In spite of being unsuccessful last week’s attempt by the Guardian columnist George Monbiot to arrest as a war criminal the former US ambassador to the UN, and Under-Secretary Of State for Arms Control, is a salutary reminder of civic duty.
The charge against John Bolton, who was speaking at a literature festival in Wales, is that he is responsible, along with other members of the American and British governments, for waging a war of aggression against Iraq as defined by the Nuremberg Principles.
In particular he is held to have directed the removal of the head of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), Jose Bustani, who had attempted — given widespread concern that the CIA was effectively gerrymandering UNSCOM — to find a way for weapons inspections to continue via his organisation and thereby avert conflict. In reference to US threats to subsequently withhold funds from the OPCW after it had tabled and lost a vote of no confidence in the Brazilian incumbent, Bolton boasts in his recent memoir, “I stepped in to tank the protocol, and then to tank Bustani”.
Furthermore, Bolton is also alleged to have orchestrated the production of a report that claimed that Saddam Hussein sought to procure yellowcake uranium from Niger. This has since been described by a spokesperson for the US Department Of State as being — verbatim — “based on fraudulent evidence”.
We will of course never know whether the case that Monbiot mustered could have withstood the scrutiny of a courtroom, as he was stymied both by the disinterest of the constabulary and then by the burly security who prevented his citizen’s arrest. In fact we can safely surmise from the qualifications in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act, that even if he had succeeded in grabbing hold of him that it would have been Mr. Monbiot, and not Bolton, who would have been frogmarched to the parish police station in Hay-on-Wye.
Given that there is yet to be an inquiry here in the UK into how it was possible for Tony Blair’s regime to spend 275 hours debating the finer points of fox hunting as opposed to seven — yes seven — stating the case for a war without UN approval; Monbiot’s reasoning truly had no chance.
So what should we make of Monbiot then – an activist whose articles in the Guardian were recently rubbished in the Financial Times by a hack who could do no better than say, “I’m sure [they’re] wrong, but I can’t be bothered to do the research to prove it”? Is he just a “fruitcake” as Bolton later insinuated?
I personally believe that Monbiot — along with the likes of Armando Spatoro, the Italian prosecutor who has launched a criminal case against American officials over an extraordinary rendition in Milan, and the lawyers of the Centre for Constitutional Rights who have tried to find legal redress through a number of European judicial systems — is a species of fool with excessive faith in the arbitration of evidence and fairness embodied in international law.
I also hold that if fools persist in their folly they invariably make us all the wiser: For one thing is certain, without the advancement of respect for customary international law, the Convention against Torture, and the Geneva Convention, we will continue down this fascistic path of normalising tyranny.
Bolton may be small fry in comparison to some, Monbiot’s case tenuous as regards the machinations of the law but nevertheless, incrementally, a case is being made: Just in these few weeks, for instance, we have heard a former White House member of staff speak out about George Bush’s dishonesty in the build-up to the war, and at the (grossly under-reported) Winter Soldier On The Hill hearings, the tragic testimony of soldiers traumatised by their abuse of Iraqi civilians. How many more time do we have to hear how Bush “intentionally misled” the American population (something which according to a New York Times-CBS poll, the majority of Americans now believe) before as Vincent Bugliosi argues, in his Prosecution Of George Bush For Murder, we share his conclusion?
One day all of this is going to become a critical mass. And in retrospect it won’t be surprising. After all, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and all the other principles must know that Henry Kissinger is rather circumspect about where he travels. And Blair et al were warned before the invasion by the Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, that he could not guarantee “that if the matter ever came before a court” he would be “confident” of the legality of military action.
In the meanwhile “Moonbat” Monbiot, as some have taken to calling him, has vowed to continue his quixotic attempt to be a global citizen and hold to account those responsible for mass-murder. While the inveterate Bolton, unmoved by hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq (the London based Opinion Research Business speaks of a figure around 1,220,580) moves about polite society talking-up, against Iran, yet another front in the “war on terror”.
We an do that sort of in Britain, and regularly do, wihout being shot.
Perhaps you’d also like to mention the guy who’s spent seven years camped outside the British Parliament first protesting about Iraq.
http://www.parliament-square.org.uk/
He won a court case, has appeared in art galleries and has recently been confined to a width of three metres, but is still going strong.
Perhaps you’d like to take some advice on how to get right up authority’s noses whilst promoting a protest successfully and defending Free Speech.
I think Alisdair’s first sentence is meant to read, “We can do that sort of thing in Britain, and regularly do, without being shot.” (for people who understand only English).
who would have thought that Michael Bolton was snorting the yellow cake dude. No wonder his stuf is like so implausibly audio awfull dude.
