War Crimes

What a way to spark off the New Year not only with a nice piece on the International Criminal Court, but a nice piece about the ICC and the presidential candidates!  And all this the day before the Iowa caucus.  Was I a good boy last year, or what?

So, it seems the San Francisco Chronicle petitioned the presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle about their perceptions of U.S. membership into the court.  Some background; Bush has been largely opposed to the ICC, citing concerns over sovereignty and the murky murky waters of bilateral arrangements. There is the one glaring exception with the referral of the Sudanese case to the ICC by the U.N. Security Council, but that was more of a U.N. measure and less so an ICC one, so I’ll give W a “by” on that one.

Sens. McCain, Clinton and Obama took the soft “wait and see” approach, saying they would embrace the court if there were more provisions protection U.S. personnel.  But, things get sticky when we consider the “Hague Invasion Act” that allows military intervention to free would-be U.S. prisoners from the Hague.  In that one, the hawks Clinton and McCain jumped on board (military invasion good) and so did Mr. Hair Cut himself, John Edwards, but Biden, Kucinich and Dodd opposed the measure, to no great surprise.

Now, some see this as something of a sign of the times.  Is the U.S. going down the multi-lateral route that would suggest the once High And Mighty United States is in the same league with, god forbid, the French?  Or do we all jump on the Ron Paul magic carpet ride with this little gem; “America must either remain a constitutional republic or submit to international law because it cannot do both.” (the Supreme Court ruled in the Paquete Habana case that “international law is part of our law”  – good job DOCTOR Paul. Heidi Klum would “out” you for that, ya know!)

It seems this is one of those contentious issues in international law.  Yes, certainly there should be an independent forum to examine atrocities, but can we give it jurisdiction over the affairs of sovereign states?  No, and I don’t think the ICC does that.  One of the tenets of the court is that it requires either state permission or some other mandate to intervene in the affairs of state, as in the Sudanese case.  I think the U.S. is afraid that incidents such as Abu Ghraib et al will land the Marines and Co. in prison as show-trials at the international court.  With the albeit jaded trials at Camp Pendleton and so on, it seems the candidates should take a page out of the Clinton (and I mean Bill) playbook and play nice with the international community to re-build the American legacy that ol’ W seems to have forgotten.

With memorials and various observations making headlines today, I will break with protocol and comment some of the legal ramifications of the war on terror. In response to the attacks against the Pentagon, the World Trade Center, and the failed attack that crashed in Pennsylvania, the Bush administration launched the “war on terror”; a military response targeting terrorist organizations - notably al-Qa’ida. On September 18, 2001, the U.S. enacted Senate Joint Resolution 23: Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). This stated that;

“…the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons.”

Additionally, Bush, on November 13^th, 2001, issued a military order entitled “Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism”, in which he stated “The term ‘individual subject to this order’ shall mean any individual who is not a United States citizen with respect to whom I determine…” (emphasis added) was involved with a terrorist organization.

These statements have been used by the Bush administration as the justification to detain foreign nationals for suspected involvement with terrorists. In response to a succession of Supreme Court cases, however, the Bush administration was forced to reconfigure various legislation to conform with the U.S. Constitution, notably Article I, Section 8, which states it is within congressional authority to declare wars and “make rules concerning captures on land and water.” In response, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which defines the rules for prosecuting individuals accused of being terrorists, and classifies conspiracy - and other charges - are violations of the laws of war, according to U.S. law.

The use of terrorism is employed primarily to gain attention and to serve as a tool of propaganda. The attacks of militant groups are more propaganda than (more…)

Regarding the war in Iraq, the U.S. military has prosecuted more than 200 cases against its own personnel for crimes against humanity and the violations of the laws of war, including murder, rape, and kidnapping. Christian conservative groups, in coordination with some veterans associations, have established a grass-roots funding campaign to defend the accused and voice their support. Some of the donations include letters stating that “the bible says” Iraq will always be at war and that “the military’s work is God’s work.”

