Brekend Nieuws | Forum | Brits Nieuws | Het Nieuws van de V.S. | Het Nieuws van de wereld | Politiek Nieuws | Nieuws sc.i-technologie | Het Nieuws van de oorlog & van het Terrorisme | Het Nieuws van sporten | Multimedia | Vastgestelde Homepage

Woensdag, 21 Mei, 2008

Counterpunch | Ondanks de steile duik in zijn populariteit en groeiende kritiek van zijn bekwaamheid, karakter, en stijl, George W. Bush is niet werkelijk dat veel verschillend van andere voorzitters met betrekking tot zijn hegemonic ambities of zijn proclivity om kracht te gebruiken om buitenlands beleidsdoelen te bereiken. De voortdurende historische patronen, President Bush en alle voorzitters sinds Wereldoorlog II hebben horrendous misdaden tegen het mensdom begaan om Amerikaanse belangen veilig te stellen en vooruit te gaan onder het mom van het bevrijden van mensen van onder jackboot die van brutale dictators of communistische subversives, democratie brengt aan totalitarian staten, die het leven van zij verbeteren die lijden en aan terrorisme uitroeien.

Dit zijn prijzenswaardige doelstellingen die op heersende shibboleths in eigen land wijzen. Deze doelstellingen zijn een verleidelijke mantel voor het echte paradigma dat buitenlands beleid regeert dat de achtervolging van Amerikaanse belangen met totale onverschilligheid aan de gevolgen aan mensen die door Amerikaanse „ideals“ is tot slachtoffer worden gemaakt.

De gapende discrepantie tussen de verklaarde doelstellingen van Amerikaans buitenlands beleid en zijn praxis wordt het best toegelicht door apogee van oorlogsmisdaden: volkerenmoord. In zijn achtervolging van deze lofty doelstellingen, hebben de Verenigde Staten volkerenmoord in Irak begaan. De interventie die in volkerenmoord resulteert bewijst als strikt minimum dat de beweerde motieven van de Amerikaanse overheid voor buitenlandse beleidsbepalingen totaal specious zijn.

De rationalisatie voor de toepassing van militaire kracht is gebaseerd op eufemistische doctrines die geen basis in Amerikaanse of internationale wet hebben. George W. Doctrine van Bush van preventieve oorlog was niet nieuw aan de strategen van het buitenlandse en defensiebeleid maar kan terug naar de doctrine van Dean worden gevonden Acheson's verwerpend de toepasselijkheid van internationale wet aan de Verenigde Staten zoals samengevat in een toespraak aan de Amerikaanse Maatschappij van Internationale Wet in 1963 waarin hij dat debatteerde:

De macht, de positie en het prestige van de V.S. waren uitgedaagd [de Cubaanse Crisis van de Raket] door een andere staat en de wet behandelt dergelijke kwesties van uiteindelijke macht niet - macht die de bron van soevereiniteit benadert. [1]

Met andere woorden, vervangen de nationale belangen met inbegrip van meretricious bedreigingen voor de soevereiniteit van de Amerikaanse Staat internationale wet ondanks het feit het Handvest van de Verenigde Naties maatregelen voor deze exigencies treft.

De groeiende eetlust voor de unilaterale toepassing van kracht resulteerde in de „humanitaire interventie“ of „onwettige maar wettige“ doctrine tijdens de Clinton en voorzitterschappen van Bush. This doctrine validated acts of preemption that justified the use of force whenever a threat was neither imminent nor substantial but necessary to defend the security interests of the United States against a perceived threat easily manufactured through the propaganda of fear.

Invading and occupying Iraq under the pretext of a preemptive war, a country already decimated by Dessert Storm, sanctions and no-fly-zones, represents the quintessential tragedy and hypocrisy of American foreign policy. To verify that the American Government is guilty of genocide in Iraq, I will establish a set of criteria based on the United Nations Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and apply them to Iraq.

The UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide sets out a number of criteria to evaluate whether or not a war crime attains the magnitude of genocide. These criteria are not without controversy but by examining the scholarly literature on the subject and the judgments of the International Criminal Court, I have established conservative standards to assess whether or not the American Government is responsible for genocide in Iraq.

According to the Convention:

Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, such as:

a) Killing members of the group;
b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm;
c) Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or part;
d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Although the phrase “in whole or in part” sounds ambiguous, its ambit has been restricted by judgments of the International Criminal Court. According to the Rapporteur for the Preparatory Commission of the International Criminal Court, “The accused aimed to destroy a large part of the group in a particular area.”

The International Criminal Court for the former Yugoslavia concluded that “The killing of all members of a group within a small geographical area” was tantamount to genocide.

Notwithstanding the imprecision of these definitions of “part”, the area in Bosnia referred to in the ruling sets a baseline for future cases. The architect of the Convention, Raphael Lemkin, intended to define “in part” as a level of destruction sufficiently substantial to imperil the existence of the group. Shedding even further light on this problem, the Convention itself considers attempted genocide to be punishable under the Convention implying that intent alone is sufficient to establish guilt.

