NATO GUILTY OF WAR CRIMES BY OWN DEFINITION

Article 3 of the Statute of The Hague International Penal Court states clearly that one criterion for indictment for war crimes is:

„Attack or bombardment, by whatever means, against undefended cities, towns, villages, buildings or houses".

NATO's continuous use of civilian targets for military purposes, a scenario which this military organization wantonly and callously calls "collateral damage", fits this clause exactly and would be the cornerstone of a case accusing this organisation of being guilty of war crimes.

Another clause of the same Article 3 could also be stipulated:

„Massive destruction of cities, towns or villages or destruction not justified by military necessity".

Any number of the unprovoked attacks by NATO in Yugoslavia and Iraq in the past decade would fit into this category, namely bombing attacks by NATO on civilian targets and structures. The bombing of the Chinese Embassy, for example, was not a "military necessity", by NATO's own definition, because it was officially classified by this organisation as a mistake. In which case, and under Article 3, it was a case of destruction not justified by military necessity and therefore, by its own definition and using the Articles from the Court set up by this organisation, NATO is guilty of war crimes.

However, the case does not stop here. Article 147 of the Geneva Convention on War Crimes, defines the latter as „...deportation or illegal transfer or illegal detention of a protected person...or to purposefully deprive a protected person of his rights of a fair and regular trial..."

What is being done in the case of Mr. Slobodan Milosevic at The Hague, apart from being a case of piracy, kidnapping and illegal imprisonment, is in flagrant violation of the Geneva Convention. Not having been appointed by the United Nations General Assembly, the IPC at The Hague is at most illegal and at least not legal. It is therefore incompetent to try Slobodan Milosevic, or anyone else, for alleged crimes.

More ironic still is this case when we discover that by their own definitions, NATO are guilty of the crimes they accuse others of – in an organism which has no legal substance whatsoever. How the international community tolerates such a scandalous state of affairs and apportions to it such a degree of seriousness is ridiculous and a shame for any country which prides itself on saying that it is a state of law.

arch/ive/ief (2000 - 2005)