The groups are claiming that the top military brass are “eating their young” and basing their prosecutions on flimsy evidence. They site the recent dismissal of charges against Lance Corporal Justin Sharatt, who was charged with murder in Haditha in 2005. The groups are using evangelical rhetoric that appears aligned with some of the reasoning used by President Bush to support continued military operations in Iraq. The group www.marinedefensefund.com has stated that “the insurgency has found a new weapon” by accusing U.S. military personnel of war crimes. In addition, spokesmen for the group Military Combat Defense Fund stated that religious conviction drives their grass roots efforts. None of the groups, however, seek assistance for military personnel who have pleaded guilty.

Military records show that there have been many cases involving crimes against humanity and violations of the laws of war in Iraq. U.S. Marines have been accused of murder for 24 Iraqi citizens in the town of Haditha in 2005. In another case, soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division gang raped a 14-year old girl and murdered her and her family. The military is seeking sentences ranging from 100 year sentences to death.

Religious beliefs are the justification for the most violent conflicts in human history. In recent times, both sides in the Iraq war are claiming some moral authority justifies their actions. Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims have been embattled over their beliefs for centuries, while U.S. officials continue with references to the Christian God in their inspirational messages regarding military action in Iraq. An objective analysis would put evangelical beliefs on par with some of the fundamental Islamic groups. The willingness of the U.S. military to examine its own conduct in the court of law, however, suggest there is still of voice of pragmatism in the laws of war.

New York Times

An Australian coroner has been told by an Australian inquiry to refer two individuals for war crimes prosecution for the murder of five Australian journalists during the invasion of East Timor in 1975. The so-called “Balibo five” were allegedly killed while attempting to surrender to Indonesian troops. According to witness testimony supplied by senior lawyers in the case, one man was stabbed to death and the others were shot on order from an Indonesian military captain. It is suspected the journalists were killed to prevent them reporting on Indonesian military actions. The allegations are denied by both the Australian and Indonesian governments.

Indonesia invaded East Timor on December 7, 1975 in an attempted annexation with the military and political support of the United States and Australia.

Journalists are protected under the Geneva Conventions. According to the 1949 Conventions, journalists were treated according to provisions afforded to normal combatants, however, the 1977 Conventions reclassify journalists as civilians. Civilians – and journalists - “shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited” provided they do not partake in hostilities and are able to differentiate themselves from military personnel.

The current conflict regarding international militias that are not affiliated with the armed forces of a state has resulted in some of the worst atrocities committed against war correspondents in over a quarter century. According to the Paris-based Reporters Without Borders, at least 177 journalists have been killed in the current conflict in Iraq. Nine have been killed in Iraq during the month of May, including Ali Khalil. Khalil, 21, was reporting for one of Iraq’s most popular newspapers, Azzaman.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged architect of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on The United States, has confessed to beheading Wall Street Journal reporter, Daniel Pearl, on February 1, 2002. Mr. Pearl was investigating the shoe bomber, Richard Reid, in Karachi, Pakistan.

Alan Johnston, the BBC correspondent in Palestine, was kidnapped by members of the al-Tawhid al-Jihad Brigade in Gaza City. Mr. Johnston was abducted on March 12 and remains in captivity.

According to the Geneva Conventions, guerilla forces are to honor the protections enjoyed by all civilians in combat zones.

UPDATE: GAZA (Reuters) - Kidnapped BBC Gaza correspondent Alan Johnston said he was in good health and being treated well in a video released on Friday, the first since militants abducted him in the Palestinian enclave over 11 weeks ago.

The Nuremburg Defense was invoked to justify the Jewish Holocaust at the hands of Hitler’s regime. In essence, this defense says that following orders from ones superiors absolves the accused of responsibility. The Nuremburg Tribunal deemed this inadequate defense, stating that the defense of superior orders does not trump morality. However, arguing on the behalf of the righteous, St. Augustine argued that from the hand of Divinity, or superiority, comes the path of righteousness. Thus, killing in the name of righteousness does not violate ‘thou shalt not kill.’

Nietzsche orates on a ‘tablet of virtues.’ Each of us has a tablet of virtues that we carry and this set of moral dictums is represented by collective society. What holds for the Muslims may not hold for the Catholics. What holds for the Germans did not hold for the Jews. For, as Nietzsche says, my tablet of virtues hangs over my head alone, not yours. But, this tablet is derived from ‘above’; some notion of superiority, be it a deity, a general, a president, or a dictator. Yet, as Aristotle asks, does Man follow the word of God because it is His word, or because His word is good – the very debate on the Nuremberg Defense.

