty much. It's the crime of insulting
Turkishness under rule 301 of the Criminal Code and you can go to
prison for it and some people do and there've been - it's quite
ludicrous. You go to prison if you affirm the genocide in Turkey
and you can go to prison if you deny it in places like France or
Switzerland. So it's a hot topic and it's going to get hotter as
we move up to the centenary, which has a particular resonance for
Australians.
EMMA ALBERICI: Indeed. You mention Julie Bishop in the book, and in
fact, you call her foolish.
GEOFFREY ROBERTSON: Yeah, she was - well, the drafting of her letter on
the subject was foolish because she said, "The Australian Government
doesn't recognise the genocide." Now that's a very provocative thing
to say. She went on to say that the Australian Government doesn't
get involved in this sensitive debate, which is an acceptable
thing to say and a contradictory thing to say, but of course it
was relished by the Turkish press, which had screaming headlines,
"Australia denies genocide," which was not, I suspect, the impression
that she wanted to give at all. The Parliament of New South Wales
has recognised the genocide and been threatened with exclusion from
Gallipoli on the centenary next year. So it is an interesting and
controversial question and a damaging question, I think, for reasons
I'll explain. But we should be aware that the trigger for the killing
of over half the Armenian race was in fact the landing at Gallipoli.
The genocide began on 24th April, 1915 when the boats were seen, the
ANZACs huddled in the landing craft and that is when they went out
and rounded up all the intellectuals, the Armenian community leaders,
school teachers, MP, journalists, took them away and killed them. And
that was the beginning of a set of of massacres, deportations, death
matches of women and their children and old men through the deserts
and at least a million Armenians were killed in the course of the
next few months.
EMMA ALBERICI: Am I right to say that in the book you seem to point
out a contradiction between what was written in the letter by Julie
Bishop in June of this year and what had previously been said by the
Prime Minister?
GEOFFREY ROBERTSON: Oh, yes, Tony Abbott when in opposition every
year and the Armenians commemorate the killing of their people on 24th
April, the day before we commemorate ANZAC Day, and Tony Abbott every
year would condemn the Armenian genocide. But of course, like President
Obama, who when he was on the campaign trail said it was a genocide,
"And when I'm President, I'm going to recognise it." Of course, when
he became President, the importance of Turkey as a NATO ally with its
bases that we're currently using in the battle against ISIS became too
important. The Turks were neuralgic about it. They threatened to close
down the American use of the bases. So, President Obama refers to it
each year as "Medz Yeghern", which is Armenian for "the great crime",
but doesn't mean pronouncing G-word. He says, "If you want to know my
views, they haven't changed. You'll have to Google them." And if you
Google them back to 2008, you find that he declared it was a genocide.
And in this book, I - the first thing I want to do is to clear up any
confusion and to explain and I've been an international judge, that
applying the law, the genocide convention, which our own Dr Evert
introduced to the United Nations in 1948, that what happened - the
massacres, the death marches in 1915 were certainly genocide. And the
problem with the Turkish denial is that they say, "Well, this wasn't
genocide, it wasn't a crime at all. It was relocation." Well it wasn't
relocation. It was death marching. And it's important to establish
that you can't claim military necessity as some sort of defence
to genocide, otherwise you find Rajapaksa in Sri Lanka justifying
the killing of 40,000 civilians get at the Tamil Tigers. You find
the Pakistanis justifying the killing of three million Bengalis in
the war in 1971. These are genocides pure and simple and there is no
defence of military necessity of anything else to the destruction of
a race or part of it.
EMMA ALBERICI: I want to talk about the mass killings that are
currently going on in Iraq and Syria, which many people think amount
to genocide. How easy do you think it's going to be to prosecute
Islamic State fighters, because of course, the world was a different
place when Nazi war criminals were brought to justice?
