Showing posts with label International Criminal Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label International Criminal Court. Show all posts

Thursday, October 15, 2026

If god is capital all wars are holy (who cares who wins) (2026)

From the October 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the Daily Telegraph (1 September) a Brigadier Ed Butler protested, claiming that prosecuting British special forces makes us vulnerable to the Russians. That recruitment numbers are down due to soldiers fearing ‘lawfare’ and that Andy Burnham is not ‘having the backs’ of our troops.

That this is not about national security is precisely the point. He is advocating state murder with impunity.

The British military does not exist to protect us. It exists to protect King Capital. The SAS are the sharp end of the stick. They exist to kill whoever the British state labels an enemy whenever King Capital requires resources, markets, or strategic advantage to be secured. When Brigadier Butler warns that accountability threatens the special forces, defending our safety is the last thing on his mind. He is defending the state’s right to commit murder abroad with no repercussions.

And the ‘witch hunt’ he is talking about does not even exist.

Since 2001, across two decades of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan there has been precisely one prosecution of British armed forces personnel for a war crime under the International Criminal Court Act. Just one. Corporal Donald Payne was convicted of inhumane treatment in the killing of Baha Mousa, an Iraqi civilian who died with 93 separate injuries to his body after 36 hours in British custody. He was hooded, forced into stress positions, deprived of food and water and beaten in a detention facility that used to be run by Saddam Hussein’s cousin. Seven soldiers were court martialled, six walked free. Payne was acquitted of manslaughter and only convicted of inhuman treatment. Sir William Gage the head of the public inquiry said it was ‘an appalling episode of serious, gratuitous violence on civilians’. The investigation found that the hooding and stressing techniques of detainees that had been banned by Heath’s government in 1972 had become written UK policy again.

That is the sum total of war crimes accountability for Britain’s 21st century wars.

But crimes are documented. A BBC Panorama investigation found that one SAS squadron alone could have unlawfully killed 54 people during a single six month tour in Helmand Province in Afghanistan. The ongoing public inquiry is looking into more than 80 suspicious deaths involving UK Special Forces in Afghanistan between 2010 and 2013, including children. One ex-SAS member told the BBC that on some operations ‘the troop would go into guest house type buildings and kill everyone there… It’s not justified, killing people in their sleep’. Witnesses said that they saw detainees being handcuffed, taken back inside buildings and shot. They described ‘drop weapons’, AK-47s being brought into raids and planted on corpses to make executions look like combat, they described squadrons vying for body counts, they described children murdered.

The International Criminal Court found that there was a reasonable basis to believe that British forces had committed war crimes in Iraq, including wilful killing, torture, rape; the court only closed their preliminary examination because it accepted Britain’s promise that it would investigate itself. Britain did not.

Operation Northmoor and the Iraq Historic Allegations Team were the major UK military police investigations into war crimes committed by British armed forces abroad. IHAT investigated over 3,000 allegations, it spent £34 million, it secured zero prosecutions of soldiers.

And in Afghanistan it was the same story, Operation Northmoor was the Royal Military Police’s inquiry into 675 allegations of unlawful killing by UK Special Forces. No prosecutions. The inquiry was dismantled through leadership interference, digital evidence deletion, and strategic narrowing of scope.

But, Brigadier Butler calls this a witch hunt.

Sergeant Alexander Blackman was caught on camera executing a wounded, unarmed Taliban fighter in Afghanistan saying as he pulled the trigger ‘I just broke the Geneva Convention’. He was convicted of murder, reduced to manslaughter on appeal, and released after three years – he was never charged with a war crime.

When Butler talks of ‘morale’ it is the kind of ‘morale’ of killers who think they are untouchable. The ‘backs’ the government is supposed to have is the back of an assassin. We’re told that Britain needs men who murder children, plant weapons on corpses and falsify reports in order to keep us safe from Russia but Russia does not threaten us because the SAS is short of recruits, Russia threatens British capitalist interests just as British capital threaten Russians. These are the wars of rival ruling classes fought with the bodies of workers on both sides.

The military industrial complex is not a conspiracy, it is the natural machinery of an economic system where a minority owns all wealth and requires violence to protect it.

The UK spent £89 billion on its military in 2025, that is 2.4 percent of GDP, the government will increase that to 3.5 percent by 2035. That jump alone would be equivalent to £36 billion a year, roughly £500 for every person in the country.

