warcrimes

before i start an article called wo3 i feel inspired to write about war crimes.
In some ways i have been thinking over it already for a long time, and now the situation we face a court procedure between russia and georgia serves as an example.

Not in the last place because the scale is handsome, comprehendable. An example as Irak where different bombing campaigns immediatly killed over a million ppl. (an estimate but not an irrealist one) ofcourse is more sensitive. Do you, like many usians, perceive the fake WMD as *the* excuse, then the guilty ones walk completely free, and are still occupying the iraki nation. So the example may be better, but harder to explain and validate.

I do not choose the georgian problem because it is of the bigger i can think of, only because the determination russia shows for justice in the case , may proof me still right later, wich is a thing you could not expect eg. maliki or karzai hold the greatest interests in.

So i choose the subject of georgia because i think it has the same relevance to the russians, an action for transparance, good international relations worldwide, and about the responsibility of *all* nations to abide to similar laws.

Ofcourse Russia could that way show her system of democracy is not necessarilly less effective or representative then the european or usian. That is sth. i am rili curious after myself. Altho i am quite aware the socalled "democracy's" actually don't hold up to direct representation. (it could be hard to do worse)
however this will not be the subject of the procedures, the subject will be measure and proof of warcrimes.

measure and proof of warcrimes.

Basically the definition of warcrimes has two objectives, the first is to prosecute great "evil": inhumane deeds, events. Examples are: torture, ethnic violence in a context of armed conflict, elimination of people and groups of people, the targetting of civilians, neglicence towards victims, etc. etc. It is almost easier to think of a new warcrime then to sum it up.(the elimination of whole army's of defenceless enemy's i think is also one the nato can be blamed for)

Prevailing brutality and violence, is the second objective. That means single incidents can comprise warcrimes, it would be brutal if torture was okay if you did it to one or two people only.

A result is the use of the term warcrimes is still complicated, and perhaps that is why the different party's have been so eager to grossly implicate another so often.

The answer to all this is integrity. The use of singular and identic measure to crime. That is not always precisely the same as identical punishment perhaps, it is about keeping things in a context, having a future possibillity to compare, and doing justice to victims.

This integrity will not exist without transparance, openess, unbiased reporting, plain and fair numbers, and equally thorough checks on all party's involved.

It is simply so that each participant taking part in censoring is indicated, and lost all credibility to judge or accuse. There should be no ground for censoring if there is no implications of guilt of the censor.

As such, all major party's in these kinds of procedures are suspect(1), it appears to always be the nato, europe or usa that get's their enemy's filed for warcrimes and crimes against humanity. Meanwhile each of these applies censorship, in every form.

That means the nations and alliances have no credibility, even a nation as russia with a better record of mutuality in the accusations, can for the performace of justice only be labelled as partial. (ie. it will underestimate it's lethality and may overestimate the impropriateness of the reaction)
To be straight one will always have to keep comparing with the other, georgia and her accomplices (if any, but there is: the nato is a military partner that has eg. been arming georgia with more lethal weaponry ).

in this case the nato shows to have no credibility at all. The media are and have been stricly censored to show an anti russian picture that does no right to the situation and leaves us wondering what else happens evrywhere else in the world.

However fortunately there is a theoretical solution to this, the independence and power of justice.

Paralel there are theoretical solutions to the violent models that are now implemented. Usia even manages to be proud to be a "counterinsurgent" army.
"counter insurgent" means it targets a population or at least a significant part of it persee. A warcrime, and action that will provocate many smaller or bigger warcrimes. in this example usia provocates them, and in many cases the basic principle of justice dedicates that the reaction bears an element of selfdefence.

Provocation does not need to be violent, it can come in ways of discrimination, and (quite common) arming up, or tightening repressive measures, and probably in many more. However in terms of justice, and terms of warcrimes, crimes against humanity and the likes, ofcourse no provocation at all exists in wich the element of violence is not represented.

See what we are getting at is that a term that doesn't directly connotate to "warcrimes" namely the term violence, has absolute implications. Then justice can only be done when violence is measured accordingly.

There must be a great degree of certainty and objectivity , that is mutuality , transparance, a horrible, nearly undoable task. From that it follows the measures should be quite high, bombs on a town eg. that is inhabited, like tshikivalli or baghdad immediatly are a degree of 'warcriminal violence' , that would justify the other party so much atrocity and represaille in legal terms of selfdefence, that a definition of warcrime cannot come without a direct verdict against such incidents.

Only if these cases are solved, these matters settled, what follows could be considered a warcrime of the kind that can be complained about by the other party, or anyone. (besides ofcourse on humanist, humane ground) (2)

do you understand me?

warcrimes yet (possibly) perpetrated through, in and about georgia

in the practical case of georgia, from my meagre informations i can't judge evrything, but i can give examples. Ofcourse they will be contrive.(complicated,dense and interactive)

one should start with the beginning. For me it is guesswork, perhaps for example agreements from CIS or elsewhere must be counted. When these have military implications, or implications for the status wich of ethnic groups (ossetians, abchazians), wich ofcourse there are it must be taken in account in terms of being a incident with "violent ("war"criminal) implications.

long story short, let's weigh this apropriatly, that is proportionally, to measures of mutuality and reasonability (not to mention human rights).

human rights however need fixes to. The "democracy" pretence of freedom eg. should not be the measure, becus it is actually a very desinformed and biased project.
like warcrimes cannot be fixed without transparance, questions and accusations of human rights can not.

dr.Rice 's statements that russia used disproportional violence for example are a warcrime. There is no transparance, no evidence, no objectivity, not even free media,
her statement is then a very violent one, a usual judge would punish a perpetrator that accuses the victim harder.

