DUCKPOND

“Acts of criminal aggression”, such as the occupation of Iraq, either to establish permanent bases against future competitors for global dominance (read China), or to steal the oil, or both, are not new to history. Indeed they are not new to American History. Many of us make the comparison with Vietnam, yet there is an earlier example in which the term ‘criminal aggression was extensively used by several writers, including notably Mark Twain, and that was the occupation of the Philippines.

The objections to the Philippines episode was that it cost a bucket of money, took an immense of amount of effort to suppress the natives, served the interests of the few profiteers, and had hidden motives. Edward T Atkinson writing in The New York World, 31 December 1899, on the “Cost of Criminal Aggression to Date”, observed:

It is not possible to set off the exact items of the money cost of the William McKinley war on the inhabitants of the Philippine Islands. We are obliged to use his name as the title of the war, although he may be merely the puppet used by the jingoes whose motives are to get big [trade opportunities] out of China. It has been said by an English writer that “when you scratch a jingo you find a pirate” an axiom that fits the jingoes of this country as well as England, only the English jingoes fights himself, whereas ours type do the dangerous part by deputy.

In this case, it apparently was enough to control Manila and the entrepot trade with China, it was necessary to control the hinterland and by extension the government. Still the imperialists could proclaim by 1902 that they had subdued the natives and the Imperial Rule was secure. However, Wikipedia in another eerie repetition of later history advises that this was a turning point that did not go the full revolution, and hostilities continued on until 1913. It is a little recounted fact of history that the Japanese East Asia Co-Prosperity program drove the imperialists out, albeit at a time when self government as a Commonwealth was about to be declared. As we know the promise to return was famously made.

The history of the Twentieth Century apparently made a difference to the imperialist game with among other things the publication of the Nuremberg Principles. The following principles are particularly relevant since they are inclusive rather than exclusive:

Principle II

The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.

Principle III

The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.

Principle IV

The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

The Nuremberg Trials saw people hung for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

One of the difference a hundred years made, it that the American media is more concentrated now, and is controlled by the war party. Glenn Greenwald is the pointman on these matters. Still a former Press Secretary writes a book explaining he could not see the forest for the trees. Gary Leupp, who is not neutral, reviews Scott McClellan’s book, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception. He writes:

Ain’t it grand how telling your personal “truth” can make you look good, make you a fortune, and obfuscate the real issues all at the same time? The Bush people pronounce themselves “puzzled” and “sad” about their former colleague’s confessions. But I think they should be relieved, considering the alternatives. Instead of depicting Bush as a well-meaning democratic idealist he could have expressed the real truth: Bush is a child of privilege, indifferent to human suffering, energized by a deep cruel streak, dangerously affected by religious delusions, contemptuous of ideas and intellectuals, disdainful of international law, still at large and dangerous as he plans an unjustifiable assault on Iran. Instead of depicting the Iraq War as an act of criminal aggression McClellan does the administration a big favor by merely terming it a “strategic blunder.”

Yeah. Like the Italian invasion of Ethiopia in 1935 was a strategic blunder. Like the Japanese invasion of China in 1937 was a strategic blunder. Like the German invasion of Poland in 1939 was a strategic blunder. Idealistic visionaries in power, just making mistakes.

Should there ever be war crimes trials, McClellan will be called to testify on behalf of the defense, if only as a character witness.

I am not sure about the characterization of Bush. How could such a person go through Primary and Presidential campaigns and not have his character subject to scrutiny, but then again with the infotainment media perhaps he could. Yet it obvious, that providing he does not start travelling overseas like General Pinochet, the whole crowd that the lead the war charge should be pretty safe from prosecution.

Now this introduces an element of unfairness. Australia is a signatory to the International Criminal Court. ABC News Online Reports:

A legal brief has been sent to the International Criminal Court (ICC) alleging former prime minister John Howard committed a war crime by sending troops to Iraq.

A loose alliance of peace activists, lawyers, academics and politicians is behind the brief, organised by the ICC Action group in Melbourne.

Organiser Glen Floyd says Mr Howard should be held accountable for sending troops to a war not sanctioned by the United Nations.

“We have produced a 52-page brief of evidence which states to the chief prosecutor of the criminal court that we allege John Howard’s actions are war crimes under article 8 of the Rome Statute,” he said.
. . . A similar brief has been sent by a group from the United Kingdom regarding former prime minister Tony Blair.

Since the United States is not a signatory to the Court, and since impeachment disappeared from the table, whereas the bombing of Iran has not, G Bush might like W McKinley, who both may have been mere puppets, may enjoy immunity. This will be an odd historical development given the role of the United States Government of another time in the prosecution at Nuremberg. It is further odd that the imperialist past was forgotten at the moment when it was triumphantly proclaimed, and there was little more than a hundred years between the two cases.