Sino-Indian War and World Tribunal on Iraq: Difference between pages

Revision as of 00:09, 29 September 2005

Revision as of 19:06, 23 November 2005

Line 1:

{{Anti-war topics}}

The '''Sino-Indian war''' was a short [[border]] [[war]] between [[India]] and the [[People's Republic of China]] (PRC), the world's two [[List of countries by population|most populous countries]], which took place in late [[1962]]. It was triggered by a dispute over the [[Himalayas|Himalayan]] border in the [[Aksai Chin]] and resulted in a Chinese victory. The disputed area was strategic for China as it contained a major road between [[Tibet]] and [[Xinjiang]]. It remains one of the largest military conflicts at such a high altitude, combat taking place at over 14,000 feet, [http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/CJB.htm] the other being the [[Kargil War]] of [[1999]].

The '''World Tribunal on Iraq''' ('''WTI''') is a "[[people's court]]" consisting of unelected intellectuals, human rights campaigners and [[non-governmental organization]]s. It sprung from the anti-war movement and is modelled on the [[Russel Tribunal]] of the American movement against the [[Vietnam War]]. It counts among its supporters [[India]]n author [[Arundhati Roy]] and [[United Nations]] assistant general secretary [[Denis Halliday]], though consciously avoids a hierarchical structure. The WTI routinely finds that the coalition forces in [[Iraq]] are guilty of [[war crimes]] and violations of the [[Geneva Conventions]]. Criticized as a "kangaroo court" by supporters of the war, it receives less coverage in the [[United States]] than in the [[Middle East]] and [[Europe]].

Whether or not there would be any case to answer, and whatever the hypothesised outcome of such a case might be, the political reality is that this is unlikely to happen since few countries have both the political will and strength to sponsor and support any such enquiry. Accordingly a series of hearings is taking place under the title of the "World Tribunal on Iraq" with the purposes of:

==Causes of the War==

* Hearing evidence in respect of any claim that the launch of the war in Iraq was a criminal act.

The border between [[British Raj|British India]] and Tibet had never been marked clearly. The Survey of India by the British mapped Aksai Chin and the government put up boundary markers, but administrative borders were further south. The main British claim was the [[McMahon Line]] which had been drawn up during the [[Simla Conference]] of [[1914]] and agreed to by the Tibetans. However, owing to various disagreements with the British, the Qing Dynasty and the [[Republic of China]] refused to accept terms imposed by Britain. China refused to recognize the boundary on the grounds that Tibet, being subordinate to China since the Qing Dynasty, could not make treaties. As a result, China did not recognize the validity of the McMahon Line, in which the British sought to annex a large part of Tibetan territory. After the independence of India and the establishment of the PRC in the late [[1940s]], the issue of the border was not fully resolved.

* Hearing evidence in respect of any alleged international criminal conduct during and as a part of the war in Iraq.

* Investigation of the doctrines espoused in the war (by all sides) and the economic connections which some allege are connected with the decision to wage the war in Iraq.

* To reach a decision based on evidence and expert testimony in respect of these issues and the war in Iraq.

==Background to issues==

India and the PRC shared good relations through the [[1950s]], including the [[Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence]], proposed by the prime ministers of the two countries in [[1953]]. However, after the PRC occupied Tibet in [[1950]], the Indian government under Prime Minister [[Jawaharlal Nehru]] adopted a policy of forward military deployment in the border area. China disputed India's claims about the demarcation of the [[Line of Actual Control]]. For several years up to 1962, India and China both maintained forces in the disputed area. At times, each side accused the other of having moved troops into 'their' side of the border as each side tried to extend its line of actual control. A few [[skirmish]]es occurred during this time. The cause of the escalation into war is still disputed by both Chinese and Indian sources. China disputed the troop movement and border claimed by India. Earlier, in 1961, India deployed its military to occupy [[Goa]], a Portuguese [[colony]] in India. This may have contributed to Chinese suspicion over Indian motives. Negotiations between the two countries deteriorated over the following months, which transformed a boundary problem into a dispute, which then progressed into a border war. China maintained that parts of the boundaries were undetermined and to be negotiated. Indians held that the boundaries were already determined and decided to establish checkposts all along them. Fighting began shortly thereafter with both sides claiming to that the other was the aggressor.

