An Interview with the Author

Q: What inspired you to write this book? How does it relate to your previous work?

I was inspired to write this work after 9/11 when it became apparent that large numbers of people arrested in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bosnia, and the U.S. were being transferred to a place called Guantanamo Bay, where they wre being denied basic legal protections we now take for granted, such as the right to be tried for their alleged crimes in a reputable courtroom according to standard law. Because they were refused prisoner of war status — which is just one of the many laws of war that was hammered out by the international community over the last 150 years — the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay were, and are, without protection. Merely to be labelled a terrorist was to be guilty of terrorism. I found this shocking.

My earlier work also played into my decision to begin this book. In The End of Days I wrote about the Spanish Inquisition and its abuse of the law in order to serve the government's interests — both religious and secular. In that book, and in the new one, I explored the way a longstanding public consensus regarding the rule of law can be exploited, manipulated and altered by a leadership that's intent on extreme policies such as torture. I realized while I was working on The End of Days that I was writing a series around several related subjects including justice, historical memory, and the psychological effects of propaganda. For example, my book, Unhealed Wounds: France and the Klaus Barbie Affair was an exploration of what happened when a Nazi war criminal was returned decades later to the country where he had committed atrocities. And my last book Long Shadows was about historical memory in various countries after periods of serious crisis, such as war, and the role justice can play in rebalancing the past. So I felt ready to tackle a work on the politics of international justice and what happens when the international rule of law begins to unravel.

Q: How did you come to choose the title The Sun Climbs Slow?

The phrase "The Sun Climbs Slow" comes from a famous Victorian poem by Arthur Clough called "Say Naught the Struggle Not Availeth," which some of us studied in school. Churchill read parts of this poem in a famous address to the British people during the Second World War, just after the Americans made a first step into the fray to protect British supply ships. His speech was meant to inspire the British in dark times and to thank President Roosevelt for coming to Britain's aid. I chose it for two reasons. First, I found the echo of Churchill's inspirational speech sadly ironic, given America's recent rejection of international law and justice, in particular the attempt on the part of the Bush administration to kill the new International Criminal Court, which is humankind's greatest attempt so far to make world leaders accountable for major crimes such as genocide and war crimes. On the other side of the ledger, the poem also suggests hope and a degree of optimism about the future of international justice, which is a message I want to convey.

Q: What was the greatest challenge you faced in writing the book? In particular, The Sun Climbs Slow is a fascinating blend of reporting, analysis, interviews, historical discussion, and personal stories: how did you weave the material into such a compelling whole?

Because I'm a writer, not a practicing lawyer, my greatest challenge was to learn the relevant law, then to write a lively interesting narrative that would engage the general reader. I knew I was writing about a subject that would become increasingly important to the 21st century — and that is the willingness to maintain the rules of international law in an unstable post Cold War world. That's a dense subject that's usually reserved for academic tomes. I wanted to write this story it in a vital way that would connect with the largest possible audience.

Q: There are several absorbing interviews in The Sun Climbs Slow, with jurists, politicians, victims of conflict, academics, UN advisers, and many others. Which interview did you personally find most interesting, engaging, or memorable — and why?

To me, they are all memorable. You have to realize that many of the people I talked to were and are deeply committed to justice — to putting individuals who are accused of genocide and war crimes on trial, as opposed to simply killing them extra-judically. And that means ending criminal impunity on the part of government leaders and their flunkies all over the world. I also met with people who are equally determined that this not happen. I found my interview with John Bolton, then the US Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security absolutely fascinating because he was in a position of great power, and he turned out not to believe in international law. He said that if the United States didn't happen to like the international rules against war crimes it could make up its own. He is an important voice in my book because he represents the view that might is right and that it necessarily trumps law and justice. He's also an important figure historically in that he defended the legally dubious postures of the George W. Bush administration. We need to understand this period and learn from it. In The Sun Climbs Slow I've tried to move our understanding forward by situating the present and the recent past in a broad historical context.

The judges and the chief prosecutor at the International Criminal Court were also fascinating. For example, Navi Pillay from South Africa. She was called "Indian" under apartheid nomemclature. That she was able to study anything, let along law, was a miracle. She and her husband opened a practice to defend people accused of breaking the discriminatory laws of apartheid — a dangerous impossible task. Her husband was taken into solitary confinement and was never the same again. Pillay was a first for South Africa in many ways — the first woman of colour to practice in her area and an unprecedented advocate for human rights and the equality of women. Many of the other judges also come from countries where they may have experienced human rights abuses, or from countries that once perpetrated atrocities. Then there's Cherif Bassiouni, who's considered perhaps the world's top expert on the ICC. He was Egyptian-born to enormous wealth; he's cosmopolitan, a passionate advocate for human rights and the rule of law in the world, hated and hounded by Washington, and quite possibly the most outspoken person I have ever met. And also Judge Hans-Peter Kaul of Germany, a man who chose law rather than the gun in the aftermath of the Second World War, a man so scarred and shamed by the Nazi era that as a young diplomat he actually asked to be the information officer at the German embassy in Israel so he could meet Jews and express his country's remorse. For obvious reasons Germany has been one the strongest advocates for the international criminal court because it will try individuals for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

Q: Why should Canadians be concerned about the International Criminal Court?

