Det danske Fredsakademi
Kronologi over fredssagen og international politik 27. 2005 / Timeline September 27, 2005
Version 3.526. September 2005, 28. September 2005
09/27/2005
Dansk folkeafstemning om EU forfatningstraktaten.
Udsat på ubestemt tid..
Borgerinitiativet Ja til Europa - Nej til EU-forfatning.
Litteratur: AMK anbefaler at
stemme nej til EU-forfatningstraktaten.
Røder, Ulla: Kan
FN leve op til sit ry som en FREDS organisation?
Terp, Holger: EU's
forfatningstraktat fremmer militarisme.
09/27/2005
German court declares Iraq war violated international
law
By Justus Leicht
27 September 2005
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/sep2005/iraq-s27.shtml
Just a few weeks ago, a highly significant judicial decision was
handed down by the German Federal Administrative Court but barely
mentioned in the German media. With careful reasoning, the judges
ruled that the assault launched by the United States and its allies
against Iraq was a clear war of aggression that violated
international law.
Further, they meticulously demonstrated that the German government,
in contrast to its public protestations, had assisted in the
aggression against Iraq without having any legal right to do so.
Although the decision was made three months ago, the judgement and
its legal arguments have only just been made available in written
form, comprising more than 130 pages.
The decision was made in relation to legal proceedings initiated by
a German army officer who had refused to obey an order following
the invasion of Iraq by the US-led coalition of forces because he
feared that he would in effect be supporting the war. As a result,
he was demoted from major to captain and the army filed a criminal
complaint against him for insubordination. In its latest judgement,
the Federal Administrative Court reversed the demotion and said the
charges against the officer contravened Article 4, Paragraph 1 of
the German Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of
conscience.
Grave concerns for international law
Due to strong public resistance to the remilitarisation of Germany
after the Second World War, under conditions in which the army
leadership initially consisted largely of former members of the
Nazi Wehrmacht, the rebuilding of the German army in the 1950s was
tied to a series of democratic provisions. This included the right
to not follow orders that contravened human dignity, the
constitution or German law, or that violated international law.
The Constitutional Court, however, left open whether such criteria
applied in this case. It said a decision on this issue did not have
to be made. The defendant’s complaint was upheld because he
made a difficult decision based on his conscience under special
circumstances.
The court left no doubt, though, that it had “grave concerns
for international law” arising from the Iraq war and
Germany’s support for it.
The court referred to Article 4, Paragraph 4 of the United Nations
Charter, which classifies “every” threat and use of
military force against another nation as an act of aggression. It
specifies only two exceptions: a formal resolution of the UN
Security Council and for self-defence purposes. Neither of these
was the case with Iraq.
In particular, the United States had no legal basis for attacking
Iraq based on previous UN resolutions that it itself had
introduced. UN Resolution 678 in 1990 had only authorised the
expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait. The ceasefire Resolution 687 in 1991
certified that this aim had been realised. This resolution also
threatened Iraq with “serious consequences” if it used
poisonous gasses or other biological weapons and renewed the demand
for Iraq to maintain a clear distance from “international
terrorism.” This resolution was accepted by Iraq.
The court stated that UN Resolution 707 in 1991 did not revoke the
ceasefire nor has it since been repealed. No subsequent resolution
contained a justification for military operations, not even in
relation to forcing Iraq to cooperate with weapons inspectors.
This fact was seen by the court as particularly valid in relation
to Resolution 1441, passed on November 8, 2002, which was later
used by the US and Great Britain to justify war.
This resolution gave instructions to the chief weapons inspectors,
Hans Blix and Mohamed El-Baradei, to report any lack of cooperation
from Iraq to the UN Security Council, so that it could properly
assess the situation. The decisions that the UN Security Council
would then take in such a situation were left open, according to
the court.
Although the Security Council threatened “serious
consequences,” it did not make explicit what form they would
take. On the contrary, Resolution 1441 expressed
“unmistakably,” according to the court, that the matter
had yet to be determined by the Security Council. The court argued
that the resolution did not give a free hand for military action,
but rather—based on the UN Charter—left the decision
about any consequences to the UN.
With the formulation “serious consequences,” Resolution
1441 only issued a general warning, but had deliberately distanced
the Security Council from authorising the use of force by the US
and the UK.
