PRESS STATEMENT OF KLFCW ON ISRAELI ATTACK ON HUMANITARIAN AID VESSEL ON THE HIGH SEAS
PRESS RELEASE
The Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalise War (KLFCW) joins the international community in condemning, in the strongest possible terms, the illegal and unwarranted attack by the Israeli Defence Force on the humanitarian aid vessel Mavi Marmara in which at least 9 people were killed and dozens more injured. The vessel was attacked in international waters, 65km off the Gaza coast. Live ammunitions were used by the Israeli soldiers when they stormed the ship in pitch darkness.
This attack on the high seas is in clear violation of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, adopted in Rome on March 11, 1988. Amongst the states parties who have ratified the Convention are Israel, Turkey, Ireland and the United States of America.
For this act of piracy, murder and abduction committed on the high seas, both Turkey and Ireland can bring up charges against Israel under the Convention.
Since Mavi Marmara is registered in Turkey, KLFCW urges that Turkey considers bringing criminal charges against Israel for ordering the illegal attack on the aid ship and causing the loss of lives and multiple injuries of the aid workers.
Another aid vessel, MV Rachel Corrie, registered in Ireland, is presently on its way to Gaza and may possibly be attacked by the Israeli Defence Force like Mavi Marmara. Should this happen, Ireland (a State Party to the ICC Rome Statute) can bring Israel to the International Criminal Court to face charges of crimes against humanity and other crimes under the ICC statute.
We urge the United Nations General Assembly or the United Nations Human Rights Council to quickly pass and approve a resolution endorsing war crimes charges against Israel for this latest attack on aid ships and aid workers on the high seas.
Yaacob Hussain Merican
Secretary-General
Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalise War
Thursday 3rd June 2010
KL War Crimes Commission Hears Guantanamo Atrocities
KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 30 (Bernama) — A British Muslim detained for three years at the controversial Guantanamo Bay prison manned by the United States, revealed that the youngest detainee he knew of was a nine-year-old boy who was also tortured like the rest. Ruhal Ahmed’s story was among more accounts of atrocities committed against the detainees at Guantanamo, told before an open commission hearing which began today on the sidelines of an international conference to criminalise war. The testimonies before the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission Hearings will be submitted to a tribunal in conjunction with the Criminalise War Conference and War Crimes Tribunal 2009 spearheaded by former Malaysian prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.
Dr Mahathir, an outspoken war critic, had said that the tribunal’s decision would be forwarded to the United Nations for further action. Malaysian lawyer Zainur Zakaria headed the six-member panel today that heard the heart-wrenching experiences of seven who spoke of almost daily physical and emotional torture by the US army over alleged ties to Al-Qaeda or the Taliban movement. Ruhal, now 27, was detained in 2001 after he and three Pakistani Britons, Asif Iqbal, Shafiq Rasul and a friend, Monir, travelled to Pakistan for a wedding.
In a surge of idealism, they decided to see the situation in Afghanistan which was being bombed by the American forces in retaliation for the Sept 11 attacks. ”Once there, with the loss of Monir in the war chaos, we were captured by the Northern Alliance fighters, and were later handed over to the American forces who transported us to the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay,” he said. ”I was interrogated hundreds of times by the FBI, CIA and even MI-5, beaten, and subjected to continuous torture, sexual degradation, forced drugging and religious persecution,” he recalled. Hands and feet chained into a foetal position on the floor, they were accused of making a video of Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan. The three now known in the media as the “Tipton Three”, were released in 2004 without being charged after they were forced to sign a paper to admit their involvement in making the video.
Another British Muslim, Moazzam Begg, 41, said moved by the plight of the Afghan people under the conservative Taliban regime, he went to Kabul with his wife and three young children in mid-2001 to start a school for basic education and provide water pumps. They fled to Islamabad in Pakistan when the allied forces attacked Afghanistan in October that year, and he was arrested in January 2002 by Pakistani police and the CIA, and held in a windowless cellar at the Bagram air base for nearly a year. ”The United States government considered me an enemy combatant, and claimed that I had trained at al-Qaeda terrorist camps in Afghanistan.
I was not charged with any crime nor allowed to consult any legal counsel during that time,” said Moazzam who was one of nine British Muslims held there. In January 2005, he was released with three others, also without any charges produced against them. Rape and abuse of women and children by US troops were almost a daily affair over at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, said Iraqi-born Jameela Abbas Hameedi. Jameelah, 54, was arrested in the Iraqi capital in January 2004 with her entire family, allegedly for supporting and funding forces against the US invasion. ”The US army even beat me with tubes and a plastic chair until it broke.
A plastic shard entered my leg and caused a bad infection. I had to undergo surgery but without any anaesthetic given,” said Jameelah who was also stripped to her underwear in the “black room” of the prison and bashed against a wall. Her only daughter and nephew were beaten and tortured naked for six months until Jameelah admitted that she supported the resistance. She also witnessed other abuses like sleep deprivation, forced stress positions, forced nudity, the use of dogs to scare and bite prisoners, death threats and sexual abuse. Jameelah and her family were freed in July 2004 without any charges brought against them. – BERNAMA
Gitmo was hell on earth
IN 2001, a Sudanese journalist was about to cross the border into Afghanistan when he was arrested by the United States military in Pakistan and detained as an “enemy combatant” in Guantanamo Bay.
