Home > New York Session of the World Tribunal on Iraq
The Final Statement of the Jury of Conscience
by
Rabab Abdulhadi, Sinan Antoon, Dennis Brutus, Hamid Dabashi, Bhairavi Desai, Eve Ensler, Jenny Green, Lisa Hajjar, Motarilavoa Hilda Lini, Elias Khoury, Ibrahim Ramey, Kiyoko McCrae, Robert van Lierop
Preamble
The war against Iraq has posed one of the most challenging, frustrating and explosive international crisis in recent memory.
The World Tribunal on Iraq sitting in session at Cooper Union in New York City on May 8 th 2004 and having heard the testimony and evidence presented and having carefully weighed that evidence has reached a series of conclusions.
From its conception to its prosecution and the current occupation, fact, law and logic have been turned on their heads and fabricated to rationalize and justify what can only be considered, by all international standards, an unjust war of aggression.
There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein waged unjust wars of aggression itself against Iran , Kuwait and those Iraqis who did not acquiesce in the regime’s reign of terror and corruption. That, however, does not for one minute justify the violence, destruction and degradation visited upon the people of Iraq from the 20 th of March 2003 and continuing today.
The responsibility for defining the future of their country has always rested with the people of Iraq and not with any outside power, or external military force, let alone one that previously encouraged and collaborated with Saddam Hussein in some of his most violent escapades.
International law has always recognized a legitimate right to resist foreign occupation. The people of Iraq cannot be considered an exception to this well established principle of customary international law.
War is a fundamental collapse of human reason and failure of imagination, and should always be an absolute last resort undertaken only in strict adherence with the charter of the United Nations. The current war and occupation of Iraq were undertaken in disregard of the most fundamental principles of international law and with obvious contempt for truth, posterity, and the morality which should guide all human actions. The result has been the occupation and colonization of Iraq and the destruction of its economy and increased violence and insecurity for the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi population. The world cannot sit by passively and watch the continued deterioration of the future of our planet.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) provides an opportunity for the expansion and enhancement of the international rule of law. Unfortunately, the current administration in Washington has not only chosen to separate itself from the evolving international consensus on respect for the rule of law, but has also chosen to undermine the rule of law through its actions against the International Criminal Court and other legal regimes. It must be noted that the majority of professional legal associations in the United States have expressed support for the ICC even while the administration works against it.
Case One
Question posed to the JURY: Was this an illegal war?
The laws governing the initiation of hostilities derive from the UN charter. There are only two situations in which a country can legally go to war:
1. Self defense
2. With the approval of UN Security Council, which is vested with responsibility to make determinations about the ³common interest² for global peace and security.
Our finding based on the evidence presented to this tribunal is: the US government has committed a crime of aggression for the following reasons:
1. There was no legitimate self-defense issue at stake:
a. There was a long period of a pre-planning and aspirations for war on Iraq.
b. The fabrication and falsification driven by ideological agenda.
c. Fear mongering to gain US public support including false linkages with Al-Qa’ida and the September 11 th attacks.
2. There was no imminent threat at stake:
a. There were many pleas for continued inspections
b. There were many expert statements from inspectors that there were no weapon of mass destruction.
c. The prevalence of the preventive war doctrine dominated the preparatory stages of this war. This war has destabilized Iraq , the region and the world.
a. The UN Security Council did not approve military action.
b. There was unprecedented mass global opposition to this war.
Case Two
In war, has force been used legally?
Have war crimes been committed?
Who is legally accountable for violations of International Humanitarian Law (IHL)?
Our findings:
Numerous violations of IHL have been committed by the US and coalition forces. Civilian leaders are responsible and accountable for grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and their Protocol I
1. The US is a party to the Geneva Conventions, which are thus binding on the US .
2. Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions constitutes customary international law and therefore is universally binding.
3. Grave breaches require prosecution.
The evidence on which our conclusions are based:
1. Targeting of Iraqi leaders in ³decapitation² strikes, violating the principles of necessity, proportionality and military values.
2. The use of incendiary weapons and cluster munitions constitute war crimes as these forms of weaponry are inherently indiscriminate and cause unnecessary suffering. Furthermore, their use in heavily populated civilian areas is a violation of civilian immunity.
3. The use of extrajudicial killings at checkpoints violates the principles of civilian immunity, distinction, and proportionality.
The US military and the US administration are responsible for these violations and liable under the Geneva Convention for prosecution. The US has violated International Humanitarian Law.
Case Three:
Concerning the matter of Iraq under the occupation, the jury addressed a number of questions: the first finding was that the occupation itself was and continues to be illegal.
Under international law countries have the right to self determination. Under international law the United States as occupying power has obligations to adhere to the Geneva Conventions, to which both the United States and Iraq are parties, and other treaties to which Iraq is a party.
The U.S. has violated all of these requirements. The evidence presented proved that there has been continuing public insecurity including the lack of safety, the continued arbitrary detention and torture, unlawful attacks, the destruction of vital services and economic colonization.
Conclusion
In the name of a preventive strike on Iraq , the US government fabricated a web of lies. We were told that the war on Iraq was waged because there were weapons of mass destruction, and that there were linkages between Saddam Hussein and al-Qua’ida. We were told that the US authorities were deeply concerned for Iraqi people and their suffering under Saddam Hussein and they longed for their freedom and democracy. If all this were true, then why have no weapons of mass destruction been found? Why instead of finding al-Qua’eda, have they invited al-Qua’eda? Instead of caring for Iraqi people, they have killed, starved, maimed, tortured thousands of Iraqi people, destroying their infrastructure, including their water and health facilities. In the name of democracy they have created a corporate tyranny which has essentially stolen Iraq out from under the Iraqi people. They have committed war crimes against Iraqi people in prisons and have made freedom of movement and speech almost impossible. This was done by the US government. The people of the US are responsible and must hold their government accountable.
We the jury of conscience therefore affirm the following conclusions and recommendations:
1. That the US and its coalition partners immediately cease all violations of the civil, political and human rights of the people of Iraq ;
2. That the military occupation of Iraq be immediately ended;
3. That all parties guilty of war crimes against the Iraqi people be brought to justice under international law.
4. That reparations be paid by all responsible parties to the people of Iraq for the
damages caused by both the war and the occupation.
5. That we work to strengthen the mobilization of the global antiwar movement.
That the occupation of Palestine , Afghanistan and all other colonized areas are illegal and should be brought to an end immediately.