We are not alone: WE are the majority!

We are not alone: WE are the majority!
Exclusive interview with Dirk Adriaensens, coordinator SOS Iraq and member of the Executive committee of the BRussells Tribunal
By Gabriele Zamparini (*)

“War does not determine who is right.
Only who is left.” - Bertrand Russell

The list of people who are part of this international network is really impressive. Academics, activists, journalists, artists, human rights advocates and two former “UN Assistant Secretary General & United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq” who have told the world the truth. Even more important, many among these people are Iraqis.

I asked Dirk Adriaensens, coordinator SOS Iraq and member of the Executive committee of the BRussells Tribunal, to tell me more about this network.

QUESTION: Why the name, "BRussells Tribunal"? Tell me how did you start.

ANSWER: The BRussells Tribunal was originally a hearing committee composed of academics, intellectuals and artists in the tradition of the Russell Tribunal, set up in 1967 to investigate war crimes committed during the Vietnam War. The hearing took place on 14-17th April 2004 at The Beursschouwburg and Les Halles in Brussels, 2 prestigious venues in Belgium. It was presided by Professor François Houtart, who participated in the Bertrand Russell War Crimes Tribunal on US Crimes in Vietnam in 1967, and who is one of the founding fathers of the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre. The hearing committee was directed against the war in Iraq and the imperial war policies of the Bush II administration. Its main focus was the ‘Project for the New American Century’, the think tank behind this war, in particular three of the co-signatories of the mission statement: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz.
Just before the war started, a petition was launched by Philosophy Professor Lieven De Cauter. It was signed by some 500 artists, writers, intellectuals and academics, including Richard Plunz, Irving Wolfharth, Anne Teresa De Keersmaeker, Hans Ulrich Obrist, and François Houtart. It called for moral and, if possible, legal action against the ‘Project for the New American Century’ and those responsible for the war against Iraq. It was published on March 21 in two Belgian newspapers, De Standaard and De Morgen. It soon appeared that legal action was unlikely to succeed, hence the idea to set up a ‘Moral Court’ or ‘People's Court’ to condemn the US government’s policy as well as the think tanks behind it.

A broad platform composed of several Belgian cultural organizations was created to carry out the petition’s first proposal: to set up a BRussells Tribunal. At a networking conference set up by the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation at the end of June 2003 in Brussels, it was decided that a series of hearings would be held in different places all over the world, culminating in a final session in Istanbul. The BRussells Tribunal was one of these commissions of inquiry, the opening session of the World Tribunal on Iraq. The Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation accepted to support the initiative.

Our tribunal session itself had an impressive list of participants and witnesses: Denis Halliday, Hans von Sponeck, Jacques Derrida, Ramsey Clark, Nawal El Saadawi, Michael Parenti, Karen Parker, Jim Lobe, Tom Barry, Samir Amin, Immanuel Wallerstein and many others. A part of your documentary “XXI CENTURY” was showed as evidence against the PNAC, and was the opening testimony of the Tribunal.

The BT is a network, not a formally structured organisation, working on a zero budget. Every honest campaigner against this occupation, who agrees with the different platform texts and the Istanbul conclusions, is welcome. This is very important I think. It’s a very mature network, having only one goal: the end of the occupation of Iraq.

QUESTION: The BRussells Tribunal was a very successful initiative. Tell me about the future.

ANSWER: The BRussells Tribunal was very successful in terms of quality and attendance. The conclusions can be read on our website. And even in terms of national attention of the Press we could not complain, really. But on the other hand we have come to realize that neither the BRussells Tribunal nor the World Tribunal on Iraq, with its final session in Istanbul last June, are really known to the larger public. In that respect we failed to break through the glass ceiling of mainstream media. There is still work to do to let the world know. But we decided not only to focus on this spreading of the conclusions.

In Brussels we had our session more than a year ago, and we were facing the question what to do next, how to proceed according to our conclusions. We decided to ACT. The ongoing atrocities in Iraq need our monitoring and the Iraqis need our support. Apart from a Christmas vigil in several towns in Belgium and participation in all sorts of public debates, we set up a mass protest against the visit of Bush to Brussels on Sunday February 20th. It was a big success and this time we got into the mainstream media. Even the NYT and the International Herald Tribune. For us doing ‘positive press action’ has become crucial. We regularly receive very strong material from inside Iraq, and often we get these testimonies published, on progressive websites like www.uruknet.info or even in the local mainstream media. More important: these stories will never be “old news”. They can later be used in courts to judge the war crimes of the occupation forces, or they can be compiled in a book so that this black page in history will be remembered.

We made 10 proposals, you can read them on our website, for the future work, based on our experience and ideas. They were presented in the workshop on the WTI at the Conference of the European Network for Peace and Human Rights, 20/21 October 2005 at the European Parliament in Brussels. I admit that our 10-point plan is ambitious, but I think we should be ambitious and I tell you why.

An Iraqi told me - I think it was after the opening session - that the WTI as a network was the only real instance where the whole worldwide protest to this war and subsequent occupation could be kept alive, continue and come together. Let's not squander this trust and dismiss its appeal too quickly. The silence of the mainstream media on Iraq has become deafening. I checked it out with many people: nobody has even heard about Tal Afar. We have a tremendous responsibility. We have achieved a lot, and the session of the WTI in Istanbul was a culminating point in the work of the worldwide peace movement, but there are still huge potentialities. The occupation forces are already starting to think about withdrawal. So we should think about creative and effective ways to accelerate this withdrawal. The BRussells Tribunal and the WTI should therefore even multiply their efforts.

QUESTION: The list of names that are part of your network is really impressive. Tell me more about this. How do you work with them?

ANSWER: The BRussells Tribunal grew naturally. Problems were solved as they occurred. I’ll give an example. The Advisory committee was created after we met with Dahr Jamail, Nadia McCaffrey, Abdul Ilah Al Bayaty, and others who expressed their desire to keep on cooperating with us. We received a call from Iraq for advice on international humanitarian law. Other people wanted to stay in contact with us and asked us what plans we had for the future. We also asked other people, like you, to join us because they were already involved in some way or another with the Tribunal and were willing to combine activism with their work as artists, journalists, academics, etc.

I’ve been involved in the anti-sanctions movement since 1990. For 13 years it was a lonely fight, and I met a lot of good friends during that period. Some of them, who remained active after the invasion, are now members of our Advisory Committee. And the circle will be broadened as we continue. Our consistent and effective way of working has attracted some fine and influential people indeed. It’s an explosive mixture of academics, activists, lawyers, artists, journalists and intellectuals. They seem to believe in the format of this network. In a way it’s reassuring to belong to an active group and be able to discuss recent developments and actions. Otherwise the battle for peace and justice can get very lonely. Now all these people are connected with each other through the internet and can ask or give advice, bring ideas to the forum, spread important news etc. So we also act as a sort of hub. The way this committee works is a rather new concept, I don’t know about any similar initiative. And it’s very workable.

This Advisory committee does not only exist on paper, nor is it only a discussion forum. When we issued Dahr Jamail's report: Iraqi Hospitals ailing under occupation, the conclusions have been partly written and amended by the Committee.

The Iraqis suggested having an action against the joint US-UE conference on Iraq, held in Brussels on June 22 and the committee wrote the platform text for the action. The Spanish committee CEOSI - member of the BT’s committee - did a similar action in Madrid on the same day with the same platform text.

On August 9, 2005, Amnesty International launched a “Call for a human rights based constitution”. This action alert called on people to write to Iraq's prime minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, asking him to make sure that the constitution is one that respects human rights. After our Iraqi friends raised serious questions about the relevance of such a call, we drafted, in cooperation with them, an open letter to Amnesty International. We pleaded that it would be more suitable if Amnesty International keeps on concentrating its efforts on denouncing the grave violations of human rights inflicted upon the Iraqi people by the occupying forces in order to bring the responsible war criminals to justice, instead of starting a campaign that de facto gives some legitimisation to this inhumane occupation and its Quisling government, whose legality is highly questionable.

The latest statement on the action in solidarity with the Iraqi health workers was drafted and amended by our committee. And don’t forget that members of our committee were actively involved in correcting the falsifications by the mass media about the use of the White Phosphorous.

QUESTION: In my opinion, one of the most important aspects of your organization is that it works closely with many Iraqis and Iraqi organizations. In a situation where most of the media are cooperating with the occupation forces in preventing information to reach the world public opinion, your work is even more important. What can you tell us about this?

ANSWER: This may be indeed the most important aspect of the BRussells Tribunal, and unique altogether in the Western Peace Movement. The backbone of our committee is composed of patriotic Iraqis, both from inside Iraq and from the Diaspora. They belong to different currents. We have people from different Human Rights organisations inside Iraq. This choice wasn't made accidentally. They are better aware of the pitfalls. They know better than all of us the realities on the ground. They know better what has to be done in the current situation and can help on a different number of issues. They understand what’s going on in Iraq. It’s their country. If we want to spread correct information and viewpoints to the Western audiences, we need the Iraqis to advise us. The BRussells Tribunal is about THEIR country. So we want to be a bridge between the Iraqi and the Western peace movement. We publish regularly eyewitness accounts and Iraqi Human Rights reports that we receive.

