We should indict BUSH & BLAIR for war crimes
Grattan Healy - 23.10.2001 23:54
When power is against you, the media is against you, the military and police are against you, often it is good to test the value of your last line of defence, the law. In the absence of the ICC, we should indict Bush and Blair in a country like Belgium, which claims universal legal jurisdiction.
First, allow me to say that I am humbled by the generally positive response to my Open Letter to US citizens, posted on the 15th, linked below. If you will allow me, I would like to try to take this issue a little further, especially as one or two correspondents asked me for ideas on what might actually be done.
First and foremost, as already stated, it is up to the citizens of the USA to deal with their problem, and similarly, it would seem that it is up to the citizens of the UK and other war participants to challenge the actions of their respective governments. Not in the sense that the rest of us are washing our hands, but in the sense that it is not up to us to dictate to you, any more than it is up to your governments to unilaterally dictate to anyone else.
Having said that, I for one am willing to help develop an international strategy and campaign to stop the pointless slaughter in Afghanistan, with a view to heading off the other slaughters that the US has in mind elsewhere. While action is required to bring the culprits to justice, bombing the poor into the dust is not correct. The absence of a clear and quick ´fix-it´ strategy cannot justify such pointless, brutal, counter-productive and illegal action, caused by a sense of frustration and blind arrogance, and an overwhelming desire for revenge, not justice.
So, what might be done? Without going into detail, a campaign consisting of 3 major law cases in Ireland over the last 15 years has managed to defend the constitutional rights of the citizens from abuse of power by both the government and the EU, which lined up with a more-or-less unanimous media chorus against us. Despite that elite unanimity, we rejected their Nice Treaty a few months ago, a Treaty that in fact the people in Europe don´t want, but we were the only ones left with the power to reject it.
If we now look at the current situation, all of the forces of the USA are arraigned against its people. However, the same pattern is emerging in almost all countries involved, where citizens are protesting, and yet the governments, with their police and military, are defending their power and privilege, and the media are almost unanimously trying to assist their friends in power. Whether it is Pakistan, the UK, Indonesia, Ireland, Nigeria, Italy, or wherever, the pattern is almost the same. The elite of the world is lined up against the rest of us, a clearer alignment of this type than we have ever seen.
The rule of law, such as it is, is there to prevent such abuse, and misrepresentation. While the law of individual countries is being either abused or made more repressive, international law is being flouted openly. Myself, and many others, have challenged the view that the USA and its allies have a UN mandate for their actions - see for example:
 http://www.euobserver.com/index.phtml?selected_topic=7&action=view&article_id=3561
This is a point that should at least be argued in a court of law, but it would not be an open and shut case by any means. However, it is hard to imagine that the current revenge attacks, which have killed civilians and UN staff, can be classed as ´self-defence´ under the UN Charter. They most certainly are at odds with the noble spirit of that instrument, which should carry weight in such a case.
However, it may be clearer that these acts are ´war crimes´ under the Geneva Convention. Furthermore, the enforced closure of the Afghan borders at the request of the USA, together with the denial of food supplies a result of the bombing, is leading to potential disaster this winter for millions of helpless innocent Afghans. Despite the calls from aid agencies, politicians, and no less that Mary Robinson, to stop the bombing, the USA and UK continue, leaving them ultimately responsible for a possible attempted genocide.
The ideal forum to test the legality of the UN Mandate would be the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague, but this requires a UN Member State brave enough to take on the whole so-called ´coalition against terror´. Activists close to the UN could maybe take some soundings in New York, or Geneva, to see who might be serious not just about starting, but also really pursuing such a case. The chances seem pretty remote, for now anyway, although that might change if the USA widens the attacks to other so-called ´rogue states´.
In the absence of such a courageous country, there is one other possibility, where the criminal charges can be heard. The Belgian courts claim universal jurisdiction for various international crimes - see: http://www.redress.org/annex.html
They have accepted a case against Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, for example, for his role in abuses of human rights. If the relatives of the UN staff, and other civilians killed in Afghanistan by the US/UK bombing were willing and able to take a case here in Belgium, they could charge George W Bush and Tony Blair with war crimes under the Geneva convention and, depending on how they behave concerning the food aid, possibly a further charge of attempted genocide.
Incidentally, we should recall that the efforts of many to set up an International Criminal Court (ICC) to try exactly this type of case was blocked and ultimately minimised by none other than the USA itself. In fact a new law in preparation in the USA seeks to thwart the trial of any US citizen in such a court ´by all means´. As it happens, the ICC would also have been, rather ironically, the correct forum for trying Bin Laden or anyone else accused of the Sept 11th attacks.
More than anything else, a case of this kind could provide a focus for opposition to what is being done. People could support the action with funds, debate, and actual participation under certain circumstances (ICJ cases can allow public input, as happened in the World Court Project on nuclear weapons). Losing the case is at worst costly, and maybe offers some endorsement to the ongoing action. That leaves us not much worse off. A victory would be a revolution. What implications would this have within the USA for example, if the President was found to be acting against international law, or was convicted of war crimes? Impeachment maybe?
How about assembling a legal team and a war chest to take such a case right away? The search for a country to take the ICJ case could be carried on and actually pursued in parallel in any event.
 E-Mail: grattan_healy@compuserve.com  Website: http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=74644&group=webcast
|
