Human shield action to Iraq

About 7 pages (2,152 words)

Opposition to...
Part of a series on Anti-War topics

Military Action in Iran Iraq War War in Afghanistan War on Terrorism Landmines Vietnam War Nuclear armament World War II World War I Second Boer War American Civil War War of 1812 American Revolutionary War
Agents of opposition
Anti-war organizations Conscientious objectors Draft dodgers Peace movement Peace churches Peace camp
Related ideologies
Anti-imperialism Antimilitarism Appeasement Nonviolence Pacifism Pacificism
Media
Books • Films • Songs
Politics Portal · • • e

Human shield action to Iraq was a group of people who travelled to Iraq to act as human shields with the purpose of preventing the U.S.-led coalition troops from bombing certain locations during the 2003 Invasion of Iraq.

1 Chronology
2 Analysis and effects of the human shields
- 2.1 Criticisms
3 See also
4 References
5 External links

Chronology

Human shields black bus, 25 January, 2003

Kenneth O'Keefe, one of the primary organisers of the event

In December 2002 a group of dedicated anti-war activists gathered in London and set out a plan to launch a new form of non-violent direct action. Frustrated that traditional forms of protest were ineffective, they developed the concept of the Human Shield Movement and on January 25, 2003 a group of 50 volunteers left London and headed for Baghdad with the intention of acting as human shields.^[1] The convoy travelled through Europe and Turkey by bus to pick up like-minded people along the way, totalling roughly 75 people.^[2] It has been estimated that 200 to 500 people eventually made their way into Iraq before the U.S. invasion in March.^[3] ^[4]

Upon reaching Baghdad, a strategy was formed on the assumption that there would not be enough human shields to avert an invasion.^[5] This was to involve the voluntary deployment of activists to strategic locations throughout Baghdad, and possibly Basra, in an effort to avert the bombing of those locations. There was much internal debate about which locations were to be chosen.^[6]

Human shields greeted as they cross the border into Iraq, 15 February, 2003

Eventually volunteers deployed to Al Daura Electrical Plant, Baghdad South Electrical Plant, 7th April Water Treatment Plant, Al Daura Water Treatment Plant, Tejio Food Silo, Al Daura Oil Refinery and Al Mamun Telecommunications Facility. ^[7] During these deployments a small group of volunteers led by Gordon Sloan of New Zealand took on the job of vetting sites to ensure they were not in close vicinity to military facilities. This was to be the cause of some conflict with their Iraqi host, Dr. Abdul Razak al-Hashimi, Saddam Hussein's spokesman during the first Gulf War, and head of the Friendship, Peace and Solidarity organisation which was hosting the activists, under the authority of the Baathist government.^[8] With an invasion imminent, Hashimi became frustrated by Sloan's explorations, called a meeting, and asked the activists to deploy to sites or leave Iraq.^[9] Hashimi's meeting is said by some of the leading volunteers to have been a costly political mistake. It was the trigger of much anxiety among the volunteers^[10] and negative reporting in the media, including mis-reports that activists were being forced to deploy to military sites. ^[11] It was also at this point that some of the British volunteers were to return to London along with the two double-decker red buses and their owner, which were originally meant to have left soon after arrival.^[12] The paranoia that rose up around Hashimi's announcement and the reports that the buses were leaving Iraq slowed the influx of activists into Iraq, and caused some of those already there to leave Iraq, believing they had lost credibility through Hashimi's actions. The Iraqi authorities, on the other hand, saw Kenneth O'Keefe, Sloan, and other organisers as constantly challenging Hashimi's authority and being deliberately disruptive, and that some would-be shields were taking too long to deploy to sites. Five of the 'trouble makers' were then asked to leave the country.^[13] Many activists stayed on, however, and continued to shield the chosen sites. It is claimed that eighty human shields stayed in the Baghdad area throughout the bombing campaign. ^[14]

Analysis and effects of the human shields

Human shields meeting in Iraq, 1 March, 2003, at the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad, Iraq

On February 26, 2003, Senior CNN Pentagon Correspondent, Jamie McIntyre, commented that the "Pentagon says they will try to work around human shields" as long as they were not deployed to military sites.^[15] Of all the shielded sites, only one—arguably a legitimate target under the Geneva Conventions—was eventually bombed, the Al Mamun Telecommunications Facility, one day after the human shields pulled out of it.^[16] Article 51 of the Geneva Conventions, "Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (Protocol 1)," appears to prohibit civilians such as human shields from being present, "to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations," however, Article 52 specifically prohibits attacking civilian infrastructure unless it is of military value, and Article 54 specifically prohibits attacking food and water equipment, unless it is of military value and does not cause civilians to starve or be forced to move. ^[17] For violating a U.S. prewar travel ban, human shields from the U.S. faced fines, loss of retirement benefits, and/or imprisonment.^[18] On the day after the departure of the human shield convoy, White House Chief of Staff, Andrew Card, released a statement condemning the action and Fox News reported that U.S. leaders were considering prosecuting U.S. human shields for war crimes. ^[19]

Criticisms

The Human Shield action was criticised for what many saw as being an overt act of aiding Saddam Hussein’s regime. Charges of the shields being "dupes" and "useful idiots" for Saddam were widespread in the U.S. The human shields countered that while various governments around the globe carry out acts of aggression, the human shield action saw fit to defend against this one. Human Rights Watch stated that "civilians acting as human shields, whether voluntary or not, contribute indirectly to the war capability of a state. Their actions do not pose a direct risk to opposing forces. Because they are not directly engaged in hostilities against an adversary, they retain their civilian immunity from attack." Human Rights Watch also noted that the use by a state of human shields, voluntary or not, is a violation of international law, citing Protocol I of the First Geneva Convention.^[20] Jonah Goldberg claimed after a debate with O'Keefe, that "O'Keefe and his friends are objectively in favour of Saddam Hussein and his murderous regime because they believe he is uniquely worth defending with their bodies. They may be brave, I guess, but they're still idiots, and I'm sure Saddam is grateful for them".^[21] Maria Ermanno, chairwoman of the Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society, cited reports that Iraqi officials were arranging transportation, accommodations and news conferences for the human shields and that they were being used for propaganda purposes by Saddam Hussein. "To go down to Iraq and live and act there on the regime's expense, then you're supporting a terrible dictator. I think that method is entirely wrong," Ermanno told Swedish Radio.^[22] The Iraqi regime was also criticised for encouraging and facilitating the human shield actions, since this was seen as violation of international law and Protocol I, article 20 of the Geneva Convention.