Book Reviews | Gordon Campbell | News Flashes | Scoop Features | Scoop Video | Strange & Bizarre | Search


Brian Cloughley: America And War Crimes

The US has bribed and bullied over thirty countries to help it cripple and if possible destroy the ICC, but the great majority of nations (including many of the bullied ones) consider it a major advance in international cooperation.

America And War Crimes

By Brian Cloughley

We all know what a war crime is, because we are human beings who can tell right from wrong. We have a common sense idea of what constitutes a legitimate act of war and what does not. But as any lawyer will tell you, such things have nothing to do with common sense. The crux of the matter is a commonly-agreed international code of justice, but applicable law is imprecise on the subject because it was cobbled together in the aftermath of the First World War and used selectively at the end of the Second.

The 'Commission of Fifteen' on war crimes, appointed by America, Britain, France and Italy, reported on March 29, 1919, basing its findings on analysis of wartime atrocities. It produced a list of 32 infractions of what we now call human rights. Unfortunately it was inevitable that zeal for prosecuting those responsible for even the most terrible crimes would dwindle. "The public appetite for the chase was waning," says the erudite Margaret MacMillan in her majestic and elegantly-written 'Peacemakers' (John Murray) about the Paris peace conference of 1919. The Allies, she notes, "gave up the idea of trying Germans themselves", so "sent a list of names [of alleged war criminals] to the German government, which set up a special court. Out of the hundreds named, twelve were tried. Most were set free at once. A couple of submarine officers who had sunk lifeboats full of wounded received sentences of four years each; they escaped within a few weeks and were never found."

This is what happens when responsibility for administering justice concerning individuals alleged to have committed war crimes devolves upon the nation of which these individuals are citizens. Their guilt may or may not be proven, but so far as the imbecile forces of tribalism are concerned it is verging on the unthinkable that members of their nation could have innocent blood on their hands. Common sense is irrelevant, and it is law, and only law, international and enforceable by global consent, that will ensure justice for war criminals and their victims.

"Laws, like the spider's web, catch the fly and let the hawk go free," says a Spanish proverb, but this need not necessarily be so. So far as criminal activity is concerned, be that in war or peace, it is imperative to identify vicious predators and have them answerable to the world through transparent and impartial processes of law. But we can't expect justice from tribunals composed of tribal hawks.

Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention tells us what War Crimes are made of, and it would be reasonable to accept the list - were it not that lawyers can drive tanks through the phrase 'wilfully cause great suffering or serious injury to body or health'. How wilful is wilful, and how great is great? Other crimes involve 'extensive destruction... of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly'.

To a normal human being this is simple: if you do that, you are a war criminal. But to those with neither conscience nor common decency the words 'extensive ', 'justified' and 'necessity' are only words. They are as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal and signify nothing. Give us the legal definition of ' extensive' they demand, as the dying shrieks of shredded civilians rend the air. The ripped-off head of a girl being despairingly and hysterically embraced in all its eye-glazed bloodiness by her mother means nothing to perky pilots or the fixated zealots in Washington who sent them out to kill. Apparently it is administratively impossible and patriotically unthinkable that an American could be held accountable for the particularly hideous death of a girl whose mother' s life will for ever be an agonised hell.

On March 26 and 29 there were enormous explosions in market places in Baghdad, killing over 60 civilians. Washington and London claimed, possibly seriously, that they were caused by Iraqi military action. According to CNN, the Washington Post and the Boston Globe, there was to be an inquiry into the deaths: " [US Central Command spokesman] Brooks said the Baghdad market incident will be investigated". Good.

It was reassuring to know that there would be thorough investigation of an alleged war crime. There might have been mistaken targeting of the two markets, in which case we would have to say: "Very sorry about that, dead and maimed civilians, but this is war". In no way is that a war crime. It is gross incompetence and appalling professional negligence, but not a crime. So if this was the case, why not let us know about it?

If a genuine inquiry was held - which I doubt - its results have not been made known to anyone. The US Congress, the national legislative body one would think might be able to hold the administration to account for its activities, should have demanded to see it, but is morally spineless and declines to carry out its responsibilities. It would be considered un-American, unpatriotic and treasonable to pursue the matter, which causes the Bush administration to laugh all the way to the patriot vote bank.

There is one institution that might keep nations honest, and that is the International Criminal Court (ICC), in whose terms of reference there is a sensible, up-to-date definition of war crimes. But there lies the difficulty, because its definition does not suit Washington. Indeed it is hated and feared by Washington.

The US has bribed and bullied over thirty countries to help it cripple and if possible destroy the ICC, but the great majority of nations (including many of the bullied ones) consider it a major advance in international cooperation. In humanitarian terms it is a practical step forward for global maturity and decency. The only circumstances in which the Court would have a case referred to it would be if individuals alleged to have committed war crimes had not been subject to their own national judicial process. What could be fairer than that?

But it isn't a matter of being fair. It is a matter of America being above the law. No American citizen is ever going to be charged with committing a war crime. The US will ride roughshod over international law and treat with disdain and contempt those nations trying to construct a system of egalitarian international justice. Bush is determined to destroy internationalism. That's the way it goes, and there is nothing we can do about it. Little wonder that terrorists thrive.


- Brian Cloughley is a former military officer who writes on international affairs. His website is

© Scoop Media

Top Scoops Headlines


Werewolf: Living With Rio’s Olympic Ruins

Mariana Cavalcanti Critics of the Olympic project can point a discernible pattern in the delivery of Olympics-related urban interventions: the belated but rushed inaugurations of faulty and/or unfinished infrastructures... More>>

Live Blog On Now: Open Source//Open Society Conference

The second annual Open Source Open Society Conference is a 2 day event taking place on 22-23 August 2016 at Michael Fowler Centre in Wellington… Scoop is hosting a live blog summarising the key points of this exciting conference. More>>



Gordon Campbell: On The Politicising Of The War On Drugs In Sport

It hasn’t been much fun at all to see how “war on drugs in sport” has become a proxy version of the Cold War, fixated on Russia. This weekend’s banning of the Russian long jumper Darya Klishina took that fixation to fresh extremes. More>>


Binoy Kampmark: Kevin Rudd’s Failed UN Secretary General Bid

Few sights are sadder in international diplomacy than seeing an aging figure desperate for honours. In a desperate effort to net them, he scurries around, cultivating, prodding, wishing to be noted. Finally, such an honour is netted, in all likelihood just to shut that overly keen individual up. More>>

Open Source / Open Society: The Scoop Foundation - An Open Model For NZ Media

Access to accurate, relevant and timely information is a crucial aspect of an open and transparent society. However, in our digital society information is in a state of flux with every aspect of its creation, delivery and consumption undergoing profound redefinition... More>>

Keeping Out The Vote: Gordon Campbell On The US Elections

I’ll focus here on just two ways that dis-enfranchisement is currently occurring in the US: (a) by the rigging of the boundary lines for voter districts and (b) by demanding elaborate photo IDs before people are allowed to cast their vote. More>>

Ramzy Baroud: Being Black Palestinian - Solidarity As A Welcome Pathology

It should come as no surprise that the loudest international solidarity that accompanied the continued spate of the killing of Black Americans comes from Palestine; that books have already been written and published by Palestinians about the plight of their Black brethren. In fact, that solidarity is mutual. More>>


Get More From Scoop

Top Scoops
Search Scoop  
Powered by Vodafone
NZ independent news