The [[Iraq War]] left many people dead or injured, and some sources have identified significant [[War crime]]s or [[Crime against humanity|Crimes against humanity]] in its conduct, as well as mainstream media coverage of breaches of the [[geneva Convention]] such as at [[Abu Ghraib]], and the use of [[depleted uranium]] which has left cancer running at extremely high levels amongst civilians. According to UN estimates, a further million people died during the trade embargo, due to malnutrition or lack of medical supplies, from sanctions targeting domestic water systems ([[History of Iraq]]). Many hundreds of thousands of these were children (whose deaths were documented by US military and are available on US military declassified websites). In addition, few commentators believe that under 100-200,000 civilians died as a result of other acts during the 2003 war.

==Events in the War==

Although other [[crime]]s are investigated, such [[tribunal]]s require a lot of political will and strength to set up and few commentators appear to believe that a formal tribunal such as the [[Nuremberg Trials]] or the [[International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia]] will be established. In addition the US has refused to ratify the [[International Criminal Court]] established for the purpose of investigation international crime. In the light of perceived growing tendencies to ignore international law, this tribunal was formed to investigate the concerns of other groups and onlookers into Iraq.

Indian and Chinese units were in close contact throughout September; however, hostile fire was infrequent. On [[September 8]], [[1962]], a 60-strong (misreported as 600) [[People's Liberation Army]] (PLA) unit surrounded one of the Indian forward posts at [[Dhola]] on the [[Thagla Ridge]], three kilometers north of the McMahon line. Nehru was attending a Commonwealth Prime Minister's conference in [[London]], and when told of the act, told the media the Army had been instructed to "free our territory." However, Nehru's directives to Defense Minister [[V.K. Krishna Menon]] were unclear, and the response, codenamed Operation LEGHORN, was slow to move. By the time an Indian battalion reached the Thagla Ridge on [[September 16]], Chinese units controlled both banks of the [[Namka Chu]] River. The day after, India's [[Chief of the Army Staff]] [[Kaul]] ordered that Thagla Ridge be retaken.

==Tribunal legitimacy and scope==

On [[September 20]], a firefight developed at one of the bridges on the river, killing nine Chinese and Indian soldiers.

===Legal basis and structure===

On [[October 12]], Nehru proclaimed India's intention to drive the Chinese out of areas India claimed. On [[October 14]], Indian defence minister Menon called for fighting China to the last man and the last gun.

Being confronted with the paradox that people supporting or participating in the WTI want to end impunity but do not have the enforcement power to do so, they feel that they have to follow a middle way between mere political protest and academic symposiums without any judicial ambition on the one hand, and on the other hand, procedural trials in the formal legal system which have no chance of achieving neutral outcomes. Another way of expressing the paradox is:

On [[October 20]], [[1962]], the Chinese [[People's Liberation Army]] launched two coordinated attacks 1000 [[kilometer]]s apart in the Chip Chap valley in [[Ladakh]] and the Namkachu river. After securing a substantial portion of the disputed territory, the Chinese made an offer to negotiate on [[October 24]]. The Indian government promptly rejected this offer, and tried to regroup during the lull in the fighting.

# That people supporting or participating in the WTI are just citizens and therefore have no right to judge in a strict judicial way, but

# That they have at the same time the duty as citizens to oppose wars of aggression, [[war crime]]s, [[crime against humanity|crimes against humanity]] and other breaches of international law, which should be the starting point and the strength of the WTI.

By approaching the [[2003 invasion of Iraq|invasion]] and [[Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–2005|occupation of Iraq]] case from as many angles as possible (international law, geopolitical and economical analysis, WTI participants hope to strengthen their common objective. In this way the hearings had a better chance of [[convergence|converging]] on valid judgments. The findings were brought together in the final session in Istanbul in June [[2005]].

