07 April 2003
Human Rights Watch Monitors Conflict in Iraq
(Tom Malinowski focuses on international standards of conduct in war) (1300) On April 7, the Washington File spoke with Tom Malinowski, Washington Advocacy Director for Human Rights Watch (HRW), about U.S. and Iraqi responsibilities outlined by the Geneva Conventions and what role outside organizations can play in upholding the fundamental standards to protect civilians and prisoners during military conflict. Malinowski also sees HWR contributing documentation to a fair, impartial legal process to bring to justice those who are responsible for past crimes in Iraq, including the genocide of the Kurds and other grave abuses. In conclusion, he emphasized the importance of the U.S. efforts to uphold the highest standards of conduct on the field of battle. Human Rights Watch is a non-governmental organization, based in the United States, dedicated to protecting the human rights around the world. It has monitored human rights abuses in Iraq since the 1980's. Following is the transcript of Malinowski's interview with the Washington File: (begin transcript) Q. Could you explain the role of Human Rights Watch as it relates to the current military confrontation in Iraq? A. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) plays a historical role as the arbitrator the Geneva Conventions. It monitors compliance in the field and advises forces about how to come into compliance with the Geneva Conventions. It does not publicly report or condemn the conditions or violations in the way we (Human Rights Watch) do. That's the role we play. When people refer to the Geneva Conventions, they generally refer to a set of treaties that were agreed to after the Second World War, although their roots are in agreements that pre-date the Second World War. The Geneva Conventions do not, in any way, prohibit warfare. They seek to regulate it; to inject some humanity into what is otherwise an inherently inhumane activity. Primarily, when we talk about the Geneva Conventions we talk substantively about a set of rules that is designed to protect civilians, a set of rules designed to distinguish between what is a legitimate target of warfare and what is not. They also, of course, protect prisoners of war, i.e. combatants who have been taken prisoner and are no longer actively engaged in hostilities. Q. Do you think the code of conduct inscribed in the Conventions envisioned things like of use of civilians as shields we have seen in today's conflict? A. I don't think there's anything new that we seeing today, as far as the use of civilians. Sometimes we think that everything we see this week is something that's never been seen before but, in fact, these cruel techniques have been used many times before. There is nothing new about terrorism, for example, although we often talk about it as if it is some kind of new phenomenon. What really has changed is the technology of warfare over the last half century, but the brutality has not changed. Q. What are your concerns about today's technologies? A. Well, they're not so much concerns. The changes in technology tend to be a good thing. They have allowed technologically advanced countries like the United States to use highly precise weaponry, making it easier to distinguish between civilians and combatants in targeting. Q. Do you believe that technological superiority prompts Iraqi militias to don civilian clothing? A. Iraq has done things like this in every conflict that I can remember. These actions are, absolutely, reflective of the regime. Q. Can you talk a little about the kind of reporting you will be conducting related to this conflict? A. Well, we have folks in Iraqi Kurdistan and in some of the countries surrounding Iraq, filing reports on events as they arise. What we do is interview refugees. We've interviewed captured Iraqi soldiers. Q. How have you been able to do that? A. In terms of the Iraqi soldiers, there are a number of them in Iraqi Kurdistan being held by the Kurdish militias and we were able to get access to them. Q. But you are not interviewing Iraqi POW's held by U.S. forces? A. No, but I won't expect Human Rights Watch to be involved in this. What is important is that the U.S. government grant access to the Red Cross, and they have. This is their [U.S.] obligation under the Geneva Convention. If the Red Cross is satisfied, we would have nothing to complain about. Q. So what prompts your involvement in Iraqi Kurdistan? A. Those were prisoners who were taken by an irregular force and we believe that they should be accorded full POW status. But at the time, their situation was a bit more ambivalent. Q. What other issues in this conflict has Human Rights Watch been monitoring? A. Well, there are many reports that can accessed through our website [http://www.hrw.org/mideast/iraq.php]. Some include monitoring the use of particular types of weapons like cluster munitions and landmines. We look at targeting issues. Of course when the war is over, we will be interested in monitoring the way in which a new Iraqi government goes about establishing the rule of law. We will also be very interested in efforts to bring to justice those who are responsible for past crimes in Iraq including the genocide of the Kurds and other grave abuses. Q. Will Human Rights have a role to play in a kind of Truth and Reconciliation process in Iraq? A. We feel strongly that, although there may be a role for a truth and reconciliation process, there also needs to be a judicial process to punish those who are responsible for crimes like genocide. Our role in either case, I think, would be share the research that we have conducted over the last 10-20 years in Iraq-the documents, interviews and reports-which might help a system of justice, establish the truth. It's not our role, ultimately, to say who is guilty and who is innocent. That is up to a fair, impartial court but we do have some raw material that a court could use to make those determinations. Q. Could you review the regime's alleged violation of the Geneva Conventions? A. In past wars it has used Weapons of the Mass Destruction-chemical weapons against the Iranians and against the Kurds domestically. There is a separate treaty related to chemical weapons, but it this would be covered by the Geneva Conventions in the sense that the weapon is inherently indiscriminant, that it's impossible to use without hurting civilians. And, of course, the regime used it to deliberately attack civilians. It used human shields in the first Gulf War (1991), placing civilians against their will at military sites; hiding military infrastructure in civilian buildings and again, just deliberate targeting of civilians that has been the hallmark of this regime. Q. Given the unconventional tactics used the current confrontation in Iraq, why is it important that combatants uphold the standards established by the Geneva Conventions? A. First of all, no one has a greater interest in seeing the Geneva Conventions upheld than the American men and women in uniform because, ultimately, many of those rules are designed to protect them. The United States can only protect its ability to complain about, for example, the mistreatment of American POW's, if it is seen fully upholding those rules itself. We need to hold Americans to a particularly high standard, I think, because the United States is a standard-setter. Its actions set a very powerful example that is felt and emulated all around the world. If, for example, Saddam Hussein mistreats prisoners, no one is going to say, "Well, he does it and so can we." If the United States is seen as mistreating prisoners, then all bets are off. (end transcript) (Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
