World Tribunal on Iraq

The World Tribunal on Iraq (WTI) was a people's court consisting of intellectuals, human rights campaigners and non-governmental organizations, and was active from 2003-2005. Set up following the 2003 invasion of Iraq it sprung from the anti-war movement and is modelled on the Russell Tribunal of the American movement against the Vietnam War. It counted among its supporters Indian Leftist author Arundhati Roy and United Nations Assistant General Secretary Denis Halliday, though consciously avoids a hierarchical structure. The WTI routinely found that the coalition forces in Iraq are guilty of war crimes and violations of the Geneva Conventions. The Tribunal tended to receive less coverage in the United States and United Kingdom [1] than in the Middle East and Europe, and was frequently described by supporters of the war as a "kangaroo court". Its members were not popularly elected; it claimed of itself that " legitimacy of the World Tribunal on Iraq is located in the collective conscience of humanity" [2].

Between 2003-5 a series of hearings took place under the title of the "World Tribunal on Iraq" with the purposes of:

Contents

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; also mainstream media have reported breaches of the Geneva Conventions such as at Abu Ghraib; and the use of depleted uranium was controversial. 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, and 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.

Tribunal legitimacy and scope

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).

Fundamental aims of Tribunal

Actions

The Istanbul session served 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.

"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:

See also

References

  1. ^ http://www.medialens.org/alerts/05/050706_the_mysterious_case.php
  2. ^ http://web.archive.org/web/20070329000519/www.worldtribunal.org/main/

External links

Opposition to wars
or aspects of war
Agents of opposition
Related ideologies
Media
Books · Films · Songs · Symbols