There’s no chance to patronize the Iraqis: they decide the direction. As to our position towards the Iraqi resistance: It’s not our duty, nor our right to judge this resistance. And we should certainly avoid affiliation to one current or another resisting the occupation. We have to keep the same distance from all currents and at the same time support and show our solidarity with all the different currents of the real resistance, all this in accordance to the Istanbul conclusions, that stated clearly the support for the Iraqis’ right to resist this dreadful occupation. And we certainly make no distinction between “civil” and “armed” resistance. Resistance is resistance against a rapacious power “by all means possible”.

Among the peace movement in the West, there are a lot of false ideas and viewpoints about the Iraqi resistance. It's about time that these viewpoints are corrected. We want to contribute to that, by translating statements, etc.

The media have successfully mixed up the ‘Salvador Option’ with actions of the Iraqi resistance, and the views that the average person in the West has, are totally biased. Three billion dollars out of the 87 billion dollar Pentagon budget for 2004 was meant to create militias and for covert operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's our task to correct this distorted vision, I believe. Does anyone know that most of the barbarous acts against civilians are openly condemned by all fractions of the resistance? Only about 3% of the victims of this occupation are caused by acts like suicide bombs, etc. But these are the only ones reported by the mainstream media. Be reasonable: if the resistance would target civilians, they would never gain the massive support they currently have. The occupiers now use the same arguments as the British did back in the 20’s of the previous century: “if we leave, there will be civil war”. Most Iraqis and specialists on Iraq, like Denis Halliday or Robert Fisk, state clearly that there will be no civil war if the US troops leave. On the contrary: if they stay, there will be a civil war, because all the illegal laws that the occupiers have issued, including the recent constitution, are meant to divide the country along sectarian lines, in order to “divide et impera”.

QUESTION: Tell me about the ongoing BT's "Solidarity call with the plight of Iraqi health workers"

ANSWER: As was suggested (mainly by Iraqis) at the WTI-workshop at the European Network Conference on Peace and Human Rights, 20-21 October 2005, Dr. Bert De Belder, coordinator of Medical Aid For The Third World, also a member of our committee, has drafted a statement: "Stop violations of the right to health in Iraq", meant for large diffusion and signing by healthcare personnel and activists, in support of Iraqi colleagues.

The first paragraph reads: “As large-scale US-led military operations in Iraq continue unabated, the health situation on the ground is at breaking point. The Iraqi health infrastructure, medical doctors and hospital staff are unable to cope with the deepening medical and humanitarian crisis. As they themselves are often targets of harassment and attack, doctors and medical staff find it near impossible to perform their duties as health workers.”

Once fully signed, it will go immediately to the UN Commission on Human Rights Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health, Mr. Paul Hunt (New Zealand) and he should be encouraged to investigate as part of his mandate. It will also be sent to the OAS as a kind of "amicus curiae" statement to support the court case of Karen Parker.

At the coming WSF in Bamako, Karachi and Caracas there will be activities and discussions on Bert’s statement, on the report by Dahr Jamail and on the testimonies and analyses about the use of WMD in Iraq.

QUESTION: Another thing the world knows little or nothing is the systematic assassination of Iraqi intellectuals.

ANSWER: The Iraqis are very worried about what happens with the "intellectual head" of Iraq. Academics, doctors and scientists are being killed on a daily basis. This ‘war on Learning’, as Robert Fisk of the Independent called it, is making Iraqi intellectual’s work impossible and further augments the view that a ‘normal life’ in Iraq is far too dangerous for them. According to an article in the Times Higher Education Supplement ‘there is a widespread feeling among the Iraqi academics that they are witnessing a deliberate attempt to destroy intellectual life in Iraq’. Furthermore, according to Dr Sinawi - a geologist formerly employed at Baghdad University - the academic dismissals and the assassination of intellectuals will bring a ‘disruption of higher education in Iraq for years to come. This will dramatically affect the standard of teaching and research for generations’. Many academics in Iraq have been imprisoned, have disappeared, or were forced into exile. We compiled a preliminary list already. The BRussells Tribunal will very shortly start a campaign "Academics For Peace", to create awareness on this disturbing evolution. Our Spanish friends from CEOSI will probably host an international conference in Madrid on this issue

QUESTION: Since your long experience as an activist working in these issues, what would you suggest to the many people around the world who share your feelings and your views but feel powerless and demoralized by the current situation?

ANSWER: Do we have a choice, as human beings who want a peaceful world? What will our children say about the world we leave to them? I believe we have a tremendous responsibility. No time to quit now. The Iraqis are successfully fighting the occupation. Let me remind you of what John Pilger said in an interview with Democracy Now on Dec. 31 2003: “I think the resistance in Iraq is incredibly important for all of us. I think that we depend on the resistance to win so that other countries might not be attacked, so that our world in a sense becomes more secure. Now, I don't like resistances that produce the kind of terrible civilian atrocities that this one has, but that is true of all of the resistances. This one is a resistance against a rapacious power, that if it is not stopped in Iraq will go on as we now know to North Korea where Mr. Cheney and others are just chomping at the bit to have a crack at that country. So, what the outcome of this resistance is terribly important for the rest of the world. I think if the United States' military machine and the Bush administration can suffer -- Well, the let's say, quote, defeat, unquote, because it was never a complete defeat in Vietnam, but if they suffer something like that in Iraq [they can be stopped]”

We have to help the Iraqi people when and where we can to put an end to this illegal occupation. I went to see Robert Fisk in Antwerp on Nov. 2. He said: “the US has already lost the war. Don’t let the mainstream media try to convince you of the opposite”. So why should we be demoralized or feel powerless?

We know that the current Western peace movement is quite weak. But is that a reason to be discouraged? One advice: switch off your TV and look at some decent news-outlets about Iraq, like www.uruknet.info And mind you: On Alexa.com they’re listed as the most read website on Iraq. They have more online readers than CNN, BBC, NYT, you name it. So why the pessimism?

I believe that if we globalize resistance against this US war OF terror, and even more important, work more closely TOGETHER with people and organisations that believe that another world is possible, the demoralising feeling vanishes. Our network is a very concrete example of that. We started this because we couldn’t remain silent. And look what we achieved already after just 2 years. So connect with us and with other organisations that you think you can trust. Try to explore new methods of action and convincing people of the horrors of this war. The moment you become active is the moment when you’re busy changing the world. We are not alone: WE are the majority!


(*) Gabriele Zamparini is an independent filmmaker, writer and journalist living in London. He's the producer and director of the documentaries XXI CENTURY and The Peace! DVD and author of American Voices of Dissent (Paradigm Publishers). He can be reached at info@thecatsdream.com

Chavez and the BBC

Here below my email exchange with Mr Painter of BBC RE: his article ”Latin America faces year of change” (BBC NEWS website, Thursday, 24 November 2005)

Dear James Painter,

In your article ”Latin America faces year of change” (BBC NEWS website, Thursday, 24 November 2005), you write:

“Will it be of the President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela variety or of the moderate President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil variety?”

Could you please be so kind to explain what you mean? Which kind of “variety” President Hugo Chavez is in your opinion?

In your article, you also write:

“Mr Chavez is a "21st-Century socialist", who is strongly anti-US and anti-private sector (since the beginning of 2005), and enjoys close ties with Cuba and Iran.”

As far as I know, Mr Chavez is not “strongly anti-US” as you write. He certainly is strongly anti-US Bush government. You will agree with me that there is quite a difference, won’t you? As a matter of fact, he has many friends and admirers in the United States where in many sectors of the population his popularity is much higher than Mr Bush’s. This might also depend on Venezuela’s Government’s help to poor US communities with, for example, providing cheap oil. Didn’t you know that?

Also, you write that Mr Chavez is “strongly [...] anti-private sector”. I think you should have informed your readers that 1) this is not a crime; 2) thanks to his policies, Mr Chavez is fighting poverty and illiteracy. And with great results indeed.

Finally, you write that Mr Chavez “enjoys close ties with Cuba and Iran”. My question here is: So, what? Why shouldn’t he? The Nobel Prize Gabriel Garcia Marquez is a close friend of Fidel Castro. Even the late Pope visited Cuba and was very well received. So, what? Since Venezuela and Iran are part of the OPEC, I think it’s quite normal to have “close ties” between the two countries. Do you have any reason to think otherwise? Please, let me know.

I would be really interested to know your thoughts about the points I wrote above.

Thank you for your attention.

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

-----

Dear Ms Zamparini,

Many thanks indeed for your email re the article on elections coming up in Latin America.

I agree with your point about Mr Chavez not being anti-American but anti-Bush. The article has been changed. I am fully aware of his plans to distribute cheap oil to poor communities in the USA, and we have reported it widely. The focus of this article was on forthcoming elections and not President Chavez, so we could not mention everything he was doing.