The new International Criminal Court, which will begin its first case in March 2008, by the way, incarnates the values Canadians profess — human rights, the protection of civilians during conflict, multilateralism, the rule of law, and accountability for major crimes. The government of Canada, Canadian law academics, and Canadian NGOs were greatly involved in the creation of the court. The president of the court, Philippe Kirsch, is a Canadian. In theory, the ICC is a perfect fit for Canada. On the other hand, the Harper government has brought our country into international disrepute with its lack of respect for international law in the case of Omar Khadr, who was a child when he purportedly committed crimes in Afghanistan. He has been held in Guantanamo Bay for five years and faces a kangeroo military court while the Canadian government refuses to intervene. I talk about this case and other post-9/11 abuses by our government, such as complicity with the US in the rendition of suspected terrorists overseas. Canadians will learn that the values they profess, and that are at the root of our vaunted commitment to international law, are being flauted.

Q: Can you explain why the Bush Administration's opposition to the ICC — expressed most forcefully by John Bolton — was so visceral?

That's the clincher question. You can also ask why the US continues to support other international war crimes trials, such as the courts trying perpetrators from the former Yugoslavia and from the Rwandan genocide. The difference is that the courts I've just mentioned are limited to particular situations and will eventually wind down. The International Criminal court, on the other hand, is a permanent institution with a mandate to confront the impunity of the powerful. It does not challenge states, it challenges individuals who are accused of committing major international crimes. A related reason for the US opposition is the independence of the new court. Although the UN actively supports the ICC, the Security Council cannot veto the court's. The ICC is governed by so-called States Parties — by the countries that have signed on to its underlying charter. So the US will not be able to control this new court and that is anathema to the American government — and to major powers in general. The argument against the ICC is framed as the protection of national sovereignty — the right to do as one wills within one's borders; however, the ICC is a global institution with the right to reach through borders.

So you can understand the anxiety. I do want to add here that the ICC must offer the country in which a suspected perpetrator holds citizenship the chance to mount its own trial. The International Criminal Court can legally step in only when the country in question is either unable or unwilling to bring someone who has committed such crimes to justice.

Q: The competing calls of justice and power are entangled throughout the book. You argue that the creation of the ICC represents a giant step forward for the rule of law; but also quote the Greek historian Thucydides' comment that "The strong do what they will and the weak seek justice." The fact that neither the United States, China, India, nor Russia are parties to the ICC seems to suggest that great powers wish to continue to act unchecked by international constraints. If this is the case, what does the future hold for the ICC?

At one level The Sun Climbs Slow is, I hope, a lively exploration of the endemic historical quarrel between power and the rule of law — a struggle that has accompanied humanity from its social beginnings. And yes it is the case that although more than half the countries in the world have signed on as members of the International Criminal Court, the most powerful states have not. So we can't foretell the future. What is astonishing to me is that the idea of a permanent international criminal court to try individuals accused of major crimes has been dreamed of for centuries, and has come into the world in our era. This happened quite by accident, as readers will learn, perhaps to their great surprise. I think it is realistic to be cautiously optimistic. The United States has recently been discovering that its punitive behaviour towards ICC states parties has had quite a downside in terms of world opinion, and the government has been quietly softening its position somewhat. The first trial will open in March — it's the case of a war lord from the Congo who is accused of kidnapping young children to fight in his militias, sometimes forcing them to kill members of their own families. The world will be watching the way the International Criminal Court carries out this trial — whether it is seen to be fair and transparent in its workings and whether the victims as well as the perpetrators receive justice. Success will also depend on the willingness to states to arrest indicted perpetrators and send them to The Hague for trial. That's an emerging sore point.

Q: What do you hope readers will take away from this book?

First I hope they will enjoy the reading. Then that they will come away believing that the there is a greater chance than ever before in our history that justice will be meted out to the perpetrators the world's most terrible crimes. The world as seen on our nightly newscasts looks darker and darker and we can all be excused for feeling impotent and helpless. The ICC should be seen as a potential antidote to a world of impunity for war crimes and crimes against humanity and its existence will, one hopes, act as a deterrent to strong men who may be contemplating such crimes. Still, it would be foolish to hope that the ICC will solve the world's problems. It won't. Wars and myopic politics on the part of powerful leaders aren't going to disappear. The difference is that there is now a permanent countervailing force in the world. The International Criminal Court was created in our era — almost by chance, as I said - and it's success or failure hs the potential to affect the way governments and individuals do business in the 21st century. I think the ICC deserves the support of people everywhere. Because ultimately there can be no lasting peace without justice.