Amnesty International has presented Tony Blair with a petition demanding that the UK make sure that the Coalition forces abide by the Geneva Convention during the Iraq War.
The various AI heads presenting the petition brought up issues of civilian casualties during bombing, the bombing of Iraqi TV, and the need for quick shipment of humanitarian supplies into Iraq.
Amnesty’s Secretary General Irene Khan said: “The rights and needs of the Iraqi people must be put first in this conflict and its aftermath.
“The UK Government and its coalition partners will be judged by the extent to which they do this.”
No word on when a similar petition will be presented to Saddam Hussein.
(via SDB)
57 view(s)
Words fucking fail.
Well, except those three.
Amnesty International have called on *all* sides in this war to abide by the Geneva Convention.
However, given his record, one cannot expect Saddam Hussein to take much notice of such conventions. What one can expect however, is for the coalition forces to abide by the Geneva Convention.
Oh well, if Saddam breaks the rules, well sure, it’s ok for us to do so too because he did it first eh?
So because Saddam is likely to break the rules, AI will just spend its efforts on the US and UK? Lengthy and vocal condemnations of setting up military headquarters inside of hospitals, using civilians as human shields, and dressing soldiers in civilian clothing are all par for the course, so AI will just assume that everyone knows the Iraqi regime is a bunch of murderous thugs and instead focus its accusations on the folks one can “expect” to abide by Geneva?
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that the Coalition forces are “expected” to abide by Geneva, then focus all of your publicity on pointing out where you think they might not be.
As to the last paragraph — I’m certainly not suggesting that, and I haven’t heard anyone seriously suggesting it, either. I have heard a lot of folks grumbling that, despite unprecedented efforts by Coalition military to avoid civilian casualties, organizations like AI are more inclined to note the motes in the Coalition’s eye rather than the beams falling out of Iraq’s — with a resulting impression among folks who maybe don’t expect one thing to another to begin to think the majority of war crimes being committed here are at the hands of the Coalition.
Those of us in the coaltion need to focus on doing the right thing because it is the right thing, not because we will receive applause for doing it. What I fear is the “to hell with it” response on our part because if you can’t win you might as well be guilty of what you are accused.
I agree that the Coalition (as well as people in general) ought to do what’s right because it’s right, not because it’s popular.
Still, it’s irksome. And it’s probably counterproductive to AI’s long-term support by the US.
I have read some interesting analysis that the slowing down of Coalition forces because of concerns over causing civilian casualties has led to the US as being seen as weaker as it is, which in turn has encouraged further protests from the Arab world and, more importantly, further resistance by Iraqi forces. It would be ironic if Coalition concern for civilians led to more bloodshed on that basis — though it’s still, as you note, the right thing to do.