GEOFFREY ROBERTSON: But the crimes are the same - the crime against
humanity, genocide. I think what we've seen of Islamic State is
that they are a terrorist group that is committed - it certainly has
genocidal intentions. In the Nazis we base our claim of genocide on
the conference of Wannsee and the - Eichmann's minutes of it where
they talk in these extraordinary euphemisms about "evacuating" Jews,
by which they mean - to the east, by which they mean killing them
in Auschwitz, just as the Ottoman Empire talked about "relocating"
the Armenians, by which they meant having them die on death marches
through the desert. And so, we can - through inference from the facts,
we can draw a conclusion of genocidal intent and I think we can do
that in relation to ISIS because of the way in which they've singled
out religious communities who won't convert to their particularly
extreme fundamentalist view to be killed.
EMMA ALBERICI: You were against the 2003 Iraq invasion, but you
support the fight against Islamic State. What's the difference?
GEOFFREY ROBERTSON: Correct. Well, in a sense there's a link because
if we had obeyed the law, we wouldn't have overthrown the Baathist
regime in 2003 in Iraq, which - and underneath that stone, once it was
rolled over, crept all these horrific fighting groups and the latest
one of them being ISIS. So it may well be that ISIS wouldn't be with
us if we'd obeyed the law, and let's face it, there were only four who
didn't. There was George Bush, who wanted to kill the man who had -
he thought had threatened his father. There was Tony Blair, who went in
because he thought the British could restrain the Americans. There was
that Spanish President whose name I forget. He reminded me of Manuel
in Fawlty Towers. I think he's now been made a member of News Corp
board. And there was Johnny Howard, who perhaps didn't look at the
law or had forgotten it or never studied it when he became a solicitor.
But it was a bad mistake to go in to overthrow Saddam Hussein and
we are now left with ISIS and we have to deal with it. We have
an obligation to deal with it, I think, because it is committing
genocide. It is certainly committing war crimes and crimes against
humanity and that engages international attention. There was no crime
against humanity or genocide being committed by Saddam. He committed
genocide in 1988 against the Kurds, but the world turned a blind eye
to that. And so we have a duty, I think, to go in. I don't think air
strikes is going to solve of the problem. The problems are extremely
deep and will take a lot of solving and we have problems in our own
backyard with returning members of ISIS in Britain. They've adopted
a view, initially, that they should keep them out, but that means ...
EMMA ALBERICI: That's a view that's shared here too ...
GEOFFREY ROBERTSON: Yes, I know.
EMMA ALBERICI: ... in our government.
GEOFFREY ROBERTSON: But you can't make people stateless. The answer
I think is that you have to bring them back, arrest them and put them
on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity. We can do that.
There are those crimes under the Crimes Act. And I think that view
is gathering force in Britain.
EMMA ALBERICI: So you think it's wrong to deny them - to cancel their
passports, deny them re-entry to Australia?
GEOFFREY ROBERTSON: Well perhaps cancel their passports if they're
going, but when they come back, I think the answer is not to refuse
them and leave them stateless because that's - what we should do is
prosecute them, send them to prison for a long time, or perhaps - the
view in Britain is the Channel program. We're developing programs with
psychologists and imams and possibly returned jihadis to discourage
young people from joining. And it may be that instead of getting
a 25-year sentence for being an accomplice to war crimes in Syria,
you will get a reduction if you're prepared to help discourage other
people from taking this primrose path. But it's a problem that both
countries are facing. I think the answer is to prosecute for the crimes
that they've committed, for their accompliceship in these monstrous
events and to punish them and hopefully the punishment will act as
a deterrent itself.
EMMA ALBERICI: We have to leave it there. Many thanks for coming in,
Geoffrey Robertson.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2014/s4111106.htm
From: A. Papazian
ABC, Australia
Show: Lateline
Oct 20 2014
Elgin Marbles should be reunited in Athens
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Broadcast: 20/10/2014
Reporter: Emma Alberici
Human rights barrister and author discusses his attempt to have the
Elgin Marbles in the British Museum returned to Greece, and his latest
book , The Inconvenient Genocide
Transcript
EMMA ALBERICI, PRESENTER: My guest tonight is Geoffrey Robertson QC,
human rights lawyer, academic, author and broadcaster. In case you
missed it, he spent much of last week in Greece with his barrister
colleague, the new Mrs Clooney, Amal Alamuddin. The pair have worked
for three years to try to have the Elgin Marbles returned to Athens.
