The Geneva Conventions Hypocrisy

As we've all heard, Donald Rumsfeld has accused Iraq of violating the Geneva Conventions by airing video of captured Prisoners. The Red Cross quickly criticised both Iraq and the United States for breaking the same rules, while even elements of the mainstream media allowed that Rumsfeld's furor didn't jibe with the treatment of prisoners being held at Camp X-Ray in Cuba.

Okay, so that's covered -- provided one is diligent enough in seeking information. But what about the far greater hypocrisy, viz., that the entire U.S. war is such a major violation of International Law that it threatens a complete break-down of the system? The crime of unprovoked aggression is precisely the crime for which Nazi and Japanese leaders were hung following World War II. They were held accountable.

What about the civilian casualties generated by this war? If Rumsfeld is as familiar with the Geneva Conventions as he'd have us believe, he'll know that any civilian casualties are illegal -- whether "intentional" or not. He'll know that the United States is legally responsible for the well-being of the city of Basra, which is currently on the verge of a humanitarian disaster. He'll know that "coalition" deployment of radioactive munitions, cluster bombs, and napalm are illegal. He'll know, in short, that he is a war criminal.

Tony Blair, the great humanist, has either not read or not comprehended the Geneva Conventions. In the wake of the bombing of a Baghdad market (which some are already terming a massacre), Tony Blair's official spokesman announced that, "We have always accepted that there will be some very regrettable civilian casualties." Leaving aside the unintended ambiguity (are some other civilian casualties not regrettable?), the translation would read: "We have always accepted that we will commit war crimes." (Or, possibly: "The world has always accepted that we shall bomb niggers with impunity.") To repeat: the Geneva Conventions explicitly prohibit civilians casualties, including "very regrettable" casualties.

Speaking of International Law, where the fuck is the Security Council? The Council leapt into action following Iraq's annexation of Kuwait, immediately condemning the invasion, and imposing sanctions four days later. Why has not the Security Council done the same to the United States? (Yes, the United States and Britain would both veto, but at least the world would know that White nations are expected to abid by International Law.)

Posted by Eddie Tews at March 26, 2003 03:56 PM