War Crimes
Directly across from the UN building on first avenue, there is a small courtyard dedicated to peace. Above it rests a placard quoting Job (I think) – you know, the old swords into ploughshares bit. This courtyard is a magnet for demonstrations of every kind, from Falun Gong to Iranian-Americans to Amnesty International. Like most people who work for aid agencies in New York, I walk past this courtyard every day on the way to work.
Today, the courtyard was packed with elderly Korean men in military uniform, some decorated, all grim looking. Leaning against the perimeter walls were horrifying placards showing photos of rotting flesh, deformities and birth defects, all of them allegedly the result of exposure to Agent Orange. This is not a new protest; Korean soldiers who fought alongside the US in the Viet Nam war want the same compensation US Vets received for their exposure to the chemical. Nor is this the only debate ongoing about the issue: the Vietnamese people themselves have also demanded compensation for the use of Agent Orange, the effects of which they are still suffering today. In my view, both groups are entitled to it. The use of that agent was, and is, a war crime under international humanitarian law, outlawed by the Geneva Protocol following the use of mustard gas during WWI.
Seeing those old men reminded me of a grim reality: that there has probably never been a modern war without war crimes. WWII was full of war crimes on both sides, including the aerial bombardment of European cities and, most famously, the use of nuclear weapons in Japan. The use of cluster bombs during the Kosovo conflict may have been a war crime. The murder, torture and humiliation of Iraqi and Afghan detainees is a war crime. And the Israeli use of indiscriminate and disproportionate force in Lebanon, including the bombing of aid convoys, is a war crime.
Nothing shocking about this revelation, perhaps, but consider this: in some of the cases I just listed, those war crimes probably contributed to an earlier end to hostilities, and to the ‘good guys’ winning. It’s a classic question of the ends justifying the means (or not justifying them, depending on your view.)
Can you have war without such atrocities? If not, is there any value in making laws that prohibit them, or in creating courts like the ICC to prosecute those responsible for them? Does jus in bello really exist?
Some days my principled idealism takes a big hit.
posted by E @ 3:02 PM
4 Comments:
Hey Erin:
There has never been a war without attendant war crimes, as defined by the norms or laws of the specific period. But to abandon hope and the idea that war can be limited or constrained by law just as we hope to limit and constrain domestic violence, is not good in my view. Developing the laws of war is a worthy objective, and well worth pursuing. It may save some lives. It may reduce the physical ands environmental damage caused by war. And it does provide an important political device: a measure of who is good and who is bad, and a reminder that these are seldom black and white distinctions.
Oh, and one thing: Scarlett O'Hara was not useless. She was just self-interested and immoral. She was a war nurse (until she unceremoniously cracked). She ran a successful business (by exploiting a gullible single man and prison labour). She travelled through war and hunger to her home (subsequently vowing never to be hungry again). And she wore great dresses very well.
Hey, great to hear from you!
I thought you were on "academic sabbatical", whatever the heck that is. Wait -- don't tell me: it's when you lie around on the beach on some tiny Greek island having professorial epiphanies over bottles of Mythos and basking in the glorious freedom from students. Am I close?
Of course I agree with you to a large extent -- there is a normative value, if nothing else, in proscribing certain activities in wartime, and I reckon the more responsible international actors give genuine pause before any egregious breaches. But I question whether breaking the laws of war is a reliable guide to who is good and who is bad. By the UN's current definition, for example, Winston Churchill was one of the biggest terrorists of all time. And you know how I love the Winnie. (You might recall how, as an eager undergrad, I quoted him relentlessly in papers. As one does.)
On Scarlett: this is an interesting perspective you bring. I can always count on you to have unorthodox and insightful views on the damsel (and what she's wearing, you clotheshorse, you).
However, you've only depressed me even more. Sounds like Scarlett at least had skills. Does this mean I'm even more useless than the archetypal useless broad? Yikes!
My wife's stepfather was recently diagnosed with ALS, but there was some concern--mostly on his part--that his symptoms were the result of exposure to Agent Orange during his tours in Vietnam. Within a year, he has lost almost all of his voluntary motor control.
Sorry, a little off-topic, but his health has been on our minds of late, and the mention of AO brings it right to the surface. He's coming up next week to visit the big V.A. hospital here. I haven't seen him since he's been ill.
Sorry to hear that, Kam.
Post a Comment
<< Home