Sami Al Hajj was the only journalist ever held at the notorious prison for seven years and was never charged.
Currently, the 40-year-old heads the newly-formed public liberties and human rights department of the Al-Jazeera television network.
At the Criminalise War Conference and War Crimes Tribunal 2009, he shared the trauma and torture he underwent, stripped naked and fed with a tube while locked up in Guantanamo.
“I was arrested without any mercy, the US army suspected me to be a journalist who wanted to interview
Osama bin Laden. They did not bother to hear the truth,” said Sami, adding that detainees from all over the world, including Bosnia and Indonesia, were brought to Guantanamo.
The detainees were not allowed to contact their families, neither were they told why they were held.
“The worst part is, we did not know the time for Ramadan fasting, prayer or festive celebration, including Hari Raya,” said Sami, who was a cameramen-turned-journalist.
He said the US army also had no respect for other religions, adding that its personnel stepped on the Quran and threw the holy book into the toilet bowl.
“If the detainees were sick or injured, they were not sent for any medical treatment but were left behind until the injury became serious and some of them got their legs cut from the ankle,” said Sami.
He said the media had to play their role and deliver fair stories, especially on Guantanamo and the war to let the public know the real situation.
Sami served as cameraman for Al-Jazeera since 2000, before he was promoted to journalist.
“Through this conference, I hope Malaysia can set a platform to find a solution to combat war, and educate
the public and the media. I do hope Tun Dr Mahathir (Mohamad) can help to voice out at the international
level to stop war,” he said.
The four-day conference was launched yesterday by former prime minister Dr Mahathir, who is also the Perdana Global Peace Organisation chairman
Bernama
Friday, October 30th, 2009 06:08:00
Dr M champions anti-war movement
War is a crime and it is not fair to take away the life and security of innocent people in another country in the interest of security in your own country.” Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad
WHY is it that the murder of one man is considered a criminal act whereas the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people commited in wars, is not considered so?
That was the question posed by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad yesterday during a press conference to highlight the upcoming War Criminal Conference and Exhibition at Putra World Trade Centre from Oct 28 – 31.
The conference, joint ly organised by Perdana Global Peace Organisation (PGPO) and Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalise War (KLFCW), aims to expose the atrocities and injustices of war – in hopes that people will realise that war is not a solution, but a crime.
This is a matter close to the heart of the former Prime Minister, who has lived through the Japanese Occupation and seen the ugliness of war for himself. He recalled being horrified by the case of a British soldier who was bayoneted to death by Japanese soldiers and kicked into the Kedah river.
Citing the abolishment of slavery as an example, Dr Mahathir, keynote speaker at the conference, expressed belief that war can be eradicated one day even if it takes years to accomplish.
“Just because I cannot see the result does not mean I must stop trying. I would like to make people realise war is about killing and wounding a lot of people. With every one person killed, probably four others are critically wounded, losing limbs and ending up crippled for the rest of their lives.”
He said it was not fair to take away the the life and security of innocent people in another country in the interest of security in your own country.
“We hope this message will be carried throughout this country and internationally. We have built up a network around the world in our efforts to make war a crime.”
Until such a time, Dr Mahathir said: “We are not civilised. If we think killing people is the way to solve problems, then we are not civilised.”
In condemning the war on Iraq, Dr Mahathir stressed that he was not trying to attack the Western powers — but Western powers seem to be breaking the peace in the interest of their own security.
He stressed that people who deliberately go to war should be regarded as criminals and be taken to court.
More often than not, he said, if such people were taken to court – it would be in a court set up by the ‘winners’ to punish the ‘losers. He pointed out this was not just – as the victor may not be the righteous but often the country with more power, technology and money.
Dr Mahathir also said war was an excuse for certain countries to sustain its weapons development industry in a “military industrial complex” which has become a monster.
The conference has an impressive lineup of speakers and will feature testimonies from several Iraqi torture
victims so that their stories can be heard. It will also feature an exhibition to show the brutality and inhumanity of war.
“It may take years but we need to make a start.” Dr Mahathir said this was where the media, NGOs and the
internet could spread the message and create awareness.
When asked what he sees as an alternative to war Dr Mahathir cited former US president Richard Nixon’s ‘Ping Pong diplomacy’ — where matters are resolved through negotiations.
He said money saved from stopping weapons production could be channelled to better use — such as HIV
research or the eradication of poverty.
Malay Mail
Darshini Kandasamy
Friday, October 23rd, 2009 08:07:00
Commission and tribunal to hear Iraq war crimes
KUALA LUMPUR (Oct 27. 2009): A commission and tribunal will convene on Friday and Saturday to hear the testimonies of two Guantanamo Bay detainees in an effort to bring Iraq war perpetrators to justice.
They will hear the experiences of a Sudanese reporter and a Briton who were detained without trial in Guantanamo Bay.
The commission and tribunal will be held at Putra World Trade Centre.
War Criminal Conference and Exhibition keynote speaker and former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said today the commission will also deliberate on the affidavits of other Iraq war victims that have been submitted to the commission.
“International institutions and the courts established by the United Nations charter have done nothing in dealing with war crimes,” he told reporters.
“Even the powerful nations like the United States and the United Kingdom have done nothing.”
Mahathir said the commission will seek a detailed account of the experiences and will adjourn to consider the evidence.
Once it reaches a consensus that there are cases to be heard by the tribunal, the plaintiffs will elucidate their experiences again to the tribunal.
