• Cover Story:
A GIANT LEAP FOR JUSTICE THE MAN WHO HAS TAKEN THE LEAD TO CRIMINALISE WAR
T
he world is slowly but surely taking note of the bold decision taken by the panel of judges at the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal (KLWCC) on November 22nd 2011, that returned a verdict of guilty against George W. Bush and Anthony L. Blair, who were tried for Crimes Against Peace in that the accused persons planned, prepared and invaded the sovereign state of Iraq on 19 March 2003 in violation of the United Nations Charter and international law. Until now the international community has done nothing to right a terrible wrong. Not even the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague has been prepared to file charges against the former president of the United States of America and the former prime minister of Great Britain. For whatever reason, the ICC and other countries have turned a blind eye to the mass murder of some 1.4 million Iraqis since the invasion began. In fact the ICC has been approached with more than 240 complaints, but its chief prosecutor, a European, has ruled that the complaints do not have “sufficient gravity” to merit prosecution. The ICC was set up under the Rome Statute, a treaty that has been ratified by most Western countries except the U.S. The ICC has relied on this fact as grounds for not prosecuting U.S. citizens. It is noteworthy that the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has the power to refer a non-signatory to the ICC (as it did with Dafur and Libya). However, due to the tremendous influence the U.S. has in the UN, the UNSC will not refer U.S. citizens to the ICC. It was Malaysia that has taken the lead in seeking justice. It took the
12
THE
.
Dec 2011
Tun Dr Mahathir: The leading figure in the fight to criminalise war elder statesman of the country, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad to lend his support, encouragement and leadership to convene a Tribunal made up of eminent local and international judges and to obtain this first-ever guilty verdict against the two accused. This was a trial set in the style and pomp of the International Court, with all proceedings strictly adhering to international rules of justice and fair play. Since the two accused were not present, an amicus curiae * was appointed to provide adequate defence for the accused. Nothing can diminish the findings of the court, even though its findings are declaratory of the law.
(* amicus curiae – Latin: friend of the court; is the counsel who assists the court by putting arguments in support of an interest that might not be adequately represented by the parties to the proceedings, or by arguing on behalf of a party who is otherwise unrepresented.) Presiding judge, Datuk Abdul Kadir Sulaiman told a packed courthouse that both the accused had acted with deceit, selectively manipulated international law and committed an unlawful act of aggression and an international crime by invading Iraq in 2003. The Tribunal also suggested that the KLWCC file a report with the ICC against both the
an army of one nation defeated the army of another nation, the captured soldiers became slaves of the victorious army. This of course does not happen nowadays. The fight against slavery was a long and hard struggle and today there are no longer slaves. So why is it that when one wages war and people are killed, it is not considered murder? We are civilized people, and civilized people must uphold the sanctity of life. If you uphold the sanctity of life of one person who is killed, then why is it that you do not apply the same sanctity for the millions of people who have been killed in war?
L to R: Tun Dr Siti Hasmah, Tun Dr Mahathir with Datuk Dr Yaacob Merican, the Secretary General of the KLFCW accused under the Nuremberg principles and include reports of genocide and crimes against humanity committed by Bush and Blair. (see story on verdict, page 15) This Tribunal could not have taken place without the support of one man – Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. The former premier was ever present at the four day hearings, even waiting for the panel of judges to reach their verdict on the final day. Tun Dr Mahathir granted The Globalist an exclusive interview in which he talked about the tribunal, the move to criminalize war and other topics. Q: Why have you lent your support to this Tribunal? Tun Dr Mahathir: I cannot understand why when killing one person is considered murder and the perpetrator can be sentenced to death if found guilty, but for people who make decisions to wage war that can lead to the killing of hundreds or even thousands, nothing seems to be done. To me that is wrong. If you kill, that is murder. Whether it is one or hundreds,
that is murder. That is why I feel that leaders of Governments must not use war as a means to settle disputes. This must be a public policy. Instead they (leaders) should seek to negotiate, go for arbitration or even take up the matter in a court of law. But these people (the two accused and others) are so powerful that nobody will take them to court. As members of civilized society, we should punish those who wage war that in turn leads to mass killing. I think it is wrong to make war legitimate. Of course defence is permissible. If you are attacked, you must defend, but to have aggressive designs against another country, that is wrong. Q: But warfare has always been a part and parcel of mankind for so long. How then can we prevent or at least minimise such actions? Tun Dr Mahathir: You may recall that in the early years slavery was accepted. Everybody had slaves, whether you were Europeans or Asians. And these slaves were treated very badly, in fact in many instances, not like human beings at all. In the olden days when
That is why we feel that if the world does not punish those who wage war, then we should punish them. Usually the Tribunals are set up by the victors, who are obviously bias. A judge should be free from any influence. So for justice, you should have an international court. Unfortunately, nobody takes up the cases against those who wage war. So we have decided to have this Tribunal. I know that there is another such Tribunal in Brussels. Eventually I believe that war would be made a crime. Q: But the verdict in Kuala Lumpur will not be enforced. Tun Dr Mahathir: Well it may not be enforced, but the world will know the decision of the Tribunal and the world can do what is right. Some countries may not allow these people (the accused) to enter their territory. They will be ostracized by some. But that is the limit of our jurisdiction. We have no means to enforce the decision of the Court, but not being able to enforce does not mean we cannot be in a position to pass judgment. Q: What then would Tun suggest for us to be rid of warfare, where such killings do not take place, and where ‘might is not right’? Tun Dr Mahathir: I believe that over time, people will come around to the
Dec 2011
.
