Human shield action to Iraq

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Part of a series on
Anti-War topics

Opposition to...

American
Revolutionary War
World War I
World War II
Second Boer War
American Civil War
War of 1812
Vietnam War
Afghanistan War
Iraq War
War against Iran
War on Terrorism

Agents of opposition

Anti-war organizations
Conscientious objectors
Draft dodgers
Peace movement
Peace churches

Related ideologies

Antimilitarism
Appeasement • Pacifism

Media

Books • Films • Songs

Politics Portal · v • d • e

A group of anti-Iraq War civilians from Western nations travelled to Iraq, hoping to act as human shields so that the U.S.-led coalition troops would be unable to bomb certain locations during the 2003 Invasion of Iraq.

1 Chronology
2 Analysis and effects of the Human Shields
3 See also
4 External links
5 References

[edit] Chronology

Human shields black bus, 25 January, 2003

Kenneth O'Keefe, the primary organiser of the event

On January 25, 2003 a group of 50 volunteers from various nations left London and headed for Baghdad with the intention of acting as human shields.^[1] The convoy travelled through Europe and Turkey by bus to pick up like-minded people along the way, totalling roughly 75 people.^[2] It has been estimated that 200 to 500 people eventually made their way into Iraq before the U.S. invasion in March.^[3] ^[4] The action's primary organiser, Kenneth O'Keefe, a former U.S. Marine who served in the 1991 Gulf War but who renounced his citizenship in favor of world citizenship afterward, initiated The January 25th convoy just one month earlier, with an article in The Observer titled "Back to Iraq as a Human Shield".^[5]

Upon reaching Baghdad, a strategy was formed on the assumption that there would not be enough human shields to avert an invasion.^[6] This was to involve the voluntary deployment of activists to strategic locations throughout Baghdad, and possibly Basra, in an effort to avert the bombing of those locations. There was much internal debate about which locations were to be chosen.^[7] Some volunteers had travelled to Iraq on the assumption that they were deploying to schools, hospitals or archaeological sites. It was eventually agreed that these sites were unsuitable, because schools would be closed, unqualified people were a potential hindrance in hospitals, and archaeological sites—although potential targets—were thought to be of too lower priority in comparison to other potential targets.

Human shields greeted as they cross the border into Iraq, 15 February, 2003

Eventually volunteers deployed to Al Daura Electrical Plant, Baghdad South Electrical Plant, 7th April Water Treatment Plant, Al Daura Water Treatment Plant, Tejio Food Silo, Al Daura Oil Refinery and Al Mamun Telecommunications Facility. ^[8] All of these sites were bombed in the 1991 Gulf War.

During these deployments a small group of volunteers led by Gordon Sloan of New Zealand took on the job of vetting sites to ensure they were not in close vicinity to military facilities. This was to be the cause of some conflict with their Iraqi host, Dr. Abdul Razak al-Hashimi, Saddam Hussein's spokesman during the first Gulf War, and head of the Friendship, Peace and Solidarity organisation which was hosting the activists, under the authority of the Baathist government.^[9]

With an invasion imminent, Hashimi became frustrated by Sloan's explorations, called a meeting, and asked the activists to deploy to sites or leave Iraq.^[10] Hashimi's meeting is said by some of the leading volunteers to have been a costly political mistake. It was the trigger of much anxiety among the volunteers^[11] and negative reporting in the media, including mis-reports that activists were being forced to deploy to military sites. ^[12] It was also at this point that some of the British volunteers were to return to London along with the two double-decker red buses and their owner, which were originally meant to have left soon after arrival.^[13]

The paranoia that rose up around Hashimi's announcement and the reports that the buses were leaving Iraq slowed the influx of activists into Iraq, and caused some of those already there to leave Iraq, believing they had lost credibility through Hashimi's actions. The Iraqi authorities, on the other hand, saw O'Keefe, Sloan and other organisers as constantly challenging Hashimi's authority and being deliberately disruptive, and that some would-be shields were taking too long to deploy to sites. Five organisers were then asked to leave the country.^[14] When O'Keefe refused he was removed at gunpoint.^{[citation needed]}

