Christopher King argues that British soldiers should be guided by morality and the Nuremburg Principles when deciding whether to obey an order to fight in another country and, in consequence, must leave Afghanistan.
”Our politicians think as lightly of the deaths of men as they do the petty thievery of their expenses.”
Britain has just had its first Armed Forces Day on 27 June, in honour of our armed forces. On 28 June a secret army report on the Iraq war, which is intended to be presented to the Iraq war inquiry, was published by the Mirror newspaper. It blames Anthony Blair for uncritically accepting flawed United States intelligence, leading to many deaths.
This leak cannot be a coincidence. Someone in the army believes that Armed Forces Day is a cynical political ploy by Gordon Brown, who is also criticized in the report, to gain support for this unpopular war by trading on public support for the armed forces and sympathy for the dead, wounded and their families. Our politicians have sunk to new, previously unimagined depths.
Let me say at this point that if it were a matter of defending my family and this country against an invader I would go to the army and ask for a rifle. Rather than fight in Iraq or Afghanistan, however, I would rather spend the rest of my life in prison.
There can be no doubt about it. The war in Afghanistan is in breach of the Nuremberg Principles, appended below. It is a “crime against peace” in terms of the Principles. The 11 September attack on New York by 19 men comprising 15 Saudis, two from the United Arab Emirates, one Egyptian and one Lebanese, organized by the Saudi Osama bin Laden, cannot conceivably be cause for war against Afghanistan and its Taliban government.
Apologists for the war glibly assert that the Taliban “made common cause with Osama bin Laden” in this attack. There has never been any evidence put forward after seven years to support this. This glib, false claim is the basis for wholesale murder, ongoing seven years later and without end, by the mechanized, well-fed forces of the richest countries in the world against poverty-stricken people who have resisted this completely inhumane and illegal invasion with bravery and fortitude.
Whereas there was no knowledge of the facts about the 11 September attack immediately afterwards, that is not the case now, seven years later. It is now clear that no valid reason for invading Afghanistan exists or ever existed. It is a war of aggression in which murder of civilians occurs regularly and in which the British Army is complicit. It was a war crime on its commencement and is still a war crime despite now having United Nations approval.
The United States initiated this war and continues it for its own reasons that are both obscure and irrelevant here. The reason for Britain’s participation is to please the United States. In order to preserve the “special relationship”, Britain must support the United States irrespective of whether the war is right or wrong, indeed, particularly if it is wrong. In return, Britain receives “valuable intelligence on terrorism”. America’s intelligence is the babbling of men crazed by torture in its Guantanamo Bay torture facility, Bagram prison and various countries that torture on behalf of the Americans. America’s intelligence methods are despicable and their results are worthless.
Our politicians think as lightly of the deaths of men as they do the petty thievery of their expenses. They have befouled the British armed forces by involving them in the aggressive, murderous invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Our military leaders are aware that neither the Taliban nor al-Qaeda will be defeated on the battlefield. They are aware that the principal objective of the Afghanistan invasion, capturing Osama bin Laden, has failed after seven years. They know that their actions in Iraq and Afghanistan increase the probability of terrorist attacks in Britain and were in fact responsible for bombing on the streets of London. They are aware that international terrorist conspiracies will be defeated by sound intelligence rather than making war against people who have nothing to do with terrorism but are resisting invasion legitimately under international law.
If ever there was uncertainty about the legitimacy of the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions there is none now. They were undertaken on the basis of lies and grandiose American schemes of world supremacy, of which Barck Obama makes no secret. They were never legitimate in international law and are crimes of aggressive warfare and against humanity. Our military leaders know the truth of these wars because, unlike our disgusting politicians who casually sent them to war, they have experienced war’s dangers and seen its horrors with their own eyes.
The Nuremberg Principles specifically relate to decisions made by individuals. Their principle is humanitarian, that is, moral rather than legalistic. Legality derives from their humanitarian intent. It is not possible to set aside their humanitarian, moral nature by cunning legal trickery such as America applied to Guantanamo where law was said not to apply, nor that individual servicemen have no right to decide whether a war was legal or not. Nor can it be possible for decisions of the United Nations itself to override their humanitarian, moral basis. Obtaining UN permission for the on-going occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan was a legal trick to convert immoral wars into legal occupations. Legality can be set aside with the stroke of a pen, but morality cannot. These wars were immoral at commencement and their continuation cannot be made otherwise by clever legal argument.
Jesus’s dislike of lawyers (Luke 11: 46) is not readily comprehensible but the lawyers Anthony Blair, Jack Straw and Peter Goldsmith and their wars in Iraq and Afghanistan make the reason clear.
The Nuremburg Principles negate the view that our soldiers are unthinking robots who must follow orders in all circumstances. The Principles assign to them the responsibility to make moral judgements. There are orders that they should not obey and it is their right to make that individual judgement on whether orders are humanitarian and legitimate. If that is not the case, the Principles make no sense. The Nazis were hung as individuals for “following orders”. Unthinking obedience to orders is the foundation of tyranny.
In one case, our armed forces have served humanity and international law badly but not in going to Iraq and Afghanistan in the first instance. That was a political responsibility in conditions of uncertainty. Their failure lay in the imprisonment of Flight-Lieutantant Malcolm Kendall-Smith who was deprived of his right and duty to decide whether the Iraq war was illegal and to act on his moral judgement. It was a failure of morality and a bad precedent for the armed forces. This principle has also been debated in the United States, notably in the case of Lt E.K. Watada. The carnage, destruction and misery of these wars derive not from mistakes and bad planning. They derive from failure of morality.
For services personnel to decide whether their orders are legitimate or not, they must be in possession of the text of the Nuremberg Principles. This is essential if they are to comply with international law and avoid the commission of war crimes. It is the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence to ensure that each individual has a copy, if it has not done so already.
In view of the facts and their obligations under the Nuremburg Principles, the Chiefs of Defence Staff should cease participation in these wars and withdraw all British service personnel from Iraq and Afghanistan immediately. These Principles override all other considerations. The country, as a ship, needs a keel of morality and our politicians have failed to provide it. Hopefully, the armed forces will do so.
These wars have not only thrown international law into chaos but are undermining British law. Armed Forces Day and the army marches that the government has been organizing, have a more sinister purpose than to elicit public support for the army. They are demonstrations to the populace that politicians control the army at the present time of political uncertainty, fear for their incompetently performed jobs and fear that they might in fact be prosecuted for war crimes. These parades are the reflex actions of a dictator, of politicians who are afraid of the people and who wish to intimidate them. The more repression there is in a society the more armed forces parades there are on the streets. The people should not be afraid of their army. It is politicians who should fear the army, not for what it might do but for what it refuses to do.
Our participation in the Afghanistan war should end before another British soldier is killed and before our forces kill another Pashtun defending his territory. Let the Americans do as they will. The war budget should now be diverted to providing proper support for all servicemen who have participated in the war, the injured and the families of the dead. The country will support them gladly. It is our politicians with whom there is an issue.
Principle I Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.
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.
Principle V Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.
Principle VI The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under.
(b) War crimes: Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, illtreatment or deportation to slave-labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
(c) Crimes against humanity: Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.
Principle VII Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.
Christopher King is a retired consultant and lecturer in management and marketing. He lives in London, UK.