THE
13
• Cover Story: conclusion that war is not right. War is a very primitive way of settling conflicts. We claim to be civilized people, we respect the sanctity of life, we value life. In any society, killing of a person is a crime. When they started the struggle against slavery, it took them a long time to succeed. William Wilberforce was the man who started this struggle (against slavery) in the British Parliament. He began by introducing legislation making trade in slavery illegal as the first step. And that eventually led to slavery being abolished.
Q: Do you think that Malaysia can take the lead here and make war a crime?
a small group, they may be jailed. But if there is mass support, then change can take place.
Tun Dr Mahathir: In time we can. But remember that defence is permitted. We have the right to defend ourselves against aggressors or those who invade our shores. But we should not wage war against any other nation. I think that in time, when the people accept that war settles nothing, but creates misery and suffering and lives are lost, there will be a move to stop all kinds of wars.”
They call it the Arab Spring. It’s not spring at all. It’s about killing, people from both sides (of the conflict) have died, and that is not right at all. The best thing is for the leader(s) to accept that the people they once ruled want change. They should step down. Take the case of the Tunisian President, he saw that he had no support, so he resigned. Mubarak of Egypt also resigned. But others have clung on and it has cost lives and misery.
I think slavery is a lesser crime than killing, but while people have rejected slavery, they seem to have permitted killing. That is why there is a contradiction here in terms of our values. On the one hand we say that killing one person is murder and whoever did it must be hanged if found guilty, but when millions are killed, nothing is done about it.
Q: Do you think that the Arab Spring would lead to the Americans withdrawing, at least partially from the Arab lands? Tun Dr Mahathir: They will not withdraw. They will still be there under some guise. These Arab countries have huge reserves of oil, so they will be there. The host countries will have to be mindful of how these people are treated. If anything is done to (American) citizens, you can expect a reaction in a powerful way.
Q: Do you have any suggestions that you would like to put forth to rectify the injustices? Tun Dr Mahathir: It’s a matter of perception. Over time if we go on pointing out that war is murder - mass murder - people may come around. However as with the struggle against slavery, it will take many years. People will eventually accept that war is a crime, that killing is a crime. You may ask, what can the people do? They can force their Parliament(s) to abolish war. In fact, Japan has already decided that they will not fight a war ever again. They have “self-defence forces”. So it is possible for others to follow suit. We have to get legislators to enact such laws. The electorate can then declare that they will only vote for those legislators who will agree to pass a motion in Parliament to make war a crime. Maybe the pressure (on legislators) would be minimal in the beginning, but over time, more and more people will come to accept that killing is wrong.
14
THE
.