Indian resistance had been determined but insufficient. The Indian deployment was spread over a large area. Many Indian units required airlift for resupply. The Indian "jawans" (soldiers) were also not well supplied or trained for [[mountain warfare|mountain combat]]. Some skirmishes also took place in the Indian [[protectorate]] of [[Sikkim]] (at that time) at the [[Nathula|Nathula Pass]].

In order to be as inclusive as possible, the WTI claims to support and recognize endeavours to resist impunity. The project will endorse and support the efforts to bring national authorities and warmakers to national courts (like the complaints filed in various state courts under the doctrine of Universal Jurisdiction) and to international courts (like the [[International Criminal Court]] in the Hague).

By [[November 18]], the PLA had penetrated close to the outskirts of [[Tezpur, Assam]], a major frontier town nearly fifty kilometers from the [[Assam-North-East Frontier Agency]] border. Due to either logistical problems (according to Indian accounts) or political reasons (according to Chinese accounts) the PLA did not advance farther and on [[November 21]] declared a unilateral [[cease-fire]]. The [[United States Air Force]] flew in massed supplies to India in [[November]], [[1962]], but neither side wished to continue hostilities. The PLA withdrew to positions it occupied before the war and on which China had staked its diplomatic claim.

===Fundamental aims of Tribunal===

==Results of the War==

* To establish the facts about what happened in Iraq and to inform the public.

India's defeat in 1962 led to an overhaul of Indian Army in terms of doctrine, training, organisation and equipment, in addition to the resignation of Defence Minister Menon. Although the Indian Army's defeat by the Chinese was a national humiliation, the nation reacted to the 1962 war with an unprecedented surge of patriotism. The main lesson India learned was that it could not expect strong, unconditional backing from its allies in times of crisis and that military self-sufficiency and efficiency are the keys to forming an assertive national defense. India's policy of weaponization via indigenous sources and self-sufficiency was thus cemented. National sovereignty, it would affirmed, could not come at the expense of becoming a client state of any superpower or by joining any military alliance with or under them.

* To continue and strengthen the mobilisation of the peace movement and the global anti-war protest. Anti-war and peace movements, which carried out the mass movements against the attack on Iraq have in principle adopted the idea of indicting the aggressors and of setting up a campaign to support the Tribunal process.

* The tribunal is to be considered a continuing process. The investigation of what happened in Iraq is of prime importance to restore truth and preserve collective memory against the constant rewriting of history. We are challenging the silence of international institutions and seeking to put them under pressure to fulfil their obligations under international law. In judging the recent past our aim is to prevent illegal wars in the future.

* To formulate recommendations on international law and expand notions of justice and ethical-political awareness. It can contribute to providing alternatives to 'victors' justice' and give a voice to the victims of war.

* To be part of a broader movement to stop the establishment of an imperial world order with a "permanent state of exception", which undergoes constant wars as one of its main tools.

==Arguments for and against Tribunal==

In the aftermath of the 1962 war, the Indian government decided to assert stronger control of several territories that they saw as a source of espionage and resupply to potential enemies. Many Indians regard the current Chinese territorial control as an illegal occupation, and so proposals to formalize the border at the Line of Actual Control have proven impossible to implement. However, neither the Indian nor the PRC government appear very interested in disturbing the status quo, and the disputed boundary, is not considered a major flashpoint now. However, in the 1980s, both India and China began to actively patrol along the LAC, causing a regional crisis.

===For===

In the early '80s, following a new paradigm shift in the Indian military, it was decided that the Army was to actively patrol the Line of Actual Control. Friction began to ensue over the Chinese occupation of the Sumdorong Chu pasturage, lying north of Tawang. The media, catching wind of the situation, gave it national prominence, and an angry exchange of official protests between the Indian and Chinese governments followed. Adding to the bickering, a bill was passed creating the state of Arunachal Pradesh, a territory that China claims in its entirety.

