The first crime is war

The photo shows a pregnant woman writhing on a stretcher, being carried amid the rubble of a Ukrainian hospital. We see others, their faces smeared with soot, seeking shelter among the rubble.

Bomb a hospital. Do we really need an international treaty to know that it is a crime?

If, as everything indicates, the Russian army on Wednesday destroyed Mariupol’s Number 3 Municipal Hospital, which houses a maternity hospital, this is yet another carnage, another “war crime”, in its most abject expression. .

The whole very evanescent “law of war” started with this: don’t shoot the ambulances. Spare the weak. Only that.

The first treaties on which European countries agreed, in the 19^and century, did not have the utopian ambition of preventing war. Just to limit the horror a bit. The Red Cross had just been founded, and with it the idea of ​​a sort of minimal, official universal humanitarian law, which would not be based solely on customs and goodwill.

The first who had to be protected in all circumstances: the sick, the wounded, the people who care for them. In 1949, in a Europe ravaged by the worst war in history, the States signed the famous Geneva Conventions. Another time we said “never again”… but in case another war should arise, some basic rules were going to be repeated and enacted unanimously.

“The wounded and sick, as well as the infirm and pregnant women shall be the object of special protection and respect”, states Article 16 of the Fourth Convention.

Among all the civilian victims, these are at the top of the list of people to protect: babies, pregnant women, sick people…

It goes without saying, will you tell me? If it has to be repeated and made into a treatise, maybe not.

Alongside the Syrian army, the Russian army did the same thing in Idlib province just two years ago. The UN and Amnesty International have documented attacks on Syrian schools and hospitals, in which Russian aircraft took part. Among other things, many war crimes of this conflict – both on the side of the murderous regime and on the side of certain rebels, by the way.

Strange expression, “war crime”. This is already granting the right to wage war. Whereas in fact, and in law, the first crime is war itself. Since the Briand-Kellogg Pact in 1928, “the world” has condemned the use of war as a means of settling international disputes. That didn’t prevent the worst of all, 11 years later. But since then, you will have noticed, the governments no longer have a “Minister of War”. They have “Ministers of Defence”. Nobody makes war anymore: we defend ourselves. Russia does not wage war, we do not even have the right to say so: it is carrying out an “operation”.

Invading a country that has not attacked you, as Russia did, is in itself a “crime against peace”. Or a “crime of aggression”, according to the most recent treaties. In theory, a head of state can be prosecuted for this.

We don’t really need these sub-categories of crimes. To wage war is always to kill civilians, children, mothers about to give birth, it is to destroy schools, bridges, houses, towns.

If we isolate the acts, it is for practical reasons, for proof: on such a date, the artillery struck at such a hospital, causing so many injuries, so many deaths. A cluster bomb was used here on such a date, in such a place: that too is prohibited, since the fragments blindly kill civilians.

But let’s go back before the first shot.

As soon as the first Russian tank entered Ukrainian territory, a “crime” was committed. Not a “war crime”; the crime of war itself.

I hear your question, it is excellent: what is it worth, a right without a police? What prevents it?

So far, trials for war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide have not been numerous. One thinks of the Nazi trials at Nuremberg. To the Japanese military at the same time. They affirmed several principles now codified in treaties.

But these were trials held by the victors against the vanquished, and of course Harry Truman was not worried about the two atomic bombs dropped at his request.

Subsequently, leaders of the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda have also been tried in “special courts” since the 1990s. Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

Trials have also taken place in several countries, which have incorporated this international humanitarian law into their national law. A Rwandan genocidaire was tried in the Superior Court in Montreal. A person responsible for the civil war in Liberia is tried in Finland. etc States are supposed to judge their own military as well – which happens regularly; Donald Trump had also pardoned two soldiers guilty of war crimes before an American court.

In principle, the ultimate guardian of international justice, when States do not deal with it, is the International Criminal Court (ICC). Taking office 20 years ago, she has only three guilty verdicts to her credit, out of 41 people publicly accused. Nine were acquitted. The only accused head of state, the Sudanese Omar el-Bechir, accused of genocide in Darfur, is detained in his country, but despite commitments, has still not been delivered to The Hague.

Added to this is the fact that several countries – the United States, Russia, China, Ukraine, Israel, in particular – are not members of the court. It has no jurisdiction over their territory, in principle. That didn’t stop the new ICC prosecutor from opening a war crimes investigation, and sending staff on the ground to Ukraine. A country can indeed allow it.

Even in the face of evidence of war crimes, it is still necessary to prove the direct involvement of the leaders.

And in the end, even with the best of evidence, who will stop Vladimir Putin?

But however weak, however illusory, however intermittent it may be, this justice serves at least to express universal reprobation. To hope that the impunity of the criminals is not eternal.

We may never touch this ideal, but that is no reason to abandon the humanist quest.

We must at least try, in the name of all these dead, of all these people staggering in the rubble of a hospital, in Ukraine, in Syria, in Darfur, in Mali…