Dec 2011
Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad with his wife Tun Dr Siti Hasmah The former Prime Minister is well known for his frank and candid views on local and international issues. Tun Mahathir was just as forthcoming when asked about the Arab Spring – the struggle, the tragedies and the triumphs. Tun Dr Mahathir: They say that you get the government that you deserve. If the people tolerate a dictatorship, then that’s what they get. However if the people want change, then it’s up to them to bring about the change. There is bound to be resistance by the dictators and those around them. But some people may even be willing to give up their own lives to bring about change. And it also depends on the strength of the movement wanting change. If it’s only
With regards foreign policy, take Libya for instance. They may not be openly supporting the Americans, but the new government may be so grateful to NATO, that they may open up the country for investment and exploitation. By G.S Kumar
THE KUALA LUMPUR WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL
- GUILTY VERDICT ON BUSH AND BLAIR
The panel of Judges
T
he 4 day War Crimes Tribunal held at 88 Jalan Perdana in Kuala Lumpur had a quorum made of Presiding Judge Abdul Kadir Sulaiman, along with Judge Salleh Buang, Judge Tunku Sofiah Jewa, Judge Alfred L. Webre and Judge Shad Saleem Faruqi.
an Amicus Curiae was appointed by the Tribunal to assist the Tribunal by presenting an unbiased assessment of the charges and evidence against the accused.
proceeded to hear the case with a quorum of 5 Judges.
The Amicus Curiae entered a plea of not guilty on behalf of both the accused.
The prosecution was led by Prof Gurdial Singh Nijar, with Prof Francis A. Boyle, Avtaran Singh, Usha Kulasegaran and Gan Pei Fern.
Recusal of Judges
“The essence of legality is the principled, predictable, and consistent application of a single standard for the strong and the weak alike. Selective manipulation of international law by powerful states undermines its legitimacy.”
Amici Curiae: Jason Kay Kit Leong, Sook Kok Weng, Pan Shan Ping, Mohd Zharif Shafiq, Zyzan Syaidi and Muhammad Khirul. Registrar: Musa Ismail The two accused were not present at the proceedings though duly served. Nor were any attorneys or counsel present in their behalf. Pursuant to Article 15 of the Charter of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission & the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal,
At the commencement of the proceedings, the Tribunal had a full bench of 7 Judges. However the Amicus Curiae raised an objection on Judge Prof Niloufer Bhagwat, as she had previously served as a Prosecutor in one case and also as a Judge in another hearing, both involving Bush. Defence counsel Jayson Kay applied for Judge Niloufer Bhagwat to be recused – a turn of events that took even the presiding judge by surprise. After a short recess, the Judge recused herself and left the chamber. Later Judge Datuk Dr Zakaria Yatim recused himself on medical grounds and the Tribunal
The Verdict
The 2003 invasion of Iraq was an unlawful act of aggression and an international crime. It “cannot be justified under any reasonable interpretation of international law”. It amounts to mass murder. Unlawful use of force in Iraq “threatens to return us to a world in which the law of the jungle prevails over the rule of law, with potentially disastrous consequences for the human rights not only of the Iraqis but of the people throughout the region and the world”. The future of the UN and of the international
Dec 2011
.
THE
15
Judge Alfred L. Webre
Judge Shad Saleem Faruqi
Presiding Judge Abdul Kadir Sulaiman
Judge Tunku Sofiah Jewa
law of war is also at stake. The unauthorized military action in Iraq undermines the system of collective security embedded in the UN Charter in order to protect humanity from a recurrence of the carnage of World War II.
We therefore find that the charge against the two accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt. The two accused are, therefore, found guilty as charged and the two accused are accordingly convicted on the charge.
The two accused took the law into their own hands. They acted with deceit and with falsehood. They acted in flagrant violation of international law of war and peace. In the absence of any convincing evidence, defence assertions lack credibility. They appear to be fig leaves for hiding naked economic and political ambitions.
Orders
16
THE
.
Dec 2011
1. The Tribunal in accordance with Article 31 of the Charter, recommends to the Commission to file reports with the International Criminal Court against the two accused.
Judge Salleh Buang
2. The Tribunal in accordance with Article 32 recommends to the Commission that the name of the two convicted criminals be included in the Commission’s Register of War Criminals and published accordingly.
Recommendation First, the Commission must invoke the Nuremburg law to report Bush, Blair and their accomplices for crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity under Part VI of the Charter of the Nuremburg Tribunal. Second, the Commission must file reports of genocide and crimes against humanity with the International Criminal Court (ICC). Third, the General Assembly of the United Nations must be approached to pass a resolution to end the American occupation of Iraq. Fourth, the findings of this Tribunal must be communicated to all countries that have acceded to the Rome Statute and are possessed of universal jurisdiction. Fifth, the UN Security Council must reassert itself and ensure that true sovereignty is transferred to the Iraqi people as soon as possible with the assistance of a UN Peacekeeping Force. The autonomy of the newly installed Iraqi government must be ensured.