Our job at the BBC is to try and report things as we understand them without taking sides. So it is not up to us to comment on whether being anti-private sector is a good thing or a bad thing. We have certainly published several articles on Chavez's desire to push through reforms for the poor.

Likewise, we do not comment on whether it is a good or bad thing to have close links with Cuba and Iran. Many of his opponents would of course think it is a bad thing, you think it is a good thing. We try to be impartial, and let the reader decide.

In that context, it may be worth adding that the 'variety' of President Chavez does include such close relations, while the 'variety' of President Lula does not.

Thanks again for your comments,

Yours sincerely,

-----

Dear Mr Painter,

Thank you for your reply. It’s not easy to get any reply at all from mainstream media on these days and I do appreciate your extensive explanation.

I am happy you agree that calling Mr Chavez “anti-US” was not correct. Thank you for changing it.

However, I still have serious concerns about what you write. I won’t get much of your time and I would appreciate if you could explain me the following.

In your article you write:

“Mr Chavez is a "21st-Century socialist", who is strongly anti-US [corrected to: anti-President Bush] and anti-private sector (since the beginning of 2005), and enjoys close ties with Cuba and Iran.”

In your email you write:

“we do not comment on whether it is a good or bad thing to have close links with Cuba and Iran. Many of his opponents would of course think it is a bad thing, you think it is a good thing. We try to be impartial, and let the reader decide.”

The problem is not what I think. (By the way, you have just ‘labeled’ me without even knowing my thought.) I just think that “close ties with Cuba and Iran” is neither a good or a bad thing, for the reasons I tried to write in my previous email. I wonder why you wrote those words in that context though. Why didn’t you write “close ties with Spain, Italy and Japan”? The reason can’t be to compare Mr Chavez to Mr Lula, since Mr Lula does have close ties with Cuba and Iran, likewise with Spain, Italy and Japan. The same is true for Mr Chavez. So, why did you choose those two countries? In your email you write:

“Many of his opponents would of course think it is a bad thing”

I am asking you: the reason you wrote those two countries and not others, couldn’t it be that you were thinking what “Many of his opponents would of course think” ?

In your email, you also write:

“Our job at the BBC is to try and report things as we understand them without taking sides. So it is not up to us to comment on whether being anti-private sector is a good thing or a bad thing.”

That’s right: it is not up to the BBC “to comment on whether being anti-private sector is a good thing or a bad thing.” We agree on this part. But you could have written: “who is strongly (...) pro-welfare” or “who is strongly (...) pro-public sector”. But you chose to focus not on ‘what Mr Chavez is’ but on ‘what Mr Chavez is not’. Why? Again, couldn’t it be that you were thinking what “Many of his opponents would of course think” ?

The problem is that that paragraph is just built to project a negative shadow on Mr Chavez. Let alone that that paragraph is followed by this one:

“Mr Lula, on the other hand, is fiscally cautious and market friendly, pursues macro-economic stability, tries to help the poor within that model, and is a serious negotiator on the world stage.”

The keywords here are: “on the other hand”.

The words “on the other hand” assume that Mr Chavez is nothing of what you write Mr Lula is. I would like to call your attention just on the last thing you write Mr Lula is (and Mr Chavez - in your opinion - is not): “a serious negotiator on the world stage.” What do you mean? You mean that being critical of the World Bank and the IMF is lack of seriousness? If you think this – as it seems from your writing – you (and the BBC) do “comment on whether being anti-private sector is a good thing or a bad thing”. Why? Again, couldn’t it be that you were thinking what “Many of his opponents would of course think” ?

Thank you for your kind attention and I look forward to reading your reply.

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

Open letter to Juan Cole, Professor of History at the University of Michigan

Open letter to Juan Cole, Professor of History at the University of Michigan By Gabriele Zamparini (*)

Dear Mr. Cole,

On your website I read:

Monbiot accepts journalist and film maker Gabriele Zamparini's characterization of a US Defense Department document he discovered recording a conversation between Kurdish fighters that spoke of Saddam's own use of white phosphorus as "a chemical weapon." (1)

I would like to inform you and your readers that I didn’t make any ‘characterization’. The US DoD’s declassified document is titled “POSSIBLE USE OF PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL”. The summary of the document reads:

SUMMARY: IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS. KURDISH RESISTANCE IS LOSING ITS STRUGGLE AGAINST SADDAM HUSSEIN'S FORCES. KURDISH REBELS AND REFUGEES' PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS AND PERCEPTIONS ARE PROVIDED. (2)

You write:

[Cole: As many web commentators have pointed out, this document is not a Pentagon-generated report, but simply a Pentagon record of a third-party conversation. No known Pentagon-generated document issuing from the US military characterizes white phosphorus as a chemical weapon.]

A little weak as a rejection of a declassified document, isn’t it? (By the way, I would like to know who the “many web commentators” are.) The point is not how the Pentagon calls the WP in its own official documents. The point is – as I believe even children have understood by now – that the Pentagon’s officials know perfectly well that the WP can be used as a chemical weapon, since not only did they accept that document, not only did they classify it but, more important, the Pentagon had always refused to admit that WP was used as a weapon in Fallujah or in other parts of Iraq by the US forces.

As I wrote on November 9, 2005 in “BBC and Fallujah: War Crimes, Lies and Omertà” (3), the US government has always denied the use of WP as a weapon. The US Department of State was forced to admit the truth on November 10, after I had published my article on a number of on-line publications around the world and sent the information to many mainstream media’s journalists.

The denial was so paramount for the US government that on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 – five days after the admission by the US State Department – Mr. Robert H. Tuttle, US Ambassador to the UK, was still writing on The Independent:

“US forces participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom continue to use appropriate lawful, conventional weapons against legitimate targets. US forces do not use napalm or white phosphorus as weapons.”

On your website I keep reading:

[Cole: I agree that the invasion in 2003 was illegal. However, the assault on the guerrillas in Fallujah was not illegal. It had a UN Security Council resolution behind it authorizing Coalition troops to carry out such operations, and recognizing the transitional government of Iyad Allawi, which also backed the operation. (…) ]

Well, dear Juan Cole, Professor of History at the University of Michigan, here your informed comment is quite bizarre, to say the least. You write:

“I agree that the invasion in 2003 was illegal.”

Since we agree on this, let’s see what the implications of this “illegal invasion” are.

I am not a Professor of History, or of any other specialties, for that matter. But here it’s what I would think in my ignorance. Which kind of illegality are we talking?

“The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.” (4)

"To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." - Judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Trial of German Major War Criminals - Nuremberg, Germany 1946

In my ignorance, I would think that to reestablish legality after “the supreme international crime” it would be necessary – at least! – some kind of justice, for example to end the invasion (the occupation is simply its consequence); to trial those responsible for the “supreme international crime” and to force them to some kind of reparation (not aid, reparation!). Since the United States’ government and its allies “contravened the UN charter”, I don’t see how a simple “UN Security Council resolution” could reestablish legality after “the supreme international crime” have been committed.

You keep writing:

[Cole: (…) What was done to Fallujah was so horrible that it is now often forgotten that there was every reason to think that the city was a base for the worst kinds of terrorism against innocent civilians in Baghdad and Karbala; there were very bad characters there. Black and white depictions of the Marines as villains and the guerrillas as good guys are silly and morally poisonous. (…)]

There is no doubt that “what was done to Fallujah was so horrible”. We agree again here. What I assume you don’t agree it’s the right of peoples to resist internationally illegal military invasions and occupations. About “the worst kinds of terrorism against innocent civilians”, I would invite you to read carefully the report published on November 2004 by The Lancet (5) where – in the Interpretation of the study – is written:

Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths.

Also, in the Findings, is written:

Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children.

What had already been done to Fallujah “was so horrible” as you write, that the Lancet study didn’t include it.

You keep writing:

[Cole: (…) If I had known the full extent of the damage that would be done to the city, I would have been against the Fallujah campaign; it is just terrible counter-insurgency tactics for one thing, and was a humanitarian disaster. But to say that the US military wilfully contravened its own regulations and knowingly broke US and international law on chemical weapons by deploying white phosphorus there would have to be proven from better evidence than has been presented.]

“If you had known”? Isn’t your website titled “Informed Comment” ?

Finally, in your website, I read:

This is a public relations issue, not an issue of war crimes

Now, everything is perfectly clear!

