Warfare changed dramatically during the last century. The development of machine guns, tanks, and nuclear bombs has changed the course of history forever. But along with these new technologies came new international acts and treaties on war. These include agreements on formal rules of war, how to protect civilians, and how to ensure human rights to all those affected by war. It is apparent though that in the current war in Iraq some of these time-honored agreements and rules have become essentially meaningless.
The time period around the First and Second World Wars was when the most important international acts regarding human rights during war were put into effect. The most powerful of these acts are the Geneva Conventions. (Lauren, 74) Developed between 1864 and 1949, the Geneva Conventions, based upon the Hague Convention of 1907, sought to lay down rules for war between nations. These rules mainly concerned the ethical treatment of soldiers and the protection of civilians. Nations that signed the Conventions agreed, among other things, to not torture prisoners of war, to not intentionally target and kill civilians, and to not use chemical or biological weapons. (http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/genevaconventions) The Geneva Conventions tried to make war as humane as possible.
The other important development to come out of this time period was the creation of the United Nations after the Second World War. The United Nations was set up as an organization with the goal of enabling worldwide cooperation, increasing communication among the international community, and ensuring that human rights violations were effectively dealt with. The organization agreed to monitor and investigate wars for possible rights violations. With Europe still dealing with the effects of the Holocaust, the topic of human rights took center stage at the United Nations (Lauren, chapter 6). “World peace cannot be consolidated until men are able to exercise their basic rights without distinction as to race or religion” (Lauren, 176).
Unfortunately, in the current War on Terror, it is apparent that many of the agreements about how nations at war should act have been misused or completely ignored. In one of the more recent rights violations, American Marines killed 24 civilians in the town of Haditha in Iraq in 2005. The Marines attacked the town after a roadside bomb had killed a Marine earlier. The group of Marines claimed that the insurgents responsible for that attack were hiding in Haditha. Bent on revenge, the Marines went house to house and killed civilians indiscriminately. In October 2007, after a military investigation, it was announced that two of the soldiers who took part in the killings would face court martial charges. (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/19/marines.haditha/index.html)
The most blatant violation of the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Conventions, however, came in 2004 when reports and photographs surfaced of American soldiers torturing Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison. The photographs featured soldiers posing with tied and blindfolded Iraqis. Reports of torturing throughout Iraq also came out around the same time. The argument has come down to whether or not suspected terrorists who are being held prisoner are considered prisoners of war or not. President Bush claims that they are not, because they do not fight for a sovereign nation, and do not follow the rules of war themselves. Many other nations and Human Rights Organizations have claimed that these prisoners are still protected by the rules of war. The worldwide community instantly answered with anger and contempt. As of now, six soldiers have been discharged because of the incident, and one has been formally sent to prison. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/30/iraq.photos.reaction/index)
The United States, while condemning these particular acts, has not stopped all rights abuses in the War on Terror. This is particularly appalling because it was the United States who was a major force behind the Geneva Conventions and the United Nations. It is clear, and sad, that old agreements on human rights have lost most of their meaning in the wars of the modern day. I hope that the leading world nations will come together again and create new agreements regarding war, ethics, and human rights.
1 comment:
It has been debated at great length what this ‘war on terrorism’ is. In the past, there was a clear enemy, and that enemy wore a uniform. Those enemies also fought for a country, which had to abide by rules. The Geneva Convention was a great stride to humanizing war, and most countries abide by it. However, in current times, war has again become ‘uncivilized’. Roadside bombs, suicide bombers, execution of prisoners, assaulting civilians, the war we fight today is different than any we have fought before. The enemy is not as visible as it had once been, and therefore, America had to adjust and adapt. While this may seem as a defense of some of the abuses American troops have committed, it certainly is not. There has to be a change of tactics to combat this new form of adversity, but it does not involve abusing or killing civilians or prisoners. America needs to fight the new war while retaining the moral high ground. The problem seems to be a balance of effective warfare with preserving human rights. The marines had no right to go into the town and kill over 24 civilians. While adaptation is necessary, the United States has to restrain itself to hold to what respectability we have left in the world. Horrific incidents like Hadith, Iraq, are incidents that should be learned from, and never repeated
Post a Comment