Just as yet another survey points to a seven figure death toll in Iraq, investigations are finally being launched against a certain EU presidential candidate and one (so far) of his partners in war crime. Via RickB, here is the press release:
Scotland Yard to investigate Tony Blair and ex-Attorney General Peter Goldsmith for war crimes
Press Conference,
Room C, 1 Parliament Street
Tuesday 15th January 2008 3pm
John McDonnell MP, Chris Coverdale: International War Law Expert and Annie Machon of the Campaign to Make War History brief MPs and the media on allegations of war crimes committed against the people of Iraq by Britain’s former Prime Minister and former Attorney General.
Officers from Scotland Yard have commenced a criminal investigation into the deaths of Iraqi citizens killed during the armed invasion and occupation of Iraq. The Metropolitan Police are acting in response to crimes reported by peace activists from We Are Change UK and The Campaign to Make War History. In an unprecedented step, the case was handed to the War Crimes division of the Counter Terrorism branch who are now investigating allegations of 14 criminal offences committed by Tony Blair, Lord Goldsmith and others. The offences are under the International Criminal Court Act 2001, which came into effect under English common law, just two days before 9/11.
Two Members of We Are Change UK and a representative from the Campaign to Make War History were interviewed for six hours at Belgravia Police station on the 20th December 2007. Evidence was provided to the police relating to the crimes of:-
• genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and conduct ancillary to these crimes under Sections 51 and 52 of The International Criminal Court Act 2001.
• a crime against peace and complicity in a crime against peace under Articles 6 and 7 of The Nuremburg Principles.
• murder, incitement to murder and conspiracy to murder under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
• conspiracy to commit genocide, a crime against humanity and war crimes under the Criminal Law Act 1977.
This is one to publicise as much as possible (post it to your facebook for a start, eh?): on the one hand the case seems legally pretty sound, but on the other hand the entire political class will be hassling the boys in blue into dismissing the allegations. For all that the Bobbies on the beat currently hate Jacqui Smith, senior officers will be being courted as we speak, and it’s crucial that public pressure is enough to make them take it seriously.
To describe any international legal action as ‘legally airtight’ strikes me as pretty implausible. In respect of the specific accusations, well ‘genocide’ strikes me as ludicrous hyperbole, crimes against the peace are, well, legally suspect to say the least (also, no court will go near declaring the Iraq war illegal, plus the case for the legality of the war is not as weak as people constantly seem to allege). Jus in bello (war crimes, crimes against humanity etc.) is obviously determined independently of jus ad bellum (the legality of an attack), again though, I find it rather difficult to believe that the particular conduct of the coalition forces in Iraq would ever be found to have violated jus in bello.
I don’t see why it is that we need to try and legitimate our opposition to wars based on the law. I think the exercise is inherently problematic, and really needs to be thought through a little more.
Is this some sort of prank? I haven’t seen it mentioned by any reputable news sources and it’s not even mentioned on this MP guy’s own blog. Blair being investigated for war crimes would be the story of the bloody century!
@Rob:
I’m not qualified to cite chapter and verse, but surely you know of the various treaties banning any aggressive war, and the ICC act (2001) that enshrines them in British law. This report (.pdf) from MWH summarises pretty neatly. As for genocide:
Ok, “legally airtight” might have been a bit strong for that particular allegation but so, I reckon, is “ludicrous hyperbole”. And as for illegal wars of aggression, attacks against civilian populations, hell yeah it’s airtight, what possible defence could they plead?
As for why, there are two reasons. First of all, I don’t fully believe in international law because I don’t fully believe in nation states in the first place, however pending the glorious revolution I think it’s a pretty good thing to have. If we can prosecute Blair and co, we can establish a serious legal deterrent to starting aggressive wars; how is that not good?
Secondly, we should use legal mechanisms to oppose the war because we can. Our enemies don’t hesitate to invoke legal statutes and transnational bodies when it suits them; to deny ourselves such a tool without a good reason for doing so is to oppose the war with one hand tied behind our back.
@Michael:
It seems fairly genuine to me. If I find a corporate media report - or refutation - of the story I’ll post it here with big apologies for my gullibility. In the meantime, is Indymedia reputable enough? John’s blog is pretty infrequently updated, but I agree that this should be up there; I might drop him a line, if I can bear to be so forward.