The tribunal will decide on the same day whether certain individuals should be charged with the crimes.
“Having decided that, we have to give two months for the people to be informed and after the minimum two-month period, the tribunal will decide when the trial will be held,” Mahathir said.
He said Malaysian lawyers will represent the prosecution in the tribunal.
The members of the commission and tribunal are international and local personalities but he did not name them.
Asked the laws that will be used to prosecute those found to commit war crimes, he said the tribunal will utilise international laws such as those practised by the United Nations.
“We are going to use the same law to point out to them that if you will not use the law against these criminals, then we are going to do it,” he said.
Although the tribunal cannot arrest and imprison the indifviduals as they would be tried in absentia, Mahathir said there are other ways to enforce the sentence.
“We can campaign against these people to not be accepted in any society or country,” he said.
“Beyond this, we want to encourage democratic countries to try and ensure that candidates for the legislative council will be those that are anti-war supporters.”
The commission and the tribunal are an extension of the War Criminal Conference and Exhibition, organised by the Perdana Global Peace organisation and Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalise War.
The conference and exhibition, which are being held from tomorrow to Saturday at Dewan Merdeka, Putra World Trade Centre, hope to create awareness among the public that war is a crime.
Meena L. Ramadas , Sun Daily
Ostracise war architects, says Tun Mahathir
Sin Chew Jit Poh
2009-10-28 18:15
KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 28 (Bernama) — Former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad today urged the international community to ostracise those who create war as a way to punish them.
“These people who have created war and killed so many people should be regarded as criminals, the people should not associate with them and should avoid them. Countries should take the same step,” he told reporters after delivering a keynote address at the “Criminalise War Conference and War Crimes Tribunal 2009″ here.
He said as an example, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who visited Sabah on August, should not be allowed to come to Malaysia because he could also be regarded a war criminal.
“We know he was in Sabah for holiday but he was actually invited to give a talk on justice, what does he know about justice? It is disgraceful that we should allow such a person to come to Malaysia and to talk about justice, it is ridiculous,” he said.
Dr Mahathir had called Blair a war criminal for his role in supporting the United States in the invasion of Iraq.
The outspoken Dr Mahathir, who is also chairman of the Perdana Global Peace Organisation, said people including the leaders who launched wars should to be held accountable for the deaths and destruction resulting from their decision.
“It does not matter whether the aggressors win or not, they must be regarded as guilty and their leaders must be tried and punished, punished severely. Only this would deter the aggressive from resorting to war,” he said
When asked on why he focused on the U.S as the main target, Dr Mahathir said the country was the major player in launching the war in Iraq.
“In Iraq, the Americans are the principal players, they are the ones who are arresting people and detaining them for years and years, torturing them,” he said. Dr Mahathir said the media can play a big role in making people realise that war was a crime and to tell the truth about war and killings.
“But the international media will not do so because for them, war is interesting. The war is nice because you can have a lots of picture, even can become a brave reporter to go into the war zone.
“War is much more interesting to the media, but I hope good sense will prevail in the media especially the eastern media not the western media,” he said.
Earlier in his speech, Mahathir said the quest for the most powerful weapon should really be over as war should no longer be an option in the settlement of disputes between nations.
“Unfortunately, these great nuclear powers are still developing, testing and producing more nuclear weapons. They talk of safe nuclear bombs, of small nuclear bombs and tactical nuclear bombs.
“Already they are using depleted uranium in their bombs and missiles which are causing diseases like cancer to spread among hundreds of thousands who had survived their attacks,” he said.
MySinchew 2009.10.28
REFLECTING ON THE LAW
A tribunal of conscience
REFLECTING ON THE LAW
By SHAD SALEEM FARUQI
Regardless of size or power, no country or national leader is exempt
from international humanitarian law.
ON Saturday Oct 31, the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal (KLWCT) heard
the opening arguments from the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission
(KLWCC) about war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Commission submitted on many grave issues of international law of
war and of humanitarian law, arising out of the invasion of
Afgha nistan in 2001 and the conquest of Iraq in 2003 by the United
States and its allies.
There are well documented allegations that the invading armies used
banned weapons of mass destruction, bombed civilian areas and
committed mass murders. There were kidnappings, torture, racial and
religious profiling and many other acts of savagery and lawlessness
that satisfy the legal definitions of war crimes, genocide and crimes
against humanity.
Furthermore, in a show of invincibility and impunity, then US
President George W. Bush, by a White House Memorandum of Feb 7, 2002
exempted his nation from the binding provisions of the much-venerated
Geneva Conventions, excluding (suspected) al-Qaeda and Taliban
detainees from the Conventions’ protection.
The carnage in Afghanistan and Iraq continues but the Western world
largely remains silent. Inter national institutions like the UN
Security Council, the World Court and the International Criminal Court
(ICC) look the other way.
It is in this context that in 2005, the KL-based Perdana Global Peace
Forum hosted a number of international consultations bringing together
legal luminaries from around the world. This resulted in the launching
of the Kuala Lumpur Declaration to Criminalise War.
A War Crimes Commission was appointed to investigate allegations of
brutality and to gather evidence. A War Crimes Court was set up.
The Commission took two-and-a-half years to trace and interview
victims, gather evidence and research the law. Last Saturday, when the
Commission submitted its case to the seven-judge Tribunal, two
preliminary issues came up for adjudication.