The court argued that only if the UN Security Council resolution
text had explicitly provided for the use of military force, within
the confines of the UN Charter, would military action against Iraq
have been permitted. An apparent “silence,” or the
position that the meaning of “serious consequences” was
left unclarified, did not suffice to justify military action.
The court also did not consider the objection valid that the
resolution text was interpreted differently by the US and UK. It
stated: “For the determination of what the UN Security
Council had decided in one of its resolutions, what is decisive is
not what government representatives ‘thought’ about the
proceedings and resolutions themselves. It is far more dependent on
what was actually laid down in the text of the agreed resolution.
If it is not in the text, an appropriate draft resolution is
lacking. The mental reservations of governments or their
representatives are not valid insofar as international law is
concerned.”
The text of Resolution 1441 showed, on the contrary, that an
exemption to the fundamental prohibition on the use of force had
not been decided on. Nowhere did it contain an endorsement or an
authorisation for any government or state to use force according to
Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The term “authorisation”
in this context did not even appear anywhere in the resolution.
The attempt of the governments in the US, UK and Spain to have a
resolution passed immediately before the start of the war that
would have authorised military action did not find majority support
in the Security Council. To avoid the resolution being defeated,
the draft resolution was withdrawn. German support for the war
violated international law
What was particularly noteworthy was that the judges continually
referred to a paper published by the scientific study service of
the German parliament committee on January 2, 2003, that also
concluded that the UN resolutions did not legitimise an attack on
Iraq. Even if one assumes that not every parliamentarian read this
paper, one has to assume, at the very least, that members of the
cabinet and German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder himself must
have been made aware that the Iraq war violated international
law.
The court said that the US and UK had, in their diplomatic notes to
the UN Security Council, nowhere made a substantiated claim that a
dangerous situation existed—something necessary if a right to
self-defence was being put forward as the justification.
The court devoted much detail to the logistical support provided by
Germany to the war—in particular, the use of military bases
and the fly-over rights for the US and UK.
It soberly declared: “The support for an illegal military
action can not only be expressed through military participation in
combat operations, but also in other ways. A breach of
international law can be committed through an action or—when
an obligation exists under international law—through
inaction. Support given to an offence under international law is
itself an offence.” Article 26 of the German constitution,
which prohibits the “preparation” of an illegal war,
prohibits even more forcefully any support of such a war.
The obligations of Germany under international law were sourced to
Resolution 3314, passed by a general sitting of the United Nations
on December 14, 1974, the works of the International Law Commission
of the United Nations, and various international treaties and
customs that stem back to the Hague Convention of 1907.
The last-mentioned prohibited states from allowing their territory
to be used for the transport of troops or military supplies. The
Hague Convention also prohibited third nations from supplying
telecommunication services in every form as well as airspace
rights. By Article 25 of the German constitution, these general
rules of international law, as part of German federal law, take
priority over other laws.
The claim of the German government that it had a “partner
duty” as a member of NATO did not invalidate these rules. The
NATO Treaty refers to the UN Charter and does not compel its member
states to support wars conducted by other NATO members that violate
international law. In addition, the court stated that the clause
that specifies supporting other NATO members only applies in those
cases where an “armed conflict” takes place inside NATO
territory. Nor did the NATO Council agree to any kind of
cooperative action in the case of war with Iraq. In addition, the
NATO Treaty contained a clause—inserted in 1949 at the behest
of the US—where member states cannot be forced to fulfil
obligations to the NATO Treaty or its implementation if this
violates their own national constitutions.
The German government also did not have the right to offer its
support for the war for political reasons, as it was bound to the
rule of law by Article 20, paragraph III of the Constitution and by
Article 25 to the general regulations of international law.
At first glance, it is amazing that this judgement did not make
larger waves, as the German government has effectively been accused
of violating both the German constitution and international law.
The government’s claim that it did everything in its power to
prevent war in Iraq was proven to be false by one of the highest
courts in the land. Not only did the government have the legal
possibility, but it also had the responsibility to bar use of
German airspace and bases on German soil from use for the Iraq
war.