Regards,
Gabriele Zamparini


NOTES:

1) White Phosphorus Round-up, posted by Juan @ 11/25/2005 06:05:00 AM

2) A De-Classified Report from the US Department of Defense calls WP “CHEMICAL WEAPONS” by Gabriele Zamparini

3) BBC and Fallujah: War Crimes, Lies and Omertà, by Gabriele Zamparini

4) BBC and Supreme International Crime, by Gabriele Zamparini

5) Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey, The Lancet


(*) Gabriele Zamparini is an independent filmmaker, writer and journalist living in London. He's the producer and director of the documentaries XXI CENTURY and The Peace! DVD and author of American Voices of Dissent (Paradigm Publishers). He can be reached at info@thecatsdream.com

My interview with the BBC

My interview with the BBC
By Gabriele Zamparini (*)


On 17 November 2005 I received an email from the BBC. They wanted to interview me for the BBC 2 programme Newsnight. Wow! I felt excited. Then I thought, wait a minute. Why should the BBC interview the guy who wrote “Will the BBC tell the truth about Fallujah?” (November 07, 2005), “EXCLUSIVE: the BBC is WRONG!!! Fallujah, the RAI NEWS 24 documentary and my e-mail exchange with the BBC” (November 08, 2005). “BBC and Fallujah: War Crimes, Lies and Omertà” (November 09, 2005), “The BBC, of course!” (November 16, 2005), “SHAMELESS BBC: WHEN MISINFORMATION MEANS WAR CRIMES. Exclusive interview with Karen Parker, Chief Counsel of the Association of Humanitarian Lawyers” (November 17, 2005). Still thinking, I got the first of three telephone calls from BBC Newsnight. After each call I sent an email to a friend of mine to let him know about the news. Here below I reproduce the e-mail I received from the BBC asking for an interview and the three e-mails I sent to my friend. Have fun!

From: "XXXXXXXXX
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:10:21 -0000
To:
Subject: BBC NEWSNIGHT QUERY

To Whom It May Concern,

I am trying to get the contact details for Gabriele Zamparini for a possible BBC Newsnight interview.

If I could possibly be provided with his relevant number - I would be very grateful. I can be reached either by email, or on my mobile - XXXXXXXX

With best wishes,

XXXXXX

FIRST EMAIL TO MY FRIEND:

XXXX XXXX just called me. First she invited me for tonight's programme. Then she asked me a couple of questions, like, what do you think about bloggers? It's a good or bad thing? How bloggers get their news? Etc...

I gave very short, "balanced" answers. But probably even that wasn't enough balanced since at the end she told me that this thing of tonight was not sure and she would call me back in a couple of hours. (…)

So, now. I am waiting for their decision. Then I will decide.

My feeling is that they wanted "a blogger" to talk about the "blogs world"!

Probably my answers have not been "satisfactory" for the kind of programme they have in mind.

Gabriele

SECOND EMAIL TO MY FRIEND:

They called me again. This time was a male journalist, too bad I didn't get his name. He wanted to know "my point of view"

So I said: so, this means that if you don't like what I say, you won't invite me, right?

Then I answered and told him what "my point of view" was.

I have been extremely polite, even sweet.

But I expressed my view.

He kept saying: "your feelings are"

I kept repeating: "it's not about my feelings but about facts"

I told him that there is a whole universe of alternative information out there. And people prefer spend their time following these media because they have lost completely the trust with the mainstream. I told him that people are not stupid. I told him that those in the mainstream media seem to me like those in the green zone in Baghdad. They are completely isolated from the real world.

And about the war in Iraq, I told him that the "coverage" of the BBC is simply shameful and I wonder how people can sleep at night knowing all what's happening.

I told him that of course there are a lot of professional journalists at the BBC and I ask him what they are waiting for and when they are going to work as journalists, since now most of the time they seem to be the spokespeople for 10 Downing street, or for the pentagon or the white house.

I also told him that even though at the BBC they don't have to struggle like most of us in the alternative media, I would never switch my life with theirs.

I was always very polite, low voice, and sweet.

At the end, he said: "If we need you, we'll call you"

"Yes, of course sir. Good luck." was my answer

THIRD EMAIL TO MY FRIEND:

The name was XXX XXXX. He called again. Wanted to know who passed me the info about the Military Magazine that reported the use of WP in Fallujah. I told him that at the end of my article there is written the name with the link of the American guy who passed me that info and that he had written this on his blog the same day. It took 30 minutes just to make him understand how to go to the blog and click the link! These guys are preparing a programme on blogs or want to pass the info to someone? He was shocked that "bloggers" pass such important info each other!!! It seems the programme will be focused on the "power of blogs", not on the issue! Of course! The funny part: he said: So the BBC reported on this after you published it on your blog?

Answer: Yeah, right! I wish. The BBC "reported" on this only after Monbiot published it on the Guardian!!!

Professional journalism at the BBC...

Oh yes. The interview. What interview?

(*) Gabriele Zamparini is an independent filmmaker, writer and journalist living in London. He's the producer and director of the documentaries XXI CENTURY and The Peace! DVD and author of American Voices of Dissent (Paradigm Publishers). He can be reached at info@thecatsdream.com

Monbiot, the Guardian and "professional journalism"

Monbiot on The Guardian writes:

Last night the blogger Gabriele Zamparini found a declassified document from the US department of defence, dated April 1991, and titled "Possible use of phosphorus chemical". "During the brutal crackdown that followed the Kurdish uprising," it alleges, "Iraqi forces loyal to President Saddam may have possibly used white phosphorus (WP) chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels and the populace in Erbil ... and Dohuk provinces, Iraq. The WP chemical was delivered by artillery rounds and helicopter gunships ... These reports of possible WP chemical weapon attacks spread quickly ... hundreds of thousands of Kurds fled from these two areas." The Pentagon is in no doubt, in other words, that white phosphorus is an illegal chemical weapon. (Tuesday November 22, 2005)

This is the second time that The Guardian gets 'its' stories from this website.

On Tuesday November 15, 2005, Monbiot wrote in The Guardian:

Did US troops use chemical weapons in Falluja? The answer is yes. The proof is not to be found in the documentary broadcast on Italian TV last week, which has generated gigabytes of hype on the internet. It's a turkey, whose evidence that white phosphorus was fired at Iraqi troops is flimsy and circumstantial. But the bloggers debating it found the smoking gun.

You may find the 'smoking gun' George Monbiot writes about, in my article 'BBC and Fallujah: War Crimes, Lies and Omertà' published on Wednesday, November 09, 2005 and published in many on-line publications: uruknet, U.S Labor Against the War, globalresearch.ca, and many others.

You may also read the full story of how the US Department of State was forced to issue a “NOTE” admitting that WP had been indeed used in Fallujah as a weapon, in my article on Monthly Review

As you may read in my articles, I have always acknowledged my sources. Question: Why can't mainstream media do the same?

I sent the Guardian's editor Alan Rusbridger and the Guardian readers' editor Ian Mayes the following email:

Dear Alan Rusbridger,
Dear Ian Mayes,

Today, in Monbiot’s article “Behind the phosphorus clouds are war crimes within war crimes “, I read: “Last night the blogger Gabriele Zamparini found a declassified document from the US department of defence, dated April 1991, and titled ‘Possible use of phosphorus chemical’.” (George Monbiot, Tuesday November 22, 2005, The Guardian)

I’m happy to see such an improvement from: “But the bloggers debating it found the smoking gun.” (The US used chemical weapons in Iraq - and then lied about it, George Monbiot, Tuesday November 15, 2005, The Guardian) In this article, Mr Monbiot must have forgot to credit where he had read about the subject he was writing since he only added a reference to his personal blog a few days later and after I had written to him a reminder. (See ref. 9 of “War Without Rules” http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/11/15/war-without-rules/ )

While I am honored to be part of the blogger’s community, I am also a filmmaker, a writer and a journalist, as Mr Monbiot knows perfectly well since he reads regularly my articles and has received my book “American Voices of Dissent”. If I had to write about Mr Monbiot, I wouldn’t describe him “the blogger George Monbiot”, even though he has a blog as I do.

Since my name appears in your newspaper, I would be grateful if you could publish this letter and correcting the “blogger Gabriele Zamparini” to “Gabriele Zamparini is a filmmaker, writer and journalist living in London. He's the producer and director of the documentaries ‘XXI CENTURY’ and ‘PEACE!’ and author of ‘American Voices of Dissent’ (Paradigm Publishers, 2005). He also writes for his blog thecatsdream.com/blog. He can be reached at info@thecatsdream.com

Thank you.

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

Will they answer? Or should i send them a bill? Stay tuned to know more...

BBC and "outspoken journalism"

Dear Helen Boaden, director of BBC news
Dear Pete Clifton, BBC news online editor
Dear Mark Thompson, BBC director general
Dear Michael Grade, BBC chairman

In “Rival for 'biased' Western media” (BBC News website, Monday, 21 November 2005) I read:

“But the BBC's Jonathan Kent in Kuala Lumpur says striking a deal will not necessarily be easy.

He says some members - like Indonesia - have a fiercely independent media and others, like North Korea and Burma, are not noted for their outspoken journalism.”

Obviously, it’s not easy to be “outspoken” journalists in countries such as North Korea, Burma and many others where brave journalists risk their life to do their job.

On the contrary, “outspoken journalism” would be much easier for the BBC journalists. I hope to see that sometimes soon.

