Five Minutes To Midnight
Friday, April 25, 2003
I've had this thought in my mind for quite a long time now, and I will put it into writing to show people how I feel the situation in Iraq should be handled henceforth when it comes to the abiding of humanitarian laws. This is not an accusatory blog against the USA by any means. In fact, as I've been reading more literature on the nation building issue, my faith in the American's plans has been increasing. I am sure that the United States of America is perfectly capable of rebuilding Iraq by supplying all required materials and funds. However, whether they are willing to do so will be left for a future blog topic.
What I would like to discuss today is the need to create a humanitarian watchdog group in Iraq, much like The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories that works in Palestine and Israel. The line between following and breaking international humanitarian laws is sometimes quite thin, but must be followed to the "T". Without respect for such laws, peace will never be truly reached in Iraq and will only aid in provoking future terrorist attacks against the United States, which is partly what this war was trying to prevent.
Once again, this is not an accusatory rant that the US is not following internationally accepted and ratified laws. I would just like to point out that without a neutral watchdog group in the area, it will be very hard to prove what is going on in the area. There are two "recent" examples of this:
-- The first of these is two separate shootings that killed a total amount of 17 Iraqi civilians in political protests in the city of Mosul. The perpetrators in both instances were American soldiers who shot into the crowd. However, due to many incoherent reports from the region, it is extremely difficult to find out who is to blame for the incident. One can argue that a soldier shot into the crowd out of hate or anger, causing other soldiers to do the same (much like one pigeon in a flock causes all to fly away when provoked). On the other hand, some reports say gunshots were heard from another part of town in the area, and soldiers were only acting in self-defense.
-- The looting of the Iraqi National Museum is the second example. Allegations that the US knew about the threat but decided not to do anything about it run rampant. At the same time, no concrete evidence has been put forward that, as many US officials have stated, protecting all Iraq's important infrastructure from looting was possible. According to international humanitarian laws, protecting an occupied nation's cultural treasures is of the utmost importance to the liberating or occupying nation.
As you can see with both of the above examples, it is extremely difficult to see who has done wrong. Aside from actually setting records straight and blaming wrong doers for their crimes, a neutral human rights organization could also point out where problems lie and how one might go about fixing them. Doing so could fill a few potholes on the bumpy road to Iraq's democracy and appease many critics of the US-led initiative. It would certainly make me feel better.
Sources
¶ 7:22 PM
What I would like to discuss today is the need to create a humanitarian watchdog group in Iraq, much like The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories that works in Palestine and Israel. The line between following and breaking international humanitarian laws is sometimes quite thin, but must be followed to the "T". Without respect for such laws, peace will never be truly reached in Iraq and will only aid in provoking future terrorist attacks against the United States, which is partly what this war was trying to prevent.
Once again, this is not an accusatory rant that the US is not following internationally accepted and ratified laws. I would just like to point out that without a neutral watchdog group in the area, it will be very hard to prove what is going on in the area. There are two "recent" examples of this:
-- The first of these is two separate shootings that killed a total amount of 17 Iraqi civilians in political protests in the city of Mosul. The perpetrators in both instances were American soldiers who shot into the crowd. However, due to many incoherent reports from the region, it is extremely difficult to find out who is to blame for the incident. One can argue that a soldier shot into the crowd out of hate or anger, causing other soldiers to do the same (much like one pigeon in a flock causes all to fly away when provoked). On the other hand, some reports say gunshots were heard from another part of town in the area, and soldiers were only acting in self-defense.
-- The looting of the Iraqi National Museum is the second example. Allegations that the US knew about the threat but decided not to do anything about it run rampant. At the same time, no concrete evidence has been put forward that, as many US officials have stated, protecting all Iraq's important infrastructure from looting was possible. According to international humanitarian laws, protecting an occupied nation's cultural treasures is of the utmost importance to the liberating or occupying nation.
As you can see with both of the above examples, it is extremely difficult to see who has done wrong. Aside from actually setting records straight and blaming wrong doers for their crimes, a neutral human rights organization could also point out where problems lie and how one might go about fixing them. Doing so could fill a few potholes on the bumpy road to Iraq's democracy and appease many critics of the US-led initiative. It would certainly make me feel better.
Sources
It's all really a conglomeration of newspaper articles from the past few weeks. Searching on Google for any of the above will yield more than enough facts.
¶ 7:22 PM
