<html>
<body>
<font size=3>
<a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/blum04062010.html" eudora="autourl">
http://www.counterpunch.org/blum04062010.html<br><br>
</a></font><font face="Verdana" size=2 color="#990000">April 6,
2010<br><br>
</font><h1><font face="Times New Roman, Times" size=4><b>The Lingering
Crimes of Aggression <br><br>
</i></font><font face="Times New Roman, Times" size=5 color="#990000">
Fallujah's Sick Babies
</b></font></h1><font face="Times New Roman, Times" size=4>By WILLIAM
BLUM <br><br>
</font><font face="Verdana" size=6 color="#990000">W</font><font size=3>
hen did it begin, all this "We take your [call/problem/question]
very seriously"? With answering-machine hell? As you wait endlessly,
the company or government agency assures you that they take seriously
whatever reason you're calling. What a kind and thoughtful world we live
in.<br><br>
The BBC reported last month that doctors in the Iraqi city of Fallujah
are reporting a high level of birth defects, with some blaming weapons
used by the United States during its fierce onslaughts of 2004 and
subsequently, which left much of the city in ruins. "It was like an
earthquake," a local engineer who was running for a national
assembly seat told the Washington Post in 2005. "After Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, there was Fallujah." Now, the level of heart defects among
newborn babies is said to be 13 times higher than in Europe.<br><br>
The BBC correspondent also saw children in the city who were suffering
from paralysis or brain damage, and a photograph of one baby who was born
with three heads. He added that he heard many times that officials in
Fallujah had warned women that they should not have children. One doctor
in the city had compared data about birth defects from before 2003 when
she saw about one case every two months with the situation now, when
she saw cases every day. "I've seen footage of babies born with an
eye in the middle of the forehead, the nose on the forehead," she
said.<br><br>
A spokesman for the US military, Michael Kilpatrick, said it always took
public health concerns "very seriously", but that "No
studies to date have indicated environmental issues resulting in specific
health issues." 1<br><br>
One could fill many large volumes with the details of the environmental
and human horrors the United States has brought to Fallujah and other
parts of Iraq during seven years of using white phosphorous shells,
depleted uranium, napalm, cluster bombs, neutron bombs, laser weapons,
weapons using directed energy, weapons using high-powered microwave
technology, and other marvelous inventions in the Pentagon's
science-fiction arsenal ... the list of abominations and grotesque ways
of dying is long, the wanton cruelty of American policy shocking. In
November 2004, the US military targeted a Fallujah hospital "because
the American military believed that it was the source of rumors about
heavy casualties." 2 That's on a par with the classic line from the
equally glorious American war in Vietnam: "We had to destroy the
city to save it."<br><br>
How can the world deal with such inhumane behavior? (And the above of
course scarcely scratches the surface of the US international record.)
For this the International Criminal Court (ICC) was founded in Rome in
1998 (entering into force July 1, 2002) under the aegis of the United
Nations. The Court was established in The Hague, Netherlands to
investigate and indict individuals, not states, for "The crime of
genocide; Crimes against humanity; War crimes; or The crime of
aggression." (Article 5 of the Rome Statute) From the very
beginning, the United States was opposed to joining the ICC, and has
never ratified it, because of the alleged danger of the Court using its
powers to "frivolously" indict Americans.<br><br>
So concerned about indictments were the American powers-that-be that the
US went around the world using threats and bribes against countries to
induce them to sign agreements pledging not to transfer to the Court US
nationals accused of committing war crimes abroad. Just over 100
governments so far have succumbed to the pressure and signed an
agreement. In 2002, Congress, under the Bush administration, passed the
"American Service Members Protection Act", which called for
"all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of
any US or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by ... the
International Criminal Court." In the Netherlands it's widely and
derisively known as the "Invasion of The Hague Act". 3 The law
is still on the books.<br><br>
Though American officials have often spoken of "frivolous"
indictments politically motivated prosecutions against US soldiers,
civilian military contractors, and former officials it's safe to say
that what really worries them are "serious" indictments based
on actual events. But they needn't worry. The mystique of "America
the Virtuous" is apparently alive and well at the International
Criminal Court, as it is, still, in most international organizations;
indeed, amongst most people of the world. The ICC, in its first few
years, under Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo, an Argentine, dismissed
many hundreds of petitions accusing the United States of war crimes,
including 240 concerning the war in Iraq. The cases were turned down for
lack of evidence, lack of jurisdiction, or because of the United States'
ability to conduct its own investigations and trials. The fact that the
US never actually used this ability was apparently not particularly
significant to the Court. "Lack of jurisdiction" refers to the
fact that the United States has not ratified the accord. On the face of
it, this does seem rather odd. Can nations commit war crimes with
impunity as long as they don't become part of a treaty banning war
