Eye on common sense: Where's the moral high ground?

America initially supported the idea of an international mechanism for the prosecution of war criminals but when it became clear that the US would not be able to exercise a veto power over it, it withdrew its support.

Ahmadiyya Times | News Watch | Op/Ed
Source/Credit: The News International | Pakistan
By Talat Farooq | October 21, 2010

The New York Times (October 21) has quoted senior US administration officials with regard to the Obama administration's refusal to train or equip about half a dozen Pakistani army units that are believed to have killed unarmed prisoners and civilians during the offensives against Taliban fighters in the Swat Valley and South Waziristan in the past year. It goes on to report that in order to avoid embarrassing the Pakistani military during the ongoing Strategic Dialogue, "the administration has briefed a few senior members of Congress, but it has not given them details about which Pakistani units will be affected by the suspension."

In this regard, the newspaper adds, the Obama administration will be acting in keeping with the Leahy Amendment, a law that requires the cutoff of American aid to foreign military units that have been involved in gross abuse of human rights during war. Once restrictions against the said Pakistani units are in place, the US government will carry out inspections to make sure that the sanctioned units are denied access to American training or equipment.


Torture or murder of defenseless civilians during war can never be condoned by any decent human being and General Kayani has already ordered an inquiry into the internet video showing the execution of six young men at the hands of men in Pakistani military uniforms. If found guilty action must be taken against the perpetrators of the crime; there are no two opinions about it.

Upon confirmation of guilt if the Obama administration decides to uphold the Leahy Amendment they too would be acting within the American law. The legality of the matter is absolutely tenable. The question is: Does America have the moral high ground to expect other nation-states to behave within the parameters of warfare laws while its own hands are covered with innocent blood?

After the release of 70,000 documents in July this year detailing deaths of civilians in Afghanistan, the latest release of Wikileaks of 400,000 documents covers the Iraq War from 2004 to 2009. Wikileaks details deaths of many thousands of civilians with claims that the documents contain evidence of war crimes involving US forces. Will the truth ever come out? Maybe.

Then again, maybe not; The New York Times (October 20) reports that the US Justice Department would not seek murder charges against a Blackwater operator accused of unprovoked killing of an Iraqi guard. The government's decision to drop the case, according to the newspaper, "follows a series of failures by prosecutors around the country in cases aimed at former personnel of Blackwater." Their failure stems from a number of legal hurdles, including "the difficulties of obtaining evidence in war zones, of gaining proper jurisdiction for prosecutions in American civilian courts, and of overcoming immunity deals given to defendants by American officials on the scene".

Historically the term "war crimes" has been interpreted differently by different systems of military law especially the one belonging to the victor, so much so that certain controversial events and actions have not been labelled as war crimes. These include the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well as the use of 'Agent Orange' in Vietnam.

War crimes include the killing or torture of civilian inhabitants of an occupied territory; they also include the ill treatment of prisoners of war, as for example at Guantanamo Bay during the Bush years. The definition also encompasses the reckless destruction of villages, towns and cities as for instance in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan's tribal areas and the sustained occurrence of collateral damage during drone attacks that began during the Bush presidency and continue with a vengeance during Obama's stint.

The United States has had an uneasy relationship with the International Criminal Court that came into being in 2002 for the purpose of prosecuting war crimes. America initially supported the idea of an international mechanism for the prosecution of war criminals but when it became clear that the US would not be able to exercise a veto power over it, it withdrew its support.

George Bush was especially hostile to the idea. His administration held negotiations with a number of countries aimed at preventing surrender of the American personnel for prosecution. The 2003 US invasion of Iraq is a particularly thorny issue for the Americans as the ICC may question its legality and may indict US citizens. The Obama administration has demonstrated a willingness to cultivate closer cooperation with the ICC but opposing political pressure, including that from influential foreign policy think-tanks, is growing ahead of the November mid-term elections.

The New York Times report also informs us that Admiral Mullen has assured senior lawmakers, including Senator Leahy, the author of the Leahy Amendment, that the law would be followed in letter and spirit. Now, one has no doubt that being conscientious the senator must be losing sleep over the alleged war crimes committed by the personnel of the Pakistan army. At the same time, one cannot help but wonder if the good senator ever thinks about starting a debate on the legality/morality of the Iraq war and whether George W Bush can be classified as a war criminal.

War crimes must be submitted to the scrutiny of the law and the Pakistan military is no exception. It must award exemplary punishment to those found guilty of abuse of human life and dignity.

That said, the US lacks the moral high ground to preach to Pakistan what it neglects to practise in the ongoing war on terror.

The writer is a PhD student at Leicester, UK. Email: talatfarooq11@gmail.com




Read original post here: Where's the moral high ground?