I do believe that, instead of complaining about others such as China, Venezuela, Africa, if we in the West spent time arresting the plethora of blatant criminals within our culture the world (including the others mentioned) would immediately improve.
With the world, as in SA, the source of trouble lies amongst those who control the money; those who call themselves, and love to be seen as, powerful; those who are in fact merely forceful.
But read the news! See we spend more time blaming the world, without nuance and even knowledge, than we spend blaming ourselves. A good example is the common ‘You know I was always against the Nats.’
It bis a critical mass and has been for a long time. Effectively, like the Americans, we believe propaganda rules and reason is cranky but amusingly tolerable if kept to within 3m or confined to Hyde Park, which means we are the problem.
What a good thing to do. I am feeling inspired by Mr. Monbiot’s courage and resolve. I would love to see the Bush administration (along with Blair’s)in front of a court of law, trying to explain themselves . These war criminals tend to think they have gotten away with murder until someone comes along and pricks their little bubble. I hope that Bolton et al feel constricted in their travel options from now on, like Robert Mugabe. They deserve to be ostracized and cast out from decent society and to live under the constant threat of arrest for their vile acts of terrorism. Go George!
Thank you, Chris, for this superbly written article. It is such a pleasure to read a well-framed argument and apposite analysis. Confronting the likes of John Bolton whose arrogance seems to know no limits is as dangerous as it is ‘quixotic’. Citizen Monbiot is a brave human, (rather Naderian, one might say?) a critically endangered species on our planet.
Bonne chance, mon ami.
Chris
Suddein Hussein really had great “respect for customary international law, the convention against torture, and the Geneva convention”? All those torture chambers and piles of dead bodies were planted by the Americans were they? Seems stupid of them not just to plant some weapons of mass destruction as well while they were about it.
The Americans are killing NO-ONE! Syria and Iran are funding Islamic Groups to kill each other because they also want control of the middle east, and the oil.
If you believe in Muslim Fundamentalist States – why are you living in Leeds?
@ Lyndall
I don’t quite see where Chris has stated his support for Saddam, only his disgust for a totally bogus military intervention. As I recall no WMD’s have yet (or will likely ever be) found, yet this was the pretext to this abismal escapade. Secondly using IRAQ as a pretext to a war on terror did nothing but further inflame anti western sentiments and in so doing became a rallying call for these organisations. At a rough count, an average of 50 people are dying a day in Iraq, most of whom are largelly innocent. Yes Saddam was a tyrant, but the US and other western nations stood by and did nothing when he was at his worst (namely during and immediatly after the first Iraq war, the poisoning of the Kurds and the Iran/ Iraq war) , so are they then not even more to blame in their complicity. They were only interested in him when he threatened the sanctity of their economic interests. Oh – on the subject of Leeds, since when is being at the heart of oppression (as demonstrated by the UK’s kneejerk reaction to muslims) been seen as not being concerned for an issue. Were anti apartheid supporters to stay out of SA to have credibility, or are you showing your support for the issues in Zimbabwe by staying in SA?
Trekboer
I think that Jihad was going to happen somewhere in the world – after 9/11 it was inevitable. I don’t support Bush – I think he is a fool. I also don’t support Muslim fundamentalism – or Christian fundamentalism for that matter.
But I am sick to death of this bull…t that Americans are killing the people in Iraq. Who do you think is arming the fanatics, suicide bombers, and lunatic fringes in Iraq and Palestine ? America ? Get Real ! The Muslim fanatics are JUST as keen on world domination as is America ( or China for that matter ).
Lyndall, last time I checked, I am very much real. I am not excusing fundamentalism, but neither am I excusing gross human rights violations either. Guantanamo bay is not a figment of my imagination and neither is Abu Gharaib. Both of these were perpetrated in the so called belief of protecting “Western Values”. I’m sorry but neither of these are values that I aspire to. Iraq has done nothing other than draw fundamentalist maniacs out of the woodwork beacause they now can easily get at their favourite target (good old U.S. of A). What is bull is the fact that so called civilised nations are doing these things to “protect us” and “in our interest”. These actions are achieving neither , but are instead legitamising the already deluded notions of the fundamentalist brigade and giving them a ready stream of excuses to justify their actions.
Trekboer
There I agree with you – on Guatanomo Bay and the “drawing” of “fundamentalist maniacs out of the woodworks”. However, the duty of the president of the ASA, like it or not, is to protect his own people first – and better for them these nuts were drawn out of the woodwork in Iraq than in America.
