By Kathryn Maureen Ryan
Impunity Watch Reporter, Managing Editor

BAGHDAD, Iraq – The battle between militants belonging to the Islamic State of Syria and Levant (ISIS) and the Iraqi national government forces and Kurdish regional  peshmerga forces has taken a toll on Iraq’s critical infrastructure including the nation’s oil reserves and industry infrastructure, power plans and, most recently, the countries massive hydraulic power system.

Earlier this month ISIS forces seized control of the Mosul Dam, once known as the “Saddam Dam,” which is a key component of Iraq’s massive hydroelectric power and Irrigation system spanning the Tigris and Euphrates watershed. The 3.2-kilometer-long Mosul Dam is the largest dam in Iraq and the fourth largest in the Middle East. The Hydroelectric dam is located along the Tigris River and holds back as much as 12.5 million cubic meters of water. If the dam were to be breached it would create a wall of water tens of feet tall that would cause massive flooding in Mosul, threatening its 1.7 million residents, and would cause massive flooding in communities as far downstream as Baghdad.

On Monday Kurdish peshmerga fighters, backed by US warplanes conducting strategic airstrikes against ISIS strongholds, pressed a counter-offensive against ISISS forces retaking the Mosul Dam alongside Iraqi government forces. US aircraft are carrying out strikes in support of the forces battling ISIS militants, who have declared a caliphate areas under their control in both Iraq and Syria. “The planes are striking and the peshmerga are advancing,” a Kurdish fighter said on Monday near the shores of the Mosul dam.

While critics argued that aiding Iraqi forces in retaking the Mosul dam and other infrastructure may constitute mission creep beyond US forces initial mission in Iraq Administration officials have argued that the Mosul Dam is critical to Iraqi national security as well as the security of US interests in the region citing evidence that ISIS forces was not performing necessary maintenance on the dam as well as fears that the group was planning to destroy the dam, potentially endangering millions of Iraqi residents.

ISIS has a history of using water infrastructure as a weapon of war.  Earlier year, its fighters opened the gates on the Falluja Dam in central Iraq after seizing it in an effort to stop the military from advancing. The water from the dam flooded a several villages. “ISIS has already used other smaller dams to gain control of territory, to pressure Sunnis to support them and to punish the Shiites,” said Daniel Pipes, president of the Middle East Forum.

The recapture of Mosul dam marks the biggest victory in the Iraqi governments struggle to take back assets seized by ISIS since the organization launched a massive offensive in Northern Iraq in June.

For more information please see:

CBS News – Emboldened by U.S. strikes, Iraq goes on offense – 19 August 2014

CNN International – U.S. airstrikes critical in Mosul Dam capture – 18 August 2014

The Guardian – Iraqi and Kurdish forces recapture Mosul dam from ISIS – 18 August 2014

The New York Times – Troops in Iraq Rout Sunni Militants From a Key Dam – 18 August – 2014

July 30, 2014

With the recent, rapid changes on the ground in Iraq and subsequent calls from the United States for a new power-sharing arrangement to govern the country, PILPG recently hosted a roundtable discussion on the topic, “Power-Sharing in Iraq: Impossible or Inevitable?”  The roundtable brought together experts to discuss whether, and under what circumstances, a power-sharing arrangement might be achieved in Iraq. Participants also discussed the potential geo-strategic and security implications that a power-sharing arrangement in Iraq would have.

The roundtable generated a number of key findings that the international community may consider when assessing the likelihood and implications of power sharing in Iraq.  The report, Power-Sharing in Iraq: Impossible or Inevitable?, sets forth the key findings that emerged from the roundtable.

The full text of the report can be viewed here.
About the Public International Law & Policy Group

The Public International Law & Policy Group (PILPG) is a global, pro bono law firm providing legal assistance to governments involved in conflicts.  To facilitate use of this legal assistance, PILPG also provides policy formulation advice and training on matters related to conflict resolution.  PILPG was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2005.

PILPG’s primary practice areas are Peace Negotiations, Post-Conflict Constitutions, and War Crimes Prosecution.  To provide pro bono legal advice and policy formulation expertise, PILPG relies almost exclusively on volunteer assistance from more than sixty former international lawyers, diplomats, and foreign relations experts, as well as pro bono assistance from major international law firms.  Annually, PILPG is able to provide over $20 million worth of pro bono international legal services.

In July 1999, the United Nations granted official Non-Governmental Organization status to PILPG.