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

A De-Classified Report from the US Department of Defense calls WP “CHEMICAL WEAPONS”

A De-Classified Report from the US Department of Defense calls WP “CHEMICAL WEAPONS” by Gabriele Zamparini (*)

From a declassified document of the US Department of Defense:

REPORT CLASSIFIED

SUMMARY: IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS. KURDISH RESISTANCE IS LOSING ITS STRUGGLE AGAINST SADDAM HUSSEIN'S FORCES. KURDISH REBELS AND
REFUGEES' PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS AND PERCEPTIONS ARE PROVIDED.

(…) DURING THE BRUTAL CRACKDOWN THAT FOLLOWED THE KURDISH UPRISING, IRAQI FORCES LOYAL TO PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THE POPULACE IN ERBIL (GEOCOORD:3412N/04401E) (VICINITY OF IRANIAN BORDER) AND DOHUK (GEOCOORD:3652N/04301E) (VICINITY OF IRAQI BORDER) PROVINCES, IRAQ.

THE WP CHEMICAL WAS DELIVERED BY ARTILLERY ROUNDS AND HELICOPTER GUNSHIPS

Nothing new! It's another application of our wonderful way to apply the principle of universality: When you do it's terrorism and crimes against humanity. When we do, it's exporting freedom and democracy.

NOTE: The declassified document has been published on the Russian website Mirror of the World (By: KamikazeToyota on: 20.11.2005). Thanks to Jouna Pyysalo for sending me the Mirror of the World's link.

(*) Gabriele Zamparini is an independent filmmaker and freelance writer living in London. He's the producer and director of the documentaries XXI CENTURY and The Peace! DVD and author of American Voices of Dissent (Paradigm Publishers). He can be reached at info@thecatsdream.com

BBC and Supreme International Crime

Dear Helen Boaden, director of BBC news
Dear Pete Clifton, BBC news online editor
Dear Mark Thompson, BBC director general
Dear Michael Grade, BBC chairman

I would like to thank you for the BBC News website article “Germany marks Nuremberg tribunals” (Sunday, 20 November 2005)

The article reads:

“BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus says the Nuremberg trials set an important legal precedent, which laid the ground for subsequent international war crimes prosecutions and the International Criminal Court. (...) The defendants were charged with the then-new offences that have since become fixed in international law, including waging a war of aggression, war crimes and crimes against humanity. (...) The Nuremburg cases were also the first time government leaders were held personally responsible for their actions during war. They mostly claimed that they had not known, or were not responsible for what happened.”

On Thursday, 16 September, 2004, BBC News website published the article “Iraq war illegal, says Annan”. The article reads:

“The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.”

The “US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter” is exactly the “waging a war of aggression” the BBC News writes in today’s article “Germany marks Nuremberg tribunals” (Sunday, 20 November 2005)

Since both articles are published by the BBC, BBC journalists won’t be able to claim “that they had not known, or were not responsible for what happened.”

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

Civilization, genocide style

Civilization, genocide style
By Gabriele Zamparini (*)

“I think it would be a good idea” - Mahatma Gandhi, when asked what he thought about Western civilization

Ann Clwyd is the Prime Minister Blair’s Human Rights Envoy in Iraq. On November 15th, 2005, interviewed by Jeremy Paxman at BBC 2 Newsnight, she said:

“We have been trying to train the Iraqis in human rights. We’ve set up conferences for the Iraqis on human rights with all the NGOs. We’ve been trying our very best to get human rights into the Iraqi psyche. We want to help them I think” (1)

When I first heard Ann Clwyd’s words, I thought I had missed something. So, I went on line and watched the programme again. No, I had not missed anything. The words were still there, as clear as they could be.

“And what of human rights?” asked novelist Haifa Zangana last April on the Guardian:

An estimated 60% of Iraqi families still depend completely on the monthly food ration. A recent UN human rights commission report says that malnutrition among Iraqi children under the age of five nearly doubled last year to 7.7%, and blamed the war for this deterioration. More than a quarter of Iraqi children do not get enough food to eat.

Four million Iraqis are still in exile, and more are joining their ranks. Many academics, scientists and consultants are leaving for the fear of assassination or kidnapping. According to the interior ministry, 5,000 Iraqis were kidnapped in the last 15 months. Roadside bombs, mortar assaults, shootings by US troops and suicide attacks are all part of daily life.

There are 17,000 prisoners, mostly under US control. Two new prisons have been built by US contractors to accommodate 4,000 new prisoners in the south. A recently published Human Rights Watch report documents the torture and ill-treatment of members of political and armed groups, the arbitrary arrest and torture of criminal suspects, and the torture of children held in adult facilities.

There are reports, too, of women being taken as hostages by US soldiers to persuade fugitive male relatives to surrender. Amnesty International has condemned this, reminding governments that "it is against international law to take civilians and use them as bargaining chips". The blockade of food and destruction of water reservoirs during the siege of Falluja was "used as a weapon of war", a UN expert said in a report to the organisation's human rights commission.

Banned weapons have been used in Iraq too, as the US military has been forced to admit, including the MK-77 incendiary bomb, a modern form of napalm. Britain is party to an international convention banning such weapons where they may cause harm to civilians and yet, during the assault on Falluja, British soldiers were placed under the command of a US military that has no such qualms. Reports have emerged of melted bodies in the city, a crime that has been met with silence not just by Tony Blair but also by Ann Clwyd, his human rights envoy to Iraq. (2)

Ann Clwyd’s words show once again that the racist and colonialist mentality, responsible for some among the most atrocious crimes against humanity, is still in power.“I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes”, said Winston Churchill in 1919.

But these murderous weapons are still being used on civilians in our days. And with them more expensive and sophisticated ones, built with our money and coming from the minds of psychopaths in charge of our lives.

In 1920, Gertrude Bell wrote: “Mesopotamia is not a civilised state”.

I read this in the same article that celebrated her on Wednesday, March 12, 2003. This article ends with this paragraph:

The Iraq of Gertrude Bell had lasted 37 years. The Ba'ath finally seized power in 1968, built a prosperous despotism in the 1970s but destroyed itself and the country in hopeless military adventures in Iran in the 1980s and Kuwait in 1990. As of yesterday, Ba'athist Iraq had lasted 35 years. (3)

Is anything missing here?

Another liberal (sic!) voice wrote the following this past September:

In his Times piece, Vincent accused British forces of failing to teach Iraqi police democratic values. Vincent was wrong. There has been an effort to instill Western values in recruits. "We're trying to make these people accountable to the law, firstly," says Arnie Morgan, 51, a British police trainer from Armor Group, a firm that employs civilian policemen as advisers in Iraq. (4)

More than five hundred years ago, Christopher Columbus wrote about the new (sic!) world:

"[They] are so naïve and so free with their possessions that no one who has not witnessed them would believe it. When you ask for something they have, they never say no. To the contrary, they offer to share with anyone...".

The much-celebrated “hero” continues:

"They would make fine servants... With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want".

In 1937, another hero (so many heroes!), wrote:

"I do not admit... that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia... by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race... has come in and taken its place." (Churchill to Palestine Royal Commission, 1937)

In 1996, the liberal (sic!) Madeleine Albright – US Ambassador at the United Nations and soon to become Secretary of State under President Clinton – said about the half million children murdered by the UN sanctions against Iraq:

"I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it." (5)

In 2003, a small man but a big vicious mass murderer, said:

“We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.” - US President George Bush, March 19, 2003

British historian and Holocaust denier David Irving

“was being held in an Austrian jail last night while state prosecutors there decided whether to bring charges against him for allegedly denying aspects of the Holocaust during a visit to the country 16 years ago.” (6)

At the same time, those who are NOW perpetrating war crimes and crimes against humanity are celebrated and honoured. We see them every day on TV, talking, lecturing, smiling, laughing, and even making jokes on football, right Mr. Blair?

Their hands are covered in blood and there is no water, there is no river or ocean able to clean them. No matter how powerful they are, the fancy parties they go, the elegant houses and the expensive dresses, no matter their smiles and the lies they hide behind. They are miserable gangsters, bloody war criminals, responsible for unspeakable atrocities. They belong to jail and deserve our deepest contempt.


NOTES

1) Audio of the interview available here

2) Blair made a pledge to the Iraqis once. The suffering of my people must not be conveniently forgotten now by Haifa Zangana, The Guardian, April 22, 2005

3) Miss Bell's lines in the sand, James Buchan on the extraordinary life of Gertrude Bell, The Guardian, 12 March 2003

4) Powerless. Iraq's troubled police bow to party and tribe, by David Axe, The Village Voice, 30 September 2005

5) Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it? "
US Ambassador at the United Nations (soon to become Secretary of State) Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it." CBS - "60 Minutes", May 12, 1996

6) Austria considers Holocaust denial charge for Irving, by Tony Paterson, The Independent, 18 November 2005


(*) Gabriele Zamparini is an independent filmmaker and freelance writer living in London. He's the producer and director of the documentaries XXI CENTURY and The Peace! DVD and author of American Voices of Dissent (Paradigm Publishers). He can be reached at info@thecatsdream.com

SHAMELESS BBC: WHEN MISINFORMATION MEANS WAR CRIMES

SHAMELESS BBC: WHEN MISINFORMATION MEANS WAR CRIMES
Exclusive interview with Karen Parker, Chief Counsel of the Association of Humanitarian Lawyers By Gabriele Zamparini (*)

The BBC News website, in a special page “Q&A: White phosphorus” and under the title “The BBC News website looks at the facts behind the row.” reads:

What are the international conventions?

