November
2016
All
war is a crime and our task is to struggle against all war. But we have to
acknowledge that within war some actions are regarded as legal and others as
illegal, and that the distinction is an important one. On the positive
side, international law is moving
in the right direction. The Rome
Statute of 1998 which established the International Criminal Court has extended
the definition of war crimes beyond earlier international agreements of which
the most recent were the Geneva Conventions of 1949. These and other legal
principles and judgments now form a substantial bundle of international
customary law, which applies not only to states but to non-states and other
combatants, whether or not they have signed a particular treaty or agreement. This
may seem a tiresome preamble, but it is
important to establish clearly the legal grounds for condemning certain actions
as war crimes if our protest is to be effective. At the present time those
which concern us most immediately are
i) the bombing of civilians by the Saudi-led
coalition in Yemen, particularly the airstrike on a crowded funeral ceremony in
Yemen’s capital, Sanaa, on October 8, 2016, which killed at least 140 people
and wounded more than 500, but also including the bombing of medical
facilities, markets etc.
ii)
the bombing of civilians by the Syrian and Russian air-forces in eastern Aleppo
and elsewhere, particularly airstrikes on hospitals and clinics, but also
including indiscriminate bombing with barrel bombs which has destroyed entire
buildings containing civilians.
In both cases the perpetrators (the Saudi-led
coalition and the Russian/Syrian commands) have advanced very similar
arguments. First, that they are acting
on behalf of the internationally recognised government of Yemen/Syria. This
is irrelevant: international law does
not allow one side in a conflict, whatever its legal character, more latitude
than another in observing the rules of law.
Second, that while the loss of civilian life
is regrettable, it results from their opponents (the Houthi insurgency in
Yemen, the anti-Assad rebels in Syria) locating themselves within these
civilian facilities. So the Saudis have claimed that the bombing of the funeral
was a "mistake", because they had been given incorrect information
that the mourners included high-ranking Houthi officials. And the Russians
regularly claim that the rebels in eastern Aleppo are using civilians as a
human shield or that there are rebel facilities within hospitals.
Here we should refer to Article 8 of the Rome
Statute, which defines as a war crime:
Intentionally
launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental
loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or
widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would
be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military
advantage anticipated.
In other words, if the destruction of
civilians and civilian facilities is clearly disproportionate to any military
gain, this is a war crime. This may seem to some too weak a definition, but
even within its terms no reasonable person could regard the bombing of
assemblies of civilians, hospitals etc. in Yemen or Syria as justified. The
claim would only be tenable if the hospitals concerned were predominantly
military bases masquerading as hospitals, or if the funeral or market
gatherings were predominantly armed assemblies.
That is why the Saudi bombings should be
condemned without argument as war crimes (and the British government urged to
stop supplying weapons to the perpetrator).
All other claims -- that the Houthis also commit atrocities or that Iran
is supporting them -- are irrelevant. And we should recognise that the same
applies without argument to the Russian/Syrian war crimes. The fact that
anti-Assad rebels are supported by foreign powers, or that many rebels are
extremists, may be deplored but it is equally irrelevant. Condemnation of a war
crime should never be followed by a "but" or "however"
clause.
We in the peace movement and on the left
often complain of double standards by our governments, and we condemn attempts
to explain away atrocities as accidents or collateral damage. We have to be
scrupulous in clinging to a
single standard ourselves, and to avoid the easy route of relativism. A war
crime, once defined as such, is, quite simply, a war crime.