Dec 2011
.
THE
17
The Leading Players: For And Against him again when he was in Canada, working with Canadian lawyers, but because of the intervention of Harper (the Canadian Prime Minister), who is a good friend of Bush, we were unable to do so. I will try to get him in the United States, but that is going to be difficult, because Barak Obama (the current US president) has said that he will not do anything about it. But I have also filed a case with the International
The Prosecution team
T
he Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal had a prominent list of lawyers working for the prosecution, led by Prof Gurdial Singh Nijar. In his team was another leading lawyer, Prof Francis Boyle, an American law professor.
have tried to get him impeached. He was preparing to go to Switzerland, but word got out that we were going to try and prosecute him, so he (Bush) did not go. That was our first victory against Bush. I tried to get
In a candid interview, Prof Boyle was asked why he was at the Tribunal?
Chief Prosecutor Prof Gurdial S. Nijar
A: To be honest, because of the great respect and admiration that I have for Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. I have been working with him for some time now criminalizing war. He is a visionary, and I am just helping him out, as sometimes, great leaders need lawyers to give them advice. So here I am.
Criminal Court against, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Rice. The complaint is still sitting there, as I doubt the Chief Prosecutor Luis MorenoOcampo, has the guts to do anything about it. So here in Malaysia, I am hoping to get some justice from this Tribunal.
Q: This Tribunal is hearing charges against George W. Bush and Tony Blair. Bush was the ex-president of your country, and you are tring to get him convicted? A: In the summer of 2002, it became very clear to me that Bush was going to war against Iraq and it was uncalled for. I worked very hard to stop it. On Oct 2, 2002, I set up a national campaign to impeach Bush in the United States to prevent him from going to war. I did everything I could to prevent the war. Now that Bush is out of office, I
18
THE
.
Dec 2011
Q: But this Tribunal cannot enforce its findings.
Prof Francis Boyle
A: Well, no court can! They have to rely on sheriffs to enforce their findings. What we need here is a judicial decision, which allows us to try and enforce it somewhere else. Tony Blair has come to Malaysia twice, and Malaysian lawyers tried to get him arrested, but were unable to. Maybe after this judgment, he will not come to Malaysia again. I can’t
say. We will use this verdict, we will put it to good use. Q: Does a guilty verdict make you feel any better? A: Sure it does. At least 5 impartial judges have taken the decision that the accused are guilty as charged. In America, I was, as they say, “a voice crying out in the desert”. I began this campaign in October 2002. And in January 2003, my good friend, Ramsey Clark, the former US Attorney General, joined us. So I think that public opinion has significantly shifted around. But these things take time. Considering the destruction and mass killings in Iraq, justice will take time. But at least, the first step has been taken. There is no statute of limitations for international war crimes. I am sure that Bush will be around for the next 30 years and I am confident that I will see him in jail some time within this next 30 years. The defence
I
t was a team of young lawyers who bravely put up the fight for the defence. The amicus curiae – or friend of the court, was assigned as the two accused were not
The Tribunal heard passionate arguments from the Defence sympathy from the audience (which was sadly lacking) to putting on a spirited and sometimes emotional display when putting forth his case for the two accused. Jason Kay gained a lot of sympathy from the presiding judge who granted him ample time to even sort out his submission. And as the panel of
these offences.” The final judgment went on to note: “In the light of Sadam’s brutal record, the Defence argued that the international community has the right and duty to use military force for humanitarian purposes…..” The judges did also acknowledged that there were eloquent arguments by the defence of “Grotiun moments” in international law. It ruled however that growth and change have to be within the four corners of the UN Charter and not outside it. When approached after the verdict, Jason Kay had this to say: “We had our chance to be heard. I only wish we had done a better job of it. We did what we could and even though there were many obstacles in our path, we did our job. The Court has ruled. Although we believe there were humanitarian aspects that maybe we could have highlighted better. We stand by our submission.”
The Defence Counsel Jason Kay
present nor had they given any instructions for their defence. Led by the young lawyer, Jason Kay Kit Leong, his strategy ranged from seeking
judges noted in their judgment, “the defence gave convincing evidence of serious human rights violations by Saddam Hussain. However, they adroitly avoided admitting that both the US and UK were complicit in most of
Dec 2011
.