Weapons manufacturers make billions, UK arms exports to Saudi Arabia since the Yemen war began have been worth about £3.3 billion. Politicians wrap themselves in the flag, newspapers like the Telegraph sell the myth that questioning soldiers is treason and workers are told to salute, to enlist, to die, to look away when the bodies pile up

We don’t have to look away, we recognize this system for what it is. A worker in Basra and a worker in Birmingham have the same enemy, the class that sends one to kill the other for oil, for territory, for power.

Every demand for accountability, prosecution, inquiry, leaked document, is a crack in the wall of impunity.

There is no reform that will make the SAS moral, there is no law that will stop an army built for state violence from committing state violence. The only answer is the abolition of the system that requires violence to maintain it. That means socialism, common ownership of the means of production, production for use and the end of the nation state and its armies.
A.T.

Sunday, May 29, 2022

World view: Courting trouble (1998)

From the September 1998 issue of the Socialist Standard

On numerous occasions in recent years, this journal has highlighted the shortcomings of world summits and conferences, revealing just what impotent set-ups they are when it comes to addressing issues of global importance. The Rome Conference, which concluded after five weeks of negotiations, giving preliminary approval to set up an international criminal court pursuing “the worst crimes in the world”, proved to be no exception.

After more than a month of intense debate, representatives of 160 states and 200 NGOs agreed, on 18 July, to a permanent global court charged with investigating and prosecuting crimes of genocide and aggression, war crimes and crimes against humanity. On the face of it, however, the newly-formed International Criminal Court (ICC) looks to have a precarious and somewhat dubious future.

While 120 votes for the implementation of the treaty carried the day, there were seven votes against the ICC. Although the vote went unrecorded, those that admitted to an objection were China, the USA and Israel (the latter two, interestingly, have sided alone on countless occasions against majority decisions at the UN). Those strongly suspected of opposition, while keeping schtum about the fact, include Libya, Algeria, and Yemen—the type of company you’d hardly expect the US and Israel to keep!

Many have argued that the ICC is flawed from the start. US Senator Jesse Helms announced it would come into effect over his dead body and US Ambassador, and delegate to the Rome Conference, David Scheffler announced that the US would “actively oppose” the court from its inception (Guardian, 15 July). The US had hoped its military forces would get immunity for their actions overseas, but the conference was having none of it. The US was of course all too aware that past instances of US aggression—the invasion of Panama and Grenada, the bombings of Libya, the mass bombing of Laos and Cambodia etc.—could mean officials all the way up the chain of command being called to account. And it doesn’t take much reasoning to work out why so much hope was pinned on US acceptance of the court—they after all have a bigger say in global affairs than any other country.

Further restraints and loopholes make one wonder why the court was set up at all. The use of nuclear weapons, for instance, is not to be judged a “war crime”—something India’s delegates vehemently argued against—and Gulf states reserve the “right” to use chemical and biological weapons. Suddenly, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan’s words that “the victims of past crimes and potential victims are watching us; they will not forgive us if we fail” sound hollow.

Whether or not the ICC will ever become operational is anyone’s guess. For one thing, it can only come into existence once the treaty has been ratified by 60 countries and some delegates have suggested this may take up to five years. Undoubtedly, those countries known for their human rights abuses will be reluctant to sign up. Moreover, a further ICC clause means that the court is powerless to act if a crime is committed in the same country as the perpetrator.

One is left wondering why thunderous applause greeted conference chairman Canadian Phillippe’s remarks that “we cannot let ourselves destroy the essentials of an international criminal court that gives hope to the entire world” (Observer, 19 July).

For a century now, the world has tried to codify war—to attempt to bring in etiquette in the art of murder—The Hague (1899 and 1907), Nuremberg and Tokyo (1945-6), Geneva (1949) and up to the tribunals that followed conflicts in Bosnia and Rwanda. Yet for all these attempts at curbing bellicosity, the 20th Century will end with 220 millions having lost their lives through war in the previous 100 years and we will enter the 21st Century with more weapons of mass destruction stockpiled than at any other time in our history.

And would an ICC trial bring the dead back? No. No more than Nuremberg did; no more than Tokyo prevented further atrocities.

Surely those five hot weeks spent in Rome could have been better used finding out what causes war, indeed the cause of other crimes against humanity, looking for the real villain of the peace?

For is the capitalist system not guilty? Does its profit-driven market-oriented logic not cause war? Does it not allow millions to die of starvation while food is destroyed? Does 13 million children dying from curable diseases each year not amount to a genocide? Is global poverty in the face of the means for abundance not a crime against humanity? Yes! A thousand times yes.

And it is we, the world’s working class, all of us victims in some way, who are the jury that must try the present order. For humanity’s sake, we must find capitalism guilty, with no recommendation of mercy.
John Bissett