Which
wars should be prosecuted? |
AN FRANCISCO, Aug 25 (OneWorld) - A chief
prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg has said George W. Bush
should be tried for war crimes along with Saddam Hussein. Benjamin
Ferencz, who secured convictions for 22 Nazi officers for their work
in orchestrating the death squads that killed more than 1 million
people, told OneWorld both Bush and Saddam should be tried for
starting "aggressive" wars--Saddam for his 1990 attack on Kuwait and
Bush for his 2003 invasion of Iraq.
"Nuremberg declared that aggressive war is the supreme international
crime," the 87-year-old Ferencz told OneWorld from his home in New
York. He said the United Nations charter, which was written after
the carnage of World War II, contains a provision that no nation can
use armed force without the permission of the UN Security Council.
Ferencz said that after Nuremberg the international community
realized that every war results in violations by both sides, meaning
the primary objective should be preventing any war from occurring in
the first place.
He said the atrocities of the Iraq war--from the Abu Ghraib prison
scandal and the massacre of dozens of civilians by U.S. forces in
Haditha to the high number of civilian casualties caused by
insurgent car bombs--were highly predictable at the start of the
war.
"Every war will lead to attacks on civilians," he
said. "Crimes against humanity, destruction beyond the needs of
military necessity, rape of civilians, plunder--that always happens
in wartime. So my answer personally, after working for 60 years on
this problem and [as someone] who hates to see all these young
people get killed no matter what their nationality, is that you've
got to stop using warfare as a means of settling your disputes."
Ferencz believes the most important development toward that end
would be the effective implementation of the International Criminal
Court (ICC), which is located in the Hague, Netherlands.
The court was established in 2002 and has been ratified by more than
100 countries. It is currently being used to adjudicate cases
stemming from conflict in Darfur, Sudan and civil wars in Uganda and
the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
But on May 6, 2002--less than a year before the invasion of
Iraq--the Bush administration withdrew the United States' signature
on the treaty and began pressuring other countries to approve
bilateral agreements requiring them not to surrender U.S. nationals
to the ICC.
Three months later, George W. Bush signed a new law prohibiting any
U.S. cooperation with the International Criminal Court. The law went
so far as to include a provision authorizing the president to "use
all means necessary and appropriate," including a military invasion
of the Netherlands, to free U.S. personnel detained or imprisoned by
the ICC.
That's too bad, according to Ferencz. If the United States showed
more of an interest in building an international justice system,
they could have put Saddam Hussein on trial for his 1990 invasion of
Kuwait.
"The United Nations authorized the first Gulf War and authorized all
nations to take whatever steps necessary to keep peace in the area,"
he said. "They could have stretched that a bit by seizing the person
for causing the harm. Of course, they didn't do that and ever since
then I've been bemoaning the fact that we didn't have an
International Criminal Court at that time."
Ferencz is glad that Saddam Hussein is now on trial.
This week, the Iraqi government began to try
the former dictator for crimes connected to his ethnic cleansing
campaign against the Kurds. According to Human Rights Watch,
which has done extensive on-the-ground documentation, Saddam's
Ba'athist regime deliberately and systematically killed at least
50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds over a six-month
period in 1988.
Kurdish authorities put the number even higher, saying 182,000
Kurdish civilians were killed in a matter of months.
Everyone agrees innumerable villages were bombed and some were
gassed. The surviving residents were rounded up, taken to
detention centers, and eventually executed at remote sites,
sometimes by being stripped and shot in the back so they would
fall naked into trenches.
In his defense, Saddam Hussein has disputed the extent of the
killings and maintained they were justified because he was
fighting a counter-insurgency operation against Kurdish
separatists allied with Iran. When asked to enter a plea, the
former president said "that would require volumes of books."
Ferencz said whatever Saddam's reasons, nothing can justify the
mass killing of innocents.