THE
19
Facing up to the Challenges
T
he Tribunal hearings over four days; the preparations for organizing such an event; attending to various details and procedures and even ensuring that sufficient food and refreshments were available, were all ably handled by a team led by Datuk Dr Yaacob Hussain Merican. He serves as a Trustee and Secretary General to the KLFCW (Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalise War). Supported by several individuals, many of whom were volunteers, Datuk Yaacob described the tasks as “challenging but gratifying.”
Datuk Dr Yaacob briefing Tun Dr Mahathir and Tun Dr Siti Hasmah “These hearings were held in a most transparent manner. Even having a prominent international judge recused by the defence point to how fair we had been in conducting this trial. No one can find fault with the manner in which the proceedings were conducted. Now we prepare for the second charge to be heard, some time in early 2012” (The second charge is against George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, William Haynes, Jay Bybee and John Yoo. They have been charged with the Crime of Torture and War Crimes). “I am grateful to the leadership and support of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad in ensuring that we successfully undertook this mammoth task. Without Tun’s encouragement, wisdom and drive, we would have perhaps not fulfilled our task.” In the days and weeks since the Tribunal, word has come back that the message of the Tribunal has slowly been spreading in parts of Europe and some other places. If the rest of the world is just as keen to rid mankind of war as clearly demonstrated by the recent hearings in Kuala Lumpur, then perhaps the first steps have been taken. It will be a long and hard struggle, but at least someone has taken the lead.
Secretary General KLFCW Datuk Dr Yaacob Hussain Merican The unassuming Secretary General went on to remind: “The task is not yet over. This is only the beginning (referring to the Tribunal’s findings), the greater tasks lie ahead. The verdict, the first ever against the two accused, would now have to be transmitted world wide, to various international organizations and individuals as well. We cannot enforce the findings of the Tribunal, but we can certainly let the rest of the world know that both Bush and Blair have been found guilty of crimes against humanity.”
20
THE
.
Dec 2011
The Perdana Global Peace Foundation of it. We have already made contact with several NGOs (non government organizations) and personalities around the world. All of them share the same belief that war is a crime. The movement is gaining momentum, especially in places where the people have experienced warfare and suffering. These are places in the Middle East, Iraq and Lebanon for instance, where even till today, some conflict is taking place.” Conceding that this is a mammoth task – that of crimilising war – Tan Sri Norian remained optimistic that progress will be made. “It is our hope that we can muster the full support from the public, not only in our declared aims, but also by donating time and money to the greater cause. We must
T
he Perdana Global Peace Foundation has a singular goal – putting an end to war. Founded by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, the former Prime Minister of Malaysia, the Foundation envisages “a serious, active and sustained struggle against war and for peace”.
“We have even come up with the idea of inviting members of the public to take part in an essay-writing contest that lays emphasis on war as a crime. It will be in English and Bahasa Melayu. We hope that students will take part.” On the Foundation itself, Tan Sri Norian disclosed: “It was formed on 4 May 2006 and then called Perdana Global Peace Organisation. However, to better fulfil its mission, the organisation was incorporated as the Perdana Global Peace Foundation on 8 October 2010.” “Our mission is simple enough. War is a crime, and the people must be made aware
“We have tried to show the terrible things that take place in war. We want to show to all visitors the kind of killings that have taken place, where men, women and children have been blown to bits – the real horrors of war. It might be disturbing to some visitors, but it was our aim to show the truth of war and killing. “We plan to have a road-show, taking to various parts of the country, so that more people can see for themselves what war does, the human suffering, where lives and limbs are lost and even young children are not spared the horrors. Q: Would people who come and see something as gruesome as this, then become peace lovers? A: “We hope so, we certainly hope that they will reject war. That is after all the objective of the Perdana Global Peace Foundation, of criminalizing war.
Sharing and supporting this agenda are world renowned professionals, intellectuals, authors and statesmen, who are all passionate advocates of international peace. Together they support the Kuala Lumpur Initiative to Criminalise War. The Chairman of its Board of Trustees, Tan Sri Norian Mai pointed out that the Tribunal, the International Conference on “The Arab Uprising” and the Exhibition on War are all part of the on-going initiative to get the people to understand the horrors of war.
have to show to the visitors the horrors of war, especially what has been happening in Iraq. We have arranged it in a chronological order, starting with World War 1, then World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and some of the other conflicts that have happened, like Gaza, Lebanon and Dafur.