Almost 50 per cent of the sculptures that once decorated the exterior
of the Parthenon are at the British Museum, which continues to reject
requests to send them home. Geoffrey Robertson is back in Australia
and I caught up with him a little earlier tonight.
Geoffrey Robertson, welcome to Lateline. Good to have you here in
person, not via satellite for once.
GEOFFREY ROBERTSON, HUMAN RIGHTS BARRISTER & AUTHOR: Or in Athens.
EMMA ALBERICI: Indeed. You've just been to Greece in an effort to
have the Elgin Marbles returned to Athens from London. They've been
in British ownership now for something like 200 years.
GEOFFREY ROBERTSON: Well ownership is stretching the point. They were
stolen by Lord Elgin ...
EMMA ALBERICI: But that is a point of contention, I guess, because
the British ...
GEOFFREY ROBERTSON: No, it's not really. i think - we have the licence
that he extracted wrongly because he was ambassador and bankrupt
and wanted to make some money and it gave him permission to pick up
stones and make drawings. It didn't give him permission to rip the
Parthenon apart to get at these extraordinary marbles - sculptures.
EMMA ALBERICI: So is there a legal right? Does Athens have a legal
right to demand them back?
GEOFFREY ROBERTSON: Well, it's important to understand what they are
before - because the law operates on the fact that this is like a kind
of snapshot of what civilisation was like when it started. Because
I snuck into the British Museum the other day and I was astonished
by the fact that here, 2,500 years ago, 500 years before the birth
of Christ, is a picture of civilisation when it started. They were
communicating, they were having discourse, they were making love,
showing affection. They were drinking a lot of wine, which obviously
lubricated the beginnings of civilisation. But it's like a photograph.
And 55 per cent of these extraordinary sculptures made by Phidias are
in the British Museum and 40 per cent are in Athens where they belong
in the shadow over the Parthenon, which is this marvellous temple. And
in the British Museum, they're lit in bright white light and they're
like bodies in a mausoleum. They're like as if they were set out on
a mortuary slab. So, it's all wrong. And what we're trying to do is
to reunite this extraordinary picture. The British Museum is kind of
ripping it apart and we want to put it back together to understand it.
I mean, you get the body of Poseidon, the God of the sea - half of
it is in London and half of it is in Greece. Well, it all ought to
be there under the blue Attic sky in the shadow of the Parthenon at
the New Acropolis Museum. And that's the object, actually, to reunite
perhaps the most important work of art in the world, which - not for
the sake of Greece, particularly, but for the sake of the world.
EMMA ALBERICI: Well this British intransigence comes from the
very highest levels. David Cameron has said he has no intention of
repatriating them. The Mayor of London has said similar things. Do
you have any confidence at all that there's some movement likely?
GEOFFREY ROBERTSON: Yes, but most British people are in favour of
sending them back. The opinion polls always say 88 per cent of the
British want it - want them returned. And the great thing about
Britain, what makes it great, is that they do accept the umpire's
finger. If you're out, you're out. If you're given out by a court and
there is doctrine developing in international law about the return
of cultural property. There are courts - the International Court of
Justice, the European Court of Human Rights - that have acknowledged
this. We're seeing a lot of the Nazi art being returned under threat
of court action. UNESCO has given Britain six months to agree to a
mediation. If they don't agree, then I think a legal action will be
the way forward.
EMMA ALBERICI: Your colleague on this trip to Athens last week was
Amal Alamuddin, now known as Amal Clooney, after she married that
actor chap. Was it intentional, the timing of this particular trip,
given the media frenzy around the wedding?
GEOFFREY ROBERTSON: No, it was purely fortuitous, actually. We were
- I was asked to advise the Greek Government three years ago. And in
writing my opinion then, I brought in a very brilliant young associate,
Amal, who is a terrific international lawyer. She counter-signed the
opinion. And when we were asked to go and see the Greek Government
again, it just happened to be her first job after her honeymoon and
that's the way the world is.
EMMA ALBERICI: You have to say from a publicity perspective, it was
brilliant if you were trying to exert a little more pressure on the
British Government.
