Thursday, March 29, 2007
Iran and the Geneva Convention
Four years ago, Slate's Jack Shafer -- and a host of others -- made a pretty good argument that putting prisoners of war on television violated the Geneva Conventions. The stories arose when Donald Rumsfeld complained that Iraq had violated the Conventions when it put American prisoners on state television for propaganda purposes, and half the world's NGOs used the moment to tag him back for Gitmo (where, among other things, the press had been allowed to photograph the prisoners on parade).
Flash forward to Iran's most recent hostage crisis. The Iranians dressed up one of the British sailors -- Faye Turney -- in Islamic garb, put her on television, and got her to choak out an obviously coerced "apology." Is there any theory under which Iran has not violated the Geneva Convention?
Yes, apparently.
The third Geneva Convention bans subjecting prisoners of war to intimidation, insults or ``public curiosity.'' Because there is no armed conflict between Iran and Britain, the captives would not technically be classified as prisoners of war.
There is, of course, "armed conflict between Iran and Britain," and has been ever since Iran started arming the Shiites in southern Iraq. By any measure, that was an act of war initiating armed conflict against Britain. It is just that Britain has decided that it is in its best interests to pretend that it is not at war with Iran, and that is decidedly true.
This incident would seem to reveal yet another structural shortcoming in the Geneva Conventions. Iran has taken British sailors prisoner, but in the absence of an "armed conflict" is free to humiliate them. Under the logic of the Geneva Convention, Iran's obligations to treat these prisoners lawfully would attach only if Britain attacked Iran, perhaps in retaliation, or otherwise openly declared that a state of "armed conflict" existed between the two countries. It seems perverse that Britain should have to attack Iran in order to trigger the protections of the Geneva Convention for its sailors, but that seems to be the conclusion at the end of The Guardian's reasoning.
15 Comments:
By 
, at
Thu Mar 29, 09:41:00 AM:
One, this is The Guardian we're talking about.
Two, the byline on the piece is "Nasser Karimi".
Three, those who believe the oafs running the show in Iran care one whit about the Geneva Convention are the same folks who believe a lovely little fairy put that quarter under the pillow where they left the tooth.
Four, discussing and writing about the Geneva Convention has proven to be an incredibly durable passtime considering how utterly foolish the concept of putting words on paper to "govern" acts of war is. Here's how war actually works in practice: when one is drawn into war, one ruthlessly and mercilessly commits repeated and accelerating acts of aggression against one's foe until that foe quits fighting. Always been that way, always will be.
By 
RandomThoughts, at
Thu Mar 29, 10:21:00 AM:
Probably no one we would ever fight would follow the Geneva Convention.
That is expected. As a former Marine, I can live with that.
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Thu Mar 29, 12:36:00 PM:
Locker Room - yeah, well then where does the quarter come from, smartypants? Sheesh.
By Escort81, at
Thu Mar 29, 04:24:00 PM:
I think the Guardian piece is a news article (with an AP byline), not an opinion piece. Probably, the graph TH cited should have disclosed the reporter's source for that interpretation, presumably from someone with a background in international law. That interpretation would no doubt be subject to some dispute, which should then also be included in a "news" article.
It's disturbing that it is unclear whether this is a news or opinion piece, but welcome to the modern world.
Furthermore (with respect to the top of the post), the issue, as I understood it, has never been whether the people in Gitmo were POWs with full Geneva rights (a tough argument since they weren't in uniform), but whether they ought to be treated as such anyway, because a) that would help the U.S. maintain its standing with its allies; b) it would be consistent with the America's self-image as fair and just; and c) any information gleaned from aggressive interrogation would not be worth the forgone benefits of a+b. My main problem with Gitmo was its location. It was sited there to try to be outside the jurisdiction of U.S. courts, ultimately to no avail. It's no fun for the U.S. personnel there (my father stopped in there 65 years ago during his U.S. Navy service and thought it was the worst part of the Caribbean he'd seen). Put it in a Navy base in the U.S., perhaps one that would otherwise be slated for closing by BRAC, and get rid of the Gitmo name and "brand."
Needless to say, the Mullahs have no concept of any of the Geneva Conventions and will use their prisoners as they see fit, to gain whatever propaganda points they can, primarily at home. I think I am beginning to understand that this is as much for their domestic political consumption as anything else. This piece in Time Magazine has an interesting quote:
"The radicals are totally energized by what is going on right now," says a professor of political science in Iran who wishes to remain anonymous because of his ties to government officials. "The moderates have all scattered and gone quiet."
Last night, I believed that the sailors would be released soon -- that all Iran needed was an admission that the RIBS were in their waters. The Brits could have responded, well, here are the Lat/Lon GPS points where the RIBS were, and now we understand that Iran has old claims on certain parts of the northern PG, and that these are "disputed waters" in the sense that there is no specific written agreement on where the maritime borders are, and we look forward to participating in a U.N. special commission with other interested parties and nations of the region to finalize these borders, blah, blah, etc.
Now, with Tehran walking back from its signal that it would release Turney (hopefully without making her wear a head scarf again), and with the official who made that statement about her release claiming he was "misquoted" (this gets into Baghdad Bob territory), and the UK taking its case to the UN and circulating a draft to the SC, it looks like this may drag on for a while.
Once the Mullahs believe that they have wrung out all of the domestic political value of holding the U.K. personnel, they'll be turned over, spinning it as showing how humanitarian they are. The question is whether they want to pander to some of the IRGC and other hardliners and put the sailors on trial, and what Blair's reaction to that would be.