Chairman Board of Trustees PGPF, Tan Sri Norian Mai succeed in instilling in people the realization that conflicts can be solved by discussion, by negotiations, by peaceful means. We must create the awareness among our people. Fighting solves nothing, it only increases misery and sufferings. We are an educated people, and we must accept that peace and peaceful means bring about greater benefits to the people.” The Exhibition The man behind the Exhibition on War, Tan Sri Dr Samsuddin Hitam, gave his take on what the aims and concept were: “The theme of this exhibition is war, that we
Tan Sri Dr Samsuddin Hitam
Dec 2011
.
THE
21
Speech By Tun Dr Mahathir Bin Mohamad At The Islamic Arts Museum, Kuala Lumpur On Friday, 18 November 2011 “War”
“T
he law in Malaysia prescribes death by hanging should anyone be found in possession of drugs such as heroin, cocaine, amphetamine etc of a quantity beyond that for personal use.
This is in addition to the death penalty for murder. For continuing to prescribe death for these crimes, Malaysia and Malaysians are considered to be rather primitive; slightly less than barbarians.
goes through – the fear, the fear of the hang rope squeezing his life out of him, as he awaits execution, waiting to have his neck broken as he falls through the trap-door. What kind of people are we? In an age when most civilised countries have abolished the death penalty, we are still relying on the cruelty of killing a fellow human, supposedly to punish for breaking the law, supposedly for deterring others from committing the same crime.
We don’t seem to respect human life – that precious gift of God
And so it goes on – the condemnation of Malaysia for taking the life of a fellow human, a capital punishment which is outdated, insensitive and primitive.
We do not seem to be concerned or understand how cruel is the act of executing a man. Think of the suffering that the guilty person
Who are the people saying all these; who are campaigning for the right to live, who seem to care so much for human life?
22
THE
.
Dec 2011
Who are they? They are the same people who indulge in mass killings, not even of people guilty of any crime, but of innocent people who had done them, or anyone any harm. They indulge in the killing of children, sick people, men, women, the young and the old.
controlled toy planes for children lead to the UAV – Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. First used for aerial photography, they are now fitted with guns and missiles and bombs. These are regarded as the latest and the best killing machines. The pilots need not be in the aircrafts and risk being killed. They stay in comfortable and safe operations room hundreds of miles from the war zones. But they are as good and as capable as the killer pilots. They can see on monitors the ground over which the UAV flies. They can identify the target and they can blow up the targets. The bombs are said to be accurate and precise. But many are the innocent civilians who have been killed and villages destroyed by the so-called precise bombing. Not to worry. They are working on more precise bombs.
They glorify the killers, awarding them medals, erecting statues and other monuments in their honour. Their history, and this is taught to their children and students, relates about the glorious wars they had fought, the hatred for their enemies, the great heroes who died for the glory of their nations. They are always warring against some people. Their soldiers were ever ready to kill for their country. Their soldiers are great in their job of killing people. Warring is their life. Their people love and hold their soldiers, the killers, in great respect. These mass killers now call their war machines their “defence forces”. But it is obvious that they were not used solely for defence. They are equipped to attack, to invade, to shock and awe their victims. Their leader’s priority is always to prepare for war. For this a huge portion of their budget would be allocated. There is close collaboration with their “defence contractors”. Most of the time the actual money spent is not made public.
The victims they say will not know what hit them. But the potential victims know that somewhere in the skies death can come at any time. And they live in perpetual fear - terrified that their bodies would be torn to pieces, their heads torn from their neck or live to become bodies without arms or legs. But why stop with UAV? Why not ground vehicles! Why not seagoing vehicles. Imagine the savings in life as those unmanned vehicles unleash death on enemies and collaterals. But don’t allow the potential enemy to have these unmanned vehicles. They may hit back. Blacklist them as rogues, apply sanctions against them and launch pre-emptive attacks to destroy their production facilities. Then they will be helpless to defend themselves.
The motorcar became the armoured car with guns bristling. The airplanes are modified and redesigned for bombing, for aerial fights, for launching missiles.
These enemies may claim they don’t have the weapons. But they are rogues. How can you believe them? Bomb the plants, reduce them to rubble. What if the plants are actually for producing baby food? Too bad. A few hundred workers killed – too bad. Surrounding buildings with their occupants killed and wounded. Too bad. They are collaterals. They are expendable. What is important is that the brave aggressors face no risk of even the slightest injury, ensconced in their air-cond ops room far from the war zones.