Thucydides believes that people are driven by pride, fear, and self interest. Because of this, they are always searching for ways to gain the advantage, while the rules of competition dictate that others try to handicap them. In an interactive system of units guided by self-interest, such as foreign relations, the bias of self-interest obliges states to become hyper-sensitive and hyper-responsive to factors that influence power. The bias of self-interest drives unites to prevent the ascension of others. Hitler did it, it occurred in Yugoslavia, and it occurs today.

The bias of self-interest also invokes a pre-occupation with self worth. The individual unit in any system views itself as righteous, capable, and deserving and this bias forms the basis of ideology. Social scientists note that this bias is unconscious and aggregates in collective in-group solidarity. It is a source of legitimacy among units operating within the same ideological set. Validity is therefore a comparative notion and derived from perceptions of threat. I will only cheat insomuch as I think you will cheat. I am right insofar as I see you as wrong.

Considering in-group tendencies towards solidarity, conflict between units is inevitable. Each unit lays claim to benevolence and piety and each unit is threatened by the other. If I feel you may cheat, I must be prepared to cheat. The same applies to the use of force. I must be prepared to use force, murder, rape or torture if I feel you are about to do the same. This is especially true if I see you as a threat to my survival. And, if I see you as especially powerful, you may frighten me and encourage me to lash out. Conversely, if I am powerful, I am more certain that my power is a reflection of my righteousness. I am then obliged to enforce it, as the Pope sanctioned the Crusades, as Hitler sanctioned the Crusades, as Slobodan Milosevic sanctioned his atrocities, and as even as America sanctions Iraq. According to the international theorist, Kenneth Waltz; “The possession of great power has often tempted nations to the unnecessary and fooling employment of force … since justice cannot be objectively defined, the temptation of a powerful nation is to claim that the solution it seeks to impose is a just one.”

Throughout history, Man has committed the most atrocious acts in the name of righteousness. Benevolence is relative. Those who hold capital punishment as just may oppose abortion. Is the death of one to save four lives acceptable? A hundred deaths to save thousands? Millions of deaths to save a nation? Looking further into relativism, we must compare acts to one another. In just war, the cause of death is relative to the cause itself. But again, we must remember that no party to conflict is beyond in-group bias. The Crusades, the treatment of Native Americans, African slavery, the Armenian genocide, The Holocaust, Srebrenica, Rwanda, and Darfur are horrific examples of the evil of man, but each had its justification by its perpatrators. It does not matter who Man is or what His cause; if man sees enemies beyond every horizon, he will find enemies behind every corner and act accordingly.

Nietzsche quote is from “Master and Slave Morality”

Dolly Chugh presented the notion of in-group bias as “bounded ethicality”

Waltz is quoted from “Theory of International Politics”

Thucydides is referenced from Robert Gilpin’s “The Theory of Hegemonic War”

Just war theory is derived from Alexander Mosely.

Aristotle is from The Nicomachean Ethics.

At 4:40 pm on April 26^th, 1937, the most advanced aircraft from Adolf Hitler’s “Condor Legion” approached the Basque town of Guernica. It was a Monday afternoon and the markets were packed with shoppers and peasants. The church bell suddenly rang out, signifying the approach of enemy aircraft. For the next three hours, Guernica was carpet-bombed with incendiary bombs, setting the town ablaze. Guernica had no air defense systems and the German and Italian aircraft were unabated. Those fleeing the attack were met with high-caliber gun fire by the low flying assault. According to reports filed by George Steer, a war correspondent for The Times of London, “The object of the bombardment was seemingly the demoralization of the civil population and the destruction of the cradle of the Basque race.” Steer continued, “The whole town of 7,000 inhabitants, plus 3,000 refugees, was slowly and systematically pounded to pieces.” The bridges and factories were not bombed and no strategic military objectives were targeted. It was one of the first aerial assaults against civilians in the history of warfare.