“Intent” is another term in need of clarification. Apart from direct evidence through orders, statements, or coordinated acts, intention can be shown if “Acts of destruction that are not the specific goal but are predictable outcomes or by-products of a policy, which may have been avoided by a change in that policy.” [2]

The Genocide Convention defines two basic levels of guilt: the direct commission of genocide and complicity to commit genocide.

Complicity in genocide must embody:

Intentional participation;
Knowledge of the genocidal intent of the perpetrators;
Organizing, planning, supplying arms, training intelligence, or direct military support.
One example of direct American genocide, Iraq, has suffered massive destruction to its infrastructure, the economy and human life, particularly since the imposition of American sanctions in 1990 and the bombing in 1991. UN Resolution 661 mandated sanctions against Iraq originally to force Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait. The resolution was worded in such a way as to grant the United States a veto over which products could be traded with Iraq. The American government exploited that veto to severely punish the people of Iraq in the hope that they would overthrow Saddam Hussein themselves.

According to a 1993 UNICEF study, “What has become increasingly clear is that no significant movement toward food security can be achieved so long as the embargo remains in place.” [3]

Declassified documents divulge the fact that the Americans were aware of and responsible for a humanitarian crisis caused by the sanctions. A Defense Intelligence Agency report on January 18, 1991 concludes that:

Failing to secure supplies [for Iraq] will result in a shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population. This could lead to increased incidences; if not epidemics of disease…Current public health problems are attributable to the reduction of normal preventative medicine, waste disposal, water purification and distribution electricity, and the decreased ability to control disease outbreaks.[4]

On January 15, 1991, B-52s were flying towards their targets in Iraq and cruise missiles were fired from ships in the Indian Ocean. Iraqi defences were incapable of offering any resistance.

Restricting the bombing to only military targets was not part of the U.S. war plan whereas targets included hospitals, electric utilities, schools, factories, water treatment plants, irrigation systems, food storage facilities and community health centres. Over 200,000 people died, the majority of whom were civilians.

In 2003, George Bush Junior inflicted further atrocities on the devastated people of Iraq and on a country virtually bombed back into pre-industrial times by another so-called war. As of today, Iraq has suffered a further one million casualties and four million refugees.

Whether or not the administrations of Bush Senior, Clinton, and Bush Junior intended to commit genocide in Iraq is irrelevant because the consequences of the bombings and sanctions could have been predicted by any reasonable person. The actions of these administrations clearly resulted in mass killing, serious bodily and mental harm, and the infliction of conditions calculated to bring about Iraq’s physical destruction in whole or in part. Iraq is a clear-cut case of genocide.

The carnage resulting from this genocide clearly exposes the disparity between the professed principles of American foreign policy and its manifest practice. This hypocrisy betrays the indifference of American leaders to basic democratic principles and to respect for both domestic and international law.

David Model is a Professor of Political Science at Seneca College. He is the author of States of Darkness: US Complicity in Genocides Since 1945. He can be reached at: david.model@senecac.on.ca

Notes

[1] Acheson, D. (1968). Dean Acheson’s remark is quoted in Louis Henkin: “How Nations Behave: Law and Foreign Policy.” Columbia University Press. P. 265-266.

[2] Gellately, R., and Kiernan, B. (Eds.). (2003). The Specter of Genocide: Mass Murder in Historical Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press. P. 15.

[3] UNICEF Report. (1993). Children, War, and Sanctions. Cited in Ullrich, G. (1998) “The effects of Sanctions on the Civilian Community of Iraq.”

[4] Defense Intelligence Agency. (1991, January 8). Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities.

See More:Iraq World News 

Have Your Say: Consciousness of Guilt: Genocide in Iraq?
Please note, only selected comments will be published.

Or discuss this report in our our new forums

RSS TrackBack URL

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 21st, 2008 at 11:44 pm and is filed under War & Terrorism News, General . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Loading ...

ADVERTISEMENTS

SITE MAPS

7/7 Afghanistan Alternative Energy Art BBC Big Brother Bilderberg Biometrics Bush CIA Climate Change Cover Up Cults Culture Database State David Hicks David Ray Griffin Democrats Demos Drugs Education EU False Flag FBI Fraud Free Speech Freemasons G8 Globalization Guantanamo Health News History ID Cards Internet Iran Iraq Israel Law Marches MI5 MI6 Microsoft Military MoD Money Music NASA Neocons NSA Oil Pakistan Podcast Police State Propaganda RFID RINF Rumsfeld Science Secrecy Security Space Sports Spying Stephen Lendman Technology Terrorism Tony Blair Torture TV UK News UN USA News Video Voting Warfare White House Wolfowitz World News Yahoo
2003 - 2005 Archives | 2005 - 2007 Archives | 2007 - 2008 Archives | Current Archives | Past Version