The Managing Board of PILPG includes:

Paul Williams – President
Michael Scharf – Managing Director
James Hooper – Managing Director

To learn more about the Public International Law & Policy Group, please visit ourwebsite.

The Public International Law & Policy Group provides to members of our list serve e-mail updates relating to certain developments concerning the work of PILPG.  If you do not wish to receive these general updates please click on the unsubscribe link below.

By Kathryn Maureen Ryan
Impunity Watch, Managing Editor

GAZA CITY, Gaza – Israeli tanks entered Gaza after the Israeli military launched a massive ground operation into Gaza late Thursday, calling an extra 18,000 reservists into the conflict with Hamas. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon reportedly ordered the assault to destroy tunnels moving from the Gaza strip into Israel Proper. Tunnels connecting Israel and Gaza as well as Egypt have served as critical supply chains, not only for Hamas militants but also for critical civilian supplies including fuel. The ground assault represents as a major escalation in the ten-day offensive that has already killed more than 230 Palestinians, including the shocking killing of four civilian boys on a Gaza beach on Wednesday.

The offensive began after a group of gunmen reportedly attempted to enter Israel through a tunnel originating in Gaza. The Israeli army said eight of the 13 attackers were killed, and Hamas claimed responsibility for the operation. The Israeli military said the operation “will deal significant damage to the infrastructure of Hamas and other terrorist organizations in the Gaza Strip.” “We have hit Hamas hard, and we will continue to hit Hamas hard,” the Israel Defense Forces tweeted.

Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum said that “the beginning of the Israeli ground invasion of Gaza is a dangerous step with unknown consequences. Israel will pay a heavy price for it. “Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said of the offensive; “It does not scare the Hamas leaders or the Palestinian people. We warn Netanyahu of the dreadful consequences of such a foolish act.”

The escalation came shortly after a five-hour “humanitarian ceasefire” requested by the United Nations, aimed at giving residents of Gaza a chance to leave their homes for necessities after days of Israli bombardments. Both sides of the conflict largely stopped firing, and people were able to venture out to markets, grocers and banks, which opened for the first time in more than a week.

The ground operation comes just a day after Four young boys were killed during an Israeli strike while playing at Gaza beach on Wednesday, witnesses say, a fifth boy was injured in the attack and is in critical condition. The blasts that killed the boys struck near a hotel where several members of the foreign media are staying; several journalist witnessed the incident. The boys, two brothers and two cousins, were between the ages of 9 and 11.

Israli spokesmen Mark Regev said the results of a preliminary investigation suggests the deaths were the result of a “a tragic misidentification of the target.” However, A Hamas official called the killings a “war crime.” Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zhuri said “those children were not firing rockets, they were just playing.”

According to a report by Human Rights watch several Israeli airstrikes have targeted civilian structures and other non-military targets.  Israeli attacks in Gaza since July 7, 2014 have destroyed 1,255 homes and displaced at least 7,500 people.

“Israel’s rhetoric is all about precision attacks but attacks with no military target and many civilian deaths can hardly be considered precise,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “Recent documented cases in Gaza sadly fit Israel’s long record of unlawful airstrikes with high civilian casualties.” Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, said Israeli bombs hit Wafa Hospital in Gaza while four patients were inside. Human Rights Watch has called on Israeli to stop targeting Civilian populations and infrastructure; weather the targeting of these areas in intentional or reckless.

For more information:

Al Jazeera – Israel Launches Gaza Ground Invasion – 17 July 2014

CNN International – Israel Launches Ground Operation in Gaza; Hamas Says Israel to ‘Pay a Heavy Price’ – 17 July 2014

CNN International – ‘They Went to the Beach to Play’: Deaths of 4 Children Add to Growing Toll in Gaza Conflict – 17 July 2014

Time Magazine – Israel, Hamas Agree on Short Cease-Fire After Israeli Strike Kills 4 Palestinian Boys – 16 July 2014

Foreign affairs expert Robert Kaplan writes that the total number of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s victims, depending upon how you count, may reach upwards of a million. (Nikola Solic/Associated Press)

Former war crimes prosecutor David Crane says the fullest extent of the brutality of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has yet to be uncovered.

“We were just given a tip-of-the-iceberg look of the horror,” saidCrane, one of the authors of a report into the atrocities committed by the Assad regime.

The report, based on thousands of images of mutilated corpses provided by a former Syrian police photographer, found evidence of 11,000 people tortured and killed in three detention facilities in and aroundDamascus. And with 50 other such facilities unexplored, the total numbers of human casualties could be “astronomical and horrific,” he said.