Washington is not a signatory to any treaty restricting the use of white phosphorus against civilians.

White phosphorus is covered by Protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons, which prohibits its use as an incendiary weapon against civilian populations or in air attacks against enemy forces in civilian areas.

The US - unlike 80 other countries including the UK - is not a signatory to Protocol III.

The same BBC News website, in the article “Iraq probes US phosphorus weapons” reads:

“Washington is not a signatory to an international treaty restricting the use of the substance against civilians.”

I asked Karen Parker, Chief Counsel of the Association of Humanitarian Lawyers based in San Francisco to comment on what the BBC reports.

Question: Karen, how do you comment on what the BBC writes?

Answer: The comment “Washington is not a signatory to an international treaty restricting the use of the substance [WP] against civilians.” assumes that therefore civilians may be targeted by WP weapons. This is an outrageous assumption because civilians may NEVER be the target of military operations -- whether using bows and arrows or white phosphorous, or any other weapon. This rule is not dependent on specific treaties but is a fundamental part of the laws and customs of war. Protocol III relating to incendiary weapons (of the Convention on Prohibitions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (1983)) makes all this clear by reinforcing this. While this treaty mainly sets out rules relating to WP in regards to combatants, it also reinforces the rule against targeting civilians.

There seems to be some controversy about whether WP might be a chemical weapon or a poisonous gas weapon and hence prohibited by treaties ratified by the US relating to these types of weapons. While a technically interesting question, it deflects attention from the fact that the US forces targeted civilians with WP and other weapons, both illegal and legal in Falluja. The debate about what category of weapons WP weapons are is irrelevant to THAT issue. What is important is to focus on the deliberate targeting of civilians or using weapons against a legal military target when there is a substantial likelihood of serious and numerous civilian casualties. Such targeting is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions, especially due to the nature of the weapons such as those containing WP used against them.

While the US may not have ratified certain weapons conventions, this does not mean that therefore the US may legally use the weapons that are the subject of such treaties. This is because weapons may be otherwise banned by operation of existing humanitarian law. Under these rules, a weapon may be considered banned if: (1) it cannot be contained to the legal field of battle; (2) it cannot be stopped or cleaned-up when the war is over; (3) it causes "undue suffering" or "superfluous injury" (terms from The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 -- echoed in the "Conventional Weapons Treaty"); or (4) it unduly harms the environment. The nature of WP makes it difficult to control, so it cannot be contained to legal military targets. In this sense, it could be banned by operation of international law in urban areas, as it cannot be sufficiently controlled to the legal field of battle. Note that the Incendiary Weapons Protocol was intended to limit the use of these weapons even against combatants because of the "excessively injurious" issue.

Most specific weapons treaties have provisions that provide for "similar, but unnamed weapons" that are "analogous" to the names ones. For example, the 1925 Protocol on Gases has such clauses. WP weapons fit this rule as either "chemical" or "gases" by analogy.

Q. The US government has just admitted to have used WP in Fallujah as a weapon. What’s your comment on this?

A. It is very disturbing that the US lied for a number of months about the use of WP in Falluja, and only came forward with an admission of use after clear evidence. While combatant forces are allowed to withhold certain information from the general public at certain times, the US apparently lied to US Members of Congress and other officials. This is especially disturbing because the use of WP in urban areas is prohibited by operation of law. In this sense, the US was covering up war crimes.

Q. Which other WMD - if any - have been used by the US in Iraq?

A. The US has used weapons containing depleted uranium (DU) in both the first and second Gulf Wars. DU weapons also fail the test set out above, as attested by the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in its resolutions and reports on this issue. Both the UN Secretary General and a Sub-Commission expert, Chief Justice Sik Yuen (Supreme Court, Mauritius) addressed this issue in their reports, that concurred with my prior assessment, submitted to the UN Commission on Human Rights and its expert body, that DU weapons are illegal.

I also understand that napalm may have been used in Iraq. At present, I have not been able to verify this conclusively.

Q. What should the international community do now and what you and your organization are doing?

A. My organization, the Association of Humanitarian Lawyers, has filed a legal action against the US at the Organization of American States for attacking hospitals and medical facilities in Falluja and for using illegal weapons in those attacks. For details, please see www.humanlaw.org. Obviously, this lawsuit needs to be fully supported, and I welcome help in that regard. In addition, however, we at AHL are trying to set up a "conclave" of attorneys to look at both this and a number of other legal challenges to the way that the US has conducted military actions in Iraq. I would hope to look at illegal weapons, illegal military operations and a wider variety of humanitarian law violations than just torture. I would also hope to look at the "anticipatory" agreements that the US pushed with a number of European and other governments in which the signatory States agreed to NOT bring the US to either the International Criminal Court (not possible anyway, as the US has not ratified the treaty) or to its own domestic Courts as mandated by the Geneva Conventions. These "anticipatory" treaties are "void" as they violate the Geneva Conventions and basic principles of international law, but they need to be judicially challenged. Such challenges are very expensive and economically beyond the reach of human rights organizations such as ours. One reason to force these agreements is that there are no funds to challenge them. So "they" win by default. This is tragic.

Q. How the antiwar movement may help?

A. The anti-war movement can help by making certain that they understand the gravity of the breaches of international law. This is not a "rogue elephant" situation -- this is a herd of rogue elephants. The US, and to a lesser extent the UK, are decimating the Geneva Conventions and all other rules of the laws and customs of war. It is shocking that most MP and Members of US Congress do not even know the rules: they are willing to send their citizens to die, but don't know the rules. It doesn't get any worse than this. The anti-war movement could also help to raise funds for legal actions. Yes, we must be in the streets, but we must also be in the courthouse. There simply must be legal challenges to these egregious violations. For those interested in helping in my Association of Humanitarian Lawyers action against the US at the OAS, please feel free to contact me at ied@igc.org or reb@xcaretresearch.com. And as stated, we are interested in holding a conference for attorneys who are ready, willing and able to take on the US in national and regional and UN forums.

To know more:

Association of Humanitarian Law
154 Fifth Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94118 USA
Telephone: + 1 (415) 465-9900
http://www.humanlaw.org/

(*) Gabriele Zamparini is an independent filmmaker and freelance writer living in London. He's the producer and director of the documentaries XXI CENTURY and The Peace! DVD and author of American Voices of Dissent (Paradigm Publishers). He can be reached at info@thecatsdream.com

The BBC, of course!

The BBC, of course!
By Gabriele Zamparini (*)

"If people really knew [the truth], the war would be stopped tomorrow. But of course, they don't know and can't know”. - David Lloyd George, Prime Minister of Great Britain, 1917

“The US has now admitted using white phosphorus as a weapon in Falluja last year, after earlier denying it” the BBC reports (sic!) (1)

The BBC – in its notorious role of advocate of “national interests” continues: “The substance can cause burning of the flesh but is not illegal and is not classified as a chemical weapon.”

Burning of the flash!? Much Ado About Nothing, one would say!

But let’s keep reading.

What about “but is not illegal and is not classified as a chemical weapon”?

In the same article (Hello!? It’s in the very same article! At the very bottom but still there!) one reads:

But Professor Paul Rodgers, of the University of Bradford's department of peace studies, said white phosphorus could be considered a chemical weapon if deliberately aimed at civilians.

He told PM: "It is not counted under the chemical weapons convention in its normal use but, although it is a matter of legal niceties, it probably does fall into the category of chemical weapons if it is used for this kind of purpose directly against people."

The change of Professor Bradford’s word “people” into BBC word “civilian” is worth of notice.

But let’s keep reading.

The BBC must defend its role of national interests’ advocate. To the point to be ridiculous:

Washington is not a signatory to an international treaty restricting the use of the substance against civilians.

What? Please, read it again: AGAINST CIVILIANS!!!

But let’s keep reading. (If you can…)

The BBC reports (sic!):

A Pentagon spokesman, Lt Col Barry Venable, confirmed to the BBC the US had used white phosphorus "as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants" - though not against civilians, he said.

He said earlier denials had been based on "poor information”

Poor information? Give me a break!

I imagine it’s the same “poor information” that made Mr. Robert H Tuttle - US Ambassador to the UK - write to the Independent, protesting:

“US forces participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom continue to use appropriate lawful, conventional weapons against legitimate targets. US forces do not use napalm or white phosphorus as weapons.” (The Independent, 15 Nov. 2005)

PINOCCHIO! PINOCCHIO! PINOCCHIO! You should read what your employer writes, Mr. Ambassador!