At sea warships of various sizes are designed armed with guns, missiles and are armour plated. They developed undersea vessels to creep up to their unsuspecting targets, to blow them up and drown thousands of innocent passengers. When damaged, their submarines sink to the bottom of the sea to become the coffin for the crew. Even children’s toys give ideas for better killing machines. Remote-
just about any scientific discovery is studied to find and develop its capacity for killing – preferably mass killing. Gases, germs, rays of all kind are studied and invariably their potential for killing people is identified and developed. Then the delivery system would be selected and prepared for carrying the weapon and hitting the target or cause collateral damage.
Their Governments and the industries spend huge sums in the invention of new weapons. Everything is investigated for making weapons of war.
Dec 2011
.
THE
23
war. All these research, development, tests and production cost a lot of money, running into billions each year. But for these killing machines any amount of money is worth it.
Kill, kill, kill. That is the way to solve conflicts between nations. It is good for business.
Weapons, whether used or not don’t give a return on their investments. So sell them to other countries. Foreign governments could be persuaded to buy. If any refuses then threaten to sell to enemies of the particular country. This should work. But the armed forces of all countries want the latest weapons, so they can show-off their sophisticated, state of the art arms. A sure fire way to get Governments to buy is to get the armed forces to request to be provided with the particular weapons.
War not only kills people but bankrupt countries. Millions have died, have been badly wounded and trillions of dollars have been wasted on wars to end all wars. But wars cannot be abolished or made into a crime against humanity. It is too profitable and it is what gives power to the powerful countries or country.
Such is the aggressive marketing that poor countries would allocate a big percentage of their budget for arms. Never mind if the people are starving or without even basic amenities for a decent life. The military must have the latest in weapon systems.
A pox on those who want to make war a crime.
The expenditure on arms by every country is enormous and the country can be bankrupted. Total arms trade amount to trillions of dollars for the world. Today many of the countries are on the verge of bankruptcy. But still their budget for military hardware remains big, very big. The worse part is that having paid huge sums for their acquisition and maintenance, they are not likely to be used i.e in fighting against their enemies. Most of them do not want to go to war. It is only the weapons producers who try to create tensions between countries. It is good for business. War is good for business. Killing people with their weapons is good for business. So reject peace. Reject negotiations. Reject arbitration. Reject courts of law. Go to
24
THE
.
Dec 2011
So condemn the death penalty but go on killing people to dominate them. It is legitimate.
“
The International Conference On The Arab Uprising Organised By
The Perdana Global Peace Foundation Friday, 18th November 2011
A
s the saga of the Arab Uprising continues to unfold, we find ourselves confronted with different perspectives as to what and how and why such events have taken place. It is abundantly clear that mainstream media control by the Western press has been quick to point out that this is a manifestation of the Arab regional voice that cries out for democracy and liberalization, the kind of democracy in the Western hemisphere that is often heralded as a cry for freedom and egalitarianism in society. Hence the connotation of this being an Arab Spring to describe the epidemic of political unrest and discontent in a number of Arab countries, beginning with Tunisia. A young Tunisian vendor Mohammed Bouazizi set himself on fire in protest against the authorities on December 17, 2011 and this triggered a wave of public protest in Tunisia eventually leading to the resignation of President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. As noted Arab authority Dr Clovis Maksoud put it in reference to the tragic spark that lit the Arab world, “when an educated worker was slapped because he sought redemption of his rights, it encapsulated a collective humiliation of Arabs.” The Perdana Global Peace Foundation (PGPF), felt it was timely to invite an explication of these events. Of special concern was the outright involvement of NATO in Libya, a development which PGPF views as going against international norms of self determination and noninterference in the affairs of other nations. The much touted term “humanitarian intervention” rings a hollow bell in the face of all the blatant savagery, destruction and human losses that have taken place. Where was the humanitarian intervention in December 2008 when Gaza was assaulted beyond human dignity and hurled back into the stone age? The Conference that was held recently in Kuala Lumpur at which luminaries and intellectuals with first hand experience in these countries that are currently convulsed in the uprising of the masses, attest somewhat different scenarios and with a pitch that is quite different from the Occidental view. The session began with the keynote address by PGPF President, YABhg Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad who advocated increasing momentum in the global movement to criminalise war. Speaking to a packed audience he reiterated and expounded that war criminals should be brought to justice,. He then enjoined all present to support the KL War Crimes Tribunal hearing on Iraq scheduled for the next day. The Panel discussion started with PGPF Advisor, Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir, giving a brief overview of the Arab Uprising. All speakers present were unanimous in their views that America and its cohorts notably Israel were bent on destabilizing the region for their own ends, geopolitical, economic and otherwise. Their imperialist
Dr Zulaiha Ismail
designs have not changed, but today they are justifying this as ‘just causes for just wars’! Prof. Chossudovsky of Canada provided factual evidence of this insiduous design especially the Western plan to dismantle Syria and eventually Iran. He spoke ominously of a World War Three Scenario. The seed of the Arab Uprising is something that was sown at the time of the region’s fragmentation and hegemonic control and domination by erstwhile Western colonial powers. And since then, the exploitation and political machinations have continued, this time
Dec 2011
.
