“The supreme international crime”

Definitions of terrorism in western countries are remarkably similar. According to Chomsky, writing in 2006, official definitions include that terrorism is

“ the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature…through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear,” typically targeting civilians. The British government’s definition is about the same: “Terrorism is the use, or threat, of action which is violent, damaging or disrupting, and is intended to influence the government or intimidate the public and is for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, or ideological cause.”

In Australia’s Crimes Act

“ terrorist act means an action or threat of action where: … the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause; and … the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of … (i) coercing, or influencing by intimidation, the government of the Commonwealth or a State, Territory or foreign country, or of part of a State, Territory or foreign country; or (ii) intimidating the public or a section of the public.”

As Chomsky continues,

“ These definitions seem fairly clear and close to ordinary usage. There also seems to be general agreement that they are appropriate when discussing the terrorism of enemies.

But a problem at once arises. These definitions yield an entirely unacceptable consequence: it follows that the US is a leading terrorist state, dramatically so during the Reaganite war on terror. Merely to take the most uncontroversial case, Reagan’s state-directed terrorist war against Nicaragua was condemned by the World Court, backed by two Security Council resolutions (vetoed by the US, with Britain politely abstaining). Another completely clear case is Cuba, where the record by now is voluminous, and not controversial. And there is a long list beyond them.”

This is all very well. But, Chomsky points out, there is an act which is perceived by international courts, beginning at least as early as Nuremberg, as being even worse than terrorism and that is the much higher crime of Aggression.

“ The concept of aggression was defined clearly enough by Justice Jackson at Nuremberg in terms that were basically reiterated in an authoritative General Assembly resolution. An “aggressor”, Jackson proposed to the Tribunal, is a state that is the first to commit such actions as “Invasion of its armed forces, with or without a declaration of war, of the territory of another State,” or “Provision of support to armed bands formed in the territory of another State, or refusal, notwithstanding the request of the invaded State, to take in its own territory, all the measures in its power to deprive those bands of all assistance or protection.” The first provision unambiguously applies to the US-UK invasion of Iraq. The second, just as clearly, applies to the US war against Nicaragua. However, we might give the current incumbents in Washington and their mentors the benefit of the doubt, considering them guilty only of the lesser crime of international terrorism, on a huge and unprecedented scale.

 

It may also be recalled that aggression was defined at Nuremberg as “the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole” – all the evil in the tortured land of Iraq that flowed from the US-UK invasion, for example, and in Nicaragua too, if the charge is not reduced to international terrorism. And in Lebanon, and all too many other victims who are easily dismissed on grounds of wrong agency – right to the present.

So this definition of aggression takes in the US, the UK and Australia in the invasion of Iraq. The government of the day, in Australia’s case the Howard government, is therefore guilty of the highest war crime of Aggression. No, I don’t think Howard and his mates are about to be sent a summons to this effect. Note, however, that the high-minded definition of Aggression, under which he would be found guilty if tried, was formulated by a US judge, Justice Jackson, Chief of Counsel for the United States, who, sentencing Germans to death at Nuremberg, said,

“ If certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us….We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well.”

Under this definition Israel would be guilty of Aggression for its recent invasion of Gaza. So could Hamas be guilty of “refusal … to take in its own territory, all the measures in its power to deprive those bands [of rocket-launching militants] of all assistance or protection” and so would Iran for “provision of support to armed bands formed in the territory of another State”.

Time to powder up the wigs?