Funmurphys: the Blog

Militarizing a Civilian Asset

Carl Drews sent this in last week when Kevin was on vacation and I was holding down the fort here at Funmurphys. It's a thoughtful and well written piece.

The majestic Parthenon stands on the Acropolis above Athens, a continuing testament to the greatness of classical Greece. This temple to the goddess Athena was built in 447-432 BC by Pericles. It survived relatively intact until 1687. The profile we see today, with the south colonnade and its curious dip of broken columns, is the direct result of a war crime.

This particular war crime is known by the phrase "militarizing a civilian asset". Civilian assets are hospitals, churches, etc. that have no military purpose. They are militarized when they are converted to military use, or when fighters use them as a base of operations. The conversion is deemed a war crime because the formerly civilian structure is now subject to attack and possible destruction by the opposing forces.

In the 1687 the Turks and the Venetians were at war in Athens. The Parthenon had been converted to a mosque long before, and the Turks were now using it as an ammunition dump. Perhaps they figured that the Venetians would never bombard the Parthenon, or maybe they thought that the temple's stout marble walls would withstand an incoming shell. In either case, they were wrong.

On September 26, 1687 a Venetian shell scored a direct hit on the Parthenon. The powder magazine inside the building exploded, destroying in seconds what had stood for 2,119 years. The entire roof was blown off, the interior walls were smashed, and the side colonnades were shattered. The intricately carved statues of the frieze fell to the ground and lay there until Lord Elgin had them collected and transported to the British Museum in 1801.

The Turks had committed a war crime. They had militarized a civilian asset. The Venetians had taken the bait, shelled the greatest temple of antiquity, and tragically illustrated what happens when civilian assets are converted to military use.

I have been to the Acropolis in Athens twice, and have marveled at the still-enduring grace and beauty of the Parthenon. I grieved for its destruction, and I condemned both the Turks and the Venetians for fighting their war on sacred ground. The cause and result of their quarrel is now forgotten, but the destruction remains.

Today we see the militant supporters of renegade Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr in Najaf committing a similar war crime. They are using the Imam Ali mosque in Najaf, and the nearby cemetery, as a base of military operations. In report after news report we read statements like this: "Insurgents fired mortars from the grounds of the mosque, hitting and heavily damaging a police station." (CNN.com) American Marines have found numerous caches of weapons in the cemetery. The al-Sadr militants are militarizing a civilian asset. In doing so, they are dangling the sacred Imam Ali mosque before an unknown fate, and playing a game of dice with its possible destruction. They are committing a war crime.

Muqtada al-Sadr claims that his forces are "protecting the holy sites", but this is complete bunk. One does not protect a building militarily by taking shelter inside it from hostile fire! If his forces really wanted to protect the shrine they would form a cordon around and some distance from the building, not hide inside it. The al-Sadr militants know perfectly well that American forces avoid their mosques; that's why they use mosques to hide their weapons and fighters. No, the Imam Ali shrine is protecting the insurgents, not the other way around.

It appears that the American forces in Najaf will exercise more restraint than the Venetians did centuries ago. Hopefully our Iraqi allies in the police force and Iraqi National Guard will do the same. We all know that the stakes are high, and we will all share the blame if the shrine is damaged. I don't want the Imam Ali shrine destroyed, for a host of historical, political, cultural, and sentimental reasons. Unfortunately, the al-Sadr insurgents will not listen to me when I tell them to "get the heck outta there!"

References are given below. The Geneva Convention doesn't say what you can do when fighters are blasting away at you from the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. Hmmm . . .

References:
http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/definitions2.html#placesofworship

Places of Worship
Acts of hostility towards places of worship in international conflicts are prohibited. Places of worship may not be used in support of the military effort, and they cannot be the objects of reprisals. (Protocol I, Art. 53)

These prohibitions also apply in non-international conflicts. (Protocol II, Art. 16)

If there is any doubt as to whether a place of worship is being used to help the military action, then it will be presumed not to be so used. (Protocol I, Art. 52, Sec. 3)

Protocol 1, Article 53 reads in its entirety as follows:
Protection of cultural objects and of places of worship

Without prejudice to the provisions of the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of 14 May 1954, and of other relevant international instruments, it is prohibited: (a) to commit any acts of hostility directed against the historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples; (b) to use such objects in support of the military effort; (c) to make such objects the object of reprisals.