Sorry – but the president of the USA must protect his own people first. He was not voted into power by the citizens of Iraq (or Iran, or Syria )
Here’s why I disagree with you Lyndall about the US Military killing civilians:
Recently, as I mentioned in the post, a number of soldiers gave their personal testimonies to Congress. First up was a former Marine sniper, Sergio Kochergin, who said, “We also were exposed to a lot of dead Iraqi citizens…who were killed by initial air strikes or invasion… It was very hard to see the pain in the people’s eyes from their loss. They began to cry and point at us”. Kochergin also revealed that they were instructed by high command to carry “drop weapons” that they – in a manner akin to your own suggestion – would plant next to civilians so as to make it appear that they were “enemy combatants”. Another member of the Corps, Vincent Emanuele, admitted to taking “pot shots” at motorists and deliberately running over corpses. He spoke of random mortar fire into towns and how the Marines rarely – “if ever” – conducted a damage assessment to account for civilian deaths. Corporal James Gilligan narrated an account of a sergeant who ran down a seven or eight year old child: He “lifted him [into] the air, hand choking the boy. With his pistol already drawn, he pointed into the child’s head and neck area, threatening and screaming shouts of profanity” at the “non-hostile” crowd that had gathered at the scene.
I could carry on if you like with these eyewitness accounts of atrocities, but I think the above – confirmed by the reports of un-embedded journalists – is sufficient to make my point. I will though include this statement by former sergeant Adam Kokesh for it is a telling summation: “Don’t ever let your government do this to you. Don’t ever let your government put you in a position where this attitude towards death and this disregard for human life is acceptable or common.”
If we also factor in the US military’s financing of Sunni militias, the killing of civilians by the Blackwater paramilitary – not to mention the dead of the first Gulf War during which, according to the UK based Medical Educational Trust, a quarter of million people were killed in the initial attack and in the subsequent sanctions, UNICEF estimated, at least half a million children – then, objectively, America is responsible for murder and terror on an asymmetrically massive scale.
Furthermore, Saddam Hussein came to power in a CIA backed coup and was – lest we forget – feted by the likes of Donald Rumsfeld with all manner of finnacial and military aid. In fact until relatively recently Iraq, as an anti-comunist and then anti-Iranian client-state, was the third-largest recepient of US assistance. This extended to State Department propoganda which even exculpated – by ironically rubbishing the independent journalism of the day – Hussein’s use of chemical weapons. So really – if you want to talk about the big picture Lyndall – American culpability is considerably greater than the events of 1991 and 2003!
You say that you do not support the George Bush regime but you repeat its disinformation namely, that the war against Iraq is a matter of “security” rather than an act of aggression; and that the likes of Iran aspire to “world domination” rather than to an unthreatened sovereignty.
Read my previous posts. I am by no means uncritical of Iran, which I have said before is internally repressive. But that does not mean that I am therefore unable to distinguish between a country that has regularly – driven by the fundamentalism of profit – attacked those that it considers apostate, and one that has not since the 19th century invaded another country.
Ja Chris, I fully understand your grief. When you are this inflamed, it’s hard to make your point within the confines of 1 sentence. Who cares if they have to scroll half way around the web getting to the end of your point. let them argue with the sheer bulk of my response for all I care
If I were British, I’d personally sponsor a citizens arrest on Zola Budd for crimes against the english language. (we’ll leave Chris’s verbosity as a warning to all those who dare to use Italics).
Chris
Please quote your sources for all those heart rendering stories. I hope to hell they are not websites.
Lynfall, what is wrong with websites. As will all sources, it just depends on the integrity of the Author. For instance, Is the presidents website any less worthy than his press statements in the press?
There are two sources for the soldier’s testimonies Lyndall: The first is a transcript of the event published by a daily American radio and television programme called Democracy Now – available also as a podcast. The second – should you wish to cross-reference DN as well as read further accounts – is an organisation called Iraq Veterans Against The War, which again unequivocally states “large-scale civilian death is both a direct and indirect result of United States aggression in Iraq”.
Trekboer
About 80% of the web is polluted with vested interests posting propaganda or advertising – 20% is gold. You have to pan through it to find what is worthwhile. Books however have to be more accurate – both author and publisher can be sued.
Chris
I don’t dispute atrocities in Iraq – or for that matter in any war. To train humans to be soldiers and to kill other people is only done by de-humanising the opponents – in ANY war.
However I see no difference between what you have posted and 9/11 or Hamas shooting patients in their beds in Gaza. BOTH sides see the other as sub-human.
Lyndall, even the most naive of us would not trust a link from some dodgy third rate website. I would however trust a website that is the mouthpiece (or web presence) of a well respected and authorative organisation. I do hope that most of us reading this column would have the good sense to tell the difference between the two. The problem with a lot of books and journals, is that they are often woefully out of date (or blindingly inaccurate)by the time they are eventually published. As with all sources it is their quality and integrity that counts. In the same way, I could quote statistics from any one of the UK’s tabloid press, and I do hope that you would have the good sense to filter these out as an unsuitable reference source. What is the difference then between filtering sources in physical and virtual media. Your ever loving Trekboer
Trekboer
I agree – only how many people have sense? And the only out of date books I read are fiction.
