Statement of W. Hays Parks |
Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs |
"Prosecuting Iraqi War Crimes; A Consideration of the Different Forum Options" |
April, 10 2003 |
Testimony of W. Hays Parks
before the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs April 10, 2003 Thank you for inviting me to testify on this very important subject. You have asked me to comment on the 1949 Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Prisoners of War, commonly referred to by the acronym “GPW,” Department of Defense policies with respect to that Convention in the current conflict with Iraq, and Iraqi violations of the Convention. Geneva Convention Background The GPW was negotiated after World War II. Out of 194 nations in the world, 190 are States parties, including the United States and Iraq. More governments are States Parties to this convention than Member States of the United Nations, making it one of the most widely accepted treaties. The protections of the Convention apply when the members of the armed forces of one belligerent nation “fall into the hands” of an enemy belligerent. This can happen through capture or surrender to enemy military forces. The Geneva Convention provides the following fundamental protections for POWs:
In addition to the GPW, there are other Geneva Conventions relevant to the current conflict. In particular, the United States and Iraq are both parties to the 1949 Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. The title of this Convention is a bit misleading because it also provides protection for the dead. In particular, this Convention:
DOD Policies in Conflict with Iraq The United States and Coalition forces conduct all operations in compliance with the law of war. No nation devotes more resources to training and compliance with the law of war than the United States. Both the United States and Iraq are parties to the GPW, which the United States fully observes in this conflict. The U.S. and Coalition Forces have planned for the protection and proper treatment of Iraqi POWs under each of the Geneva Conventions I have identified. These plans are integrated into current operations. Before describing our policies, I should note that in Operation Desert Storm in 1991, the United States and Coalition partners detained 86,743 Iraqi POWs. These Iraqi POWS were given all of the protections required by the Geneva Conventions. Our aims and acts are precisely the same in the current conflict: We are providing, and will continue to provide, captured Iraqi combatants with the protections of the Geneva Conventions and other pertinent international laws. In addition, arrangements are currently in progress to allow for representatives from the International Committee of the Red Cross to meet with Iraqi POWs. This will take place as soon as their security can be assured. Iraqi Violations of the Geneva Conventions and Related Laws of War Unfortunately, the Iraqi regime is not complying with the Geneva Conventions. Before turning to a summary of the Iraqi violations, I should note that in Desert Storm in 1991, the Iraqis mistreated U.S. and Coalition forces in numerous respects, including physical abuse and torture, forced propaganda statements, food deprivation, denial of ICRC access until the day of repatriation, and much more. The Iraqis similarly mistreated Iranian POWs during the 8-year Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. The Iraqi regime has thus displayed a pattern of systematic disregard for the laws of war. Based upon briefings and reports in the media, it appears that Iraq has once again committed violations of the Geneva Conventions and related laws of war. I will mention just three.
These are three obvious Iraqi law of war violations. Behind the tapes and initial reports from the field there are likely to be additional violations. The position of the United States Government is to do everything in its power to The Secretary of the Army investigated and recorded Iraqi war crimes during the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War. Steps have been taken to begin a similar investigation and information collection effort. Ultimate disposition will depend upon evidence collected, identified violations, and individuals who come under U.S. control. |
NEWSLETTER
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|