I will remind you that the Americans are governing this country… Bremer is the dictator of Iraq. He has the money. He has the signature.
– Lakhdar Brahimi, UN Special Envoy to Iraq94
The following recommendations assume that international law is meant to apply equally to all governments, even the world’s lone superpower. They may be dismissed by some as “unrealistic” in today’s geopolitical climate. But, especially today, we are called to challenge prevailing realities on the grounds that only respect for equal rights and justice can bring about a positive resolution to the crisis in Iraq. Moreover, the opportunity for principled policy change grows daily with every new revelation of lies and mistakes by the Bush Administration.
As the contradiction between the U.S. occupation and Iraqi self-determination becomes more apparent, the growth of Iraqi resistance more widespread and popular, the imposition of U.S. interests through Iraqi proxies more untenable, the need for multilateral participation more urgent, regional opposition to U.S. hegemony more forceful, and the voice of global opinion more powerful, it will become more realistic to promote law-based solutions to a conflict created by lawless behavior.
It is on this basis that the Center for Economic and Social Rights offers the following recommendations:
Stop the violations. The first priority is for the U.S. immediately to stop violating Iraqis’ rights under human rights and humanitarian law. This applies to all the categories of violations documented above—economic and social rights to health and work, civil and political rights to free expression and bodily integrity, and humanitarian protections against unlawful killing and detention. For the violations to end, the Bush Administration must acknowledge their systemic nature and implement immediate changes to basic occupation policies.
The second priority is to establish conditions for the protection and promotion of these rights. This would require a public commitment by the Bush Administration to renounce imperial ambitions in Iraq and declare respect for legal principles governing occupation, starting with the Geneva Conventions. This commitment should be backed up by allowing independent rights groups and journalists free access in Iraq to monitor and report on U.S. practices.
Any willingness to change abusive policies on the ground and accept the rule of international law would, of course, mark a radical departure from the lawless behavior that has characterized the Bush Administration’s Iraq policy and, more broadly, its pursuit of “the war against terror” since 9/11. It would also mark a first step towards restoring the trust, goodwill, and cooperation of not only the Iraqi people but the entire international community.
Establish accountability. Top U.S. government officials should accept responsibility for systemic violations rather than scapegoat those individuals who happen to get caught on camera. Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, the architects of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, should be forced to resign and publicly apologize for the myriad lies, misjudgments, and crimes that have driven U.S. policy in Iraq. They and other responsible Administration officials should also face criminal and civil charges for war crimes and other violations of international law.
Occupation forces, including private contractors, should be stripped of extraterritorial immunity—an affront to Iraqi sovereignty reminiscent of 19th-century imperialism. Any agreements reached with interim Iraqi authorities to exempt U.S. forces from criminal accountability lack legal force and effect and therefore can and should be nullified once a legitimate sovereign Iraqi government assumes power. Any agreements reached with interim Iraqi authorities to exempt U.S. forces from criminal accountability lack legal force and effect and therefore can be nullified once a legitimate sovereign Iraqi government assumes power.
Moreover, any tribunal for war crimes in Iraq should be held according to international standards, with jurisdiction over all crimes committed by all parties against the Iraqi people. A tribunal that prosecutes only Baath Party leaders without holding officials from foreign governments and international actors accountable would rightly be seen as a kangaroo court dispensing victor’s justice. At the broader level, the Bush Administration should join the International Criminal Court and stop negotiating bilateral exemptions to legal liability for the most egregious international crimes, including genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity
End the occupation. Promoting an illusory political transition on June 30th (or any future date) while retaining effective control on the ground will neither stop the cycle of violence nor shield the U.S. government from accountability as an occupying power. Changing Iraq’s economic structure and laws to secure U.S. corporate ownership of its natural resources and national assets while establishing U.S. military bases across the country will only further entrench the occupation.
In Washington, a bipartisan consensus currently exists that asserts that the occupation must continue because a U.S. withdrawal would leave chaos and civil strife in its wake. Similar to the “White Man’s Burden” argument of a century ago, this unprincipled position uses the prospect of local violence to justify an unlawful policy of foreign intervention, and ignores the plain fact that the presence of occupation forces is itself the primary cause of Iraqi resistance and a trigger to increased sectarian violence. Rather than issue empty rhetoric about protecting Iraqis from each other, the Bush Administration must instead articulate a clear plan to withdraw U.S. forces according to a transparent timetable, and publicly disavow current plans to maintain indefinite military and economic control of Iraq.
A policy declaration to this effect, followed by concrete actions, would almost certainly result in a sharp reduction in violence, facilitate increased participation by international and regional mediators and peacekeepers, and create favorable conditions for an agreement on free and fair elections negotiated by Iraqi factions based on their actual support in the country rather than the strength of their foreign sponsors. While no course of action, even one based on full respect for international law, can guarantee peace, stability, and democracy, it would be difficult to do more damage to these values than present U.S. occupation policy.
Pay reparations. The damage caused by U.S. policy in Iraq will remain long after the last occupation troops have withdrawn. Most consequences can never be undone—the unnecessary deaths, the impoverishment of a wealthy nation, the deprivation of an entire generation of children, the intellectual brain drain, the cultural losses, the shredding of Iraq’s social fabric, the ethnic and religious fragmentation. Nevertheless, the U.S. has a duty to repair what is reparable through economic compensation. This is not an act of benevolence. It is a legal obligation to remedy the results of wrongful actions.
There are many precedents for imposing reparations on countries that have invaded, occupied, and committed war crimes against other nations and peoples, stretching back to the Second World War and before. The Kuwait Compensation Commission—which assessed over $200 billion in damages against Iraq for individual, corporate, and governmental losses arising from the invasion of Kuwait in 1990—provides one relevant model for determining U.S. reparations owed to Iraq.
To date, the C.P.A. has provided only paltry compensation for a handful of wrongful deaths confirmed by the U.S. military, while excluding the vast majority of claims. It must be emphasized that reparations for illegal actions, including the massive destruction of civilian life and property from two wars, sanctions, and occupation, are a penalty for wrongdoing rather than charity to rebuild the country. Reconstruction aid should be considered independently of reparations, and should be provided as unconditional grants rather than long-term loans that would trap Iraq in an endless cycle of debt to foreign creditors. Similarly, forgiveness for debt incurred by the Ba’ath regime is an important but independent consideration for restoring the country’s economic health and securing its financial future.
94 Tom Lasseter, “Brahimi: Bremer the ‘dictator of Iraq’ in shaping Iraqi government,” Knight Ridder Newspapers, June 2, 2004. http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/8821031.htm