First, does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear the cases? Second,
can a head of state or government unilaterally exempt itself from any
international treaty or convention (such as the Geneva Conventions)
duly ratified by the state without first abrogating the relevant
treaty or convention?
On both issues the Tribunal gave unanimous opinions. The Tribunal held
that it has jurisdiction to adjudicate on war crimes in Iraq because
of the Charter of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal. Its
proceedings were also inspired by previous precedents of People’s
Tribunals, e.g. the Sir Bertrand Russell Tribunal in relation to US
War Crimes in Vietnam, the Tokyo Tribunal on Afghanistan and the
Turkish Tribunal in relation to Iraq.
The KL proceedings are inspired by the noble principle that wherever
there is a right there must be a remedy. The families of the 650,000
innocents slaughtered in Iraq in the last five years, the thousands
more who had been tortured and the millions more who have been
displaced have no remedy in national or international courts.
Their country is still under brutal occupation and it is inconceivable
that any Iraqi court will prosecute members of the occupation force
for war crimes. US courts have no jurisdiction in Iraq and some US
judges have even feigned helplessness in relation to torture and
unlawful detentions in US-controlled concentration camps in Guantanamo
Bay.
The ICC has been approached with 240 complaints. Its chief prosecutor,
a European, has most amazingly ruled that the complaints do not have
“sufficient gravity” to merit prosecution!
The Rome Statute that created the ICC has a number of flaws that
prevent the horrendous war crimes, the genocide, the crimes against
humanity and the crime of aggression from being prosecuted.
First, the United States did not ratify the Rome Statute. As such, US
politicians and generals are largely exempt from the jurisdiction of
the ICC.
British and Australian citizens belong to a ratifying state, and as
such are subject to the ICC’s jurisdiction but are being shielded by
the ICC prosecutor because in his opinion their crimes of complicity
lack sufficient gravity!
Second, for a crime to be prosecuted before the ICC, it must be
committed on the territories of a member state of the ICC. Iraq and
Afghanistan are not parties to the ICC Treaty and the bestialities
committed there are, therefore, exempt from the ICC’s jurisdiction.
Third, the UN Security Council has the power to refer a non-signatory
to the ICC (as it did for Darfur). But due to its geopolitical, racial
and religious bias, the UNSC will not refer US, British, Polish,
Italian or Australian citizens to the ICC.
Fourth, the ICC can investigate a case only if national courts fail or
are unable to investigate a case. In the United States and Britain,
only low-level soldiers have been prosecuted. The fact that the orders
came right from the top is being ignored by the international legal
system.
The Tribunal was also unanimous in holding that over the last 50
years, international humanitarian law has developed to the point that
no head of state or nation can unilaterally renounce it.
If there is a treaty, it is binding. Even if a nation is not a
signatory to a treaty or claims to revoke it, it is still bound by a
higher customary international law that is universal and that cannot
be disowned.
National sovereignty is no more the absolutist concept it was in the
Middle Ages. Today, sovereignty is a shield against foreign
aggression.
It cannot be used as a sword against one’s own people or the people of
other nations. No nation can legislate to legalise wars, conquer
territories, enslave populations or commit genocide, torture or crimes
against humanity.
In the case of former president Bush there was an additional factor:
in the United States, treaties are part of the law of the land.
The US president has no authority to abrogate the law of his country.
Therefore, Bush’s memorandum exempting the United States from the
binding rules of the Geneva Convention had no force in law.
The Tribunal held that in relation to crimes against humanitarian law,
the status of a head of state does not constitute a defence. Nor is it
a defence to submit that one was acting under the orders of a
superior; this is the law since the Nuremberg Trials.
The lifting of immunity and the principle of individual criminal
respon sibility are now embodied in a plethora of international laws
and decisions. These include the UN General Assembly Resolution 95(1)
of Dec 11, 1946; Article 13 of the Draft Code of Crimes Against the
Peace and Security of Mankind (1991); UN Document No. S/25704 (1993);
and Article 27 of the Rome Statute. The Tribunal has just begun its
work. The road ahead is long and painful.
What is important is that there is a Malaysian initiative to remind
the world that some rules of civilised behaviour bind all nations of
the world, big and small. No nation of the world, no matter how
powerful, can exempt its officials from the long arm of international
humanitarian law.
SPEECH BY TUN DR MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD – Criminalise War Conference – 28th October 2009
SPEECH BY TUN DR MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD AT THE CRIMINALISE WAR CONFERENCE AND WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL 2009 AT PUTRA WORLD TRADE CENTER, KUALA LUMPUR ON WEDNESDAY, 28 OCTOBER 2009
WAR AND CRIME
1. As one of the convenors of this conference on the Criminalisation of War, I must express my appreciation for the number of people who have shown enough interest to attend it.
2. I hope and pray that we can take yet another step towards a war-free world, toward making war no longer a solution for disputes between nations, by making it into a crime instead, making those who resort to aggressive war as criminals who must be punished for the crime of the mass killing of people, which is what war is about. If the killing of one person is murder, a crime deserving of the most severe punishment, why must we regard the mass killing of people as legitimate and proper? There is something wrong in a creed that regards the killing of one person as different from the killing of people in their thousands and millions of people. The thousands and millions are made up of single individuals in the final analysis. The mass killing in war cannot be regarded as anything other than the mass murder of individuals who make up the masses. Since individuals are being killed, the fact that the individuals are killed together doesn’t alter the fact that individuals are killed and therefore the killing must still be regarded as the killing of individuals which constitutes murder. And those responsible for the murder of these individuals must therefore be murderers and must be regarded as criminals and punished accordingly.