crimes? Hmmm. The possibilities are endless. A congressional study
released in August, 2006 concluded that the ICC's chief prosecutor
demonstrated "a reluctance to launch an investigation against the
United States" based on allegations regarding its conduct in Iraq. 4
Sic transit gloria International Criminal Court.<br><br>
As to the crime of aggression, the Court's statute specifies that the
Court "shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression once
a provision is adopted ... defining the crime and setting out the
conditions under which the Court shall exercise jurisdiction with respect
to this crime." In short, the crime of aggression is exempted from
the Court's jurisdiction until "aggression" is defined. Writer
Diana Johnstone has observed: "This is a specious argument since
aggression has been quite clearly defined by U.N. General Assembly
Resolution 3314 in 1974, which declared that: 'Aggression is the use of
armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or
political independence of another State', and listed seven specific
examples," including:<br><br>
</font>
<dl>
<dd>The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the
territory of another State, or any military occupation, however
temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by
the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof;
and<br><br>
<dd>Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of
another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory
of another State.<br><br>
</dl>The UN resolution also stated that: "No consideration of
whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may
serve as a justification for aggression."<br><br>
The real reason that aggression remains outside the jurisdiction of the
ICC is that the United States, which played a strong role in elaborating
the Statute before refusing to ratify it, was adamantly opposed to its
inclusion. It is not hard to see why. It may be noted that instances of
"aggression", which are clearly factual, are much easier to
identify than instances of "genocide", whose definition relies
on assumptions of intention. 5<br><br>
There will be a conference of the ICC in May, in Kampala, Uganda, in
which the question of specifically defining "aggression" will
be discussed. The United States is concerned about this discussion. Here
is Stephen J. Rapp, US Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues,
speaking to the ICC member nations (111 have ratified thus far) in The
Hague last November 19:<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>I would be remiss not to share with you my country's concerns about
an issue pending before this body to which we attach particular
importance: the definition of the crime of aggression, which is to be
addressed at the Review Conference in Kampala next year. The United
States has well-known views on the crime of aggression, which reflect the
specific role and responsibilities entrusted to the Security Council by
the UN Charter in responding to aggression or its threat, as well as
concerns about the way the draft definition itself has been framed. Our
view has been and remains that, should the Rome Statute be amended to
include a defined crime of aggression, jurisdiction should follow a
Security Council determination that aggression has occurred.<br><br>
</dl>Do you all understand what Mr. Rapp is saying? That the United
Nations Security Council should be the body that determines whether
aggression has occurred. The same body in which the United States has the
power of veto. To prevent the adoption of a definition of aggression that
might stigmatize American foreign policy is likely the key reason the US
will be attending the upcoming conference.<br><br>
Nonetheless, the fact that the United States will be attending the
conference may well be pointed out by some as another example of how the
Obama administration foreign policy is an improvement over that of the
Bush administration. But as with almost all such examples, it's a
propaganda illusion. Like the cover of Newsweek magazine of March 8,
written in very large type: "Victory at last: The emergence of a
democratic Iraq". Even before the current Iraqi electoral farce
with winning candidates arrested or fleeing 6 this headline should have
made one think of the interminable jokes Americans made during the Cold
War about Pravda and Izvestia.<br><br>
<font face="Verdana" size=2>William Blum</b> is the author of
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1567512526/counterpunchmaga">
Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II</a>,
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1567511945/counterpunchmaga">
Rogue State: a guide to the World's Only Super Power</a>. and
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1887128727/counterpunchmaga">
West-Bloc Dissident: a Cold War Political
Memoir</a>
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1567511945/counterpunchmaga">
.</a><br><br>
He can be reached at:
<a href="mailto:BBlum6@aol.com">BBlum6@aol.com</a><br><br>
</font><font size=3> <br><br>
Notes<br><br>
1. BBC, March 4, 2010; Washington Post, December 3, 2005<br><br>
2. New York Times, November 8, 2004 <br><br>
3. Christian Science Monitor, February 13, 2009 <br><br>
4. Washington Post, November 7, 2006 <br><br>
5. Diana Johnstone, Counterpunch, January 27/28, 2007 <br><br>
6. Washington Post, April 2, 2010<br><br>
<br><br>
</font><x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=3 color="#FF0000">Freedom Archives<br>
522 Valencia Street<br>
San Francisco, CA 94110<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#008000">415 863-9977<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#0000FF">
<a href="http://www.freedomarchives.org/" eudora="autourl">
www.Freedomarchives.org</a></font><font size=3> </font></body>
</html>