Posted on 03/25/2003 6:28:29 AM PST by dead
US ambivalence over decent treatment of POWs in Cuba may rebound on it in Iraq, writes Donald Rothwell.
In any international armed conflict, international humanitarian law has a role to play. These laws regulate the manner in which the conflict is conducted to ensure that both combatants and non-combatants are treated in accordance with basic principles of humanity.
In light of the horrors of World War II, the four 1949 Geneva Conventions and two 1977 Geneva Protocols were concluded to establish the basic laws of war which apply to the conflict in Iraq. Australia, Britain, Iraq and the US have all accepted the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war.
The application of the Geneva POW convention has become especially relevant following the capture of the first prisoners in Iraq. Over the weekend, newspapers in Australia carried front-page photographs of captured Iraqi soldiers. Since then the Al-Jazeera cable TV network has shown footage of US POWs being subjected to interrogation. These images have since been shown all around the world, including in Australia.
The Geneva Convention provides that POWs are to be protected "against insults and public curiosity". In addition, the 1977 Geneva Protocol provides for protection against "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment".
Clearly the airing of photographs, either still or action footage, of any POW makes them the subject of public attention. Given the nature of modern TV coverage and the propaganda value of such coverage, there can be no denying that such actions are in violation of the convention.
Whether POWs are being subjected to questioning about why they have entered Iraq, or are seen accepting refreshments from their captors, the story can be easily manipulated for propaganda value on either side.
This Iraq war also raises issues for the role of the media not previously encountered. The spread of satellite TV networks in the wake of CNN plus digital photography and the growth of the internet mean that photographs can be published or broadcast globally in real time.
There is also the potential that media exposure of POWs can place their families at risk.
There is some irony in the US position. Early last year the US was embroiled in a controversy over the application of the Geneva Convention to Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters captured during the Afghanistan conflict. The US has consistently argued against applying the convention to Afghan POWs, insisting that the fighters were "battlefield detainees" with no rights under international law other than respect for very basic principles of humanity.
Australia found itself part of this dispute following the capture of the Taliban fighter, David Hicks, from Adelaide.
While there can be little doubt that the Geneva Convention clearly applies in Iraq, the US ambivalence over the captured prisoners from Afghanistan now held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, may have rebounded upon it in this instance.
What is important for all parties to this war to remember is that if they expect their troops to be treated consistently with international law then this is a reciprocal obligation. The recent actions of the US in Afghanistan and now in Iraq to unilaterally interpret international law, including the UN Charter, unfortunately undermine respect for international law.
Iraq and the US have reaffirmed their respect for the provisions of the Geneva POW convention, but the US remains concerned over Iraq's media exposure of the POWs and President George Bush has pledged to prosecute any war criminals.
If any international prosecutions result from war crimes committed in Iraq, for the sake of international rule of law, criminals on all sides should be dealt with evenly.
Donald Rothwell, an associate professor at the faculty of law, University of Sydney, teaches international law.
In Gitmo, the prisoners sleep on cots in open air cells (In the Caribbean! Horrors!) and are occassionally yelled at.
Naturally, war crimes trials should address both situations.
The associate professor should outline how an unlawful enemy combatant qualifies for POW status. My understanding has been that they don’t and cannot.
...during the period they would have been living in caves during an Afghani winter.
I don't meet that many proffessors in my daily life, but sad to say, those I do, are as stupid as this one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.