The attack was on behalf of General Fransisco Franco, who wanted to send a message to the Basque people during the Spanish Civil War. The Basque regions were central areas of opposition to Franco’s nationalist movement. The bombardment of Guernica was intended to terrorize the Basques. Estimates of the civilian death toll range from as few as 250, to over 1000, or nearly 15% of the population. Three quarters of the town was reduced to rubble. The world reacted with outrage at the random attack on a civilian population after the publication of George Steer’s account in The Times of London and New York. Three years after the bombing of Guernica, the German air force destroyed most of London with nearly a month of bombardment in 1940. Five years later, the city of Dresden was subjected to fire bombing, killing 25,000 civilians. And in August 1945, two atomic bombs were dropped on Japan, killing over 200,000 Japanese civilians.

Following the atrocities committed on all sides during World War II, the international community ratified four treaties conventionally known as The Geneva Conventions. These Conventions outline the treatment of prisoners of war and decries attacks on civilian targets. To date, 194 countries have ratified the treaty. Given the sterile moniker of ‘collateral damage’, civilian deaths during warfare are inevitable. Yet, with the genocide in Darfur, Mogadishu, Rwanda, Srebrenica, the killing fields in Cambodia, the regime of General Pinochet, Halabja in Iraq, and even the “shock and awe” campaign in Iraq, 70 years after the bombardment of Guernica, the conduct of man remains unchanged.

Memorials will be held today in California, Massachusetts, and Michigan marking the anniversary of the Armenian genocides that began in the Turkish Ottoman empire on this day in 1915. During World War I, hundreds of thousands, to millions of the Armenian community were forced on a death-march to Syria and Iraq. The Armenian diaspora in the United States has been urging the US government to formally recognize the deaths of more than a million Armenians as genocide. However, because of close ties between the US and Turkey, officials have been reluctant to comply. Currently, Russia, France, and Canada are among countries describing the events as genocide, while Israel, Britain, and the United States have voiced doubt.

Members of the Armenian elite were rounded up and executed on April 24^th, 1915 at the behest of the Ottoman government. This led to a watershed of persecution against Armenians, as the government forced the deportation of most of their population. A special unit known as the Teskilat-i Mahsusa, or Special Organization, had the mission to exterminate the Armenians. According to Vahakn Dadrian, a preeminent scholar on the Armenian genocide, The Special Organization’s mission “was to deploy in remote areas of Turkey’s interior and to ambush and destroy convoys of Armenian deportees … [The Special Organization’s] principal duty was the execution of the Armenian genocide.” It is estimated that millions of Armenians died of starvation and disease during their forced deportation.

Other evidence from the Memoirs of Naim Bey, an Armenian compendium of testimonies from survivors of the deportation, gives a more in depth account of the atrocities. According to the accounts outlined in a September 16^th, 1915 telegram, the Committee on Union and Progress, the party of the Young Turks, made it policy to “destroy completely all the Armenians living in Turkey.” It also makes statements that indicate explicit orders were given by Mehment Talat Pasha, a prominent Young Turk leader, to kill all Turkish Armenians. The media in the US at the time, notably The New York Times, published several accounts of the atrocities and US President Theodore Roosevelt called the massacre “the greatest crime of war.”

After the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, the new Turkish government held court-martials proceedings for the Young Turk regime and leaders of the Committee on Union and Progress. The charges included genocide. At least six domestic tribunals were assembled in cities were the atrocities occurred, with the main trial beginning in Istanbul a year after the deportations. Written testimonies from the tribunals described official orders to murder and exterminate the Armenian population. One tribunal resulted in the hanging of a former governor, though others received harsh prison terms.

The tribunals and the use of ‘genocide’, however, have been widely debated. Due process and normal rights to counsel were not honored for the accused. In addition, the rights of cross examination were withheld, as well as the ability to call witnesses. The presiding judge also served a prosecutor, questioning the accused and determining admissible evidence. In addition, all of the official documentation of the proceedings is “missing”, relegating details to secondhand accounts.