Obviously, the entire seizure was a set-up by the IRGC, as this description of the incident from the BBC indicates:
"Outgunned
A senior officer at the Ministry of Defence justified the lack of reaction by the British personnel. Their rules of engagement, he said, were adequate for self-defence, but they were taken by surprise as they left the ship they had inspected.
Two and then four more Iranian boats with far heavier weapons - rocket launchers and heavy machine guns against rifles and pistols - came up after indicating a friendly attitude.
Some gaps in British preparations were evident from what the officer said. A Lynx helicopter monitoring the boarding had earlier returned to the mother ship HMS Cornwall, which could not get nearer because of shallow water, and by the time the Cornwall realised what has happening, the British were on the Iranian side.
Iranian boats had about "three minutes" in which they made their approach, according to the officer, but nobody on the British side saw them."
Setting aside that the Brits could have had better situational awareness, the fact that the first two IRGC boats indicated a friendly attitude tells me that they were setting a trap. Duh.
For the Iranians, it would have been easy enough to get on VHF 16 and say "move," whether you think the Brits are clearly in your waters or disputed waters, and relations between the (non-IRGC) Iranian Navy had been reasonably cordial and professional since 2005, according to at least one Royal Navy officer.
The seizure itself, its location, and the way it was executed, leads to the conclusion that it was a planned op. Again, duh. Recognizing that the people who planned such an operation may not care about Geneva one bit also seems self-evident.
By , at
Thu Mar 29, 04:49:00 PM:
The sailors aren't coming for years if that. Period. Iran won't let them go. They'll drag out ransom payments (predictably, Iran now has relayed it's demands for all Brit troops out of Iraq immediately) and such and Tony Blair will grovel and cave just like Jimmy Carter.
No one in the West wishes to fight, they'd rather surrender and grovel. The French are busy surrendering the heart of Paris to (very likely Iranian agents) "youths" and the Brits are calling for apologies and surrender (Labor Party bigwigs associated with Brown, Guardian, BBC etc) and the British Public is on the side of the Mullahs. Don't forget Britain has millions of Muslim voters who see this as a great victory on the road to Sharia in Britain (which they'll get too eventually).
In the US the Dems are calling for surrender and it's only a matter of time.
This war is lost, and the only question is will the Iranians or others over-play their hand and nuke the US before a Dem President comes in.
Weakness invites aggression and the West is too weak. Inviting that aggression. A Dem President would of course respond the the Nuking of the US by apologizing and groveling. Bush would at least nuke someone.
But Blair is certainly Jimmy Carter part Deaux.
By Purple Avenger, at
Thu Mar 29, 07:20:00 PM:
The international community...
Won't do anything about a massive slaughter in Darfur, so its not going to do anything about a handful of unlucky Brits.
They could all be hung and the international community will sit on its hands.
By Dawnfire82, at
Thu Mar 29, 07:36:00 PM:
Wait wait wait wait wait...
So. Confirmed terrorists, who don't belong to any state whatsoever and who have made a hobby of killing civilians in order to coerce governments should get POW rights. But uniformed members of a sovereign power seized at gunpoint at sea (not terrible different from a counter-terrorist sting) don't?
What a load of shit.
You see, this is what happens when journalists appoint themselves as experts on matter which they have no business discussing. The intricacies of international law, for instance.
"Because there is no armed conflict between Iran and Britain, the captives would not technically be classified as prisoners of war."
Bull. The state of armed conflict was initiated as soon as this seizure operation commenced. That no shots were fired (that I know of) is a technicality. Uniformed personnel of one nation have taken uniformed personnel of another nation prisoner in a naval engagement. What the hell else would you call them?
This just in. A company of US Army Rangers have crossed the Canadian border and kidnapped a platoon of Canadian soldiers on a training exercise and taken them to Fort Leavenworth for interrogation. A US spokesman has refused all appeals for their return unless Canada admits that their troops had crossed into North Dakota, and has declared that since there is no state of armed conflict between the US and Canada, they will not be accorded Prisoner of War status.
Somehow, I think that Mr. Nasser Karimi (that author of the Guardian article) would disagree.
By , at
Thu Mar 29, 11:36:00 PM:
What else do you expect from a contry that finances and supports terrorists and is still part of the evil UN
By , at
Fri Mar 30, 01:08:00 AM:
But the Iranian attack was an act of war, thus the geneva convention does apply.
By TigerHawk, at
Fri Mar 30, 07:38:00 AM:
But anonymous, both Iran and Britain are essentially taking the position that it is a factual dispute.
By TM Lutas, at
Fri Mar 30, 12:03:00 PM:
Absent some common sense and decency by the current regime in Iran, I think that the UK will ultimately take the US way out and elect someone at their next opportunity so scarily belligerent that the Iranians will release their captives before his installation guarantees war. From the little I can tell from this side of the Atlantic, Gordon Brown simply isn't scary enough.
When is the next general election in the UK?
By , at
Fri Mar 30, 01:37:00 PM:
Perhaps we should take Scrappleface's advice (http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2538) and trade Jimmy Carter for the hostages.
By , at
Fri Mar 30, 02:45:00 PM:
If it's not war, is kidnapping a criminal act? If the Iranians are not violating the Geneva Conventions, are they violating international laws and should be brought to Europe's International Criminal Courts? Or are the Geneva Conventions and International Criminal Court shams to hamstring the US only?
By Escort81, at
Fri Mar 30, 03:08:00 PM:
The legal editor of the Telegraph says that The Iranian handling of the prisoners could have broken international humanitarian law.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Mar 31, 12:23:00 PM:
I think this whole episode has elegantly demonstrated something that I say all the time; there is no such thing as international law (as most people claim to understand it) because no one is both able and willing to enforce it. 15 run of the mill sailors taken for a diplomatic PR stunt wouldn't be worth it if it did.
