War

Human Rights in Iraq

by Rainer Rothe, Radolfzell, Germany

Protests are continuing around the world against the war in Iraq, awar that violates international law and defies principles of humandecency. At a time when the Alliance of War Criminals is behaving inIraq less like occupiers and more like an amoral gang of robber barons,the people of the world are raising their voices more than ever beforeto call for justice and peace. Worldwide, justice is emanating from thepeople. International law is the law of the people. The people – not therulers, dictators, and war criminals of the world – are deciding whatis right and what is wrong. The conscience of the people is the supremecourt of the human race – and of humanity. The fundamental right [todetermine right and wrong] belongs to the people. In the face of themassive crimes against humanity perpetrated by the aggressors in Iraq(particularly now that they have become an occupying force), people allover the world are every day tirelessly demanding, in newspapers, onthe streets and in the town squares, in discussions and in the opinionsthey express, that this right be given to the Iraqi people and allother peoples. The time when the superpowers defined ”values” is gone.

During the war, international law remained in effect as much asever, and its validity and importance are undiminished now that theillegal war is over. The violation of international law by Bush, Blair,Aznar and their cronies neither abolishes the prevailing internationallegal codex nor creates a new one. Justice is determined by individualsand peoples – not by occupying forces, robber barons, and criminals.

In addition to the prohibition against the use of force (war ofaggression), the right of self-determination, the respect for territory,and the guarantee of a people’s continued existence are among thefundamental, unalterable, and inalienable rights guaranteed by Article1, Number 2 and Article 55 of the UN Charter, by Resolution 1514 (XV)of the UN General Assembly, by the identically-worded Articles 1 of thetwo human rights treaties of 19 December 1966, and by common law. Forexample, Article 1, Paragraph 1 of the International Covenant on Civiland Political Rights reads as follows: ”All peoples have the right ofself-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine theirpolitical status and freely pursue their economic, social and culturaldevelopment.”

A war – especially a war that is in violation of international law –does not abrogate these rights. On the contrary: the de facto power ofthe occupying forces is constrained by a series of international laws(among others, the fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protectionof Civilian Persons During War, Article 27ff, as well as additionalprotocols added to it later). Numerous protective obligations areimposed, including a prohibition against annexation; a responsibilityfor ensuring the well-being of the inhabitants, maintaininginfrastructure, providing well-regulated living conditions andsupplying the population with foodstuffs and medical services; aprohibition against interference with the old, intact legal system; anobligation to respect fundamental human rights; a prohibition againsttransfer, deportation and expulsion; an obligation to respect privateproperty; and a prohibition against confiscation. Moreover, thepopulation is not required to be loyal or obedient to the occupiers. Ingeneral, in every case occupation is to be ended as soon as possibleand the right of self-determination returned to the people.

A fundamental element of the right to self-determination is that theIraqi people – like all other peoples – have at all times the right tocontrol the development, use, and sale of their natural resources. Thisis articulated in Article 1, Paragraph 2 of the International Covenanton Civil and Political Rights: ”All peoples may, for their own ends,freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudiceto any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation,based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. Inno case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.”

In addition to initiating a war of aggression that is contrary tointernational law and motivated purely by the desire for political powerand the greed for money, and which has inflicted unbearable sufferingon numerous people, the occupying forces and aggressors are alsobehaving like amoral, pillaging hordes, and have deliberately anddemonstrably looked the other way in the face of plundering, robbery,and massacre.

Because they themselves have created these conditions through theirown illegal war, they are doubly guilty. The governments of theoccupying forces of the USA, Great Britain, Spain, Poland … havethereby provided proof that they neither represent, nor pursue the goalof, democracy and the rule of law.

Every attempt to deprive the Iraqi people of their natural resourcesis criminal robbery. Every attempt to alter the territory of Iraq iscriminal robbery. Every time plunder is permitted, every time a massacreis tolerated (when they are not actually promoted), it constitutes afailure to offer assistance, which is a breach of international law andthus a crime against humanity.

We would like to remind our readers of the case Nicaragua v. theUnited States of America, in which the USA was convicted of violatinginternational law by the International Court of Justice (verdict of theInternational Court on 27 July 1986, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p.14ff). Atthe time it was determined that measures taken by the USA, whichmassively violated the right of the Nicaraguan people toself-determination by supporting and intervening on behalf of rebels,were in breach of international law.

The present behavior of the attackers and occupying forces islikewise in violation of the Geneva Convention, according to which anaggressor and its allies are responsible for the population in an occupied region. Denis Halliday, former UN diplomat and director of the UN Assistance Program for Iraq, rightly argued at the 1 April 2002 press conference of the IPPNW that the aggressors bear responsibility and must be forced to accept it. This responsibility cannot simply be shunted aside onto the United Nations or others.

In a press release on 11 April 2003, The International Committee of the Red Cross urgently called on the occupying powers to protect the civilian population and infrastructure and to cease hostilities. It urged the Coalition of Attackers and all persons with authority to do everything in their power to protect life-sustaining infrastructure and to fulfill their concomitant obligations as occupying powers according to international human rights law. These obligations include re-establishing public order and providing protection from massacres and violence against civilians and civilian infrastructure.

On this page we are publishing the entire press release.

It is vitally important that the citizens of the world neither acquiesce in injustice by remaining silent, nor allow themselves to get used to it. History has shown again and again that the values of justice, freedom, love of one’s neighbor, and humanity will prevail. There is no reason for, and there would be no justice in, abolishing them.

Rainer Rothe, Attorney, Radolfzell