In Iraq, Afghanistan and now Libya, there are tens of thousands of individuals who have been maimed by NATO bombs and bullets. A large number of Iraqi, Afghan and Libyan civilians have lost not just their limbs but their lives as well, because of “mistakes” made by NATO personnel in the field. A scan of the diaries kept by alliance troops in theatres of conflict shows the casual way in which human lives are taken, often only on the merest of suspicion.
The overriding objective of NATO is to minimise its own casualties, even though such a strategy can – and does – have a terrible effect on civilian lives. In both Iraq and Afghanistan, a running man was taken as evidence of hostile intent, and firing was immediate, even in cases where the man shot and killed was running away from US soldiers. The diaries and recollections of hundreds of soldiers, especially in the US but in other NATO countries as well, would furnish substantial evidence of war crimes and human rights violations.
However, thus far, the so-called “International Court of Justice” as well as the UN’s Human Rights machinery has yet to take action against a single soldier of NATO armies, despite the growing number of civilians killed as a consequence of NATO actions, Libya being the latest theatre for such deadly operations.
The UN seems to be blind to the human rights violations committed by NATO troops, perhaps because it has accepted the view that all those killed or wounded by such forces are non-human and therefore not worthy of attention. Despite the fact that several thousands were killed in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya “by mistake”, thus far there has been almost zero punishment for such offences. Going back to the My Lai massacre in Vietnam in 1968 (which was just one of several such atrocities, although the others escaped attention), it needs to be remembered that the man who led the troops who murdered more than five hundred Vietnamese women and children in cold blood, Lieutenant Calley, was given pardon by President Richard M Nixon.
Even in well-documented cases of extreme abuse, such as took place in Abu Ghraib, the punishments have been lenient. The impunity with which NATO personnel can take the lives and limbs of those of other cultures has resulted in arrogance within that military in its dealings with countries outside the charmed circle of those NATO considers “civilised”. NATO soldiers have become casual about killing “uncivilised” civilians, aware that punishment is not only rare, but certain to be light.
It is probably this confidence in their immunity from punishment which led two Italian navy marines on the oil tanker “Enrica Lexie” to shoot and kill two Indian fishermen off the coast of Kerala on Feb 15. The two were on a small fishing boat, which was clearly incapable of being a pirate ship, because it is too small to ride the high seas. There were nine more fishermen on the boat, asleep after having worked for the previous 16 hours catching fish. That pirates about to attack a ship do not sleep openly on deck (or at all) just before boarding their target should have been clear to the six Italian navy personnel on board “Enrica Lexie”.
None of the fishermen were armed, so the question of their having fired first does not arise. More, the vessel was well within sight of the Indian coast, and therefore well beyond the ocean range where pirates are known to attack, although never in that area. There were dozens of fishing boats at sea that day, many close to the Italian tanker. However, the “St Antony” was unlucky enough to catch the interest of the NATO troops on board the tanker, who clearly indulged in live target practice thereafter. Without any warning, high-velocity bullets were fired that instantly took the lives of Ajesh (25) and Jalastein (43).
Did the Italian authorities express any remorse at the killing? Not at all. Their only mission was to ensure that the shooters responsible be safely sent back to Italy. Because of the pressure of the Italian government (assisted by other EU member-states), the Kerala police hesitated for three full days to pick up the marines and collect evidence. During this time, evidence would have been destroyed, and the marines coached in a cover story. This is that the Italian ship was “attacked by a pirate boat with five heavily-armed pirates on board”.
When the soldiers gathered their courage (this is the story made up by the ship captain), “the pirate boat had left and got replaced by the fishing vessel”. Even assuming that this story was correct (and no one other than the Italians have ever seen this so-called “pirate ship”), then why did the marines fire, when it was clear that the vessel by the side of the ship was only a small fishing boat? Also, that there were no “ferocious pirates” on board, only nine sleeping fishermen and two others steering the small craft. So nervous was the Indian police at taking action against the powerful NATO soldiers that they took three days to bring them to land.
On land, the two Italians were placed in the luxury suite of a guest house, complete with air conditioners and other conveniences. They were given food from a star hotel, victuals that included pizza, cheeses, fruit and drinks. Clearly, the fact that they are from NATO has made them more human than others to the authorities in India, who give a very different treatment to murder suspects from countries not members of NATO. For example, many citizens of African countries are caught each year committing crimes. None of these get guest house accommodation or food from top hotels. Such privileges belong only to NATO nationals.
So used are NATO countries to their citizens avoiding accountability for human rights violations that the Italian authorities saw it as only proper that the two NATO marines accused of killing the fishermen be released and sent back to Italy “for trial”. Given the mood in NATO countries, where those from their own military are always given the benefit of doubt, it is clear that the two marines would immediately get released by an Italian court, which would accept the story that two harmless fishermen were in actuality five ferocious pirates.
Such a verdict would be in line with dozens of similar verdicts involving NATO personnel, which have either set the defendants free or imposed very light punishments, even for the murder of large numbers of civilians. All such atrocities are explained away as “mistakes”. The two NATO navy personnel now comfortably detained in India are likely to soon be set free, most likely after an election on Mar 18. If set free earlier, the ruling party may lose the election, which is probably why the Italians were taken into custody and not sent back, the way the Italian authorities demanded. Diplomats from NATO powers behave as though we are still in an era when European countries ruled over Asia. On Feb 20, for example, three NATO-country diplomats wanted to get off a flight from Delhi at a stop other than that for which they had bought tickets. They shouted in rage when told that this could not be permitted. Such is the arrogance of people who live in the past.
It is time that NATO personnel too were subjected to the same human rights standards that the alliance preaches to the rest of the world. Those within the alliance who are responsible for killings and maimings ought to be brought to justice, whether they be army, navy or air force. The UN needs to stop giving immunity to NATO for all its actions. After all, don’t the victims of NATO, such as the two Indian fishermen, have human rights too?