war crimes - John Howard
John Howard is a war criminal.
Australia is bound by numerous international treaties and laws. They govern commerce, transport, the environment, diplomacy etc. International law is huge and is used every day. It's not an "add-on" to our laws, nor is it discretionary on the part of our government.
We have signed the Geneva Convention and are bound by its detailed and specific provisions which say:
(1) you can only invade another country if you are under imminent threat, or the UN Security Council sanctions it;
(2) if you do invade you must provide sufficient troops to protect the citizens and resources;
(3) you are responsible for any atrocities carried out by your troops.
So let's take these, shall we:
The legality of the Iraq invasion has been fiercely contested by many from the outset.
The UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal. On 15 Jan 2003 the International Commission of International Law Jurists (a body with UN Consultative status), provided an open letter to all members of the Security Council that bore the signatures of hundreds of senior jurists in support of the proposition that the Iraq war was illegal as a matter of international law. Similar notices were provided by legal experts in many countries prior to the Iraq invasion.
Professor Donald Rothwell, Professor of International Law at Sydney University, gave a detailed analysis in the Sydney Morning Herald (June 3, 2004) of the legal obligations of Australia in Iraq under the Geneva Convention. Quite aside from any question of the act of invasion of Iraq, his unequivocal view was that the 'coalition of the willing' had a strict legal obligation to ensure the safety of civilians and prisoners as part an occupying force. According to Prof.Rothwell, any failure to carry out those duties constituted prosecutable war crimes.
Put simply, if you invade a country you are LEGALLY required to ensure sufficient troops for the safety of the citizens. If you don't, you have committed a war crime.
Formal advice from senior US military leaders (and specifically, Gen. Anthony Zinni) to President Bush prior to the invasion was that he would need at least 400,000 troops to stabilize Iraq. That advice was ignored. 140,000 troops were sent in. The result was the looting of Iraq cultural and economic resources and the preventable deaths of, some say, 655,000 people.
Further, the LEGAL responsibilities of the US government and its allies were not reduced by the installation of the so-called Interim Government of Iraq in mid 2004.
Under the laws of war, the United States government (and Australia, as a coalition partner) remained fully accountable for the behavior of its puppet government especially since that government did not have the resources to ensure civil order.
These conclusions are detailed in the Geneva Convention and even spelled out in paragraph 366 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956):
"The restrictions placed upon the authority of a belligerent government cannot be avoided by a system of using a puppet government, central or local, to carry out acts which would be unlawful if performed directly by the occupant."
In summary, there is a strong body of evidence in support of the claim that the war in Iraq was ILLEGAL under international law in terms of -
(1) the invasion itself;
(2) the civilian deaths that arose from the refusal by the US and Australia to provide sufficient troops necessary to ensure civil order;
(3) the incidents of the torture of prisoners that occurred under the occupying forces.
These all constitute prosecutable war crimes under the Geneva and Hague Conventions.
John Howard may have wrongly believed there were WMDs in Iraq, but he allowed the weapons inspectors to be withdrawn under Bush's orders. The proper course of action would have been to wait until they had completed their work. Further, there was neither UN sanction for the invasion, nor any imminent threat from Saddam. Finally, Howard would have been aware of the US military advice that 400,000 troops were needed but he chose to ignore it.
You don't get to invade countries just because you are white, wealthy, well-armed and you want to. John Howard is guilty of war crimes.
Australia is bound by numerous international treaties and laws. They govern commerce, transport, the environment, diplomacy etc. International law is huge and is used every day. It's not an "add-on" to our laws, nor is it discretionary on the part of our government.
We have signed the Geneva Convention and are bound by its detailed and specific provisions which say:
(1) you can only invade another country if you are under imminent threat, or the UN Security Council sanctions it;
(2) if you do invade you must provide sufficient troops to protect the citizens and resources;
(3) you are responsible for any atrocities carried out by your troops.
So let's take these, shall we:
The legality of the Iraq invasion has been fiercely contested by many from the outset.
The UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal. On 15 Jan 2003 the International Commission of International Law Jurists (a body with UN Consultative status), provided an open letter to all members of the Security Council that bore the signatures of hundreds of senior jurists in support of the proposition that the Iraq war was illegal as a matter of international law. Similar notices were provided by legal experts in many countries prior to the Iraq invasion.
Professor Donald Rothwell, Professor of International Law at Sydney University, gave a detailed analysis in the Sydney Morning Herald (June 3, 2004) of the legal obligations of Australia in Iraq under the Geneva Convention. Quite aside from any question of the act of invasion of Iraq, his unequivocal view was that the 'coalition of the willing' had a strict legal obligation to ensure the safety of civilians and prisoners as part an occupying force. According to Prof.Rothwell, any failure to carry out those duties constituted prosecutable war crimes.
Put simply, if you invade a country you are LEGALLY required to ensure sufficient troops for the safety of the citizens. If you don't, you have committed a war crime.
Formal advice from senior US military leaders (and specifically, Gen. Anthony Zinni) to President Bush prior to the invasion was that he would need at least 400,000 troops to stabilize Iraq. That advice was ignored. 140,000 troops were sent in. The result was the looting of Iraq cultural and economic resources and the preventable deaths of, some say, 655,000 people.
Further, the LEGAL responsibilities of the US government and its allies were not reduced by the installation of the so-called Interim Government of Iraq in mid 2004.
Under the laws of war, the United States government (and Australia, as a coalition partner) remained fully accountable for the behavior of its puppet government especially since that government did not have the resources to ensure civil order.
These conclusions are detailed in the Geneva Convention and even spelled out in paragraph 366 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956):
"The restrictions placed upon the authority of a belligerent government cannot be avoided by a system of using a puppet government, central or local, to carry out acts which would be unlawful if performed directly by the occupant."
In summary, there is a strong body of evidence in support of the claim that the war in Iraq was ILLEGAL under international law in terms of -
(1) the invasion itself;
(2) the civilian deaths that arose from the refusal by the US and Australia to provide sufficient troops necessary to ensure civil order;
(3) the incidents of the torture of prisoners that occurred under the occupying forces.
These all constitute prosecutable war crimes under the Geneva and Hague Conventions.
John Howard may have wrongly believed there were WMDs in Iraq, but he allowed the weapons inspectors to be withdrawn under Bush's orders. The proper course of action would have been to wait until they had completed their work. Further, there was neither UN sanction for the invasion, nor any imminent threat from Saddam. Finally, Howard would have been aware of the US military advice that 400,000 troops were needed but he chose to ignore it.
You don't get to invade countries just because you are white, wealthy, well-armed and you want to. John Howard is guilty of war crimes.
8:34 PM -->
<< Home