3. But the vast majority in this so-called modern civilization of ours still distinguish between the killing of an individual and the killings of millions of individuals in the situation called war.
4. One very intelligent individual when asked to join the movement to make war a crime, replied that we have had war for 7000 years and therefore we must accept wars. It is mind-boggling that there can be intelligent people who believe that since something had been done for 7000 years, then it should continue to be done.
5. There must be a lot of things which we have been doing for thousands years which we don’t believe should be done now. Abuse of human rights in its various forms are now not acceptable. Discrimination against women, child labour, public execution, the gibbets, torture, slavery etc etc are no longer acceptable now.
6. It is admitted that there are places where some of these practices are still carried out but generally the civilized world rejects them even if they had been common for thousands of years of their history.
7. So why cannot we reject war? Why cannot we make war a crime, a dastardly crime deserving of the most severe punishment.
8. Because we do not regard war as a crime, the mass killings have not stopped. In the 1st and 2nd World Wars 70 million people were killed. But the world today accepts this with equanimity. They were wars, so the killings were justified.
9. And today we are still seeing people being killed in wars, as the great military powers resort to it to resolve any problem, big and small which they may have with other countries, especially those which are no match for them.
10. 7000 years ago the number of people killed in any war must be very small. This is because the capacity to kill was limited. The weapons would be wooden clubs or sharpened sticks.
11. Then the more “civilized” began to invent new weapons. From stick to stone to ever harder metals. Knives, swords were invented. Sharp edges or points made killing much easier.
12. Bows and arrows followed, extending the reach of the weapons of war. The Chinese invented gun-power but not for killing. Mostly the explosives were for chasing imaginary devils and dragons, which threaten to swallow the moon.
13. The Europeans came across the gun-powder and immediately thought that it could be used in war for throwing projectiles a longer distance than the catapult or bows and arrows.
14. From then on the search for ways to hurl weapons further and further has never stopped. Apart from that the killing power of the missiles had been enhanced continually.
15. Now we can literally throw, shoot or rocket the most destructive weapons right round the globe and beyond. We now have the capacity to literally blow up this whole planet and every living soul on it.
16. The search for the most powerful weapon should really be over. Everyone should now know that a war can actually exterminate the whole of humanity, including the very people who use the nuclear weapons. Using it would amount to mass suicide. Both the victors and their victims would perish. War would therefore be totally counter productive.
17. Imagine a nuclear war with bombs and nuclear warheads being hurled at each other. If there are survivors, radiation would kill them all.
18. Truly war should no longer be an option in the settlement of disputes between nations.
19. But the fact is that the powerful nations of the world were not affected by the devastations in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Mostly they see nuclear weapons as deterrents against attacks against themselves. Far from outlawing nuclear weapons as they did with poison gas, they began developing ever more powerful nuclear weapons and delivery systems.
20. As a result the United States and Soviet Union, France and Britain rushed to acquire the knowledge and the capacities to produce nuclear weapons. During the Cold War years the United States and USSR built up huge arsenals of nuclear warheads. Between them there are more than 20,000 nuclear warheads sufficient to destroy the whole world many times over. China, France and Britain also have huge arsenals of nuclear weapons.
21. Germany and Japan are not allowed to posses nuclear weapons. But Israel, India and Pakistan have nuclear capabilities.
22. There seems to be some basis for the idea of nuclear deterrents. Although the United States appeared ready to use nuclear weapons during the Cuban crisis, in the end it decided to compromise by removing its nuclear missiles in Turkey which was obviously threatening Russia.
23. It was fortunate that both the leaders of these two nuclear powers came to their senses in time. Otherwise the world would have been devastated by nuclear weapons in the arsenals of these two countries.
24. We cannot afford to have this kind of brinkmanship. We cannot live in fear of one or two persons destroying this world and its 6 ½ billion people. We cannot allow our civilization to be terminated by some crazy President.
25. A nuclear deterrent is just too risky and too very dangerous. Maybe it was this thought that prompted the idea of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.
26. But all these international resolutions were non-starters because the big nuclear powers blatantly ignored them. As a result we see other countries developing their own nuclear weapons. There is much ado about these countries having nuclear weapons. These countries would be mad to use the few primitive nuclear weapons that they have. Should they do so the powerful nuclear countries would wipe out these countries from the surface of this earth?
27. The real danger is still from the rich and powerful nuclear powers. It is they who must reduce and finally eliminate their nuclear weapons if they want to have the moral ground to enforce the non-proliferation treaty.
28. Unfortunately these great nuclear powers are still developing, testing and producing more nuclear weapons. They talk of safe nuclear bombs, of small nuclear bombs and tactical nuclear bombs. Already they are using depleted uranium in their bombs and missiles which are causing diseases like cancer to spread among hundreds of thousands who had survived their attacks.
29. But they are not stopping there. They have developed bombs to penetrate deep into the ground so that bomb shelters buried deep in the ground would provide no protection.
30. New weapons are being developed as the industrialists see profits in the research and developments of weapons. In this their military has cooperated and played a big role as they would be the only organisation to need and use the new weapons.
