International Conference on World War II

Published on http://wfol.tv/stop-nato/4460-international-conference-on-world-war-ii-.html

The objective of the International conference on World War II at the KL Convention Centre on 13 May 2010 has been stated to “create awareness that wars are damaging and that lessons learned from World War II events should help contain the outbreak of yet another deadly, devastating war that could become the world war III”. The objective indeed promised a forum to discuss wide range topics relative to the current globalized problems that have emerged since the end of World War II and are likely to prolong in many parts of the world. Apart from this declared objective there was also an indication that Nuremburg Trials would also feature during the conference. Unfortunately there was not much discussion except the passing observation by Tan Sri Syed Hamid Albar, in his keynote address. I will deal with this in a short while.

The remarks by the chairperson that Sri Lankan current President Mahinda Rajapakshe should have been awarded the Nobel Prize for bringing an end to the civil war spearheaded by the Tamil Tigers instead of US President Obama, does not go well considering the importance of this conference and the message it planned to convey, presumably, to the world at large. It was an immature remark, insensitive to the real issues facing Sri Lanka. Although the civil war had ended it had not solved the problems faced by the minority Tamils. The end of the civil war has not solved the problems that were the root cause for the conflict resulting in the deaths of thousands and the displacements that had occurred, and these are problems that are still alive thus the Sri Lankan present peace is on thin ice. We are also told that the Sri Lankan Civil War is far from war and there are certain quarters claiming for investigation against Mahinda for war crimes.

History tells us that the victors in a war plunder the vanquished and exert their supremacy whereby the victors are able to continually squander the rich resources of the defeated country. Those responsible for the war were summarily executed or exiled. This was the norm before the World War II. Legal minds did not stir, or steer towards formulating principles to bring to justice those who had violated peace treaty, or who had acted in such a way precipitating breach of world peace or those who had committed war crimes against humanity. This was the state of affair until the end of the Second World War.

Thus we see that nineteenth century Germany, under the leadership of Bismarck Von Otto, the Chancellor, defeated France and subjected it to onerous financial constraints and war reparations under the Treaty of Frankfurt in order to ensure that France will never again be able to wage war against Germany.

Similarly, when Germany was defeated in 1917 it was France which benefited much under the Versailles Treaty. It was said that Britain was not keen in seeing the strict compliance of the terms of the Versailles Treaty that favoured France which were seemed to be unfair.

No one at the end of the First World War considered the necessity to bring those responsible for the war to justice in a civilized manner. The prevailing view was that imposing stringent conditions were adequate so that the defeated country and its leaders would not be inclined to war.

The events of that led to the Second World War would exactly show that Hitler’s main attack had been against the Versailles Treaty and he boldly breached the terms, and Britain did not see the breach as paving the way to another war.

But at the end of the Second war with Germany’s defeat there were new school of thought, for it seemed that the old system of punishing by exacting reparation was insufficient and does not deter the waging of war. On the position of the War criminals Sir Winston Churchill was inclined that they should be shot so soon as they were caught and their identity established.1 Strangely, Joseph Stalin’s position was different prompting Churchill to ask whether “the grand criminals should be tried before being shot,” in other words, that it should be “a judicial act rather than a political act. Stalin replied that “that was so.” But Roosevelt commented that it should not be judicial. He wanted to keep out newspapers and photographers until the criminals are dead.2 Stalin’s stand was a new approach and for the first time in world war history a civilized method was devised to bring those responsible to trial – whether they be individuals or organizations. 3

Therefore, on 8 August 1945 a major breakthrough was made when the Allied Countries signed an agreement in London for the prosecution and punishment of the major criminals of the European Axis.

The first recital of the agreement stated that the United Nations have from time to time made declarations of their intention that War Criminals should be brought to justice. The second recital referred to the Moscow Declaration of 30 October 1943 which made specific reference to German atrocities in Occupied Europe of the German officers and men and members of the Nazi Party who have been responsible for or have taken a consenting part in atrocities or crimes to be sent back to the countries in which their abominable deeds were done in order that they may be judged and punished according to the laws of these liberated countries and of the free governments that will be created therein.

In so far as to the case of major criminal whose offences have no particular geographical location punishment they will be tried by the joint decision of the Government of the Allies.4

Article 1 of the agreement provided for the establishment of an International Military Tribunal for the trial of war criminals whose offences have no particular geographical location whether they be accused individually or in their capacity as members of organizations or groups or in both capacities.

Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal provided for the establishment of a Tribunal for trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries, whether as individuals or as members of organizations who have committed any of the following crimes.5

The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility :-

(a) Crimes against peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing ;

(b) War crimes : namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners or war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;

(c) Crimes against humanity : namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war ; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime with the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.”6

According to Article 7 of the Official position of defendants, whether a Head of State or responsible officers in Government Departments, shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment. The fact that the defendant acted pursuant to orders of his Government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility; but may be considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determines justice so requires, according to Article 8.7

It will be seen that it is not only the Head of State but individuals who have played a part in the criminal act would be liable so also organizations which had pursued criminal acts against peace, against humanity, and generally war crimes.

Similar Tribunal was set up for Far East which held the trial in Tokyo, Japan.