Turkey has criticized countries that officially acknowledge the deaths of Armenians as deliberate and the penal code there makes it illegal to recognize the Armenian genocide. Though officially not part of negotiations, many European members, including the French President Jacques Chirac, have linked acknowledgement of the Armenian genocide to Turkey’s admission to the European Union. Turkey is in the midst of presidential elections and the issue remains contentious today.

This report is derived from “Revisiting the Armenian Genocide” by Guenter Lewy in the Middle East Quarterly.

Macedonian War Crimes Tribunal Underway at The Hague

On August 12^th, 2001, 14 policemen in Macedonia destroyed several homes with hand grenades, fire, and shelling in retaliation for eight soldiers killed by a land mine. The activities resulted in the killing of seven men. This year, the deaths are the first case to go before a war crimes tribunal at The Hague, Netherlands. The former interior minister, Ljube Boskovski, and Johan Tarculovsky, a senior police official, face charges ranging from murder to cruel treatment. The UN prosecutors state Tarculovsky was part of a criminal enterprise that directs attacks against civilians, while Boskovski was responsible for the actions of the policemen who committed the acts. The policemen who committed the acts are not on trial. Both men have pleaded not guilty and their defense lawyers argue there was no war in Macedonia, and therefore war crimes charges are moot.

The scenario surrounding these actions is similar to those that occurred in the Haditha case in which US military personnel allegedly committed similar atrocities. After encountering an improvised explosive device, eight members of a US Marine retaliated against civilians in the town. The Marines have been charged with un-premeditated murder of 24 Iraqi’s. They were charged according to US law. The difference here is that the conduct was committed during war time and the soldiers were not brought before an international system. It is unclear why the Macedonian case was not brought to the domestic systems there.

AP has coverage here.

Abu Zubaydah Testifies before Combatant Status Review Tribunal

Abu Zubaydah has denied a connection with al Qa’ida and Usamma bin Laden during a Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) at Guantanamo Bay. CSRT’s are the method by which that status of detainee’s is determined. The US accuses Zubaydah of being a senior al Qa’ida associate and leading a terrorist training camp. In his testimony, Zubaydah said he is in fact an enemy of the US, however, he did not affiliate himself with al Qa’ida, which he criticized for targeting civilians. Zubaydah claims his statements were made under duress, and President Bush has acknowledged that the US Central Intelligence Agency used “alternative” methods to interrogate “high value” targets under CIA custody.

Washington Post has it here.

Sudanese Government Approves UN Peacekeeping Force to Darfur

The UN Security Council moved to deploy a heavy peacekeeping force to Darfur following the approval of the Sudanese government. The process to provide funding for 3000 troops, six attack helicopters, and other equipment, used to supplement the African Union (AU) force already in place was begun at the Security Council. The first phases are a support package with the ultimate goal of a robust hybrid UN-AU force. The UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, urged UN members to contribute troops to the contingent as the UN has no standing force of its own and must rely on the political good will of its member states.

Washington Post has more details here.

A previously unknown organization calling itself al-Tawhid al-Jihad Brigade has e-mailed the Palestinian Ramattan news agency claiming they have murdered BBC news correspondent, Alan Johnston. Mr. Johnston was abducted in Gaza City on March 12th. He had been reporting from the occupied Palestinian territories for the last three years. The BBC has received no independent verification and is treating the claims regarding Mr. Johnston as rumors. Last week, the BBC aired special programming appealing for Mr. Johnston’s release and rallies were held in Gaza in his support.

The group, whose name means oneness of god (Tawhid) and holy struggle (Jihad), shares its name with the al Qa’ida group established by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq. The claims state Mr. Johnston’s execution was intended to send a message highlighting the plight of Palestinian prisoners. The group claimed a video of the execution would be sent to media outlets. The statement also holds the British and Palestinian governments, as well as the Palestinian president, responsible for Mr. Johnston’s execution. So far, no video verifying the statements has surfaced, however, Palestinian officials have expressed concern over the emergence of “al Qa’ida type thinking” among Gaza militants. In the past 18 months, over a dozen journalists have been kidnapped in the Gaza Strip, though most have been quickly released unharmed.