In most of the media, Gerhard Schröder is celebrated for his
supposed anti-war stance. Others accuse the SPD-Green coalition
government of having damaged the transatlantic alliance with the
United States over its handling of the Iraq war. If a coalition
government consisting of the Christian Democratic Union, Christian
Social Union and Free Democratic Party emerges out of the recent
German elections, it will either continue the policy of
Schröder or bring Germany closer to the US—and most
likely confront decisions similar to those made by Schröder
the next time the US attacks a country. As for the recently formed
Left Party-Party of Democratic Socialism, one only needs to note
that its leading candidate, Gregor Gysi, has praised
Schröder’s policy with regard to Iraq.
09/27/2005
D.C. Peace Rally Provides Nuggets to Help Carry On Against the
Bush Regime
by Jackson Thoreau
You can bomb the world to pieces, but you can’t bomb it into
peace.
- hip-hop poet and musician Michael Franti
WASHINGTON, D.C. – From the top of the steps of the
Romanesque Lincoln Memorial looking east at night, you gain an
interesting perspective. The lit-up, Egyptian obelisk Washington
Monument stands like a beacon of phallic-themed power, blocking the
Capitol Building’s dome, as its image reflects an even darker
side in the nearby pond.
It’s fitting in this world-wide political epicenter that the
tallest structure is one that lends an obvious warning: Get ready
to get screwed.
Around you are expensive memorials to wars - World War II, Vietnam,
Korea – reminding us of lessons we never quite seem to grasp,
no matter how much we spend on them, no matter how many visit them.
The ancient Greek philosopher Plato still said it best: All wars
come down to the possession of wealth. And nowhere in this city
have I seen a monument to Plato.
Still, there is an inherent beauty in this palace of monuments, of
public art, of European-like boulevards, street cafes and
intersection roundabouts, that is almost addictive if you’ve
lived most of your life in a place where the most endearing
cultural center is a shopping mall. If you’re going to live
somewhere in our Dark American Empire, it might as well be the
belly of the beast.
And if you focus hard enough during such fleeting moments of pure
introspection, you can catch a glimpse, some nugget of inspiration,
that helps you continue on.
Born in this hypocritical, seductive, power-mad city, I moved at an
early age to Texas, where I lived almost as long as George W. Bush
and much longer than fellow U.S. Constitution-pisser Dick Cheney.
Since the early 1980s, I have returned mostly to join with
sometimes a few, sometimes a few thousand and sometimes a few
hundred thousand, in making a statement to the powers that be,
which often seem to be little more than pissing in the wind. One
time, I spent more than six months walking here on a peace mission
from Texas only to meet with a disarmament advisor to former
President Ron Ray “Don’t Call Me Gay” Gun, who
tried to claim that building more weapons of mass destruction to
point at the former Soviet Union was the best way to disarm those
weapons. I walked on and met some saner people.
Two years ago, I returned to D.C. for good to attempt to more
directly combat the current Orwellian administration, to beat my
head against the wall a little harder. There are times when it
actually seems worthwhile, that some progress is being made.
Saturday, Sept. 24, 2005, was such a time.
Karl Rove and his political operatives who make the Watergate
dealers look like kids did their best to keep people from turning
out for the first mass demonstration to be allowed to march past
the front of the White House in more than a decade, organized by
groups like United for Peace and Justice. They called Cindy
Sheehan, the courageous mother of a fallen son in Iraq who has done
more to refuel the anti-war movement than anyone in the past couple
of months with her Crawford vigil, a “clown.” They
claimed the peace movement didn’t even exist, then spread
warnings of right-wing, government infiltrators who would incite
violence and electromagnetic weapons that would be beamed at
participants. Some even blamed Rove for an odd five-hour delay of a
New York train carrying marchers that was said to be caused by an
electrical problem.
It was similar to the Bush thugs warnings of terrorism incidents
and threats of violence and mass arrests made a year ago before the
Republican National Convention in New York City. Then, the FBI even
targeted “potential” protesters for interrogation, and
the Justice Department opened a criminal investigation into whether
people who posted names of Republican delegates and their hotels on
Indymedia.org engaged in voter intimidation. This time, odd private
Blackwater ops security guards patrolled the streets carrying
imposing batons. But there wasn’t near as many police on the
streets as in New York, although the crowd numbers seemed to get
close to the 500,000 in New York.
Before the New York demo, First Stepford Wife Laura Bush awoke from
her coma long enough to denounce protesters as "anarchists." This
time, she was fairly quiet, even when the large rally and march
ruined her annual National Book Festival on the nearby mall.