Chief of Counsel Mr. Justice Robert H. Jackson of the United States of America in his opening speech said that he was privileged in “opening the first trial in history for crimes against the world,”8 and added that the trial “represents the practical effort… to utilize international law to meet the greatest menace of our times – aggressive war. The common sense of mankind demands that law shall not stop with the punishment of petty crimes by little people.”9

The trial was important to show that the world community would not countenance the brutal methods and measures used in war. Besides, the trial also clearly sent signals that those precipitate war crimes against peace and humanity will not have safe haven. The Nuremburg and Tokyo trials against major war criminals opened up a new chapter in World history that war reparations alone would be inadequate punishment to those who plan and execute war, instead they will also be personally held responsible for the deaths and destructions that ensue their criminal acts.

It is true that the introduction of the International Tribunal was aimed at war-mongers that having ravished foreign lands and killing and maiming innocent peoples cannot upon their own defeat be safe in their own country or find refuge in other countries escaping responsibility for the crimes they had committed. On reflection we are posed with the question to what extent in the present so-called peaceful world has this warning of personal responsibility been helpful to avoid war.

We have conflicts all over the world. There are unresolved problems over Palestine, there are troubles on the African Continent, Indo-Pakistan dispute over Kashmir remains unresolved, and the two countries had been engaged in fierce wars since their independence. The two Koreas are seen at loggerheads, Iran had a fair share of pursuing a violent cause, Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and other violent conflicts had surfaced after the second world war. Some of these conflicts are the results of the decolonization or self-rule postulated in the Atlantic Treaty.

On a global scale we see inequality, illiteracy, poverty and more importantly we are witnessing the destructive elements of new form of terrorism unleashed in every part of the world. Although technological advancement had made travel swifter, and the world had become small compared to some forty years ago yet the fear that the aircraft would be blown up to pieces with loss of lives is always haunting us. Lockerbie disaster is still afresh in our minds. It is not clear to what extent states are secretly involved in this well organized and executed international terrorism.

After the Second World War Germany and Japan, the former one was the cause for war in Europe and the latter the cause in Far East and both had economically flourished but there are countries who were not in any way responsible for that horrible war where poverty exists and other unspeakable cruelties and committed in the names of religion and race remain. Billions are spent on the arms race because of the fear that the likelihood of war cannot be ignored.

So, one would wonder whether the causes that led to the First Word War – which was mainly fought to preserve the balance of power, and the Second World War fought to defeat the grand designs of the Axis had disappeared or are they there camouflaged in international economic reformation or extreme religious fanaticism or fundamentalism.

The problems that existed before the Second World War were different from those we are now facing. Soon after the Second World War the victorious Allied countries were competing to ensure the liberated countries came under their respective influences. Europe was divided into Iron curtain and Democracy. Germany itself was divided into two countries, subsequently leading to the infamous Berlin Wall until it was brought down after three decades of its raising.

The victorious Allied Forces notwithstanding the meaningful aspirations declared in the Atlantic Treaty were soon after the Second War at odds. Britain, France and United States wanted to contain or destroy communism, and in the pursuit of doing so, they were at loggerheads with Communist Russia, their bed-fellow during the Second World War. In the pretext of containing communism, genuine nationalism was put to severe test and suppressed. And finally when the decolonialsation policy was implemented some of the newly independent countries became the standard bearers of the colonialists.

It is easy to say that all the problems that we face today are the results of the Second World War, an easy way to find soothing balm, forgetting the benefits that had also come about. In fact serious problems surfaced and took root centuries ago when religions began to exert their influence and chose war as a means to subjugate others and bring the invaded countries under their religious persuasion. Invasions and aggressions were the brutal orders of that time. Further, the European Colonisation programme into Asia and Africa had obviously changed the social and cultural mannerism. The Second World War may have seen the end of Nazis’ claim to see the Aryan race supremacy and economic exploration of the minorities, but it cannot be safely said a new form of racial supremacy is being campaigned by the ethnic majority. And clear division is perpetrated along racial and religious likes. If this is not checked its effect will spread to the detriment of peace.

Although the Europeans gave up their colonies their influence had been engrafted into the social and cultural behaviour of the colonialised people, whose way of thinking had changed. The old European greed, their love for power, their authoritiveness, their diplomacy all had become the acceptable pattern for the present leaders to govern and exert their power. Here lies the danger that peace is still at peril. New form of economic aggression is gaining momentum; religious fundamentalism imbued with violent tendencies had emerged. This and other factors may be the disturbing elements; but for the selfish and greedy lots the opulence they enjoy are not things they would like to lose, and if a World War III were to come it would put paid to their enjoyment and grand designs. Nay, they will try to avoid it but their aggressive attitude against their own kind will continue, and that is one of the realities that had emerged since the end of Second World War. The greed of wealthy nations and their leaders want the fear of third world war to linger on so that their interests will not be affected.

The complacency that there is not any inkling that the ungodly third world war would not come is also dangerous; for, this ignores the fact that there is already a growing feeling that war is needed on an international scale in the name of religion by religious fanatics. In my view this type of war could have worst ramifications than that of the second world war. There is a vital difference between declared and undeclared war. Declared wars have certain conventions and limitations as to the manner in which they could be prosecuted. Undeclared wars have no respect for conventions or human values. Sadly, the warning is there yet ignored.