31. The industrialists not only produce sophisticated new weapons but they invariably follow up with the defences against the weapons they have developed. Nations, rich and poor have been forced to buy and equip their armed forces with these offensive and defensive weapons or systems.
32. After this the industrialists would come up with a new weapon that could penetrate the defence system they had sold previously.
33. Should the country refuse to buy these the producers would hint at offering the weapons to the potential enemy of the country. Fearing the enemy would posses the weapon, which could penetrate its defence, the country would be forced to acquire the new weapon.
34. Then the industrialist would come up with a new defence system against the weapon they had just sold. Again the buyer would be forced to buy this defence system.
35. And so this would go on endlessly. The industrialist would wax rich even if the weapons would not be used. This is not my imagination. It is happening now even to Malaysia. We have to buy expensive aircrafts and submarines although we don’t expect to go to war with anyone. And we have to upgrade them every now and then.
36. The weapons merchants would try to create an arms race between neighbouring countries or rival countries in order to be able to sell the arms that they produce. The arms race would create fear and tension between countries, yet fearing mutual destruction few of these countries would go to war with each other. Not being used the expenditure on arms would be wasted. The urge to try out these weapons in real life situation would be irresistible. And so proxy wars and wars against weaker nations would be started.
37. But the countries of the world never learn. They would upgrade their weaponry continuously even though they know they have very seldom any use for the weapons.
38. Along the way the industrialists and the military have developed a symbiotic relation. Always desirous of becoming more and more powerful, the military would build a case for the need to develop new weapons against the possibility of attacks by potential enemies whose weapon might be superior.
39. Unable to recoup the money spent the industrialist marketed their weapons to the world. They work hand-in-hand with their Governments, the military, the banks and the media. Together they and their sales talk would be irresistible.
40. The weapons trade has developed and grown until it has become a big part of world trade. The effect of this trade is to impoverish countries which have to continually upgrade their weaponry at considerable cost and the arms race which invariably follows as neighbouring countries compete in upgrading their weaponry.
41. The weapons producing countries are still spending trillions of dollars conceiving, inventing, developing, testing and producing weapons. This is being done at the behest of the military, but often the defence industries would come up with frightening scenarios which could be handled by their latest multimillion dollar weapons. It is not the defence of their countries which they care about. It is the money to be made.
42. Any new scientific discoveries would be thoroughly studied for use in weapons. Thus firecrackers, noxious gases, bacteria, chemicals, metal alloys, new metals, lasers, radio waves, electrical and electronic devices, composite material, carbon fibres, and just about anything would be examined, analysed, studied, tested for applications in weapons, to make the killing of people more efficient.
43. Almost without exception some application would be found for use in killing people. Radio control toy cars and model aeroplanes have now evolved into remotely controlled, unmanned aircrafts, land and sea vehicles to deliver bombs and other explosives and even biological and chemical weapons without risking the lives of the attackers.
44. The technology for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) which could carry cameras and radio transmitters has now been applied to full-size military aircrafts. The pilot would be on the ground facing their numerous consoles, monitoring and controlling the aircrafts by radio, programming their flight and releasing their murderous cargo of bombs or firing their rockets. The pilots are not exposed to any danger by the bombs and rockets they fire from hundreds and thousands of miles away. Without the risk of being killed the urge to war and kill is enhanced.
45. The pilot of Enola Gay had to fly his plane thousands of miles to be over Hiroshima city in order to drop his beloved Little Boy to kill 100,000 people and destroy the whole city. He ran the risk of being attacked by enemy fighters and being shot down and killed.
46. The modern pilot can now fly the more sophisticated radio controlled bombers from his base in his country to drop the atomic bomb precisely over the target city. 100,000 people or even a million people would be killed and the whole city totally destroyed, just as was done by the pilot of Enola Gay. And all this can now be done between games of cards or watching a football match over a glass of beer. The pilot risks nothing at all yet the men, women, children, the aged, the sick and the disabled would all be killed and many thousands more wounded, losing their arms and legs, having their abdomen ripped open and their guts spilling on the ground.
47. Hospitals, schools, markets, shopping complexes and buildings of all kinds would be pulverised. Fires would start and a fire-storm would suck up all the oxygen, suffocating the survivors.
48. Even if no nuclear material is used, the power of modern explosives and the size of the mega bombs – each weighing more than 15 tons would do enough damage to devastate whole cities.
49. There would be nowhere to hide. The new bombs and rockets have the ability to pierce through earth and concrete to great depths before exploding so that those in bomb shelters would no longer be safe, be protected from the new weapons.
50. Noxious gases and radiation would kill rescuers, and would be blown for hundreds of miles, killing and spreading diseases of all kinds.
51. The great military powers have all these destructive weapons and delivery systems. They know that they don’t need huge armies to launch their attacks. All they need is a few men manning the consoles and they can literally wipe out hundreds of thousands or millions even of people, devastate whole countries and render them no longer habitable.
52. They have this capacity, they have this power. But they are still researching, developing, testing and producing more and more lethal weapons, gleefully predicting their use in future wars. They cannot conceive of a world at peace.
53. They believe that only they can be trusted with these weapons. The world need not fear them. They are reasonable people, caring people whose respect for human lives cannot be questioned. But are they?
54. They may not use the nuclear weapons and other WMD in their possession yet. But knowing that they have and knowing that no one would dare to attack them, they have shown their willingness to provoke weaker nations and to attack them with their so-called conventional but no less destructive weapons.
