Fallujah, Grozny, Jenin…

The International Committee for the Red Cross, which is the global guarantor and depository for the laws of war, yesterday issued another of its strong statements about the actions of the combatants (including American combatants) in Iraq.
Since the situation is so grave, and the ICRC statement so precise and well-crafted,I’m going to copy the whole text of it into this post. After that, I have a few reflections of my own.
Here’s the statement:

    As hostilities continue in Falluja and elsewhere, every day seems to bring news of yet another act of utter contempt for the most basic tenet of humanity: the obligation to protect human life and dignity. This week it was the killing of a wounded fighter and of yet another hostage

6 thoughts on “Fallujah, Grozny, Jenin…”

  1. Thanks for the link to the ICRC call. To bring some context to these public calls of the ICRC : they are always general calls made to all the parties in conflict. They are usually issued after clear breaches of the Geneva Conventions or of the Humanitarian Laws. They can also bear the sign that the ICRC wasn’t able to accomplish its humanitarian tasks neither by negotiation on the field, nor by negotiation at higher level of diplomacy. Not really a surprise, since Bush named General Attorney someone who advised the Pentagon that the Geneva Conventions are obsolete.
    Concerning the reform of the UNO, it’s very important, but given the very right of veto of the big powers, I wonder whether it will be possible to suppress the right of veto ? I think that it will be possible to enlarge the NSC, but not much more.
    IF the UN was a real independant body, it would have condemned the US invasion of Iraq, which was illegitimate. Instead of that, after the Aprile 2003 invasion, in order to mend fences and be realist, the UN members accepted a resolution post-legitimizing the presence of US troops in Iraq. Juan Cole went so far as saying that the Marines were acting legitimately while launching the Falludja assault because they had the green light of the Allawi’s government, as foreseen in that last Iraq resolution. So it is : legally, they had that right, but morally ?
    To expand further on the general theme of pacifism, I fear that the UN structures aren’t able to deal with a military superpower like the US. IF the military superpowers find it fitted to act as stabilizing elements then it’s ok, but if one wants runs amok and choose to act like a rogue state, invading a weaker state on false pretexts, then the UN is powerless. This is especially true from the US who being a very rich and populated state bears a large amount of the UN financial charges. That said, I think that the UN structures should be reformed and reinforced, only I don’t know how this could be achieved, especially not under a Bush government.

  2. A more accurate title would be Fallujah, Grozny, Hama.
    The American Fallujah approach borrows much more from the Syrian assault and destruction of Hama, than the Jenin case (as highlighted in previous postings here, and indeed reported by a UN comission).
    David

  3. Concerning the ICRC call, I’ve noted that it was differently relayed by the media.
    In the US media, the accent was on the condemnation of the Mosquee killing and of the hostage killing. They didn’t mention the right of civilian to receive the support necessary to the satisfaction of their basic needs (food, water, health care), aka the RedCrescent supply convoy blocked for a whole week by the Marines.
    http://tinyurl.com/6htlt
    (user mediajunkie password mediajunkie for the NYTimes)
    http://tinyurl.com/6lzxp
    AP wire in the Washington Post
    Al Jazeera, didn’t miss the part concerning civilians rights, but didn’t mention the condemnation of the killing/taking of hostages.
    http://tinyurl.com/3zdv5

  4. The best report on the ICRC call was issued by the BBC :
    http://tinyurl.com/4wwgz
    All the different parts of the call were present. The Geneva correspondant also remarked :
    “The Red Cross has issued a statement in which it can barely hide its anger, says the BBC’s Imogen Foulkes in Geneva.”
    I regret that this clear condemnation wasn’t correctly relayed in the US media.

  5. It doesn’t matter, Christiane. It will make exactly no difference. The U.S. has the same utter contempt for international law that it has for humanity.

Comments are closed.