It’s the date that really makes me suspicious. Fifteenth of January? That’s more than enough time for it to work its way through the system and the press would fall on this like a pack of starving dogs. The copy almost writes itself and they’d sell by the ton. Just look at the way they fell upon even minor things like cash for honours (like that hasn’t been happening since time immemorial!). This? This would be DYNAMITE.
I really do want it to be true though. I despise that man right down to the very core of my being and seeing him clapped in figurative irons would make me very happy.
I agree that two weeks should have been plenty of time. Then again, the press do avoid talk of our war crimes like the plague, and, given the way they all shamelessly plagiarise each other, it could be that very few journos even picked up on it. I also think that if it were a fake, John would have been compelled to issue a statement denying it.
Nevertheless, I’ve now written to John and BCC’ed you into it.
I knew the definition for genocide, and here I am of the opinion that there does even seem to be a prima facie case for it (at least in respect of Iraq). In terms of the crime of aggression, well there are several points. Firstly, when it was first used at Nuremburg, it was really something without precedent, historically the crime of aggression had never been one for which an individual could incur responsibility. Furthermore, since then there have (to the best of my knowledge) been no further convinctions on the matter. Thirdly, and perhaps most damningly, the ICC only has jurisdiction over the crime of aggression as and when a definition of said crime is agreed on - that is scheduled to happen in 2009 and it is very unlikely that it will do so.
In respect of the illegality of the war (which I assume would be a pre-requisite for any ‘illegal war of aggression’. Well, the arguments made, whilst not necessarily superb, certainly have more history than many on the left (who are largely without legal education) will tell you. Certainly the ‘implied authorisation’ argument has been used a number of times, as have the recent lines of argument of antcipatory self-defence etc. This is reinforced by the fact that any definitive ruling on these legal claims is one which will be extended to previous wars, I can’t imagine any national/international court or tribunal willing to make this call.
In terms of the jus in bello (civilian populations etc.), well - again - I’m not entirely sure of the facts on the ground. However, proportionality or lack thereof is never ‘airtight’, precisely because the term requires the application of judgment.
In respect of the lefts usage of international law. I think this is an area in which ‘theory’ is something that needs to be looked at. It’s no coincidence that most ‘left’ international lawyers/theorists are a lot more pessismistic (and indeed wary) of using legalistic language. In respect of your points:
Well, I don’t think that opposition to law-talk etc. has to be r-r-revolutionary. My critique of international law doesn’t depend on my distaste for the existence of nation-states, rather it depends on my ‘belief’ that law tout court is a form of social regulation systematically thrown up by commodity exchange. On this basis then, law is facilitative of, and linked to international capitalism. This has implications about how far it can be used.
Also, there are problems with the idea of law as a deterrent. Firstly, war is never going to be outlawed tout court, as is currently the case, there is a general prohibition on the use of force, within which there are a number of exceptions. The point is that these exceptions can never be certain, and they can certainly not be ‘imposed’ in advance on a war. States tend to justify their violence in legal language anyway, and by the time something goes before a tribunal the war has already happened (as is the case here). Secondly, your point seems to imply that law has a good deal of efficacy in regulating state conduct. I would tend to argue that ‘war’ is more a product of underlying structural dynamics of international capitalism, and so can’t really be wiped out by us saying ‘war crimes etc. etc.’.
This of course brings its own problems to the fore. My problem with this analysis is that it doesn’t engage in any serious analysis of legal struggle, it just presumes that the law is a neutral form, within which different interests can be expressed. But I have argued that it isn’t. I guess this claim could be contested, but this would have to be done theoretically. I tend to think that if you condemn a war for being illegal (and make this an unqualified slogan), then you implicit seem to be endorsing legal wars. Susan Marks made this point in respect of Iraq, presumably none of us think Iraq would have been ok had the Security Council given the go-ahead for the use of force. This brings us onto questions of legitimacy, invoking law too much tends to imply that the existing order is ok, provided we have laws to regulate it. But if law is somehow linked to international capitalism, then using ‘legality’ as a weapon in struggle might tend to legitimate this state of affairs.
