BSNews Laws of War
News you wont find on BBC or ITN
Categories
Lies, Damned Lies and Genocide
Chris Coverdale considers how Britain’s political, civil and military leaders deceive the public into supporting illegal wars and committing war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.
----------------------
“War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”
Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal 1946
The method used by Government lawyers to deceive Parliament and the public is simple and as old as the hills. If a lie is repeated often enough everyone will eventually believe that it is true. The lie used to justify the war with Libya is the same lie that was used to justify the illegal wars with Iraq and Afghanistan - that military action by armed forces is lawful and authorised by the UN Security Council operating under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
On March 21st 2011, shortly before MPs debated Britain’s military action against Libya, the UK Government issued a statement making the deceptive claim that the deployment of military forces was lawful and authorised by the UN Security Council; their note declared:
“The Attorney General has been consulted and Her Majesty's Government is satisfied that this Chapter VII authorisation to use all necessary measures provides a clear and unequivocal legal basis for deployment of UK forces and military assets to achieve the resolution's objectives”.
International law is clear. The UN Security Council is prohibited from using armed force and if any person, in furtherance of a state policy, commands armed forces to use weapons of mass destruction to attack and kill members of any national, ethnic, racial or religious group, that person and everyone who takes part in the attack, breaks international law and commits genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
Perverting the law
The Government statement on the legality of the attack on Libya is a good example of the way in which politicians, lawyers and civil servants pervert the law. By cross-checking Government actions against the laws that govern the use of force and relations between states it can be quickly established that both the wars with Afghanistan and Libya are illegal. The two documents which govern the use of armed force are the UN Charter, which lays down the law, and UN General Assembly Resolution 2625 which explains how to interpret the Charter.
The UN Charter
The United Nations, set up in 1945, is an organization of 192 independent nation states which promised on behalf of their people to work together to maintain international peace and security and save succeeding generations from the scourge of war. The UN Charter is the document which lays down the legally binding terms of the agreement in 111 Articles. Article 2 of the UN Charter expresses the purposes of the United Nations and it includes these rules:
2.3 All members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace, security and justice are not endangered.
2.4 All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
These rules seems very clear to me. I understand them to mean that States must always settle international disputes by peaceful means and must never threaten or use force. Chapter VII of the UN Charter (Articles 39 -51) contains the rules governing the non-violent measures that the UN Security Council may take to bring about peace and security. Article 41 states:
41. The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
To an ordinary person the phrase not involving the use of armed force means not involving the use of armed force. How is it possible for the UK Government, its lawyers, Parliament, the Queen (the commander-in-chief) and the Chiefs of the Defence Staff to claim that the use of cruise missiles, rockets, drones, bombs and depleted uranium munitions to attack targets in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya injuring and killing thousands of men women and children accords with Chapter VII of the UN Charter and the binding promise never to use force?
The phrase not involving the use of armed force is the single most important phrase used in the UN Charter; so why does the UK Government claim that the phrase ‘all necessary measures’, when used in a UN Security Council Resolution, means the use of armed force?
Interpreting the law – the Declaration of Principles of International Law
In 1962 the United Nations, concerned that some States were misinterpreting the UN Charter asked the International Law Commission to work on tightening the rules so that everyone would be clear on their meaning. In 1970 this work came to fruition and the UN General Assembly agreed and published the new definitions of the law in UNGA Resolution 2625:
DECLARATION ON PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW CONCERNING
FRIENDLY RELATIONS AND CO-OPERATION AMONG STATES
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS
This is the law which governs how States are to co-operate with one another and how the rules of the UN Charter are to be interpreted. I recommend that everyone should read it; especially those who feel uneasy about the legality of the armed attacks on Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, or those who are concerned about the probity of ‘Western’ Governments and world leaders.
The six pages of the Declaration are possibly the most important legal document the world has ever produced; yet I can’t find a single person in a position of power in Britain who has ever seen it or read it. I firmly believe that if humanity is to survive then everyone should read it and understand it so that leaders can uphold and enforce it and citizens can hold leaders to account in court when they breach it. Amongst its most important rules are:
Every State has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Such a threat or use of force constitutes a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations and shall never be employed as a means of settling international issues.
No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or against its political, economic and cultural elements are in violation of international law.
The principles of the Charter which are embodied in this Declaration constitute basic principles of international law, and consequently [the UN General Assembly] appeals to all States to be guided by these principles in their international conduct and to develop their mutual relations on the basis of the strict observance of these principles.
These rules are crystal clear. The use of force is prohibited. The use of armed force to attack other nations is a crime. No state or group of States such as NATO, ISAF or the EU, may intervene in another State’s affairs and every State must obey, uphold and enforce these rules.
It is quite clear that for decades Britain’s political, civil, judicial and military leaders have violated the UN Charter, broken the law and committed the world’s most serious crimes. So what can be done to return Britain to the path of peace, justice and the rule of law?
Chris Coverdale Making Wars History July 2011