Journalists are obligated to differentiate themselves from combatants and international law treats them as civilians. The BBC World Service has been reporting over the past month that Mr. Johnston was widely known as a press affiliate. Regardless, the first, second, and third Geneva Conventions extend due protection to war correspondents. On December 23rd, 2006, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1738, expressing concern over attacks against “journalists, media professionals and associated personnel, as such, in situations of armed conflict, and calls upon all parties to put an end to such practices.”

Militant groups, however, appear to exist somewhat outside the normal conventions of the laws of war. Operating as independent cabals, such as the mafia, criminal enterprises by nature operate with impunity. According to the establishments enacted in the United States, non-US citizens are subject to war crimes tribunals if found in violation of international law. The applicability of the laws of war, however, is complicated when considering the legal status of the occupied Palestinian territories. Regardless, the use of journalists for their audience potential, as in the case of Daniel Pearl, is an abhorrent violation of civility.

To sign the petition calling for Mr. Johnston’s release, please visit the BBC here.

For further coverage from the BBC on Mr. Johnston, visit here.

“Free Alan Johnston” photo: Agence France Presse.

Fifteen British Royal Naval officers have been returned after nearly two weeks of captivity in Iran. The sailors were detained by Iranians after an encounter in which British vessels were searching the area for smuggled goods. The Iranians contest that British vessels had wandered into Iranian waters, while the British maintain they were within Iraqi territory. According to a report by the International Boundaries Research Unit (IBRU), “[n]o maritime boundary has ever been agreed between Iran and Iraq.” The British coordinates of the detention technically lie on territorial, not maritime, land. On the other hand, the Iranians had supplied two separate coordinates, with the revised coordinates laying 0.3 nautical miles within Iranian maritime boundaries. According to the IBRU report, maritime boundaries are variable.

Of further contention is the treatment of the British sailors by the Iranian government. Were they hostages, or prisoners of war (POW’s)? If we follow the coordinates supplied by the UK, then Iran entered Iraqi waters to seize the British sailors, which could be viewed as an act of aggression. Could not the same allegation be made if Britain had wandered into Iranian waters? If the former, then the British sailors were hostages, if the latter, then they could be viewed as de facto POW’s. In either event, the circumstances of their treatment should reflect customary law.

Minimum standards of justice must be adhered to by civilized nations. In the Third Geneva Conventions, we find that “prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.” If the British sailors were instead hostages, the Fourth Geneva Conventions outline that as a violation, but also deals with detention and humane treatment of spies. In any event, there is a baseline of acceptable treatment which must be met.

The Iranians released several taped testimonials by British sailors with various degrees of apologies and statements of treatment. The sailors did not appear to be harmed, and were often depicted eating, and in one case are shown in front of a large bowl of what appears to be fresh fruit. The question of coercion, however, is certainly a legitimate question to consider. All soldiers shown have issued apologies admitting a violation of Iranian sovereign territory, as well as statements admonishing the conflict in Iraq. It could not be expected that military personnel would willingly rebuke their own government without some degree of coercion. It is customarily recognized that POW’s are only required to release name, rank, serial number, and date of birth.

So, where do we look in international law? Iran and Britain are not at war, so the question regarding POW’s is debatable. With Iranian and Iraqi borders in dispute and both parties offering different coordinates, the claims of hostage taking may also be in question. If we simply take the issue of customary international law to task, we can at least see what the consensual usage has been. If we look to the issue of ‘public curiosity’, we see a wide range of displays in modern times. During the Iranian Revolution, media portrayals of American hostages were abundant. Prisoners of war have been shown publicly as well, from the detention of Lieutenant Commander John McCain in Vietnam to POW’s during the Korean War. In more recent times, we see US behavior in its portrayal of the bodies Uday and Qusay Hussein as questionable and its habeas suspension and treatment of detainees at the facility in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib is widely admonished.

If we look to treaty law, we see violations abound, but if we examine customary usage, the issues are grim. Regarding the Iranian/British issue, the sailors at the very least appeared well treated and knew their charges. The same may not be said regarding US treatment of its detainees. International law and the customs of war derive from consensual usage and customs among civilized nations. Tolerance and dignity influence international law and customs. In the 21^st century conflict between the West and the Rest, with whom does tolerance and dignity lie?

Map credit: International Boundaries Research Unit.