My first protest in front of the Off-White House when I returned to
the D.C. area two years ago was a tiny one whose organizers were
told they had to keep it small, below 20 people, due to city law.
Before Sept. 24, the best protest I had been to in Lafayette Park
across from the Off-White House was an impromptu one by my toddler
son a year ago. As my head was turned and I spoke with Concepcion
Picciotto, an activist who had stood up to Bush and other
presidents with an anti-nuclear vigil in that park since 1981, my
son mooned Bush and pissed in front of him and police. While not
socially appropriate, his actions were a fitting echo of the way
Bush Inc. whizzed on the Constitution every day.
This time, Concepcion was hidden by a colorful maze of people from
all ages, all backgrounds, many of whom traveled long distances
like some I was with who came all the way from California, carrying
creative messages like “Make Levees, Not War.” Some
carried flag-draped caskets, and several wore Bush masks with
prison jumpsuits.
There were also more than 250 military family members whose visits
were organized by Gold Star Families for Peace[www.gsfp.org] and
Military Families Speak Out [www.mfso.org] that set up a Camp Casey
D.C. in the shadow of the Washington Monument. Army 1st Sgt. Frank
Cookinham, a Rhode Island vet who recently returned from a second
tour of duty in Iraq, told the Washington Post he wore his uniform
because it was “the only way I can shove it to Bush."
Sheehan, who along with her sister Dee Dee, former state department
official Ann Wright, Michael Berg, the father of slain U.S.
contractor Nick Berg, and others were arrested two days later in a
planned civil disobedience demonstration, was the main highlight,
even overshadowing the Rev. Jesse Jackson Jr. In a plain-spoken
column on Truthout.org, Sheehan addressed the accusations leveled
by slimeball Rove in a way that put John Kerry and his mostly weak
retorts to Rove’s lies to shame.
“We are not going away until this illegal and immoral
occupation of Iraq is over, and you [Rove] are sent back to the
depths of whatever slimy, dark, and loathsome place you came
from,” Sheehan wrote. “I may be a clown, Karl, but you
are about to be indicted.”
If Kerry had answered Rove with such a clear response, he would
have won Ohio and the election last year, although he still would
have likely conceded.
In another Truthout column on her arrest, Sheehan noted,
“Karl Rove [besides just being a very creepy man] outted a
CIA agent and was responsible for endangering many of our covert
agents worldwide. Dick Cheney's old company is reaping profits
beyond anyone's wildest imaginations in their no-bid contracts in
Iraq, Afghanistan, and New Orleans. John Negroponte's activities in
South America are very shady and murderous. Rumsfeld and Gonzales
are responsible for illegal and immoral authorization,
encouragement and approval of torture. Not to mention, violating
Geneva Conventions, torture endangers the lives of our service men
and women in Iraq. Along with the above-mentioned traitors, Condi
lied through her teeth in the insane run-up to the invasion. The
list of crimes this administration has committed is extensive,
abhorrent, and unbelievable. What is so unbelievable is that WE
were arrested for exercising our first amendment rights, and these
people are running free to enjoy their lives of crime and to wreak
havoc on the world.”
She seeks to challenge the $75 "demonstrating without a permit"
fine. And Camp Casey D.C. plans to remain under the Washington
Monument until the troops return home.
Meanwhile, those on the pro-Iraqi war side staged a rally in
between these actions that could only muster up a pathetic few
hundred people. Most were obviously ill informed, such as Antia
Grater, who told the Washington Post that the U.S. troops in Iraq
are “stopping the war on terror at the source."
Newsflash: Even Bush finally had to admit that he lied about saying
Saddam had a role in the Sept. 11 terrorism acts.
I don’t know if anything will really get through to Bush, who
was in Colorado and Texas on this weekend, supposedly "monitoring"
the response to Hurricane Rita, which means it was just another
excuse for yet another vacation. When I started on a two-year,
7,000-mile march across two continents in 1984, I didn’t know
if anything would get through to Ray Gun, and it wasn’t much
longer before the Berlin Wall fell.
I do know that all empires eventually fall. And events like the one
on Sept. 24 can only speed that process, as they help build ripples
that turn into stronger streams.
 |
 |