Ok Lyndall, assuming were all senseless and fiction is not at the top of the reading list, consider this:
The average journalist releases a story based on a report. The report is in turn a summary of an academic paper. That paper in turn probably took the best part of two years to get published (excluding all the time it took to collate and analyse that data). At a minimum we can say then that there is a two year gap between the events of significance and our reading of those events (excluding current up to the minurte news -which is often without analysis or strung with glaring generalisations). Two years is a long time for anyone and an eternity in political terms. Contrast that with live discussion and analysis forums, while still not up to the minute, they are very much closer to the story in terms of time.
Or a simpler analogy:
In the case of a significant event, to get information you most likely would check the internet first for information rather than wait a whole week for your next edition of everyones favourite weekly newspaper or heaven forbid wait for a book to be published analysing the event. Some mediums are better at delivering information quickly, but sadly this is no longer true of printed media.
Secondly, if Chris were to give a printed reference, it would be a lot harder for any of us to check that reference without access to either a well stocked library or bookshop. As long as his references are credible, I really don’t see the problem. If they are not credible, I would have good faith that at least one of us (as readeres) could point that out. So it’s not just about our good sense as singular, but us as a collective analysing organism. (another good use for web discussion forums)
SEE:
http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?disc=149495;article=119266;title=APFN
Trekboer
Remember the “corrupt relationship” between Shaik and Zuma. Reported by ALL the journalists and analysts copying each other –
UNTILL the judge pointed out he never said that !
I rest my case.
Lyndall
Forgive me for a second, but I am a little confused by your argument. Are you pointing out factual inaccuracies in printed media or the fact that these inaccuracies take a lot longer to be corrected. If your last post is proof of anything it is to reinforce my point that so called up to the minute reporting by the press are often full of generalisations and factual inaccuracies.
Chris
I never said that the Iraq war was a matter of security?
As for “driven by the fundamentalism of profit”. No! The Americans are the world’s biggest idealists who pour in aid as well. They just don’t understand that the rest of the world does not want their protection or their culture, and would rather keep their own. So would Leeds!
If I go on holiday to France – I want to experience French culture; or to China – Chinese culture; or to Peru – Peruvian culture. The LAST thing I want is “western values” polluting the globe. But I do believe in “humanitarian values”.
Cheers for the Irish – who just told the EU exactly that!
Trekboer
Actually I love fiction. I read and re-read my favourite authors – Jane Austen being one of them. Sometimes I find more “real truths” in fiction and in fantacy.
I still say Books come before the Web any day, but I am happy to disagree. You have every right to your opinion.
Actually the USA is one of the lowest aid donors in the world (as measured by GDP percentage). They are also notorious for stipulating that the money be spent on American goods and services, thereby diverting the little they donate back to the US.
Actually Lyndall, sorry to be mos pedantic and all, but the real on the ground consensus here in Ireland is that the Irish voted no for two primary reasons and not to show that they didn’t want to integrate & tighten up Europe.
The first was to reflect that they didn’t understand the treaty as it was written.
The second was to show their dissatisfaction with the new Taoiseach and the mismanagement of his party.
Neither of these reasons were a direct middle finger to Europe.
Hettie
The way it was reported here was that the Irish, like the Swiss, did not want to loose their right to neutrality.
But I actually don’t care why they voted the way they did. I just think great – one up the nose for the bureaucrats and the little grey men !
Ah good old Sinn Fein talking for everyone Irish again. I don’t think anyone Irish believes they are truly neutral anymore (especially with weapons and prisoners of war travelling through Shannon Airport care of George Bush et al). The only party to bring up the threat to neuttrality was our good friends Gerry and Martin. I have yet to meet anyone on the street that could admit they understood the treaty, let alone it’s ramifications.
Hettie
My husband is of Irish decent. He went to Ireland once and loved it – almost as much as he hated England. Sorry about the rose-tinted glasses but is difficult for us to criticise anything Irish.
Ag thats ok then, because I’m of Irish Ascent (I have a child that’s an Irish citizen)
Hettie
I recently read I VERY interesting article in one of our newspapers by one of our senior journalists, Ann Crotty. She was in Ireland for the referendum – and they were thrilled and over the moon with the vote, which was achieved by civil society and small groups. It was her father who took the Irish Government to court and won for Ireland the right to referendum on any major change of policy. Apparently Ireland is the ONLY country in the EU to have that right.
Apparently also they are not against the EU but against a growing elitism. Also she says the changes that the French and Dutch already voted against were just sneaked in again by the bureacrats.