Chilcot report and the issue of paying the reparations for Iraq
On the sixth of current July , the report of Chilcot committee was issued, and it is sometimes called Chilcot inquiry « in English: Chilcot inquiry», the official name is the Iraq inquiry, « in English: The Iraq Inquiry» which is about an independent British commission of inquiry entrusted to accomplish inquiry about British participation in the Iraq war 2003.
It was announced in London on the fifteenth day of June, 2009, by the former Prime Minister Golden Brown about the launch of special investigations on the Iraq war by British Committee consisting of Sir John Chilcot and Sir Lawrence Freedman and Sir Martin Gilbert and Sir Roderic Lyne and Baroness Usha Barcher. The aim of this committee during the search process to unveil the secrets of Britain’s decision to participate in the occupation of Iraq. And it was the result of pressure exerted by the families of British soldiers who were killed during the military operations carried out by the international coalition in Iraqi cities.
Committee meetings began in November 2009 to review the policy adopted by Britain on Iraq, and heard testimony from about 150 witnesses of senior political and military officials and the British security, Blair was on top, as well as his successor Brown . After a delay in the publication of its report, supposedly in 2012 , the deadline ,the British Prime Minister David Cameron in 2014 called Chilcot Inquiry to publishe its report before the end of the year because there is no justification for the delay in publication.
The report, which came within a 12-part, through more than two million words, and cost ten million pounds (about 13.5 million dollars), was transferred to the national security for the examination of it due to the contents of a huge quantity of sensitive materials according to the testimony of the Chairman of the Committee. It Included between its flanks a lot of the many details that the Chilcot team worked on it for nearly seven years, as the report included the circumstances and conditions under which the London was led to the decision of war on Iraq, and contacts between the US administration and the British government, and refuted the data that has been based on it and intelligence reports in Washington and London. Many questions answered by the report through the investigation with British officials in that period, most notably former Prime Minister Blair, who was hosted by Chilcot twice, and Hans Blix, head of the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and other generals, officers and members of the British diplomatic who their answers were intersected , according to the report, about the lack of credibility of British intelligence reports, and the non-use of ways and means that were available by the government to prevent the war, the most prominent of these methods had to go to the UN Security Council, where the decision of war was made based upon the Security Council resolution and the mandate in 1991 after the invasion of Kuwait .«Chilcot» in points 1.Iraq, and Saddam Hussein’s regime, were not posed a threat to Britain’s interests, and the story of possessing weapons of mass destruction are incorrect and based on faulty intelligenc data.
2.Diplomatic options with Baghdad was available, but the decision of war came in a hurry, cutting the way to a negotiating effort.
. 3. Britain or the United States hadn’t a real vision of Iraq post-Saddam , exacerbating the costs of war.
4.. The report refers to the nature of the relationship of Tony Blair and US President George W. Bush and absolute dependency, which was represented by Blair to Bush.As an example, in the July 28, 2002 m, Tony Blair assured to Bush that he would be with him «no matter what».
- Tony Blair ‘ government failed to achieve the goals that it had set for itself in Iraq, and while more than 200 British soldiers were killed in the conflict. Not to mention what the Iraqi people suffered from heavy losses. By July 2009 AD, the number of Iraqis who have died as a result of the conflict has reached 150 thousand Iraqis, at least, and probably many more than that, as well as the displacement of over a million people.
- The report focused on a large extent about the weakness of special supplies for British forces in Iraq, from multiple aspects, stressing that the troops were not in a state of full readiness when deciding deployed in Iraq. The question in this context: Could be built on those points to compel the United Kingdom to pay reparations due to the damages caused by its participation in a war of aggression against Iraq?
One can select what he wants from the size of a report which its size more than a million and a half words, issued by the Committee of the British investigation headed by Sir Chilcot that, and it took nearly seven years. But it was not contained in the voluminous report a single condemning of the criminalization against the Prime Minister Tony Blair and has not been considered his decision to launch the war on Iraq illegal . and has not been called for his accountability and to investigate him. But more than that, exonerated Blair for the first time from the main charge that he had lied to Parliament. The report said that the former prime minister has already transferred what was , supplied by intelligence about Saddam’s chemical weapons. Blair himself did not apologize for the war and he has not retreated. He apologized for the errors related to the war, such as dissolving the army and Saddam’s government. And by the way Blair was against this decision of Washington in this regard at that time. Unfortunately what is published by Arabs and translated and it is a mixture of hypocrisy and ignorance.
The report did not make judgment that condemns British officials for the violations of international law, and only to criticize the way in which the government worked with it to justify the war through to rely on weak information about Iraq’s military capabilities at the time, and to emphasize that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein did not pose an immediate threat or soon to Britain.
