Why is it that very often on the net I accidentally come across information that has been current for years, is an important piece of political news with serious implications for the entire world, and yet I haven’t seen a word about it in the media – TV, major newspapers or radio?

Such is the case with the World Tribunal Movement which has just concluded another meeting in Istanbul, Turkey, disseminating suppressed information about the War in Iraq, using as its forum a mock trial of George Bush, Tony Blair and cooperating leaders for promoting and continuing the present disaster in the Middle East. Miles of words have been written, hours of time consumed on less important news. This has obviously been blocked from view in an effort to continue support for a war which is widely unpopular both at home and abroad.

Ordinarily the word “tribunal” brings on a chattering of teeth as we remember the horrid excesses of the Church of Rome in the Middle Ages. When preceded by the word “military” we are immediately reminded of the infringement of human rights involved in Mr. Bush’s current proposals for judging prisoners at Guantanamo and elsewhere.

But in 1967 the British philosopher, Bertrand Russell, used the civil tribunal when he called for an International War Crimes Tribunal on Vietnam which helped end that war by insisting on the application of international humanitarian law to rein-in the pro-war forces, calling worldwide public attention to military excesses like agent orange, napalm, cluster bombs and Mai Lai.

The present World Tribunal Movement is a similar organ of civil society, not an instrument of the state. It calls offenders to account though it has no power to coerce their participation. It calls upon victims to testify, investigates war crimes, educates the world’s people regarding suffering and injustice, and offers a forum for perpetrators to explain their actions even though the perpetrators refuse to present themselves. The tribunal’s conclusions are not merely condemnatory but are also followed by recommendations that point the way out of present difficulties. By not attending themselves, the perpetrators turn such civil procedures into “kangaroo” courts and then accuse them of being “kangaroo” courts – that is, trials where the accused cannot defend themselves.

“The primary purpose of such civil tribunals is to confirm the truth, not to discover it. Those who give testimony are those who have themselves been victimized, as well as experts in related issues. Its jurors are dedicated, informed and committed citizens of the world, not neutral, indifferent individuals looking for limelight or power.” (Richard Falk, as quoted by Brendan Smith in “The ‘Tribunal Movement’ Holds Court in Istanbul,” truthout.org, 6/26/05).

Such tribunals, sometimes called “non-military interventions,” are playing a significant role in peace-building today, even when there is little prospect of arresting major political figures involved. Just the issuing of internationally valid indictments is a step in the right direction, placing responsibility squarely on individual shoulders rather than allowing vague accusations to fall upon societies that may well have strongly objected to leaders’ decisions from the get-go. Guarding against creating scape-goats means that all accusations must be well-founded in fact.

To quote Hideaki Shinoda of Hiroshima University: “The new non-military form of intervention by the international community, international criminal tribunals, has invisible but important implications. The idea of the rule of law as a value to secure peace and justice is a key to constructing a stable society emerging after conflict.” (“Peace Building by the Rule of Law” – a Draft Paper presented at the 2001 Annual Convention of the International Studies Association in Chicago.)

“There have been twenty similar tribunals held in South Korea, Paris, Brussels, New York and elsewhere around the world over the last three years, and more are coming up in the immediate future,” says Professor Falk, who is author of more than thirty books on international humanitarian law. They fill a gap where “governments and the United Nations are unable or unwilling to act, or even speak.”

Their aim is to educate, particularly the people of the United States whose media are withholding crucial information in the interests of promoting the war in Iraq, according to Brendan Smith, co-author of In the Name of Democracy, published by Metropolitan/Holt, 2005. The Tribunal Movement is pushing for the re-establishment of the rule of law in America and is one branch of the worldwide pro-democracy movement.

A Panel of Advocates organized the 54 presentations in Istanbul. The advocates “came from diverse backgrounds and the presentations included some incisive analyses of international law issues by respected world experts such as Christina Chinkin of the London School of Economics, two former UN assistant secretaries general, Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponek, several seemingly credible eye-witnesses who gave accounts of the devastation and cruelty of the occupation, Tim Goodrich, a former American soldier and co-founder of Iraq Veterans Against the War, and a number of renowned intellectuals.” (Richard Falk, “The World Speaks on Iraq” in The Nation, August 1, 2005)

Even before Iraq, a World Tribunal held in Tokyo focused on Peace and Justice for Afghanistan in February, 2002. “In March the first fact-finding mission concerned with wartime suffering investigated conditions in Afghan refugee camps in the Peshawar region,” according to a report at JapanFocus.org by Akira Maeda. In July and August the second fact-finding mission conducted additional research, while in September a third studied conditions in Kabul and Kalahar. Reports from this on-the-spot fieldwork, plus reports from non-governmental organizations and journalists, and lectures by scholars of international law and political science will be aired in open sessions in various places.

Another aspect of the “tribunal movement” is the “Council of Wise Women (Crones),” a part of the Boston Social Forum held July 15, 2004 to hear testimony on crimes of violence against girls and women. They indicted the federal government and the state for failing to put violence against women and girls as a top priority, believing that terrorism begins at home, at the workplace and in our own communities.

If civil tribunals are open to controversy on grounds of airing only “one side” of the evidence, it is because those who are accused seldom respond to the call to present their “side.” It would seem obvious that, when the opportunity is given, if they had nothing to hide they would be happy to have such broad public platforms from which to present their cases.


<back | top^