*Many people perceive that the US is acting in an imperialist manner, and draw parallels with other imperialist acts which cloaked gain of power as morality.

The military re-occupied Hathung La ridge, across Namka Chu, twenty-five years after vacating it. Army chief K. Sundarji airlifted an entire brigade to nearby Ximithang, alarming the Chinese. The Indian government initially flinched at a tough official diplomatic response from Beijing, but stood firm at the insistence of the army. The result, paradoxically, was a thaw. In 1993 and 1996, the two sides signed the Sino-Indian Bilateral Peace and Tranquillity Accords, an agreement for maintaining peace and tranquillity along the LAC. Ten meetings of a Sino-Indian Joint Working Group (SIJWG) and five of an expert group to determine where the LAC lies have taken place. Despite continuing ambiguity and overlapping territorial claims, some strides forward have been made. For example, in a recent round of discussions, India offered official recognition of Tibet as an Autonomous Region of China. In return, the Chinese made it clear that on their official maps, Sikkim will be shown as Indian territory.

*Some are concerned that the war was launched on a pretext, and that neither a confirmed link with [[Al-Qaeda]] nor confirmed weapons of mass destruction were shown, contrary to the reasons used to justify the necessity of invasion beforehand.

*Many people believe the war in Iraq was fought for control of valuable assets (oil), and political dominance or standing.

*Many people died or suffered in a manner similar to war crimes condemned by the West, under perceived breaches of international law; justifications given by the West for these acts echo justifications the West has previously dismissed out of hand in Japan, Germany and in other previous crimes against humanity.

::(For example, torture has been found inhuman whether or not in a national territory, leaders are held responsible for all acts committed by their forces, and laws cited about insurgents and combatants being valid military enemies despite not wearing a uniform could equally be applied to US forces found not wearing uniforms)

==See also=Against===

* Many people believe that the war in Iraq was necessary to rid the world of a tyrant, and that those who oppose it are short sighted and fail to appreciate the work done.

* [[Sino-Indian relations]]

* It is widely believed that Saddam Hussain refused to comply with UN resolutions concerning weapons of mass destruction (including a nuclear capability), or at the least that he attempted to conceal them, or gave the impression he was developing them. Such activities would have made him a dire threat to stability, both in the region and to other coutries that Islamist terrorists might target at some future time.

* Others feel the tribunal is biased, either due to those partaking, or due to its formal agenda. (But others note that its agenda is primarily against all such actions, and not specifically "anti" any one side as such)

==Actions to date==

==External links and references==

* [http://www.rediff.com/news/indochin.htm Remembering a War: The 1962 India-China Conflict - From Rediff.com]

* London, November 2003 - Inquiry into the alleged commission of war crimes by Coalition Forces during the military campaign and occupation.

* [http://www.centurychina.com/plaboard/uploads/1962war.htm Neville Maxwell: Henderson Brooks Report]

* Mumbai, January 2004 - World Court of Women on US War Crimes

* Copenhagen, March 2004 - Public hearing on the legality of war, legality of putting Iraq's public enterprises and resources on sale, legality of keeping over 20,000 people under arrest in camps and prisons in the absence of any legal procedure.

* Brussels, April 2004 - ideological blueprint of the war against Iraq.

* New York, May 2004 - Session on the legality of the war – violation of international law and the UN – violation of the will of the peoples of the world as manifested on [[February 15]], war crimes and crimes under occupation.

* Japan, hearings throughout the year in various cities, two courts in July and December 2004 - International Criminal Tribunal on Iraq (ICTI)

* Germany, series of hearings around Germany starting June 2004 - Focus on violations of international law and complicity of German government—covering sanctions, war and occupation.

* Istanbul, June 2004 - Symposium on crimes committed against cultural heritage.

* New York, August 2004 - Session investigating violations of international law and basic human rights by US President [[George W. Bush]] and UK Prime Minister [[Tony Blair]] administrations in launching the war against Iraq and instituting the occupation. Findings of other WTI sessions, military families and GI resisters.