55. They claim their use of the power to kill people indiscriminately as making the world safe for democracy. They seem to think that only they as democrats have a right to live, to be safe and secure. It is right and proper to make those who are not democratic unsafe and insecure. It is proper to kill other people in order to promote democracy.
56. They fail to appreciate that the people who are not democratic are also people, are human beings whose right to live are no less than those who are democratic. The people who would be killed are innocent of any crimes against the democratic people, even if their leaders may be dictators. To deprive them of their rights to life must constitute as heinous a crime as the deprivation of the rights to life of innocent democrats.
57. Human rights is not for democratic people only. Every human life is sacred; every person has a right to live. Those who say that only democrats have a right to live in security are no less authoritarian than the dictators the democrats condemn. In fact in many cases authoritarian leaders or rulers have given their people a better life than some democrats whose countries have been made unstable and insecure because of the weaknesses and uncertainties of the democratic systems.
58. What I am saying is sacrilege of course. But if we look at recent events we would not fail to notice that it is the democratic countries which have been quick to use violence, who have violated international laws and shown disregard for the very human rights they so strongly advocated. It is they who resort to wars, to killing people to achieve their national agenda. Truly they are hypocrites.
59. Irrespective of whether the warmongers are democrats or not, we must regard war as a crime. No matter how just may the cause be, wars of aggression must still be regarded as crimes, crimes on a grand scale for that is what war means.
60. I am aware that in struggling to make war a crime we are calling for a radical change in the human mindset and value system. War had been with us since prehistoric times. Whenever human communities came into conflict with each other, they would resort to what we call “war” to resolve their conflicts i.e. they would kill each other so that one of the other of them would be defeated or cease to exist.
61. The primitive people of the past knew no other way but to kill and exterminate the opponents.
62. But today we claim to be no longer primitive. We claim to be civilise. We look upon killing as a heinous crime. We want every country to uphold human rights and the Rule of Law.
63. Besides today the population of the world is ten or more times bigger than the primitive populations of just a few centuries ago. Modern wars kill vast numbers of people. In the two World Wars 70 million people were killed. The number of seriously wounded and maimed for life is countless. And the devastation wrought is beyond imagination as whole cities were wiped out.
64. In the wars of the past, battles were fought on battle fields. The people killed were largely soldiers who had been trained to kill and were equipped to defend themselves.
65. Today everyone, combatants and non-combatants, male or female, the old, the young, the children and the new born, the sick and the incapacitated – all of them would be killed and wounded. They have no means to defend themselves.
66. They may not seek shelter underground even because diabolical new bombs have been designed to penetrate deep into the earth, to pierce concrete and to explode and to destroy the shelter and all in it.
67. Besides killing everyone, the whole country would be devastated, reduced to rubble. Water pipes, barrage and dams, power lines, and power generating plants would all be destroyed.
68. Those who survive the bombs and the missiles would have no food and water, no electricity, no toilets and no shelter of any kind. Disease would spread to decimate more of the survivors.
69. Truly modern war is total war sparing nothing and no one. Our capacities for killing and destroying have passed the limit that the world and its population can bear. We are now capable of wiping out the whole human race and render this planet uninhabitable.
70. Even if the war is limited i.e. confined to a pair of countries or region, it would still be inhuman as in most instances the aggressors would have such superior capacities to kill and destroy that gross injustice would be done. The weaker countries would not be able to defend themselves. Frequently they would be the only one to suffer while the aggressors continue to live in peace and security.
71. And when the war ends with victory for the powerful, only the vanquished would be blamed and punished. The victors would demand reparations although the vanquished had suffered more.
72. There is a need, to uphold justice, a need for the people including the leaders who launch the wars to be made accountable for the death and destruction resulting from their decision, their instruction and their command. It does not matter whether the aggressors win or not. They must be regarded as guilty and their leaders must be tried and punished, punished severely. Only this would deter the aggressive from resorting to war.
73. The United Nations was set up by the victors of 60 years ago and they still control and direct the Untied Nations today. Even the courts are under the control of the victors, in particular the veto powers.
74. For so long as the United Nations and its agencies are under the direction of the victors of 60 years ago, we cannot expect fairness and justice from them for the crimes of killing people in wars.
75. We can only expect fairness and justice if the agencies, in particular the Security Council and the international courts are made up of truly neutral people with no stake in the matters being decided. In particular the courts must be free and independent and must hear all complaints by both the victors and the vanquished without fear or favour.
76. Because we are not going to see such an independent court in the foreseeable future PGPO (the Perdana Global Peace Organization) has taken the initiative to set up a tribunal. We may be accused of being biased but we find reluctance on the part of neutralists to participate in our initiative. There is evidence that even those who are neutral fear retaliation by the powerful.
77. Since we cannot wait for the neutralists the tribunal we have set up is made up of judges who have been trusted to be impartial, fair and just. They will act in accordance with the rules and regulations which have been drawn up and be subjected to international laws as well as natural justice.
78. If the accused persons fail to present themselves then they may appoint counsel to represent them or failing that we will appoint counsels for them.
79. The proceedings of the courts will, as far as possible follow the usual court procedures under the British Common Law System.
80. The Commissioners will determine whether there is a case to be heard. Only if they find that there is will they submit their findings to the Tribunal. Then the victims or their proxies and representatives will present their cases.