So, I’m not necessarily saying about from the law altogether, but what I am saying is, let’s think this through a little first, I am of the opinion that our approach to these questions has to be a little more nuanced that just calling Tony Blair a ‘war criminal’.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Rob. Rather than pretend to be able to address all the points you raise, I’ll admit to the limits of my knowledge, especially as far as all the precedents are concerned. Do you know of a forum where this stuff is argued out, nuance and all, by those with a bit of an understanding of the law? I do feel confident enough to raise a few points myself though:
1/ On jus in bello:
Look at the body counts. Look at the use of depleted uranium. Look at the bombing of residential areas. Look at Fallujah. Surely this is all pretty much beyond dispute by now?
Proportionality, as far as I can tell, is a red herring. It isn’t mentioned in any of the legal texts cited by MWH, and it never even occured to me to think of it before. Could regime change and occupation have been acheived with a significantly lower level of violence? Maybe it could but if it couldn’t, would that even matter?
2/ On legal aggression:
I was unaware of preemptive strikes being ruled as legitimate before, could you cite any specifics? In any case, I presume that there had to be at least reasonable doubt that the aggressors genuinely thought they were preempting a real threat: I would love to see Tony convince anyone (other than a hack paid to be thus convinced) that he was trying to preempt anything!
As to implied authorisation, if I recall correctly didn’t the security council argue long and hard over the wording of their resolutions specifically to prevent them being used to justify a war?
3/ On the legitimacy of the law:
Isn’t suggesting that laws are unfairly drafted and asymmetrically enforced so as to defend the status quo bordering on the revolutionary? I don’t disagree, and if you’re saying that we should be ready to support struggles for a more just legal structure (and, indeed, social order), or even to vocally point out the deficiencies of this one from time to time then, yes, I’m with you all the way. And of course the law isn’t neutral; it will take massive public pressure for it to go the way we want it. Nevertheless, however much more difficult it is for “us” to wield it than for “them”, I reiterate: we’re fools not to use it when we get the chance!
4/ On the scope of international courts:
The ICC hasn’t defined its crimes yet? I’m shocked and appalled! But this changes nothing as, while the ICC has the final word international and national statutes already exist. The met, specifically, are investigating breaches of the 2001 ICC act which does define certain terms, including “war crimes”, “crimes against humanity”; okay, so “war of aggression” is not one of them, but explicit reference is made to the UN Charter.
I’ll change the wording of my post to reflect the nuances a little, but I still think he’s definitely a war criminal.
One of the problems with law in general and international law in particular is that it is very hard to say what precisely the law is and what particular ‘law’ governs any particular act. This is becuase treaties are subject to intepretation and custom is very indeterminate by its nature. I can’t think of any online forum where the issues are directly argued out but there are a bunch of international law blogs (I’ll find them and link them later). Also, if my post sounded confrontation it wasn’t intended to be, this is just an area in which I have interest, strong opinions and some knowledge.
1. In respect of attacks on residential area etc., this is where proportionality comes in. International humanitarian law doesn’t prohibit ‘collateral damage’ per se, it is only when such damage is disproportionate that international law will condemn it.
In terms of proportionality more generally, well regime change itself hardly ever seems to be a proportionate response. The point is more that an arguable case can be made. I think there may be some mileage in the war crimes claims, but to be honest I am not knowledgable enough about the facts to argue this in a sustained fashion.
2. Pre-emptive strikes a tricky subject in international law. Firstly, it to be remembered that what we are talking about here are *unilateral strikes* (e.g. those done outside of Security Council authorisation) It is probably the case that anticipatory self-defence is allowed, pursuant to the Caroline case, although there is some concern because this predates the UN Charter. Historically, there have been a bunch of arguments surrounding the Charter, which basically render the whole thing quite messy. However, as you say, this is generally taken to be circumscribed by a requirement of ‘imminence’ - whereby an attack must be quite close etc.
