US, Allies Could be Prosecuted for Iraq War - Experts

["Nello Margiotta" <animarg@tin.it>]

Thalif Deen

The United States and allies who attack Iraq without United Nations sanction
could face international legal action, even though Washington has opted out
of the new International Criminal Court (ICC), experts and peace activists
said Thursday.
''For the first time since the end of the cold war, an act of deliberate
aggression is being advanced under the pretext of legality by a major
power,'' James E. Jennings, president of Conscience International, told IPS.

UNITED NATIONS, Jan 30 (IPS) - The United States and allies who attack Iraq
without United Nations sanction could face international legal action, even
though Washington has opted out of the new International Criminal Court
(ICC), experts and peace activists said Thursday.

''For the first time since the end of the cold war, an act of deliberate
aggression is being advanced under the pretext of legality by a major
power,'' James E. Jennings, president of Conscience International, told IPS.

''The U.S. refusal to join the International Criminal Court will not permit
its leaders to escape trial before a world court and other international
tribunals on war crimes charges,'' he warned.

Jennings said that an attack on Iraq in the absence of an enabling Security
Council resolution would constitute a violation of the U.N. charter, the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Geneva Conventions and other
international obligations.

The United States has said that it is prepared to go to war with a
''coalition of the willing'' - about 12 unnamed military allies, reportedly
including Britain, Canada, Australia, Kuwait and Qatar.

The London Guardian said last month that if Britain uses force, it would be
the first time that British soldiers and their political superiors would be
subject to ICC jurisdiction.

''But while the British citizens could be hauled up before the ICC, the real
protagonists - the United States and Iraqi nationals - cannot be,'' the
newspaper said. Neither nation signed on to the statute that created the ICC
last year.

A U.S. attack without Security Council authorisation would not only
undermine the United Nations but also jeopardise countries joining the
military coalition, said Michael Ratner, president of the Centre for
Constitutional Rights.

''We, along with lawyers from the U.K. and Canada, have already sent letters
to those countries and the United States warning them of the consequences of
violating the Geneva conventions,'' he said.

The United States and other nations violated the conventions in the 1991
Gulf War and the 1998 attacks on Kosovo, he added.

''With regard to the U.K. and Canada (and Australia), we said we would bring
evidence of such violations to the ICC,'' Ratner said.

U.S. officials could be prosecuted in certain countries because such crimes
are subject to universal jurisdiction, he added.

At a meeting of the Security Council on Monday, an overwhelming majority -
11 out of 15 members - wanted to give more time to U.N. arms inspectors to
continue their search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, instead of
going to war.

The United States, which is sceptical about continued arms inspections, has
threatened to launch a military attack on Baghdad even without the blessing
of the world body.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell has promised to provide the Security
Council with more ''evidence'', based on U.S. intelligence, of Iraq's
weapons programmes next Wednesday.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan told reporters Thursday that U.N. arms
inspectors have made it clear that they would appreciate receiving
''actionable information'' from all governments that have it. ''They have
received some and I hope they would also use whatever information that is
given next week that will be helpful for their work,'' he added.

Washington has indicated that it plans to go ahead with an attack on Iraq
even if it does not win new converts on the Security Council.

''Given the U.S. and British desire for the Security Council to take the
unprecedented step of authorising the use of force to actually overthrow the
government of a member state, there is understandable reluctance to do so
unless the evidence of Iraqi non-compliance is significant and undeniable,''
Stephen Zunes, a Middle East expert and associate professor of politics at
the University of San Francisco, told IPS Thursday.

More time is needed for inspectors get a clearer assessment of Iraqi
compliance, including to determine if the Iraqi reluctance to be more
forthcoming is because officials are deliberately hiding significant
information or because of sloppy record keeping, political posturing or
other reasons, he said.

''There may also be a sense that, even if Iraq does have proscribed
materials hidden somewhere, the ongoing presence of inspectors and the
concomitant international attention would make it impossible for Iraq to
develop or deploy significant offensive weapons of mass destruction
capability,'' Zunes said.

In other words, he argued, though the United Nations and its arms inspectors
may not be able to force total disarmament of Iraq, they will have
effectively forced functional disarmament, which is ultimately what matters.

Asked about the vulnerability of coalition members to ICC charges of war
crimes, Zunes said, ''My impression is that the ICC would only bring such
charges if there was evidence of pre-meditated and deliberate atrocities.''

''Given that there are plenty of perpetrators of deliberate massacres still
un-indicted, I believe that there would be a reluctance to extend the reach
of the ICC to prosecute soldiers who accidentally kill civilians in the
course of a war.''

At the same time, he said, there are serious moral and legal questions
regarding accidental civilian casualties in war that will have to be
addressed in the future and the ICC would seem to be a logical venue to do
that. (END)

**************************************************
Nello

change the world before the world changes you because  another world is
possible