THE
25
Congresswoman and Green Party presidential candidate in 2008, was on the ground in Libya and reported how American mainstream media would tweet back to NATO potential targets for attack.
PGPF Advisor, Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir through the proxy of “local appointees” who have been and continue to be subject to their bidding. Hence for several generations, while the West withdrew from the region, their footprints remained and the powers of influence were wielded through an elite that furthered the Western agenda so long as personal fiefdoms and sectarian interests were guaranteed.
Denis J. Halliday, former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations, who resigned in protest of UN genocidal sanctions against Iraq, made known his aversion to violence, especially that of Israel in the context of the Arab Uprising. To him the Perdana Peace initiative is the strongest and clearest statement against the use of military violence, of human destruction and warfare. He laments that in comparison to Tun Mahathir’s criminalisation of war, the Charter of the United Nations has been manipulated to justify military aggression. He then enjoined the United Nations and the world to end the travesty of justice where Palestine is concerned and implement the many resolutions endorsed by the General Assembly.
While not dismissing the bravery and courage of the thousands who have been beaten, tear-gassed and killed while demanding change, all speakers unanimously agreed that the evil hand of neocolonialist forces is determined to continue to subjugate the Arab world and deny them their collective
Dirk Adriaensen of the BRussells Tribunal spoke impassionately about the illegal war in Iraq and how it is better to die on one’s feet than to live on one’s knees. A systemic breakdown has now occurred in which a dispossessed people alienated from mainstream comforts of life have been deleteriously spiraled into the abyss of abject poverty. Global inequities found their way into making more grim the economic and social deprivations on the ground. As a consequence, it could be said that while there is division among Arab governments, there is far more unity among Arabs themselves. Thus the “papering over” by cosmetic and political charades couched in the euphemistic language of Western journalism could no longer keep the accumulated frustration from venting itself into widespread public outrage. It shows how superficial, and how false, were most Western media images of this region. Cynthia McKInney, former US
26
THE
.
Dec 2011
dignity. And this collective dignity is embedded in their deep anguish for a free Palestine. Malaysian-born Dr Ang Swee Chai recalled her personal experiences in Beirut and Gaza and expressed regret that nothing had been done to redress the rights and grievances of the Palestinians since 1948. The challenge presented to the region today which continues to simmer is that “old wine in new bottles” cannot serve the peoples’ interest. Hana AlBayaty saw for herself the uprising in Egypt and while acknowledging the existence of external forces at work, she spoke of the sacrifices of the ordinary man in the street. Lamentably also, the creaking institutions of society and inadequate structures that have been allowed to degrade are woefully not up to addressing the lives of ordinary people. It is important to remind ourselves that while Mubarak and Ben Ali have been ousted from Egypt and Tunisia, current events demonstrate that there has been no “regime change”, i.e. the manner and process of governing has not changed. The limitation of time did not allow for discussion of potential scenarios for the Arab world, but all agreed that things could easily change for the worse in the Arab region. Nothing has been resolved and a real transformation anywhere has yet to take place. The process of rebuilding will be slow and laborious and this will continue to test the very fragile and constant shifts in popular agitation. Much more attention is needed to focus on a critical base of stability, from which to move on. This is where the fundamental shifts in international alignments and new collaborations will have to be forged. Enslavement of the region must and has indeed come to an end. The moment is now and the opportunities are fleeting. It would take more than public campaigns, street demonstrations and unabated agitation to be able to craft a future at a workable pragmatism that has got to be on track. By: Dr Zulaiha Ismail Executive Director Perdana Global Peace Foundation.
Dirk Adriaensen