81. The rest is up to the tribunal.
82. We may not be able to carry out the sentence passed by the Tribunal. But we hope Governments and NGO’s world wide will take note and try to make the punishment meaningful at least by ostracising the guilty ones.
83. We seek moral force as physical force will not be available to us. But the important thing is to make people everywhere appreciate the horrors of war and the criminal who without fear of any retribution have so carelessly issued orders for hundreds of thousands of innocent people to be killed, many to be tortured and for whole countries to be devastated.
84. We believe that eventually the peoples of the world will come to accept that war is a crime and will condemn the warmongers and regard them as criminals. And when this happens we may see the world becoming a more peaceful place.
85. That is our hope. It will take time for the mindset of the denizens of this planet to change with regard to the nature of war.
86. We may not see this happen in our lifetime, at least for most of us.
87. But the fact that we are not likely to see it in our lifetime must not stop us from this noble struggle. As Confucius said, a journey of thousand miles begins with the fist step. Without taking the first step the journey will never be made at all.
88. What we are doing is to take that first step.
89. God willing other steps will follow. Man must come to their senses some day. It will be a journey worth starting even if it takes a thousand years.
90. May God give us strength to struggle to eliminate the killing of people in the quest for solutions to human conflicts.
91. May Allah help us make war a crime, the worse crime that the human race can be guilty of.
PRESS RELEASE BY PERDANA GLOBAL PEACE ORGANISATION (PGPO)
Efforts to raise Fund for Gaza at this stage is with the specific intention of buying vessels to transport humanitarian aid to Gaza which is currently in a choke hold by the Tel Aviv regime’s illegal blockade.
The blockade has been imposed since 2006. Then in late 2008 through January this year, the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) broke the ceasefire and launched a military aggression on Gaza causing over 1400 deaths and massive destruction to homes and buildings.
Following immense international pressure and its inability to subjugate the valiant Palestinians, the Israeli Government ended the aggression.
However, the blockade continued and these resulted in a stranglehold on Gaza, depriving the devastated population of medicine, food and materials to rebuild their homes.
If the act of war by the IDF earlier this year saw lives of thousands of Palestinians, mostly civilians including children lost within the short period of time, this blockade is equally cruel if not worst.
The children, the sick and elderly are subjected to a slow but sure death.
The ongoing genocide of the people of Palestine in Gaza being committed silently by the Tel Aviv regime is largely ignored by the international community either due to their lack of awareness or not wanting to see the ugliness.
But a group of concerned people from the Free Gaza Movement was not about to let the injustices and cruelties by the Israeli Government inflicted on the people of Gaza go unnoticed.
Boarding small boats which they could barely afford to buy, the Free Gaza Movement embarked on its first trip to Gaza from Larnaca, Cyprus on August 2008 carrying much needed aid.
To the Free Gaza members, their efforts were not merely to provide aid to the people in Gaza but more than that, it was an act of defiance, a committed protest to break the illegal siege.
To them, the siege needs to be challenged and if enough people came forward, the siege will be broken.
And that is what the Palestinians want – their freedom and not charity.
Since their first trip, the Free Gaza Movement had launched seven other trips and the last two was aggressively challenged by the Israeli authorities.
The sixth trip which had US Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney was rammed by the Israeli Navy while en route to Gaza on December 2008.
Recently on June 2009, McKinney together with Nobel Laureatte Mairead Macguire were on board the eighth trip when their vessel was stopped by the Israeli forces in international waters while again en route to Gaza to send aid and supply.
Together with other members of Free Gaza, McKinney and Macguire were taken to an Israeli prison before being deported.
KLFCW & PGPO chairman Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad who met Free Gaza leader Huwaida Arraf in Kuala Lumpur in early July was convinced that Malaysians should assist in the breaking of the siege on Gaza.
Dr Mahathir then went to Larnaca, Cyprus on July 16 to see for himself how the Free Gaza Movement had operated from the port and what kind of vessels they had in order to carry out their future trips to Gaza.
It was then decided that Dr Mahathir and PGPO will take up the efforts to raise funds to help purchase a 300-500 tonnes cargo ship to be used to transport aid to Gaza.
There is an urgency in raising the funds to enable the pruchase of the vessels. Winter is drawing near and the plight of the Palestinians in Gaza will worsen.
Dr Mahathir is hoping that the PGPO and the people of Malaysia will be able to raise enough funds to launch the vessels before winter hits the already depressed population.
Today marks the launching of the Fund for Gaza and all proceeds will be utilised towards purchasing the vessels and humanitarian aid for the Palestinians.
August 12, 2009
>>>
Feel free to donate:
Account Name: KLFCW (Gaza Fund)
Number: 5123 3430 6634
Bank : Maybank
Maybank Berhad
SECTION 14, PJ SSC
18A, Jalan 14/14,
46100 Petaling Jaya
Selangor Darul Ehsan
Malaysia
Swift Code: MBBEMYKL
or Send your cheque/Bank Draft/Money Order/Postal Order to:
Suite 2-4, Level 2, Tower Block Menara Milenium,
Jalan Damanlela Pusat Bandar Damansara,
50490 Kuala Lumpur Malaysia.
Fax: +603 2094 2992
Email: info@criminalisewar.org
All donations are tax-exempt under S.44 Of The Income Tax Act 1967. Ref LHDN 01/35/42/51/179-6.6183 Government Gazette: 11643 Dated 30.08.2007