The report stayed away from mentioning any details related to the size of the disaster left by this decision on the country of the victim, as mentioned casually that the volume of casualties among Iraqis until the year 2009, more than 150 thousand people, and this figure even though it is very large, but it does not represent the truth, issued by the group of the global centers indicating that there are more than a million Iraqis whohave died as a result of the invasion and its aftermath of the sectarian war waged and not ended till now . Perhaps we must enumerate in this context what is left by the war in Iraq and on the Iraqis ; A million people dead and 5 million orphans, and like them displaced and refugees, in addition to the million and a half widow, these is not the bill of invasion of Iraq , which the Iraqis undertook to pay on behalf of others , over 13 years, not the least for the bombing of Karrada in central Baghdad, on the eve of the nights of Eid al-Fitr, which left 400 dead and wounded.
As Iraq was ranked in the bottom of the planet in terms of transparency, security, education, health care and the providing of potable water and electricity taking in to the consideration that it is the third owner of the largest oil reserves in the world! While the Iraqi passport as well as the third worst passport among the nations of the world, not only preceded its counterpart Afghan and Pakistani as indicated by the indicators of «Henley Land Bartners» . Not to mention the Iraq record of the record number in the system of corruption that almost hit all state institutions or rather what remains of the state-as the annual report of Transparency International organization on corruption showed that Iraq is among the most corrupt of the 10 countries in the world. In addition to the lack of press and media freedom and control of the militias on the joints of the state and the fall of nearly a third of the area of Iraq, however, to the organization «Daash» terrorist. With the specter that threatens to the partition of Iraq for a small states that may warring among themselves for decades without any real project looming on the horizon ,that it ensures the unity of Iraq and pay the specter of sectarian war away from it. It remains the most dangerous thing in the bill of the invasion of Iraq is «future» and that this bill has not closed yet and signs of the continuing of numbers are standing up, which makes us think Will we see the coup de grace at the end of that long list of sacrifices made by Iraq and the Iraqis as a result of the decision to invade that was made in a moment of the moments of recklessness, and based on wrong information and a nice evening at the farm W. Bush in Texas?
The report Chilcot course and according to the powers assigned , it does not result in any judicial or political decision, but it certainly opens the door for those who invest and use of the judicial and the political sphere in the best way and in particular the British people inside Britain of the families of dead soldiers from the British or by the political opposition, but the true victim is still to bleed away from the circle of obtaining the rights and rehabilitation and compensation not even dream of the word «I’m sorry»! The victim is now live on the impact of the events of Karrada terrorist bombings, which took place before the report is issued in three days, and lived on the impact of sectarian bombings after its issue that targeted a Shiite shrines in Balad of Salahuddin province , where the Iraqis believed that the report and what it contains will not provide or delay of the magnitude of the disaster in which they live its chapters on a daily basis for 13 years. According to the ongoing vortex and the despair of the international equity, the Iraqis ignore the follow – up of such reports believing that it will not treat them fairly or punish those from the perpetrator for the benefit of the victim taking in to the considerations that the previous experiences are capable of killing any dream to happen . The report from the point of view of them is nothing more than to enter into the framework of a system of reviewing and accounting in Western culture
Of course, the emergence of this report at this time, after seven years of engaging in it at a time when the Arab Mashreq is sleeping on the unstable ground, potentially explosive at any moment, and with the disintegration of the nations in which we live and the emergence of new geographies and ethnic or sectarian entities was not in everyone’s accounts, the report Chilcot would put any future administration, whether in Washington or London under the whip of accountability if the decision was made to intervene to end the tragedies that take place today.
The question in this context: Can the Iraqi people demand the United States and the United Kingdom to pay material and moral compensation for them because of their aggression and their occupation of Iraq in April / May 2003?
The decision of the Security Council on May 22 2003, and number 1483 m, the decision considered in the preamble of it both the United States and the United Kingdom are two-occupied countries of Iraq, and this was confirmed by the Security Council in its resolution issued on the date of June 8, 2004. With these two resolutions , it is incumbent on them to compensate Iraq financially and morally because all their justifications of the war were illegal.
The justifications made by the United States and the United Kingdom , for aggression against Iraq and occupation of it has no legal justification in the Charter of the UN and international law and , therefore, this aggression , occupation is a violation of them and a serious threat to international peace and security . American and British occupation of Iraq in 2003, is a copy of the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait in 1990, so it was obligatory on the UN Security Council to apply the same procedures and the same standards regarding Iraq ‘s occupation of Kuwait. But these measures were not applied due to the hegemony of the logic of force on the logic of right.
that requires to bind the United States and the United Kingdom to pay compensation to Iraq and requires from the Iraqi parties and the non – governmental organizations, research centers, universities, trade unions and the rest of civil society organizations to shed light constantly from now on the issue and document everything related to aggression and the occupation practices and violations of the occupation forces of the Geneva Conventions of 1949. And is also required to cooperate with the Arab, regional and international organizations related to create the international public opinion that acknowledges the aggression and occupation and condemning the crimes and violations committed by the occupying forces , and calls on States and relevant international organizations to bear its responsibility to demand the United States and the United Kingdom to compensate Iraq for what it’s damaged in accordance with the general international law noting that the compensation is one of the fundamental aspects of the settlement based on international law and the principles of natural justice process to end the conflict. With regard to the appropriate body in which Iraq can sue the United States and the United Kingdom, there is a style of consensual agreement between the Iraqi side and the US and UK, and there is the UN Security Council, and there is the International Court of Justice.
