Sri Lanka's killing fields. The video.
[i-Sri Lanka Killing Fields]
We have been highlighting the plight of civilians caught up in the Sri Lanka civilian war since 2007. Back in 2009, after the last Tamil stronghold fell into the hands of the government, I published a post called "The killing fields of Sri Lanka".
Channel 4 just released a video, with the same title, documenting repetitive and systematically executed war crimes committed by both the government and Tamil fighters against unarmed civilians, clearly marked medical facilities and other non-combat targets.
It shows a forensic investigation into the final weeks of the quarter-century-long civil war between the government of Sri Lanka and the secessionist rebels, the Tamil Tigers.
Captured on mobile phones, both by Tamils under attack and government soldiers as war trophies, the disturbing footage shows the extra-judicial executions of prisoners; the aftermath of targeted shelling of civilian camps; and dead female Tamil fighters who appear to have been raped or sexually assaulted, abused and murdered.
The film is made and broadcast as UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon faces growing criticism for refusing to launch an investigation into 'credible allegations' that Sri Lankan forces committed war crimes during the closing weeks of the bloody conflict with the Tamil Tigers.
In April 2011, Ban Ki-moon published a report by a UN-appointed panel of experts, which concluded that as many as 40,000 people were killed in the final weeks of the war between the Tamil Tigers and government forces.
It called for the creation of an international mechanism to investigate alleged violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law committed by government forces and the Tamil Tigers during that time.
This film provides powerful evidence that will lend new urgency to the panel's call for an international inquiry to be mounted, including harrowing interviews with eye-witnesses, new photographic stills, official Sri Lankan army video footage, and satellite imagery. (Full article)
You can watch the 50 minute video here, but please beware the scenes are horrific and extremely graphic.
Picture courtesy Channel 4.
Khadaffi's daughter launches law suit against NATO
[i-Aisha Khadaffi]
Aisha Khadaffi, "the man's daughter", filed a law suit against NATO. Legal papers were submitted to the prosecutor's office in Brussels her French lawyer.
Ms Khadaffi's four-month daughter, Mastoura, was one of Khadaffi's four grandchildren killed during a NATO bombing raid. (Even though Berlusconi - for one credible news source- alleges this to be propaganda)
The lawsuit is quoted saying "The target was a civil building inhabited by civilians and was neither a command post nor a military control [centre] of the Libyan regime" (Source)
It will be interesting to see how the Belgian court system will react, knowing how fast they backed out of the lawsuit against Bush, Powell, Cheney et al, during the Iraq war. It only took Bush to hint at moving NATO out of Brussels, for Belgium to change the law on war crime law suits.
At least Khadaffi's lawsuit might shed a juridical light on whether NATO steps out of its legal boundaries by providing a tad more than a mere air blockade and safeguarding of humanitarian corridors. Which it grossly does, according to me.
And mean while, we stand by and watch worse happening in Syria and Bahrain.
Picture courtesy Mohamed Messara/EPA
Civilian casualties in Iraq, Afghanistan and 9/11
[i-Graph Civilian casualties in Iraq, Afghanistan and 9/11]
Putting the amount of innocent victims into perspective...
This also means by invading Iraq and being unable to guarantee civil stability (a responsibility enforced by the Fourth Geneva Convention), the US has directly or indirectly killed more Iraqi civilians than Sadam ever did (989,788 versus about 600,000).
Graph courtesy Prose Before Hos
How to kill 200,000 people in one go
[Loband: Object Removed -]
Sixteen hours ago an American airplane dropped one bomb on Hiroshima, an important Japanese Army base.
That bomb had more power than 20,000 tons of T.N.T. It had more than two thousand times the blast power of the British "Grand Slam" which is the largest bomb ever yet used in the history of warfare.
...Thus starts the statement issued by President Truman on August 6, 1945, announcing the US had dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima earlier that day...
Much of the speech goes about the technical achievements, about putting down any Japanese 'machines of war' and 'they have started all of this'...
I always wondered how a president can announce something like this. I thought it'd be more like "Dear fellow Americans, today we have effectively killed 200,000 innocent civilians and maimed many more, in a war crime we will be proud of for many years to come."
Anyways, all sarcasm aside, I stumbled upon an excellent article called "The Documentary About Hiroshima and Nagasaki The U.S. Didn't Want Us to See". It features the video atop this post. A chillingly cold documentary of the bombs' impact on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. 22 minutes well spent to commemorate the 65th birthday of this shameful event. And to contemplate what this really was: Mass murder.
Most of the video concentrates on the material damage, and not so on the human suffering, the short and longer term effects of the radiation on humans and the environment both on the immediate surroundings and larger areas. At the time the documentary was made, it was probably too early to truely understand the impact of radioactivity.
One thing I found really... eh.. how should I say this... It really stroke me how, in a documentary made in the 40'ies, they called the spot where the atomic bomb fell "Ground Zero"... I am not too sure how to say this, but I am a true believer of good and bad karma: Spread good and better will come to you. Act evil and worse will be your return... Read the full post...