GEOFFREY ROBERTSON: Well it has had focus, it has caused - the way
the world is, it's caused a lot of attention to be drawn to this very
important matter. But we had to - we decided actually to cancel a
trip to the Parthenon itself, which was not necessary for the work
that we did, but because it would've simply provided an opportunity
for photographs to grace magazines around the world.
EMMA ALBERICI: Let's change gears now. I want to talk about your
latest book, The Inconvenient Genocide. It's about the massacre of
Armenians during the Ottoman Empire in 1915. Is it still illegal in
Turkey to recognise this as a genocide?
GEOFFREY ROBERTSON: Pretty much. It's the crime of insulting
Turkishness under rule 301 of the Criminal Code and you can go to
prison for it and some people do and there've been - it's quite
ludicrous. You go to prison if you affirm the genocide in Turkey
and you can go to prison if you deny it in places like France or
Switzerland. So it's a hot topic and it's going to get hotter as
we move up to the centenary, which has a particular resonance for
Australians.
EMMA ALBERICI: Indeed. You mention Julie Bishop in the book, and in
fact, you call her foolish.
GEOFFREY ROBERTSON: Yeah, she was - well, the drafting of her letter on
the subject was foolish because she said, "The Australian Government
doesn't recognise the genocide." Now that's a very provocative thing
to say. She went on to say that the Australian Government doesn't
get involved in this sensitive debate, which is an acceptable
thing to say and a contradictory thing to say, but of course it
was relished by the Turkish press, which had screaming headlines,
"Australia denies genocide," which was not, I suspect, the impression
that she wanted to give at all. The Parliament of New South Wales
has recognised the genocide and been threatened with exclusion from
Gallipoli on the centenary next year. So it is an interesting and
controversial question and a damaging question, I think, for reasons
I'll explain. But we should be aware that the trigger for the killing
of over half the Armenian race was in fact the landing at Gallipoli.
The genocide began on 24th April, 1915 when the boats were seen, the
ANZACs huddled in the landing craft and that is when they went out
and rounded up all the intellectuals, the Armenian community leaders,
school teachers, MP, journalists, took them away and killed them. And
that was the beginning of a set of of massacres, deportations, death
matches of women and their children and old men through the deserts
and at least a million Armenians were killed in the course of the
next few months.
EMMA ALBERICI: Am I right to say that in the book you seem to point
out a contradiction between what was written in the letter by Julie
Bishop in June of this year and what had previously been said by the
Prime Minister?
GEOFFREY ROBERTSON: Oh, yes, Tony Abbott when in opposition every
year and the Armenians commemorate the killing of their people on 24th
April, the day before we commemorate ANZAC Day, and Tony Abbott every
year would condemn the Armenian genocide. But of course, like President
Obama, who when he was on the campaign trail said it was a genocide,
"And when I'm President, I'm going to recognise it." Of course, when
he became President, the importance of Turkey as a NATO ally with its
bases that we're currently using in the battle against ISIS became too
important. The Turks were neuralgic about it. They threatened to close
down the American use of the bases. So, President Obama refers to it
each year as "Medz Yeghern", which is Armenian for "the great crime",
but doesn't mean pronouncing G-word. He says, "If you want to know my
views, they haven't changed. You'll have to Google them." And if you
Google them back to 2008, you find that he declared it was a genocide.
And in this book, I - the first thing I want to do is to clear up any
confusion and to explain and I've been an international judge, that
applying the law, the genocide convention, which our own Dr Evert
introduced to the United Nations in 1948, that what happened - the
massacres, the death marches in 1915 were certainly genocide. And the
problem with the Turkish denial is that they say, "Well, this wasn't
genocide, it wasn't a crime at all. It was relocation." Well it wasn't
relocation. It was death marching. And it's important to establish
that you can't claim military necessity as some sort of defence
to genocide, otherwise you find Rajapaksa in Sri Lanka justifying
the killing of 40,000 civilians get at the Tamil Tigers. You find
the Pakistanis justifying the killing of three million Bengalis in
the war in 1971. These are genocides pure and simple and there is no
defence of military necessity of anything else to the destruction of
a race or part of it.