However, it has to be noted that ‘the war on terror’ may have complicated matters. There has been a lot of argument recently about pre-emptive self-defence and the extension of the doctrine of imminence. Most lawyers etc. accept the legality of the war in Afghanistan. The US pretty much had to argue that this war was an example of pre-emptive self-defence (brought on by a continuing terrorist threat) since any other attack would be an armed reprisal. See my post for more:
http://pashukanis.blogspot.com/2008/01/so-in-fact-my-triumphant-return-was.html
Implied authorisation is certainly not an *uncontroversial* doctrine and it is true that the Security Council has recently been couching its language in many terms. But the doctrine of implied authorisation has been used to argue for the Balkans stuff, the no-fly zones etc., so it does have some provenance and history.
The SC most definitely *is* allowed to justify the use of aggression because under Article 39 of the Charter it has the exclusive competence to determine when there has been a breach of international peace and security. Since the competence of this decision is exclusively with the SC, it can authorise this force in respect of whatever it wants. Thus, in respect of Haiti and apartheid, matters which appeared to be purely internal, the SC nonetheless authorised the use of force.
Note that I am not saying the arguments are especially good. But the point with international law is that there often isn’t a ‘right answer’, once a case is arguable other factors will probably come to the fore.
3. My problem with approaches such as yours is that they focus exclusively on content. E.g. the law is bad because it embodies a specific content. What tends to be ignored here is whether the *legal form itself* might be a source of inquity. If this is the case then ‘using law when we can’ becomes slightly more problematic. Again I have a rather scattershot post on this:
http://pashukanis.blogspot.com/2008/01/gramsci-and-law-some-scattered.html
I would suggest (with reservations) China Mieville’s book - Between Equal Rights: A Marxist Theory of International Law.
4. Yep, aggression has always been a hard case though. As I say, traditionally it hasn’t been something that individuals were tried for. And in fact that whole Nuremburg reasoning on that has often been seen as a bit ‘pragmatic’.
Not sure if this is a true story. John would mention it on his blog - he’s one for drawing campaigns together and I am certain it would not have escaped his memory…
@Rob:
Don’t worry about it, them’s fighting words but more than welcome. I certainly don’t have a problem with intelligent and informed criticism, especially from the left. I’m adding you to the blogroll, and hope you’ll stick around. Being knackered at this point, though, I’ll check out your posts later.
To be honest, I know that I’m not particularly likely to ever see Blair rotting away in the Hague for what he’s done, but even if only some of the charges were to only partially stick, it would be a great propaganda victory. And beyond that, I do still hold out some hope.
@charlie:
Yeah, I would have thought so too. But if it is a hoax, John would do well to issue a statement denouncing it as such; such confusion does nobody any good. Anyway, I’ve written to him (I wonder if I know anyone in his constituency…), and I’ll forward any reply I get to everyone on this thread.
Blair a war criminal? But he has GOD on his side Dave.
Well, pending independent confirmation (or an affirmative reply from John MacDonnell) I’m increasingly inclined to go with Charlie and Michael in thinking that maybe God is still smiling on Tony, maybe this is all a hoax.
By the by, I asked Jamie The Heathlander for his opinion:
I don’t think that the legal argument for action was particularly good, but it was certainly an argument. I tend to stick with the idea that many (if not most) actions can be justified in international law. This is especially the case with reference to the way in which custom ‘develops’. The Charter might be ‘clear’ on what constitutes a use of force, but in practice there have a number of arguments about its ambit. I just want to reiterate that the law regarding the use of force is one of the most slippery elements of international law. And although there may not be controversy about prevention (I’m not so sure) and aggression (yes), the issue is how states frame their conduct.
I would also point out that I skimmed over the ‘model’ of advice that the MWH people thought to give. It strikes me as really quite utopian, and (insofar as one can say this about international law) basically just wrong.
The commentary certainly seems to be naive in places - eg it suggests more limitations on UNSCRs authorising force than any reasonable reading of articles 41 and 42 of the UN Charter would allow - but it’s useful as a collection of primary source quotes.
As for the fluidity and development of international law enforcement, don’t you think that that’s a pretty good reason to try and press for these charges? Left to their own devices, the powers that be will only erode the precedents set by Nuremberg etc further; while the rules of the ICC etc remain unwritten, surely we have at least some opportunity to influence how they are written?
Actually, I guess I come off as a bit utopian too.