But let’s keep reading.

The BBC reports (sic!):

San Diego journalist Darrin Mortenson, who was embedded with US marines during the assault on Falluja, told the BBC's Today radio programme he had seen white phosphorous used "as an incendiary weapon" against insurgents. However, he "never saw anybody intentionally use any weapon against civilians", he said.

Of course you didn’t see “anybody intentionally use any weapon against civilians" Mr Mortenson. Remember what you wrote back in April 2004?

They say they have never seen what they've hit, nor did they talk about it as they dusted off their breakfast and continued their hilarious routine of personal insults and name-calling.

So, if the marines using white phosphorous “have never seen what they've hit”, how could you Darrin?

But let’s keep reading.

Toward the end the BBC News website article reads:

Globalsecurity.org, a defence website, says: "Phosphorus burns on the skin are deep and painful... These weapons are particularly nasty because white phosphorus continues to burn until it disappears... it could burn right down to the bone."

Right! But remember what the BBC writes at the beginning of its article?

The substance can cause burning of the flesh but is not illegal and is not classified as a chemical weapon.

But let’s keep reading.

The BBC News reports (sic!):

A spokesman at the UK Ministry of Defence said the use of white phosphorus was permitted in battle in cases where there were no civilians near the target area.

Very generic statement that means nothing! Which kind of use? For which purpose?

No civilians? In a city? The world saw images of dead women, children and old people. No doubts there were civilians in Fallujah.

Now that the US Department of State was forced to admit the truth: The US DID use white phosphorous, the BBC sees the problem:

BBC defence correspondent Paul Wood says having to retract its denial is a public relations disaster for the US.

This is the same Paul Wood who – as quoted by Helen Boaden, Director of BBC News - said:

"But I repeat the point made by my editors, over many weeks of total access to the military operation, at all levels, we did not see banned weapons being used, deployed, or even discussed. We cannot therefore report their use." (2)

Maybe the BBC “did not see banned weapons being used, deployed, or even discussed”, but last year lots of people DID see and DID report:

On November 10, 2004, the Washington Post reported:

Some artillery guns fired white phosphorous rounds that create a screen of fire that cannot be extinguished with water. Insurgents reported being attacked with a substance that melted their skin. (3)

On the same day, November 10, 2004, Islam OnLine reported:

FALLUJAH, November 10 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) - US troops are reportedly using chemical weapons and poisonous gas in its large-scale offensive on the Iraqi resistance bastion of Fallujah, a grim reminder of Saddam Hussein’s alleged gassing of the Kurds in 1988.

The US occupation troops are gassing resistance fighters and confronting them with internationally-banned chemical weapons,” resistance sources told Al-Quds Press Wednesday, November 10. (4)

Dahr Jamail, one of the few real journalists who didn’t go to bed with the military, reported repeatedly and extensively on Fallujah:

The U.S. military has used poison gas and other non-conventional weapons against civilians in Fallujah, eyewitnesses report.”Poisonous gases have been used in Fallujah,” 35-year-old trader from Fallujah Abu Hammad told IPS. ”They used everything -- tanks, artillery, infantry, poison gas. Fallujah has been bombed to the ground.” (…) Macabre accounts of killing of civilians are emerging through the cordon U.S. forces are still maintaining around Fallujah. (…) ”Doctors in Fallujah are reporting to me that there are patients in the hospital there who were forced out by the Americans,” said Mehdi Abdulla, a 33-year-old ambulance driver at a hospital in Baghdad. ”Some doctors there told me they had a major operation going, but the soldiers took the doctors away and left the patient to die.” (…) Abu Hammad said he saw people attempt to swim across the Euphrates to escape the siege. ”The Americans shot them with rifles from the shore,” he said. ”Even if some of them were holding a white flag or white clothes over their heads to show they are not fighters, they were all shot..” Hammad said he had seen elderly women carrying white flags shot by U.S. soldiers. ”Even the wounded people were killed. The Americans made announcements for people to come to one mosque if they wanted to leave Fallujah, and even the people who went there carrying white flags were killed.” (5)


A cameraman with the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation (LBC) who witnessed the first eight days of the fighting told of what he considered atrocities. Burhan Fasa’a has worked for LBC throughout the occupation of Iraq. “I entered Fallujah near the Julan Quarter, which is near the General Hospital,” he said during an interview in Baghdad, “There were American snipers on top of the hospital shooting everyone.” (…) “I saw at least 200 families who had their homes collapsed on their heads by American bombs,” Burhan said while looking at the ground, a long ash dangling from his cigarette, “Fallujans already needed everything; I mean they already had no food or medicine. I saw a huge number of people killed in the northern part of the city, and most of them were civilians.” (…) “I saw cluster bombs everywhere, and so many bodies that were burned, dead with no bullets in them. So they definitely used fire weapons, especially in Julan district. I watched American snipers shoot civilians so many times. I saw an American sniper in a minaret of a mosque shooting everyone that moved.” He also witnessed something which many refugees from Fallujah have reported. “I saw civilians trying to swim the Euphrates to escape, and they were all shot by American snipers on the other side of the river.” (6)

One has to ask: What was the BBC doing?

David Edwards and David Cromwell of Media Lens – an excellent watchdog “correcting for the distorted vision of the corporate media” – issued a series of alerts on this issue. (7) Media Lens challenged the BBC:

We at Media Lens do not know whether US forces have used banned weapons in their attack on Fallujah. However, it is remarkable that the BBC is, in effect, suppressing repeated and persistent reports of their alleged use. Even more depressing is the failure of the BBC to convey the sheer scale of the horror inflicted upon Iraqi civilians. (8)

To save its image - all they care about, apparently! - the BBC went public with an article on its website (9) where Director of News Helen Boaden quoted BBC correspondent Paul Wood:

"But I repeat the point made by my editors, over many weeks of total access to the military operation, at all levels, we did not see banned weapons being used, deployed, or even discussed. We cannot therefore report their use.

"Of course, we keep an open mind and will always investigate, and report, any hard evidence which comes to light."

Of course! When challenged by Media Lens, Director of News Helen Boaden showed all her fair play:

Dear David Cromwell

Thank you for your further email. However, I do not believe that further dialogue on this matter will serve a useful purpose.

Yours sincerely
Helen Boaden
Director, BBC News

Notes:

1) Iraq probes US phosphorus weapons, BBC News website

2) Did BBC ignore weapons claim?, NewsWatch, BBC News, 14 April 2005

3) U.S. Forces Battle Into Heart of Fallujah, by Jackie Spinner, Karl Vick and Omar Fekeiki, Washington Post, November 10, 2004

4) US Troops Reportedly Gassing Fallujah, Islam OnLine, November 10, 2004

5) 'Unusual Weapons' Used in Fallujah, by Dahr Jamail, November 26, 2004

6) An Eyewitness Account of Fallujah, by Dahr Jamail, December 16, 2004

7) Please read:

"NO GREAT WAY TO DIE” - BUT THE GENERALS LOVE NAPALM, 30 March 2005

RAPID RESPONSE MEDIA ALERT: DOUBT CAST ON BBC CLAIMS REGARDING FALLUJAH, 18 April 2005

BBC SILENT ON FALLUJAH, 17 May 2005

BBC STILL IGNORING EVIDENCE OF WAR CRIMES, 24 May 2005

8) "NO GREAT WAY TO DIE” - BUT THE GENERALS LOVE NAPALM, 30 March 2005

9) See Note 2

10) (Email, 21 March, 2005) Published in "NO GREAT WAY TO DIE” - BUT THE GENERALS LOVE NAPALM, 30 March 2005


(*) Gabriele Zamparini is an independent filmmaker and freelance writer living in London. He's the producer and director of the documentaries XXI CENTURY and The Peace! DVD and author of American Voices of Dissent (Paradigm Publishers). He can be reached at info@thecatsdream.com

Pinocchio the US Ambassador in the UK

The US Ambassador to the UK writes:

US forces participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom continue to use appropriate lawful, conventional weapons against legitimate targets. US forces do not use napalm or white phosphorus as weapons. (The Independent, 15 Nov. 2005)

BUT... The US Department of State writes:

[November 10, 2005 note: We have learned that some of the information we were provided in the above paragraph is incorrect. White phosphorous shells, which produce smoke, were used in Fallujah not for illumination but for screening purposes, i.e., obscuring troop movements and, according to an article, "The Fight for Fallujah," in the March-April 2005 issue of Field Artillery magazine, "as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes …." The article states that U.S. forces used white phosphorous rounds to flush out enemy fighters so that they could then be killed with high explosive rounds.] (Read here)

PINOCCHIO! PINOCCHIO! PINOCCHIO! You should read what your employer writes...