My Open Letter to the Executive Director of Human Rights Watch
[i-Bush and Annan toasting]
Under the title "Sudan/United Nations: Do Not Meet With Officials Wanted for War Crimes", Kenneth Roth - the Executive Director of Human Rights Watch - published a letter to the UN Secretary General.
He questioned the sanity of UN officials attending the inauguration of Omar al-Bashir, the Sudanese president, who is indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity in the country's western Darfur region.
I have mixed feelings about this stand, and decided to write an open letter to Mr. Kenneth Roth myself. Here are both letters:
Letter to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon
May 24, 2010
Dear Secretary-General:
I was dismayed to learn of your spokesperson's recent announcement that UN representatives Haile Menkerios and Ibrahim Gambari plan to attend the May 27 presidential inauguration of Omar al-Bashir in Khartoum. I urge you to reconsider this decision because it is both wrong and contrary to United Nations (UN) guidelines on this very issue.
UN guidelines limit UN interaction with individuals indicted by international criminal courts such as President al-Bashir to "what is strictly required for carrying out UN mandated activities." Attendance at the inauguration cannot be justified as "strictly required." To the contrary, the UN guidelines state that "[t]he presence of UN representatives in any ceremonial or similar occasion with [persons indicted by international criminal courts] should be avoided." In addition, I understand that further UN guidance specifically concerning President al-Bashir bearing your initials states that "interactions of a ceremonial nature with President Al-Bashir should be avoided, including courtesy calls, receptions, photo opportunities, attendance at national day celebrations and so on."
These guidelines are right. Disregarding them will significantly damage the UN's credibility. Attending the inauguration of an individual subject to an International Criminal Court (ICC) warrant for serious atrocity crimes would send a terrible message to victims of such crimes in Darfur and around the world that their suffering is not reason enough to dispense with ceremonial support for their alleged abuser. Attendance also risks signaling that the United Nations is not committed to the ICC's success-a signal that would be particularly unfortunate to send in the week before the first review conference of the ICC's Rome Statute, which takes place in neighboring Kampala, Uganda from May 31 to June 11, 2010. The review conference will be a moment of significant attention to the court's work and an important time to showcase dedication to the cause of international justice. Any short-sighted breach of the UN's own principles will be doing neither the court nor you any favors.
For all of these reasons, I hope you will reconsider the plans for UN officials at any level to attend the al-Bashir inauguration. Should you wish to discuss this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Kenneth Roth
Executive Director
Human Rights Watch
My answer reads:
Letter to Kenneth Roth, Executive Director, Human Rights Watch
May 27th 2010
Dear Mr. Roth,
While I applaud the tenacity in which your organisation pursues injustice and attempts to protect the weak and oppressed, I call upon you for a better balance in your actions, rather than pushing for issues "that suit The West".
You are correctly insisting the UN should be consequent in its actions towards Mr.al-Bashir. However, so should your organisation.
As an example: Back in 2003, George H.W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Norman Schwarzkopf and Tommy Franks were indicted in a Belgian court for crimes against humanity, under the principle of universal jurisdiction. Under the pressure of the US, the Belgian law was changed. Apart from my amazement on the hypocrisy of the Belgian politicians, I would still like to point out that your organisation was one of the six human rights groups calling the loss of the universal jurisdiction component "a step backwards in the global fight against the worst atrocities."
Now I wonder, if you stood that firmly on the principle of universal jurisprudence, and indeed supported the indictment of the Bush gang, did you also write a letter to the UN Secretary General insisting on avoiding any official contact with the Bush administration?
I understand both cases are unsimilar. Bush was unfortunately not indicted by the ICC - even though he should have been. However, I call upon you, to stand by your universal principles. Bashing Mr.al-Bashir is singing a tune very popular in the West. Bashing Bush would not have been. Or was that goal too high? Too ambitious? Too costly for your organisation's supporters? Funders?
For all of these reasons, I hope you will admit the error at that time of the Bush administration. I encourage your organisation to pursue objective measures, and not only those suiting The West, or to those popular by demand, and easy hits in Western media.
Should you wish to discuss this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Peter Casier
World Citizen
Let's see what he says.
Picture courtesy AP Photo/Gerald Herbert
Jihad on horseback
Two years ago, Al Arabiya producer Nabil Kassem was asked to put together a documentary film on Darfur.
What he witnessed there, and recorded in this film, were scenes of unspeakable brutality and untold suffering.
The movie never made it to the airwaves. That is why we publish it on our blog.
If you are interested in Darfur, check out Darfur Now!
More on The Road about Darfur, Sudan and genocide
Video courtesy europenews.dk
The Gaza War Crimes Saga continued.
[i-Gaza UN school bombing]
The Gaza Saga on human rights abuses seems to get a nasty tail. A UN inquiry just published their findings.