To her luck i must add, she is not the only one. Bush for example had no better to offer. I just don't think bush is a relevant person. Heh, miss Rice has everything,
including an amazingly valuable psotion as "most succesfull cuddle negroe in the world" a possible all times champion. I certainly allow her the honour.

Another detail here is that i don't know how she is used or abused in that position,
there might be elements of racism etc. that she can't check and compromise her role beyond herself. champion cuddle negroe not for no reason.

Obama is not a cuddle negroe, he is a horde runner on a track that is better for your legs then the sport itself.
cheers O.! sorry i can't endure Condi's escalations.

k so these are only examples. diplomatical and political abuse of the unclarity about what consists provocation, intimidation, escalation, witnessing set aside, we could still clinically sum up the directly to the ground related events that give real reason for thought.

there is the long history of georgian interference with abchazia and ossetia, the peaceforces, some russian interests in containing georgia, saaksvillis persona,

saaksviile is for one thing indicated because he uses a populist rhetoric.
He is also indicated since he didn't manage to give any relativation in any case to a russian behaviour that was modest, untill he was regarded for all his lies.

That's why from the very start saaksvilli is suspect. What he does to the georgians compares to what the taliban wants, to what the serbians stand accused of, to what the croatians did, (make it a do usually, when they got away with it), it relates to what saddam held up to his people, its the way usa and iran control their populace,
pakistani politics suffers heavily from the phenomenon, sarkozy used it, it is something that has an impact on less developed nations (but not so much the most marginal people) very strongly often, it's what hitler did:

Nationalism.


on a sidenote russia labels his digressions from humane as on par with H. and stalin.
No smoke without a fire? in the very least there must be something against him they hold don't you think?
in the first phases of the war the georgian offensive was genocidal and ethnic clensing, the target was to drive as many south ossetians as possible into russia, and eliminate any resistance, the means where the ones of the nato offensive against baghdad probably more modern, albeit probably supplemented by older material.

the (nationalist) georgian army has a sinister history of operations against civilians , an element of nationalism is that it prohibits the development of moderate views on surrounding not completely advantegeous ethnic groups.

as such it apparently didn't improve, the methods were genocidal because completely disproportionate violence was applied (miss Rice?), because civil concentrations were targeted, 10 villages completely ruined, the main city bombarded over at least a week, the occupation of that city prolonged, (the russian were very quick with telling georgia to pull back), and after that there was no real cooperation to the ceasefire for about a week from the georgian political side, (sorry if we tried to save soldiers lifes), still now saaksvilli routinely falls back into acquisations.

I think what should be clear is that this is the incident, and that these complaints should have taken seriously in the nato=world. Not in the media, and not by the political representatives. Obviously the media are handed several kinds of restrictions and requirements, very possibly there is a permanent censoring going on,
the care with what journalists express what they still can suggests this.

seriously in terms of warcrimes and genocide. The only point that could be made from the nato side was a discussion about proportion.

when is something a genocide? does 2000 people and complete ethnic cleansing of 100000 people suffice, didn't abchazia suffice?
do military victims count somehow?

apparently these questions of proportion are the ones the nato does not want to hold up in the eyes of the world..

not so strange, arming nations, blasting them back to the stone age, causing every afghan and large parts of pakistan to flee, the relevance of modern arms and the development of bases around russia (and other nations) in fact over the whole world,
wouldn't stand the light of truth.

Nothing russia can be accused of the nato hasn't done, and over plenty things that georgia did the nato did punish or prosecute, serbians, russia or iraki's with international courts.

So i think the russians are out to hand the world a chance for peace again, if the world listens up we can start to get some definition and definite agreement on the
what's and whatsnot's of warcrimes and escalation.

(finally seriously start to disarm the world)

(1) also the courts of justice
(2) unless proportion would level the victim would remain justified to a much greater extend in any action then the agressor wich in the case of the usa has not happened since their own civil war. russia what is now and as an inheritant of the soviet unions moral ground can either just be considered (self) defensive or a relative ground for blame, relative to georgia here, but also relative to accepting a unipolair world through her history. Like i said these measures would become very contrive.

Conclusion:
With the current methods and practice it is impossible to objectively apply value to warcrimes, they should be thoroughly revaluated and appreciated in their diplomatical and political contexts , because there lays much of the responsability.
The dilligent system , the delegate justice that deals an unipolair quality, must be objectified, that can only happen through transparance, including a historic perspective, a freedom of press (in the sense of reporting, not misrepresenting),
an unfreedom of media to misrepresent even. Wich is "free" media's juridical definition: the duty to report every truth, not just some or something else.
to allow extrajuridical exposes there must be transparant and reciprocal proof.
The courts need to become objective, a working model could be to involve judges and jurists from exactly these involved matches, a touchy subject for justice itself.

It's very relevant that not only the constitution but also the proceedings and procedure of the courts need to apply transparance and reciprocity.

There will be so many guilty partys and persons, states might consider to stop armsraces and wars. The usa/nato and her closer allies, must reconsider their status in terms of warcrime. As a result of that their validity in a discussion of geopolitical determination like georgia's appears moot.