Dave, while I agree excessive force was used to get rid of Saddam Hussein and that the whole country has been in a worse mess since the invasion, there are other areas of the world where the UK armed forces were used with spectacular results under the leadership of Mr Blair; Sierra Leone.
Lets not forget that it took the UK armed forces 3 weeks for stop a civil war that had gone on for 10 years. The fact that this wasn’t stopped sooner was irresponsible as the violence was extreme.
The Kurds are also now living in peace having be slaughtered by genocidal action using chemicals. Have you seen the pictures of people stopped in their tracks, clutching their children.
I could go on about Bosnia & Kosovo too. The UK armed forces did an incredibly difficult job out there. Those wars were scary believe me. You were probably only about ten year sold at the time. Kids your age were getting killed Dave.
Wake up Dave from your cosy student debates. The real world out there is an nasty, dangerous, hate filled place where life is cheap. The UK armed forces don’t go out there intending to kill 10 year old kids. I’m sure Blair didn’t either.
Whoa, where did all that come from Matt?
I simply don’t think that the use of Britain’s armed forces is motivated by humanitarian concerns. Let’s look at some of the examples you mentioned: at the time Saddam gassed the Kurds, he was still seen as an ally. The US and UK did all they could to brush the atrocity under the table; the Kurdish genocide only became a cause celebre several years after the event, when Saddam invaded Kuwait and became an official enemy.
As for Bosnia and Kosovo, the two weren’t the same. Everyone was so (rightly) horrified by the earlier Balkan wars that it was easy to portray Kosovo as more or less the same thing in order to justify a war. But people forget, the worst of the violence and displacements there occured after the bombing started, not before. I was fourteen, by the way.
The attitude displayed by the British authorities towards Serbian civilians then was similar to that towards Iraqis now. It’s not sadism, but indifference; Blair doesn’t want to kill children, but he does authorise actions in the full knowledge that they will kill children, and he quite clearly doesn’t care about this collateral damage as long as his missions are accomplished - and his missions revolve around the projection of British and American power.
Okay, I’m not that informed about Sierra Leone, but seeing a pattern in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, and really most of the history of UK and US wars abroard, I’m not particularly inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. When British forces kill civilians, British leaders don’t care.
Everything that has happened in Iraq and Afghanistan has happened as a direct result of the invasions of those countries (and, indeed, much of what had previously been happening in Afghanistan was a result of the earlier Soviet invasion, which had been justified in very familiar humanitarian-intervention terms), and for no-one is life cheaper than for the perpetrators of those invasions.
There are times when a “world police” force might be desirable (eg Rwanda, for a start), but it’s very naive to think that this job can be left to the most powerful nations, responsible to none but themselves. If international law is worth anything (and, frankly, the above discussion leaves me doubting that it even is), it should stop these countries stomping unilaterally over their weaker rivals.
Sorry Dave. I was a little strong there but just thought the comment thread was getting a little bogged down and was missing some very important points.
Rwanda. Very good example of reasons for intervention. Sierra Leone was similar but the slaughter was more drawn out. Zimbabwe is another area that must be liberated from intense missery. Should the UN go in or a country like the UK? What about the AU? No, their leaders won’t say a bad thing about Mugabe. Why is that?
Yes it’s true no one did anything about the Kurds genocide. The US & the UK had been using Saddam against Iran during the 8 year war. In Afganistan everyone wants the country so they can install pipelines across it from oilfields in the countries north of it. The oil then flows from ports in Pakistan or India to the west. It’s a crazy plan and anyway India would probably use a lot of such oil now. So I agree that there is nothing humanitarian about that war.
Blair did start off with Sierra Leone though and that was a good move. Pitty he then got power drunk with Bush & GOD.
Well, it’s in large part because many Africans still remember Mugabe more for his heroic struggle against white rule and the British Empire than for his latter-day totalitarian ineptitude - which should give us a clue as to the legitimacy of any hypothetical British intervention there now. But really, why should we expect any political elites to act in the interests of oppressed foreigners?
It would be nice if there were some global democratic peacekeeping militia to intervene in the Congo, Darfur, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan and West Papua, but there isn’t. The UN is a poor substitute, reliant as it is on the support of national political elites, including those responsible for most of the problems in the first place. But it is absurd to suggest that the armies of the great powers take on this role; they act in their own interests, and more often than not are responsible for creating or at least worsening the very problems they claim to be solving.
