World Tribunal on Iraq

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article or section is missing citations or needs footnotes.
Using inline citations helps guard against copyright violations and factual inaccuracies. (April 2007)
The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.(December 2007)
Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.
Part of a series on

Anti-war topics
Opposition to…

Military action in Iran • Iraq War • War in Afghanistan • War on Terrorism • Landmines • Vietnam War • Nuclear armament • World War II • World War I • Second Boer War • American Civil War • War of 1812 • American
Revolutionary War
Agents of opposition

Anti-war organizations • Conscientious objectors • Draft dodgers • Peace movement • Peace churches • Peace camp
Related ideologies

Anti-imperialism • Antimilitarism • Appeasement • Nonviolence • Pacificism • Pacifism • Satyagraha • Vanguardism
Media

Books • Films • Songs
Politics Portal ·  v • d • e 

The World Tribunal on Iraq (WTI) is a people's court consisting of intellectuals, human rights campaigners and non-governmental organizations. It sprung from the anti-war movement and is modelled on the Russell Tribunal of the American movement against the Vietnam War. It counts among its supporters Indian author Arundhati Roy and United Nations Assistant General Secretary Denis Halliday, though consciously avoids a hierarchical structure. The WTI routinely finds that the coalition forces in Iraq are guilty of war crimes and violations of the Geneva Conventions. The Tribunal tends to receive less coverage in the United States and United Kingdom than in the Middle East and Europe, and is frequently described by supporters of the war as a "kangaroo court". Its members are not popularly elected.

A series of hearings is taking place under the title of the "World Tribunal on Iraq" with the purposes of:

  • Hearing evidence in respect of any claim that the launch of the war in Iraq was a criminal act.
  • Hearing evidence in respect of any alleged international criminal conduct during and as a part of the war in Iraq.
  • Investigation of the doctrines espoused in the war (by all sides) and the economic connections which some allege are connected with the decision to wage the war in Iraq.
  • To reach a decision based on evidence and expert testimony in respect of these issues and the war in Iraq.

Contents

[edit] Background to issues

The Iraq War left many people dead or injured, and some sources have identified significant War crimes or Crimes against humanity in its conduct, as well as mainstream media coverage of breaches of the geneva Convention such as at Abu Ghraib, and the use of depleted uranium. According to UN estimates, a further million people died during the trade embargo (imposed by the UN following Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait), due to malnutrition or lack of medical supplies, from sanctions targeting domestic water systems (History of Iraq). Many hundreds of thousands of these were children (whose deaths were documented by US military and are available on US military declassified websites). In addition, few commentators believe that under 100-200,000 civilians died as a result of other acts during the 2003 war.

Although other crimes are investigated, such tribunals require a lot of political will and strength to set up and few commentators appear to believe that a formal tribunal such as the Nuremberg Trials or the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia will be established. In addition the US has refused to ratify the International Criminal Court established for the purpose of investigation international crime. In the light of perceived growing tendencies to ignore international law, this tribunal was formed to investigate the concerns of other groups and onlookers into Iraq.

[edit] Tribunal legitimacy and scope

[edit] Legal basis and structure

Being confronted with the paradox that people supporting or participating in the WTI want to end impunity but do not have the enforcement power to do so, they feel that they have to follow a middle way between mere political protest and academic symposia without any judicial ambition on the one hand, and on the other hand, procedural trials in the formal legal system which have no chance of achieving neutral outcomes. Another way of expressing the paradox is:

  1. That people supporting or participating in the WTI are just citizens and therefore have no right to judge in a strict judicial way, but
  2. That they have at the same time the duty as citizens to oppose wars of aggression, war crimes, crimes against humanity and other breaches of international law, which should be the starting point and the strength of the WTI.

By approaching the invasion and occupation of Iraq case from as many angles as possible (international law, geopolitical and economical analysis, WTI participants hope to strengthen their common objective. In this way the hearings had a better chance of converging on valid judgments. The findings were brought together in the final session in Istanbul in June 2005.

In order to be as inclusive as possible, the WTI claims to support and recognize endeavours to resist impunity. The project will endorse and support the efforts to bring national authorities and warmakers to national courts (like the complaints filed in various state courts under the doctrine of Universal Jurisdiction) and to international courts (like the International Criminal Court in the Hague).

[edit] Fundamental aims of Tribunal

  • To establish the facts about what happened in Iraq and to inform the public.
  • To continue and strengthen the mobilisation of the peace movement and the global anti-war protest. Anti-war and peace movements, which carried out the mass movements against the attack on Iraq have in principle adopted the idea of indicting the aggressors and of setting up a campaign to support the Tribunal process.
  • The tribunal is to be considered a continuing process. The investigation of what happened in Iraq is of prime importance to restore truth and preserve collective memory against the constant rewriting of history. We are challenging the silence of international institutions and seeking to put them under pressure to fulfil their obligations under international law. In judging the recent past our aim is to prevent illegal wars in the future.
  • To formulate recommendations on international law and expand notions of justice and ethical-political awareness. It can contribute to providing alternatives to 'victors' justice' and give a voice to the victims of war.
  • To be part of a broader movement to stop the establishment of an imperial world order with a "permanent state of exception", which undergoes constant wars as one of its main tools.

