sady wojenne w Iraku

[Gość: oil]

Now that the war in Iraq has come to an end, the Bush Administration is
planning to prosecute former Iraqi officials for war crimes. According to
Administration sources, hundreds of Iraqis will be put on trial, and
thousands more may be granted amnesty in return for confessions. As Pierre-
Richard Prosper, US Ambassador for War Crimes explained it, "There must be
credible accountability. For crimes committed against US personnel, we, the
United States, will prosecute." Crimes committed against the Iraqi people are
to be judged by Iraqis, acting under American guidance and
control. "Atrocities and abuses by the regime of its own people should be
tried by Iraqis," a high-ranking US official said. "We're prepared to provide
support which could range from financial aid to legal experts to judges, to
make it credible." The obvious premise is that only American control will
result in a "credible" process.

There is much confusion about what does and does not constitute a war crime.
While many have a clear notion of the concept, others are befuddled. In order
to bring clarity and understanding to this troublesome subject, a quiz is
offered below. A total of five exercises will test the reader's comprehension
of the issue of crimes against humanity. In each exercise, a number of
incidents are described, but only one qualifies as a war crime. The object is
to correctly identify which example in an exercise is a war crime. Ten points
are awarded for each correct answer, and at the end the reader can compare
his score against a chart to gauge his or her knowledge of the subject.

Exercise 1

According to Article 2 of the United Nations Charter, "All members shall
settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that
international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered."
Furthermore, the Charter adds, "All members shall refrain in their
international relations from the threat or use of force against the
territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other
manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

In 1950, the International Law Commission of the United Nations adopted the
Principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal as constituting basic principles of
international law. Foremost among the crimes defined as punishable under
international law are crimes against peace, which include "planning,
preparation, initiation or waging a war of aggression or a war in violation
of international treaties, agreements or assurances." The second category of
crimes against peace include "participation in a common plan or conspiracy"
to accomplish the aforementioned crimes.

In his opening address for the United States at the Nuremberg Tribunal, Chief
Prosecutor Robert Jackson declared "that to plan, prepare, initiate or wage a
war of aggression...is a crime." Jackson identified several actions as
aggression, and therefore crimes against peace, including invasion of the
territory of another state and attack by armed forces on the territory of
another state. It is noteworthy that Jackson added, "It is the plot and the
act of aggression which we charge to be crimes. Our position is that whatever
grievances a nation may have, however objectionable it finds the status quo,
aggressive warfare is an illegal means for settling those grievances or for
altering those conditions."

On March 20, 2003, the United States and Great Britain bombarded Iraq with
cruise missiles and bombs, the prelude to an invasion which soon followed.
Within weeks, invading American and British troops had conquered Iraq. The
invasion was undertaken without United Nations authorization because a veto
of such action in the UN Security Council appeared to be a certainty. Iraq
had not threatened or attacked either the U.S. or Great Britain, nor was
there any indication that it intended to do so. Furthermore, UN inspectors
had effectively eliminated Iraq's stock of chemical weapons by the time they
departed in 1998.

One oil well in Kirkuk burned for six weeks, the result of an apparent
accident. At the Al-Rumeila field, four oil wells were deliberately set
afire, with the intention either to create a smoke screen to cover defending
forces, or to deny these assets to invading American and British forces. A
total of eleven wells were said to have gone up in flames, all belonging to
Iraq.

Only one war crime can be found in the first exercise. Can you find it?

Answer (10 points)

Admittedly, this first exercise was very easy. Yes, that's right. Iraq
committed a war crime by burning a few of its oil wells, as that noted expert
on international law, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, so aptly pointed
out on the first day of the war. "I have seen indications and reports that
the Iraqi regime may have set afire to as many as three or four oil wells in
the south. Needless to say, it is a crime for that regime to be destroying
the riches of the Iraqi people." The wells may have been the riches of the
Iraqi people, but rightfully they will soon belong to American and British
oil companies, which is what makes this a war crime. Only the misguided would
imagine that the thousands of US and British bombs and missiles dropped
destroyed the riches of the Iraqi people. These were smart bombs, after all.
For those readers who are confused about the example, there is a basic moral
principle involved. US and British oil companies have the right to expect
that anticipated profits on their future possessions not be limited by damage
done to oil wells. Operation Iraqi Freedom could not possibly be construed as
a war crime, because good guys were pursuing evildoers. It was also really
cool to see all those airplanes and missiles in action.

Exercise 2

In 1980, Iraqi troops invaded Iran in an attempt to seize territory by force
of arms. The resulting war dragged on for eight years, causing immense
destruction and costing the lives of 1.7 million people in one of the
twentieth century's major wars.

In December 1983, President Reagan sent envoy Donald Rumsfeld, now Secretary
of Defense, to Baghdad to meet Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and offer
American assistance. Rumsfeld told Hussein that the U.S. wanted a full
resumption of relations and that it "would regard any major reversal of
Iraq's fortunes as a strategic defeat for the west." Only the month before
State Department official Jonathan Howe informed Secretary of State George
Schultz that Iraq was using chemical weapons against Iranian forces on
an "almost daily basis." It was also well known by then that the Hussein
government had engaged in widespread repression, crushing the Iraqi left
through executions, imprisonment, torture and exile.

Howard Teicher, a former official of the National Security Agency who
accompanied Rumsfeld on that mission, said that in June 1982, "President
Reagan decided that the United States would do whatever was necessary and
legal to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran," and formalized that
policy in a National Security Decision Directive [NSDD] which Teicher helped
draft. CIA Director William Casey "personally spearheaded the effort to
ensure that Iraq had sufficient military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to
avoid losing the Iran-Iraq war. Pursuant to the secret NSDD, the United
States actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with
billions of dollars of credits, by providing US military intelligence and
advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to
Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military weaponry required."

"The United States also provided strategic operational advice to the Iraqis
to better use their assets in combat," Teicher continued. "For example, in
1986, President Reagan sent a secret