It seems that a consensual agreement between the parties is not practical, because the United States insists that the aggression of Iraq is legal. Also going to the UN Security Council to prosecute it is not guaranteed of results also because they have the right to veto “veto” in it , and it has become since the breakup of the Soviet Union and the collapse of the socialist camp , the only one dominant power in the United Nations , so it came with Assistant US Secretary of State Jimmy Robin to say during a conference of the Democratic party in August 1996 , saying ( the United Nations is working to what allows to be done by the United States only), in addition that the Security Council declined to assume its responsibilities regarding the invasion and American occupation of Iraq because of American hegemony, and the Council ‘s decisions issued since the invasion dealt with it as a matter of reality.
Thus , the remaining question to sue the United States and the United Kingdom before the international Court of Justice is the available option , being the principal judicial organ of the United Nations and enjoys under its statutes mandate to consider the disputes of a legal nature which may arise between two states or more , including the authority of the court to verify the reality of facts which , if proven would constitute a breach of an international obligation and determine what type of compensation resulting from the state as a result of this breach and the extent of the compensation.
the possibilities available to sue the United States and the United Kingdom before the international Court of Justice three:
the first is that Iraq and the United States agree to submit the dispute to the court and acceptance of its mandate to decide in the conflict, and this possibility is unlikely because they would not accept it.
The second possibility is to ask the Court of Iraq, through a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly, to issue a legal opinion on the illegality of the US aggression and occupation of Iraq. This possibility is also difficult because it requires the consent of the majority of UN members present and voting on the resolution, according to current data, many countries will avoid participating in the vote on such a resolution ,which hurts basically their status , noting that the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice is not binding character to it . The United States and the United Kingdom have been claims that the issue is not the jurisdiction of the Court , as it and Israel did with the subject of the Israeli apartheid wall.
The third possibility is to sue the United States and the United Kingdom before the International Court of Justice under the Convention (Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of human being) for the year 1948 being the Iraq and both USA andUK members of the Convention, and Article IX of which states (each a dispute between the contracting parties regarding the interpretation and application of this Convention, including special disputes of the responsibility of state on the work of the extermination of the human race, or any of the acts set forth in Article III shall be referred and transferred to the international Court of Justice at the request of the relevant) , that means the Convention stipulates clearly that it is not to require the consent of the parties of the conflict to submit it before the court and it is sufficient by request from the state, which believes that another state which is party to the Convention violated its obligations under it. The resort to the International Court of Justice under the 1948 Convention is driven bythe fact that many of the actions that it considered by the Article III of the Convention as the genocide crimes committed during the aggression of the American and British occupation of Iraq, which acts intended to destroy in whole or part, a national or ethnic group or racial or religious group as such aggravated assault on members of the group physically or psychologically, or deliberately inflicting on the group to living conditions that would eliminate them completely or in part. It is worth mentioning here that the United States has previously accused the former regime in Iraq to crimes of genocide as a result of the work made by the Iraqi government in the town of Dujail near Baghdad in 1982. But the question that arises in this context: Can the current Iraqi government or any future Iraqi government comes from the product of the Iraqi political class that American and British occupation have contributed in its inception to demand the United States and the United Kingdom to pay compensation to the Iraqi people? This is not possible may be, especially if we know that most of the political class demanded from the United States and the United Kingdom the occupation of Iraq !!
The American and British occupation and aggression of Iraq is the use of force outside the United Nations framework and therefore it is unlawful use of force against an independent state, which in this description represents aggression, Iraq has the full right to sue the United States, the United Kingdom and claim compensation for casualties and material, all of which are caused by the aggression, and although likelihood of acceptance by the United States and the United Kingdom is almost nonexistent under the “law of force”, but this does not prevent from raising the issue of compensation in all legal and political forums as a credible and acceptance means to restore respect for international law and deter the aggressor. the American aggression and occupation of Iraq is a unique case in contemporary international relations where the material capabilities and tremendous media of United States and Britain used and some of the newly industrialized countries in its orbit for distorting the facts, and used political and military pressure to silence any opposition to aggression may be issued by states or international organizations concerned and in particular the United Nations, and forcing countries and international organizations to accept the power-law and double standards despite the fact that Iraq, a country that had been occupied, the same ones it already met with an international position of rejecting the occupation of Kuwait and imposed sanctions that are the toughest in the history of international relations. The affected by the US invasion and occupation of Iraq is not only the people of Iraq, but the entire international community and international relations based on international law. It is true that power policies can not prevail in the end on the account of the force of law, and that the fact is a powerful one that stand-alone, or as the saying goes (the truth like oil always floats) but the truth needs men and women are defending it, and therefore, all the peace and justice loving and the rule of law in the world are demanded to raise their voice to defend the truth and to endure the aggressor all the legal consequences of the aggression, and the people of Iraq, in particular is required to defend their rights, which robbed by the invasion and occupation, and the history of Iraq say the Iraqis have always been at the level of challenge.
Rawabet Research and Strategic Studies Center