Stephen Rapp, head of the U.S. State Department’s Office of Global Criminal Justice, recently said that those “images of individuals that have been strangled, and mutilated, gouged, burned, starved” is “solid evidence of the kind of machinery of cruel death that we haven’t seen frankly since the Nazis.”

• Syria defector’s photos depict ‘systematic torture and killing’ of detainees
• Syria war death toll tops 160,000
• Syria’s civil war: key facts, important players

But Crane, who was chief prosecutor at the Sierra Leone war crimes tribunal, also stressed that evaluating the brutality of tyrants, especially through death toll numbers, places the focus in the wrong place.  And it’s why he takes some umbrage with a recent column by foreign affairs author and expert Robert Kaplan comparing Assad to Iraq’s former dictator, Saddam Hussein.

Some tyrants far worse

“Even among tyrants, there are distinctions,” wrote Kaplan, a chief analyst for the geopolitical intelligence firm Stratfor. “Some tyrants are worse than others. It is important that we recognize such distinctions.”

Kaplan said it’s “nonsense” for anyone to suggest that while Saddam was brutal, he wasn’t as bad as Assad.

He notes that while 160,000 have been killed during the three-year conflict in Syria, in the Al-Anfal campaign, Saddam killed an estimated 100,000 civilians alone. Kaplan adds that Saddam likely killed tens of thousands following the first Gulf War, and that he initiated the Iran-Iraq war which killed hundreds of thousands.

“The total number of his victims, depending upon how you count, may reach upwards of a million. Saddam was beyond brutal,” Kaplan wrote. “The word brutal has a generic and insipid ring to it: one that simply does not capture what Iraq was like under his rule. Saddam was in a category all his own, somewhere north of the al-Assads and south of Stalin. That’s who Saddam Hussein was.”

But Crane said that Kaplan’s argument is somewhat misleading.

“I think you need to note what he says but also to really make the point that in reality it’s not about numbers, it’s about human beings,” Crane said.

‘We were just given a tip-of-the-iceberg look of the horror,’ said former war crimes prosecutor David Crane, one of the authors of a report into the atrocities committed by the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria. (Vahid Salemi/Associated Press)

“The fact that one [of the dictators]

may have had different methodologies or had literally, by numbers, killed more than the other is frankly, in my opinion, not significant and actually can be misleading as to the intent,” Crane said. “And that is the widespread and systematic destruction of their own citizens.”

International law and war crimes expert Cherif Bassiouni said it’s difficult to compare tyrannical regimes and that it’s not just a question of total people killed but also the impact those killings have on a country.

“Every conflict is sui generis, every conflict has its own characteristics, has its own impact. And to try and quantify numbers in a given conflict and try to compare it to another is just totally impossible,” he said.

But Henri Barkey, professor of international relations at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Penn., agreed with Kaplan, noting a distinction can be made between Saddam and Assad.

“The interesting thing in terms of comparison is that Saddam’s system of brutality was one he instituted from the moment he came to power that was incessant, that was continuous. He ratcheted up when necessary but it was constant,” Barkey said.

‘Derived pleasure from killing’

“Assad, as much as he’s a hoodlum, he’s a two-bit dictator, did not engage in the kind of massive continuous stuff that Saddam has done. Saddam would kill just for the fun and pleasure of killing. He derived pleasure from the killing.”

Assad’s current behaviour, while horrible, is one of someone who is fighting for their life, Barkey said.  But in the case of Saddam, the whole system from the beginning was based on continuous violence against everybody — real and imagined enemies he said.

Barkey said one must also look at the two regimes during peace time and at war. During periods of conflict, both Saddam and Assad were equally brutal, using weapons of mass destruction, and engaging in indiscriminate bombing and shelling. But in non-conflict time, Saddam was far worse than Assad, he said.

Barkey also dismissed Rapp’s comparison of Assad’s regime to the Nazis, saying when the Kurds liberated the police stations and prisons in the north,”they found exactly the same thing — meticulous documentation on anybody who was killed, executed.”

“[Rapp] should know better. The moment you bring this comparison. First of all, you’re cheapening the massive horrors of World War Two. We need to protect that in many respects.

“But factually he’s not right. Saddam and the Khmer Rouge were worse. Even Rwanda, where 800,000 people killed in a matter of weeks, wasn’t there a machinery there too?”