EXCLUSIVE: US DEPARTMENT OF STATE FORCED TO CORRECT ITS OFFICIAL VERSION

After my last article BBC and Fallujah: War Crimes, Lies and Omertà, (November 09, 2005) the US Department of State changed its version. The following note was added the day after it was reported on The Cat's Blog (and published also by Global Research, Uruknet, US Labor Against the War, Global Echo and others) that a US military publication admitted the use of white phosphorous as a “versatile munition”:

[November 10, 2005 note: We have learned that some of the information we were provided in the above paragraph is incorrect. White phosphorous shells, which produce smoke, were used in Fallujah not for illumination but for screening purposes, i.e., obscuring troop movements and, according to an article, "The Fight for Fallujah," in the March-April 2005 issue of Field Artillery magazine, "as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes …." The article states that U.S. forces used white phosphorous rounds to flush out enemy fighters so that they could then be killed with high explosive rounds.]

However the correction of the State Department doesn't include interesting details from THE FIGHT FOR FALLUJAH (pdf) published on the Field Artillery magazine:

9. Munitions. The munitions we brought to this fight were 155-mm highexplosive (HE) M107 (short-range) and M795 (long-range) rounds, illumination and white phosphorous (WP, M110 and M825), with point-detonating (PD), delay, time and variable-time (VT) fuzes. (…) White Phosphorous. WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE. We fired “shake and bake” missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out. (…) We used improved WP for screening missions when HC smoke would have been more effective and saved our WP for lethal missions. (…)

To know about the “shake and bake” read my article BBC and Fallujah: War Crimes, Lies and Omertà

BBC and Fallujah: War Crimes, Lies and Omertà

BBC and Fallujah: War Crimes, Lies and Omertà
By Gabriele Zamparini

This morning, Wednesday, November 9, 2005 on the BBC News website, under the title US 'uses incendiary arms' in Iraq I could still read:

Italian state TV, Rai, has broadcast a documentary accusing the US military of using white phosphorus bombs against civilians in the Iraqi city of Falluja.

Rai says this amounts to the illegal use of chemical arms, though the bombs are considered incendiary devices.

Eyewitnesses and ex-US soldiers say the weapon was used in built-up areas in the insurgent-held city.

The US military denies this, but admits using white phosphorus bombs in Iraq to illuminate battlefields.

Yesterday I wrote on why the BBC NEWS is wrong when (in its article: “though the bombs are considered incendiary devices” and with an email to me: “White Phosphorous is not a chemical weapon”) it denies that the white phosphorus is a chemical weapon.

According to international law, any chemical used to harm or kill people or animals is considered a chemical weapon. In the words of Peter Kaiser (Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons):

“Any chemical that is used against humans or against animals that causes harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical, ARE considered chemical weapons and as long as the purpose is to cause harm - that is prohibited behaviour.” (You can listen to his words directly by following this link and click the “Play” under the photo on the right at the bottom of the page)

The BBC NEWS article goes on

“The US military denies this, but admits using white phosphorus bombs in Iraq to illuminate battlefields.”

The US Government had already denied the claims in the past. In Did the U.S. Use "Illegal" Weapons in Fallujah? Media allegations claim the U.S. used outlawed weapons during combat in Iraq the US Department of State writes:

“Finally, some news accounts have claimed that U.S. forces have used "outlawed" phosphorus shells in Fallujah. Phosphorus shells are not outlawed. U.S. forces have used them very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes. They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters.

There is a great deal of misinformation feeding on itself about U.S. forces allegedly using "outlawed" weapons in Fallujah. The facts are that U.S. forces are not using any illegal weapons in Fallujah or anywhere else in Iraq.” (Created: 09 Dec 2004 Updated: 27 Jan 2005)

Obviously nobody would expect the truth about war crimes and mass murders coming from those accused of committing such crimes against humanity. Nobody but the BBC and most of the media. Obviously everybody would expect independent and honest information to be sceptical towards military and governmental sources and to investigate, investigate, investigate. Everybody but the BBC and most of the media.

They do not believe independent journalism. They do not trust independent sources. They do not see their job as discovering the truth, investigate, questioning the official version. They have sold their souls for a brilliant career and – as Noam Chomsky has recently said - “to make sure they are respectable enough to be invited to the right dinner parties.”

OK, here it’s the challenge! If the BBC (and most of the media) trust only military sources, then a military source they’ll have. From US Army's "Field Artillery Magazine":

9. Munitions. The munitions we brought to this fight were 155-mm highexplosive (HE) M107 (short-range) and M795 (long-range) rounds, illumination and white phosphorous (WP, M110 and M825), with point-detonating (PD), delay, time and variable-time (VT) fuzes. (…) White Phosphorous. WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE. We fired “shake and bake” missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out. (…) We used improved WP for screening missions when HC smoke would have been more effective and saved our WP for lethal missions. (…)

SOURCE:

THE FIGHT FOR FALLUJAH - TF 2-2 IN FSE AAR: Indirect Fires in the Battle of Fallujah By Captain James T. Cobb, First Lieutenant Christopher A. LaCour and Sergeant First Class William H. Hight”

More about the SOURCE:

Captain James T. (Tom) Cobb has been assigned to 1st Battalion, 6th Field Artillery (1-6 FA), 1st Infantry Division, and served as the Fire Support Officer (FSO) for Task Force 2d Battalion, 2d Infantry, (TF 2-2 IN) in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) II, including during the Battle of Fallujah. He also deployed with Kosovo Force (KFOR) 4B.

First Lieutenant Christopher A. LaCour, assigned to 1-6 FA, has been the Targeting Officer for TF 2-2 IN in OIF II, including during the Battle of Fallujah. Also in OIF II, he was a Platoon Leader for 2/C/1-6 FA and, previously, a Fire Direction Officer in the same battery.

Sergeant First Class William H. Hight, also assigned to 1-6 FA, has been TF 2-2 IN’s Fire Support NCO since September 2003, deploying in OIF II and fighting in the Battle of Fallujah. He also deployed to Bosnia as part of the Implementation Force (IFOR) and to Kosovo as part of KFOR 4B.

Here it’s what Darrin Mortenson of the North County Times wrote in the april 2004

Fighting from a distance

After pounding parts of the city for days, many Marines say the recent combat escalated into more than they had planned for, but not more than they could handle.

"It's a war," said Cpl. Nicholas Bogert, 22, of Morris, N.Y.

Bogert is a mortar team leader who directed his men to fire round after round of high explosives and white phosphorus charges into the city Friday and Saturday, never knowing what the targets were or what damage the resulting explosions caused.

"We had all this SASO (security and stabilization operations) training back home," he said. "And then this turns into a real goddamned war."

Just as his team started to eat a breakfast of packaged rations Saturday, Bogert got a fire mission over the radio.

"Stand by!" he yelled, sending Lance Cpls. Jonathan Alexander and Jonathan Millikin scrambling to their feet.

Shake 'n' bake

Joking and rousting each other like boys just seconds before, the men were instantly all business. With fellow Marines between them and their targets, a lot was at stake.

Bogert received coordinates of the target, plotted them on a map and called out the settings for the gun they call "Sarah Lee."

Millikin, 21, from Reno, Nev., and Alexander, 23, from Wetumpka, Ala., quickly made the adjustments. They are good at what they do.

"Gun up!" Millikin yelled when they finished a few seconds later, grabbing a white phosphorus round from a nearby ammo can and holding it over the tube.

"Fire!" Bogert yelled, as Millikin dropped it.

The boom kicked dust around the pit as they ran through the drill again and again, sending a mixture of burning white phosphorus and high explosives they call "shake 'n' bake" into a cluster of buildings where insurgents have been spotted all week.

They say they have never seen what they've hit, nor did they talk about it as they dusted off their breakfast and continued their hilarious routine of personal insults and name-calling. (from VIOLENCE SUBSIDES FOR MARINES IN FALLUJAH by DARRIN MORTENSON, North County Times, Saturday, April 10, 2004)

The silence and the lies of the mainstream media have resulted in war crimes and crimes against humanity. The Iraq war has started with lies and with lies it’s been continuing since. We shall never forget the words used at the Nazi criminals’ trials:

"To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." - Judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Trial of German Major War Criminals - Nuremberg, Germany 1946

Now, it’s up to us…

Gabriele Zamparini

Thanks to Mark Kraft for sending me important information used for this article.

EXCLUSIVE: the BBC is WRONG!!!

Fallujah, the RAI NEWS 24 documentary and my e-mail exchange with the BBC
By Gabriele Zamparini

On Tuesday morning, November 8, 2005, the BBC NEWS website published an article with the title US 'used chemical arms' in Iraq

This was after RAI NEWS 24 documentary “Fallujah. La strage nascosta” (Fallujah. The Concealed Massacre) depicting the use of white phosphorous on civilians in Falluja last year was broadcast the same morning from the Italian TV channel.

The film however had been available on the internet since the day before (November 7, 2005) when many alerts and comments appeared on websites and blogs around the world.

On my blog I posted an alert about the RAI NEWS 24 documentary as well as an email I sent to the BBC<