I’d just like to take a minute and respond to some points raised by Sua Sponte earlier, regarding the Ma’dan.
As you have correctly noted, Article 2© of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide does imply that the Iraqi government can be considered to be pursuing genocidal policies in relation to the Ma’dan. In addition, its use of chemical weapons on Kurdish villagers is both genocidal and a war crime.
However, regarding the specifics of the convention: while condemning genocidal acts, and providing a legal framework in which these acts can be punished, the Convention does not (as far as I can tell) sanction or promote military intervention as a proper response to genocidal policies on the part of States. In other words, signatory States are not compelled to act militarily against others States on the basis of acts of genocide. Thus, technically speaking, the Netherlands cannot be accused of violating international law in this instance. More significantly, this Convention grants to no State the right to use force or threat of force in its relations with other states: that right is reserved by the UN Charter to the UN Security Council alone.
The genocidal atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein are a very good reason for international military intervention in Iraq, but only under the auspices of the UN. This Convention, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, is an expression of the general will of the UN. By honoring it, we aren’t ignoring the UN; we’re abiding by its mandates.
Need I mention that the US government has often ignored the Convention when it suited its purposes? Thus, with regard to Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge, the US government officially recognized Pol Pot as the legitimate leader of the country, despite numerous attempts on the part of the UN to ban his regime’s participation in the General Assembly. The US gov’t vehemently opposed intervention in the internal affairs of the Cambodia during Pot’s genocidal massacre, and was among the first to denounce the Vietnamese government when, after numerous border skirmishes, it finally invaded Cambodia (in 1978, I believe).
At the same time, while US arms manufacturers were supplying weapons and ammo to the Indonesian army, which had invaded East Timor and was in the process of attempting to totally obliterate the native population, the US was instrumental in blocking UN action against Indonesia. Then US representative to the UN Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote in his autobiography of this period:
Naturally, when later reconstructing the beneficent history of the US as unimpeachable defender of the downtrodden, such uncomfortable tidbits of information are ignominiously consigned to the memory hole.
Your mention of the Iraqi regime’s crimes against the Kurdish minority are especially ironic in this situation, given that while these events were occurring, they were supported and condoned by the US government – which tried to foist the blame for the gas attacks on Iran, instead. Indeed, the helicopters used to carry out the attacks were Apache’s purchased from the US on the cheap, under an arms agreement that was condoned by the US government.
I consider myself fairly well read on the subject of US-Iraqi relations, and follow the news closely. I must admit, however, that your link to the Ma’dan is the first I’ve heard of them. Clearly, the US is not concerned with their fate; Bush has not mentioned them as a justification for military action a single time, to my knowledge. So I guess the shocking, unfortunate truth is that both the US and the Netherlands stand accused here. How can the US fail to live up to its commitments, and intervene on behalf of the unfortunate “Marsh Arabs?” How do you think such a justification for military action against Iraq would go down in middle America, pray tell?
(Sorry, mods, about the unintentional crosspost.)