A United Nations inquiry into the Gaza conflict earlier this year concluded that Israel intentionally struck a U.N.-run elementary school, killing three young men seeking shelter from the fighting, according to a summary released Tuesday.
The incident was one of eight in which the Israel Defense Forces fired on U.N. personnel or facilities that drew scrutiny from a three-member U.N. board of inquiry. The board found that Israel had repeatedly breached the inviolability of U.N. premises and that, in attacking another elementary school, it exhibited "reckless disregard for the lives and safety" of civilians. Two children were killed and 13 others injured in that attack.
The board also accused Hamas or another Palestinian faction of firing a Qassam-type rocket at an unoccupied World Food Program warehouse on the eastern edge of the Gaza Strip.
There was no evidence, the board said, that Palestinian militants had used U.N. facilities to launch military attacks against Israeli troops. (Full)
Update:While the 184 paged report remains confidential to protect witnesses etc.. you can find the 27 page summary of the UN inquiry report here, which goes into sufficient gruesome details, to understand the extend of the issue. The summary also includes a cover letter by the UN Secretary General.
To no surprise, Israel rejected the report’s findings and its Foreign Ministry says the inquiry board “has preferred the claims of Hamas, a murderous terror organisation, and by doing so has misled the world”. Defence Secretary Ehud Barak repeated that Israel has “the most moral army in the world” and laid full responsibility for casualties on Hamas.
The good news is that the report recommends further investigation of other both UN and non-UN related civilian deaths which have given rise to allegations of breaches of international humanitarian law by both the IDF and Hamas.
The bad news is that in his covering letter, the UN chief says he is “carefully considering” what actions “if any” to take on the 11 recommendations by the inquiry team. Mr Ban goes out of his way to thank Israel for its co-operation in the inquiry. He makes a point – urged on him by Israeli ministers and officials – of speaking out against “continued and indiscriminate” attacks by Hamas. As a conclusion: "I do not plan any further enquiries." (Full)
In short: This report concludes that it looks most probable both Hamas and Israel have committed either war crimes and/or stepped on the international humanitarian laws with excessive civilian casualties as a result. But.. let's all have a drink and forget about it...
Picture courtesy The Guardian Read the full post...
Wanted for war crimes: the Sudanese president.
[i-bashir:wanted for war crimes]
It's done. The International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague has issued an arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir.
Al-Bashir is charged on two counts of war crimes and five counts of crimes against humanity. This makes him a suspected criminal wanted in the 108 nations who ratified the ICC's Rome Statute. The US is not one of them, by the way, since Bush "unsigned" the US back in 2002.
Bashir is the first head of state to be indicted by the ICC while still in office. (Full)
ICC Prosecutor Moreno-Ocampo said Bashir masterminded and implemented a plan to destroy in substantial part the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawah groups, on account of their ethnicity. "His motives were largely political, his alibi was a ‘counter-insurgency’, his intent was genocide". (Full)
While this is bad news for anyone in the world trying to get away with genocide, even within their own national territorial borders, here is a dark after-thought: Why would this happen for the Sudanese president and not for the leaders of Hamas and Israel who caused the suffering of Gaza civilians. Israel surely scored extra points for a criminal case due to its use of phosphorous bombs and targeting aid convoys, UN facilities and civilians.
How about indicting Bush and his gang on the basis of crimes against humanity? After all, they invaded a country causing thousands of deaths, millions of displaced, and dragging a whole region into violent turmoil? Unilaterally and on basis of forged evidence.
PS: Keep an eye on my predictions on how the situation will evolve inside Sudan.
Update March 5: Trouble already starts: Sudan expels 10 aid agencies
(more updates in the side column)
Discovered via The Road Daily.
Picture courtesy Antony Njuguna/Reuters
Amnesty International accuses Israel
[i-gaza civilians]
In two separate cases, Amnesty International accuses Israel of not respecting international conventions during the recent Gaza conflict:
Under the Geneva Conventions, medical personnel searching, collecting, transporting or treating the wounded should be protected and respected in all circumstances. Common Article 3 of the Conventions says that the wounded should be collected and cared for, including combatants who are hors de combat.
These provisions of international law have not been respected during the recent three-week conflict in the Gaza Strip. Emergency medical rescue workers, including doctors, paramedics and ambulance drivers, repeatedly came under fire from Israeli forces while they were carrying out their duties. At least seven were killed and more than 20 were injured while they were transporting or attempting to collect the wounded and the dead. (Full)
The Israeli army’s use of white phosphorus in densely populated civilian areas of Gaza has captured much of the world’s media interest. However, the Israeli forces also used a variety of other weapons against civilian residential built-up areas throughout the Gaza Strip in the three-week conflict that began on 27 December.Read the full post...
Among these are flechettes - tiny metal darts (4cm long, sharply pointed at the front and with four fins at the rear) that are packed into 120mm shells. (...)
Flechettes are an anti-personnel weapon designed to penetrate dense vegetation and to strike a large number of enemy soldiers. They should never be used in built-up civilian areas. (Full)