[edit] Arguments for and against Tribunal

[edit] For

  • Many people perceive that the US is acting in an imperialist manner, and draw parallels with other imperialist acts which cloaked gain of power as morality.
  • Some are concerned that the war was launched on a pretext, and that neither a confirmed link with Al-Qaeda nor confirmed weapons of mass destruction were shown, contrary to the reasons used to justify the necessity of invasion beforehand.
  • Many people believe the war in Iraq was fought for control of valuable assets (oil), and political dominance or standing.
  • Many people died or suffered in a manner similar to war crimes condemned by the West, under perceived breaches of international law; justifications given by the West for these acts echo justifications the West has previously dismissed out of hand in Japan, Germany and in other previous crimes against humanity.
(For example, torture has been found inhuman whether or not in a national territory, leaders are held responsible for all acts committed by their forces, and laws cited about insurgents and combatants being valid military enemies despite not wearing a uniform could equally be applied to US forces found not wearing uniforms)

[edit] Against

  • Many people believe that the war in Iraq was necessary to rid the world of a tyrant, and that those who oppose it are short sighted and fail to appreciate the work done.
  • It is widely acknowledged that Saddam Hussain refused to comply with U.N. resolutions through his repeated obstruction of U.N. weapons inspectors. Many believe that his defiance of U.N. resolutions was motivated by his desire to re-develop weapons of mass destruction programs (including trying to develop a nuclear capability), or that he wanted to give the impression that he already had such programs. Such activities would have made him a dire threat to stability, both in the region and to other countries that Islamist terrorists might target at some future time.
  • Others feel the tribunal is biased, either due to those partaking, or due to its formal agenda. As an example, they site the inclusion as "Endorsers" on WTI's website of groups such as BushMustGo! and the Arab Cause Solidarity Committee, groups whose mission is not to oppose crimes against humanity, but to oppose U.S. foreign policy on a much broader scale.
  • Some criticize the attempt to mask partisan political positions with the apparent objectivity of the concept of a court, despite such courts lacking any foundation in actual national or international bodies. In other words, the political and philosophical discourse taking place under the auspices of the WTI may be valuable, but they do not resemble a legal proceeding in important ways.

[edit] Refutation

  • In the opening statement of the Jury of Conscience, keynote speaker Arundhati Roy retorted,"Saddam Hussein is being tried as a war criminal even as we speak. But what about those who helped to install him in power, who armed him, who supported him--and who are now setting up a tribunal to try him and absolve themselves completely?"[1], referring to the assistance provided by the US government under President Ronald Reagan, as revealed incontrovertibly by the National Security Archive.[2]

[edit] Actions to date

  • London, November 2003 - Inquiry into the alleged commission of war crimes by Coalition Forces during the military campaign and occupation.
  • Mumbai, January 2004 - World Court of Women on US War Crimes
  • Copenhagen, March 2004 - Public hearing on the legality of war, legality of putting Iraq's public enterprises and resources on sale, legality of keeping over 20,000 people under arrest in camps and prisons in the absence of any legal procedure.
  • Brussels, April 14-17, 2004 - the BRussels Tribunal hearings focused on the programs and policies of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), its role in the war against Iraq, and the role of the war against Iraq as part of the PNAC's program of military domination of the Earth [1]
  • New York, May 2004 - Session on the legality of the war – violation of international law and the UN – violation of the will of the peoples of the world as manifested on February 15, war crimes and crimes under occupation.
  • Japan, hearings throughout the year in various cities, two courts in July and December 2004 - International Criminal Tribunal on Iraq (ICTI)
  • Germany, series of hearings around Germany starting June 2004 - Focus on violations of international law and complicity of German government—covering sanctions, war and occupation.
  • Istanbul, June 2004 - Symposium on crimes committed against cultural heritage.
  • New York, August 2004 - Session investigating violations of international law and basic human rights by US President George W. Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair administrations in launching the war against Iraq and instituting the occupation. Findings of other WTI sessions, military families and GI resisters.
  • Hiroshima, October 2004 - Session on depleted uranium and complicity of Japanese government.
  • Lisbon, Fall 2004 - Commission of inquiry to determine the responsibility of the Portuguese State and other entities/individuals in the preparation of the invasion, during the invasion and in the occupation of Iraq; to formulate the accusation of those who perpetrated crimes against the people of Iraq.
  • Stockholm, November 2004 - Session examinign the impact of occupation on Iraqi society, including the social, economic and cultural consequences.
  • Beirut, December 2004 - Arab Court on Iraq.
  • London, February 2004 - A Peoples' Inquiry into the occupation of Iraq by Coalition Forces
  • Rome, February 2005 - Session on Media Wrongs against Truth and Humanity: the politics of disinformation.
  • Genoa, January 2005 - Session on Media and Disinformation
  • Rome, December 2004 - Session on legality of war.
  • Istanbul, 20 March 2005 – Culminating session
The Istanbul session will serve as the culmination of the WTI process, taking into account the entirety of the above tribunal sessions. Based on this also, the session will take the further step of examining and exposing the implications of WTI findings.
  • Istanbul session 23-27 JUNE 2005: Declaration of the Jury of Conscience (WTI)

"The invasion and occupation of Iraq was and is illegal. The reasons given by the US and UK governments for the invasion and occupation of Iraq in March 2003 have proven to be false. Much evidence supports the conclusion that a major motive for the war was to control and dominate the Middle East and its vast reserves of oil as a part of the US drive for global hegemony." ..... In pursuit of their agenda of empire, the Bush and Blair governments blatantly ignored the massive opposition to the war expressed by millions of people around the world. They embarked upon one of the most unjust, immoral, and cowardly wars in history.[2]

Also incorporated into the process are the findings of:

  • Spanish Tribunal Against the War in Iraq – May 2003
  • Decision on juridical issues about the war against Iraq and its occupation by Allied powers (with emphasis on the position of the government of Costa Rica) – Costa Rica September 2003

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ ''The Most Cowardly War in History'' | BaltimoreChronicle.com
  2. ^ Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein - Press Release

[edit] External links