* Hiroshima, October 2004 - Session on depleted uranium and complicity of Japanese government.

* Lisbon, Fall 2004 - Commission of inquiry to determine the responsibility of the Portuguese State and other entities/individuals in the preparation of the invasion, during the invasion and in the occupation of Iraq; to formulate the accusation of those who perpetrated crimes against the people of Iraq.

* Stockholm, November 2004 - Session examinign the impact of occupation on Iraqi society, including the social, economic and cultural consequences.

* Beirut, December 2004 - Arab Court on Iraq.

* London, February 2004 - A Peoples' Inquiry into the occupation of Iraq by Coalition Forces

* Rome, February 2005 - Session on Media Wrongs against Truth and Humanity: the politics of disinformation.

* Genoa, January 2005 - Session on Media and Disinformation

* Rome, December 2004 - Session on legality of war.

* Istanbul, [[20 March]] [[2005]] – Culminating session

::The Istanbul session will serve as the culmination of the WTI process, taking into account the entirety of the above tribunal sessions. Based on this also, the session will take the further step of examining and exposing the implications of WTI findings.

*Istanbul session 23-[[27 JUNE]] [[2005]]: DECLARATION OF THE JURY OF CONSCIENCE

"The invasion and occupation of Iraq was and is illegal. The reasons given by the US and UK governments for the invasion and occupation of Iraq in March 2003 have proven to be false. Much evidence supports the conclusion that a major motive for the war was to control and dominate the Middle East and its vast reserves of oil as a part of the US drive for global hegemony." ..... In pursuit of their agenda of empire, the Bush and Blair governments blatantly ignored the massive opposition to the war expressed by millions of people around the world. They embarked upon one of the most unjust, immoral, and cowardly wars in history.[http://www.worldtribunal.org/main/?b=91]

Sessions still to be finalised:

* [http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_284247,001300370003.htm 1962 Sino-Indian War, Hindustan Times]

* Sessions yet under preparation / discussion in Spain and Cairo.

* Work going on to have sessions in Uruguay and South Korea.

Also incorporated into the process are the findings of:

* [http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/CJB.htm Sino-Indian War (1962)]

* Spanish Tribunal Against the War in Iraq – May 2003

* Decision on juridical issues about the war against Iraq and its occupation by Allied powers (with emphasis on the position of the government of Costa Rica) – Costa Rica September 2003

==See also==

* [http://www.bcasnet.org/login/viewarticle.php?pid=100&disp=1 Critical Asian Studies Article: Sino Indian War 1962]

* [[War crime]]

* [[Genocide]]

* [http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/History/1962War/ War in the Himalayas: 1962 Indo-Sino Conflict]

* [[Crime against humanity]]

* [[Crime against peace]] (international aggression)

[[Category:Chinese wars]]

* [[International law]]

[[Category:Wars of India]]

* [[Laws of war]]

* [[War Crimes Law (Belgium)]]

* [[List of war crimes]]

* [[International Criminal Court]]

* [[Nuremberg Principles]]

* [[Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court]]

* [[Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks]]

* [[State terrorism]]

* [[War on Terrorism]]

* [[Anti-American sentiment]]

* [[The UN Security Council and the Iraq war]]

* [[Protests against the Iraq war]]

* [[Governments' pre-war positions on invasion of Iraq]]

* [[The UN Security Council and the Iraq war]]

* [[2003 invasion of Iraq|2003 Invasion of Iraq]]

* [[Human rights]]

==External links==

* [http://www.worldtribunal.org Official website]

* [http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B5CAF6D0-7F6F-4585-B002-1B6631FEC3B1.htm Panel indicts US, UK over Iraq], [[al-Jazeera]], [[28 June]] [[2005]]

[[Category:International criminal law]]

[[de:Indisch-Chinesischer Grenzkrieg]]

[[category:Laws of war]]

[[he:מלחמת הודו-סין]]

[[Category:Human rights abuses]]

[[ja:中印国境紛争]]

[[zh:中印边境战争]]