EMMA ALBERICI: I want to talk about the mass killings that are
currently going on in Iraq and Syria, which many people think amount
to genocide. How easy do you think it's going to be to prosecute
Islamic State fighters, because of course, the world was a different
place when Nazi war criminals were brought to justice?
GEOFFREY ROBERTSON: But the crimes are the same - the crime against
humanity, genocide. I think what we've seen of Islamic State is
that they are a terrorist group that is committed - it certainly has
genocidal intentions. In the Nazis we base our claim of genocide on
the conference of Wannsee and the - Eichmann's minutes of it where
they talk in these extraordinary euphemisms about "evacuating" Jews,
by which they mean - to the east, by which they mean killing them
in Auschwitz, just as the Ottoman Empire talked about "relocating"
the Armenians, by which they meant having them die on death marches
through the desert. And so, we can - through inference from the facts,
we can draw a conclusion of genocidal intent and I think we can do
that in relation to ISIS because of the way in which they've singled
out religious communities who won't convert to their particularly
extreme fundamentalist view to be killed.
EMMA ALBERICI: You were against the 2003 Iraq invasion, but you
support the fight against Islamic State. What's the difference?
GEOFFREY ROBERTSON: Correct. Well, in a sense there's a link because
if we had obeyed the law, we wouldn't have overthrown the Baathist
regime in 2003 in Iraq, which - and underneath that stone, once it was
rolled over, crept all these horrific fighting groups and the latest
one of them being ISIS. So it may well be that ISIS wouldn't be with
us if we'd obeyed the law, and let's face it, there were only four who
didn't. There was George Bush, who wanted to kill the man who had -
he thought had threatened his father. There was Tony Blair, who went in
because he thought the British could restrain the Americans. There was
that Spanish President whose name I forget. He reminded me of Manuel
in Fawlty Towers. I think he's now been made a member of News Corp
board. And there was Johnny Howard, who perhaps didn't look at the
law or had forgotten it or never studied it when he became a solicitor.
But it was a bad mistake to go in to overthrow Saddam Hussein and
we are now left with ISIS and we have to deal with it. We have
an obligation to deal with it, I think, because it is committing
genocide. It is certainly committing war crimes and crimes against
humanity and that engages international attention. There was no crime
against humanity or genocide being committed by Saddam. He committed
genocide in 1988 against the Kurds, but the world turned a blind eye
to that. And so we have a duty, I think, to go in. I don't think air
strikes is going to solve of the problem. The problems are extremely
deep and will take a lot of solving and we have problems in our own
backyard with returning members of ISIS in Britain. They've adopted
a view, initially, that they should keep them out, but that means ...
EMMA ALBERICI: That's a view that's shared here too ...
GEOFFREY ROBERTSON: Yes, I know.
EMMA ALBERICI: ... in our government.
GEOFFREY ROBERTSON: But you can't make people stateless. The answer
I think is that you have to bring them back, arrest them and put them
on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity. We can do that.
There are those crimes under the Crimes Act. And I think that view
is gathering force in Britain.
EMMA ALBERICI: So you think it's wrong to deny them - to cancel their
passports, deny them re-entry to Australia?
GEOFFREY ROBERTSON: Well perhaps cancel their passports if they're
going, but when they come back, I think the answer is not to refuse
them and leave them stateless because that's - what we should do is
prosecute them, send them to prison for a long time, or perhaps - the
view in Britain is the Channel program. We're developing programs with
psychologists and imams and possibly returned jihadis to discourage
young people from joining. And it may be that instead of getting
a 25-year sentence for being an accomplice to war crimes in Syria,
you will get a reduction if you're prepared to help discourage other
people from taking this primrose path. But it's a problem that both
countries are facing. I think the answer is to prosecute for the crimes
that they've committed, for their accompliceship in these monstrous
events and to punish them and hopefully the punishment will act as
a deterrent itself.
EMMA ALBERICI: We have to leave it there. Many thanks for coming in,
Geoffrey Robertson.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2014/s4111106.htm
From: A. Papazian