For the record, I think the pipeline was the least important of three main reasons for the attack on Afghanistan. One was intimidation, sending a message to any other countries that might be getting ideas: the U.S. is still willing and able to smash whatever country stands in its way. The other is to project power elsewhere: Afghanistan stands at the crossroads between South Asia, Central Asia and the Middle East, and creating a tame host-state for massive American bases (much like the Phillipines in the C19th) would have been spectacularly useful.
As for Sierra Leone, like I say, I don’t know what Blair’s agenda was. For all I know, perhaps he was on a sincere mission to save the world. But I doubt it, as right through the era of the “ethical foreign policy” Britain has steadfastly backed ruthless oppressors against the oppressed in Palestine, Indonesia and Turkey (the oppressed, in this case, being the other lot of Kurds whose oppression is less fashionable to go on about than that of their neighbours in Northern Iraq).
Dave you’re too young to be so cynical. It’ll rot your soul!
Cynicism isn’t calling imperialism imperialism. It’s calling imperialism inevitable - or worse, desirable - in this nasty dangerous hate filled world
:), you don’t want to have to check into the Priory for news filter realignment … believe me! Mind you, it might be an opportunity to snap Amy doing coffee in the drugs rehab room next store.
On a related note, Blair has just found out about that Israeli security minister who the FCO had advised to keep away from Britain or risk arrest for war crimes (he had a Hamas leader’s house blown up, killing 15 people including the target’s wife and 3 kids)… and he’s “shocked” (not by the war crime, of course, but by the threat of reprisal). (link, from Haaretz)
Does anyone have any idea whether this story is true or not yet?? I’ve tried to find out myself; I’ve read comments on other blogs reporting this where people say they’ve been in touch with the police and been told it is true. I did this myself however and they told me they had no way of knowing and I should ring the crown prosecution service (after patronisingly deriding me for not mindlessly accepting what the BBC says/does not say), I rang the CPS and they told me that there’s no way of knowing and I should ring the police; at which point I got frustrated and gave up on the whole process.
Well done for chasing it up, Rob. I still don’t know, to be honest. The facebook group associated with MWH seems a bit dodgy, but that doesn’t mean very much.
Watch the Q&A section of the press release if you haven’t already (link), I think there’s some disagreement as to what “under investigation” actually means, in such a way that the police press office can play it down and the campaigners can play it up.
That really does seem to be the real John McDonnell, so I might have a go phoning his office during the week. It might also be worth asking some of the journalists present - I caught the name Nigel Morris, the Indy’s home affairs correspondent - if they were really there and, if so, why they haven’t reported it.
I must say, if it is a hoax, it’s quite an elaborate one. On the other hand, if it’s real, they’re being strangely lax in publicising it.
In terms of media verification, I have found a clip (link) purporting to be from Press TV, the Iranian state broadcaster (who, obviously, aren’t without their own propaganda agenda), although there’s no sign of the story on the Press TV website.
Ring between 11 and 1, monday to friday. You can’t leave a message. (I found all this out from a recorded message on friday at half two).
Thanks for the link I didn’t actually realise that there was more than one installment to the video. As they say, high-level corruption within the police is likely to suppress any investigation, the real fight being against the ignorance and indifference of much of the population to genocide laws. I figure the best thing for me to do now, instead of trying to find out if there is in fact an investigation or not, is to start reporting the crimes myself to my local police and making sure as many people as possible know about it and do likewise.
(As I might have told you before, Rob, I think the best thing you can do is join Stop The War Coalition or Respect or something, and help organise for Salford Uni).
Yeah, if you’re going to do that though you need to be really prepared. Going in and saying that the Nuremberg Tribunals established aggression to be the supreme crime isn’t going to be enough. If the press release above is genuine, the activists involved had a six hour interview with the cops.
So to get taken seriously, you’ll have to do a bit of research, on the relevant laws and legal precedent, on Goldsmith’s legal advice, the UNSCRs that led to war, the documentary record for crimes during the war (especially but not exclusively Fallujah). Do you want me to see if there’s anyone from StWC Manchester who might be able to work with you on this?