Many activists stayed on, however, and continued to shield the chosen sites. It is claimed that eighty human shields stayed in the Baghdad area throughout the bombing campaign. ^[15]

[edit] Analysis and effects of the Human Shields

Human shields meeting in Iraq, 1 March, 2003, at the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad, Iraq

There is no conclusive evidence either way as to whether the human shield action to Iraq was a factor in the decision not to bomb much of the civilian infrastructure that was bombed in 1991. However on February 26, 2003, Senior CNN Pentagon Correspondent, Jamie McIntyre, commented that the "Pentagon says they will try to work around human shields" as long as they were not deployed to military sites.^[16] Of all the shielded sites, only one—arguably a legitimate target under the Geneva Conventions—was eventually bombed, the Al Mamun Telecommunications Facility, one day after the human shields pulled out of it.^[17]

Article 51 of the Geneva Conventions, "Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (Protocol 1)," appears to prohibit civilians such as human shields from being present, "to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations," however, Article 52 specifically prohibits attacking civilian infrastructure unless it is of military value, and Article 54 specifically prohibits attacking food and water equipment, unless it is of military value and does not cause civilians to starve or be forced to move. ^[18] All sites were previously bombed by the U.S. in 1991.

For allegedly violating a U.S. prewar travel ban human shields from the U.S. faced fines, loss of retirement benefits, and/or imprisonment.^[19] On the day after the departure of the human shield convoy, White House Chief of Staff, Andrew Card, released a statement condemning the action and Fox News reported that U.S. leaders were considering prosecuting U.S. human shields for war crimes. ^[20]

[edit] Criticisms

The Human Shield action was criticised for what many saw as being an overt act of aiding Saddam Hussein’s regime. Charges of the shields being "dupes" and "useful idiots" for Saddam were widespread in the U.S. The human shields countered that while various governments around the globe carry out acts of aggression, the human shield action saw fit to defend against this one.

Human Rights Watch stated that "civilians acting as human shields, whether voluntary or not, contribute indirectly to the war capability of a state. Their actions do not pose a direct risk to opposing forces. Because they are not directly engaged in hostilities against an adversary, they retain their civilian immunity from attack." Human Rights Watch also noted that the use by a state of human shields, voluntary or not, is a violation of international law, citing Protocol I of the First Geneva Convention.^[21]

Conservative U.S. pundit Jonah Goldberg said after a debate with O'Keefe, that "O'Keefe and his friends are objectively in favour of Saddam Hussein and his murderous regime because they believe he is uniquely worth defending with their bodies. They may be brave, I guess, but they're still idiots, and I'm sure Saddam is grateful for them".^[22]

Maria Ermanno, chairwoman of the Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society, cited reports that Iraqi officials were arranging transportation, accommodations and news conferences for the human shields and that they were being used for propaganda purposes by Saddam Hussein. "To go down to Iraq and live and act there on the regime's expense, then you're supporting a terrible dictator. I think that method is entirely wrong," Ermanno told Swedish Radio.^[23]

The Iraqi regime was also criticised for encouraging and facilitating the human shield actions, since this was seen as violation of international law and Protocol I, article 20 of the Geneva Convention.

[edit] Possible false accusations in the media

It was reported in the media that some individuals involved with the Human Shield Action admitted that some criticisms of their actions were valid. For example, there was widespread coverage of the criticisms by an Assyrian minister, Ken Joseph, who claimed to have gone to Baghdad as a human shield and changed his mind once he had arrived in Iraq on the basis that an Iraqi man had told him "we don't want peace, we want the war to come." However, the organisers of the Human Shield Action claimed to have no knowledge of Ken Joseph and believe that if he was in Iraq he appears to have been motivated by his campaign for "Assyrian Independence" rather than the welfare of the Iraqi people in the face of an invasion.^[24]

Another widely reported story was that of Daniel Pepper, a young American photographer who had gone to Baghdad as a human shield on the original convoy. In a piece written by Charlotte Edwardes of the Daily Telegraph but attributed to Pepper, entitled "I was a naive fool to be a human shield for Saddam," it is claimed that after speaking to Iraqis, Pepper had realised that he had made a dreadful mistake. Pepper later said that he had not stated this and that he was not the author of the piece.^[25]