Introduction

It was decided that the Final session of the World Tribunal on Iraq process be held in Istanbul, beginning 20 March 2005. The following sets out a brief description of the proposed session.

The aims of the Istanbul session, as we see it, are:

1. to provide a point of culmination for the various initiatives of tribunals/hearings within a coherent framework of judgement.
2. to provide a point of departure for possible new peoples' initiatives that might build upon the work of the WTI and/or elaborate on the issues for judgement that may not have had sufficient attention thus far.

Thematic Content

There have been many debates about the conceptualisation of the WTI. There have been different visions of what a peoples' tribunal process entails. What we hope to do in the Istanbul session is to provide a means by which the diversity of initiatives coming under the umbrella of the WTI may come together in a complimentary and coherent framework.

The following have been some of the issues of concern that have been raised by different partners of the WTI as being critical for judgement:

• The (il)legality of the war (violations of international law)
• The criminality of the conduct of the war (violations of international humanitarian law)
• The criminality of the occupation (violations of international humanitarian law and law's of occupation)
• The criminality of the political-economic project behind the war
• The culpability of so-called democratic institutions in enabling the prosecution of the war
• The complicity of the media and information agencies in facilitating war-mongering and denying truth

We envisage the final session in Istanbul as a forum in which a peoples judgement may be reached and articulated upon a considered deliberation of the issues as identified by the WTI process. All of the issues outlined above, therefore, become pertinent to the deliberations of the Istanbul session.

In conceptualising the Istanbul session, we have taken as our primary responsibility the articulation of concerns which derive from a twofold perspective: the perspective of the violated peoples of Iraq; and a perspective of the general global public. We believe that the WTI should enable such often silenced voices to emerge at the forefront of the processes we initiate. These two perspectives therefore will be addressed by dividing the tribunal session into two parts.

A. Justice for the Iraqi Peoples

The proceedings in the Istanbul session will, first, seek to set out the findings of the various preceding deliberations from the perspective of an Iraqi demand for justice. From a presentational point of view, the following issues for judgement could be articulated by an Iraqi interrogator, speaking to the global public:

From the evidence so gathered, what is the peoples judgement on the following:

• Whether the 'Coalition' governments' are guilty of a gross and criminal violation of the life, liberty and dignity of the peoples of Iraq through their prosecution of an inhumane war of aggression.
• Whether the current occupation in Iraq is illegal, illegitimate and in violation of the sovereignty of the peoples of Iraq.
• Whether the Coalition governments' are guilty of a continuing violation of the Iraqi peoples through the criminal conduct of political manipulation and economic plundering effected under the guise of the transition to 'democracy'.
• Whether the political institutions of the 'international community' are guilty of betraying the cause of justice for the Iraqi peoples.

These questions, we believe, focus the many issues that have been part of the WTI process. Such an approach also brings to priority the implications of the determinations that we have undertaken as part of an international coalition of peoples' movements on the specific needs and demands for justice of the Iraqi peoples.

These questions become therefore the substantive issues for judgement of this part of the Istanbul session. We propose that a 'verdict' on these questions be issued by the tribunal. In order for such a verdict to be reached, findings (evidence, testimonies, judgements of previous sessions) on the following issues will be presented to the Tribunal by a WTI Commission of Enquiry:

1. The investigation of whether the armed invasion of Iraq by the so-called Coalition violate the UN Charter prescriptions for the peaceful settlement of disputes and the operation of the collective security regime. (Reports from New York? Japan? Berlin? ...?)
2. The investigation of whether the conduct of hostilities by the Coalition forces violate International Humanitarian law. (Reports from London? New York? Berlin? Copenhagen? Japan?..)
3. The investigation of whether the occupation violates International Humanitarian Law and the laws of belligerent occupation. (Reports from New York? Japan? ...?)  
4. What has been the conduct of the media and information agencies in reporting the truth about the war and occupation of Iraq, the impact of the war on global security and the alternative visions of peace? (Report from Italy)  
5. What has been the conduct of the United Nations and other political organisations in addressing the situation in Iraq? (Report from?)  
6. Evaluation of the recent material of human rights abuses in Iraq.

The Commission of Enquiry will be responsible to coordinate the presentation of relevant evidence and witness testimonies to address the specific issues raised. This presentation of evidence will be subject to a cross-examination by a Commission of Scrutiny, to ensure the veracity of the findings.

From this, will emerge the Panel of Judgement's verdict (see below on Notes on Presentation)

B. Peoples' Justice Concerns

From the verdict of Part A on the issues of justice for the peoples of Iraq, flow also other issues which pertain to a broader constituency of concern. This then represents the second aspect of the Istanbul session.

We believe that the war in Iraq represents more than the specificities of the wrongs committed against the Iraqi peoples. As such, wider issues of concern are raised by the war that are critical for the collective judgements by the WTI. This second aspect of the Istanbul session is designed to address some of these issues and to perhaps point to the need for further engagement by peoples' movements through the launch of a 'World Tribunals Initiative'.

Below are outlined the key issues for judgement, from a global peoples' perspective, that we see as arising from the determinations reached on the Iraq specific questions for judgement:

1. Were we lied to? What implications flow from the erosion of trust in the international institutions of truth-telling?
2. What has been the impact of the 'war' on Iraq on the global security environment,
   • What are the main dangers facing the majority of the human population globally? (Militarization of economies? Polarisation of political views? Imperialistic usurpation of developmental visions?)
   • How has the war affected the prospects of the middle east political process? (the outstanding issue of justice for the Palestinian people? Perils on the democratisation process of Arab states?
   • How has the discourse on the 'war on terrorism' translated into on the ground realities of peoples' (in)security and civil liberties?
   • What implications flow, following the bombings in Istanbul, Madrid, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia etc. and the threats in various capital cities, on any notion that that the threat of 'terrorism' is being reduced by current strategies of violence by the US/UK?
3. How is the future of the world effected by this assault:
   • How was the cultural heritage of the world damaged?
   • How has the environment and the world sources at large been damaged?
4. What has been the impact of the war in Iraq on the credibility of international political-legal institutions? Does the UN system provide a credible basis upon which the will of the global population may be effected?
5. What are the options for world order imaginations? What democratic spaces are available for alternative peoples' visions for non-violent orders?

The responsibility of the Panel(s) in this part of the session will be to provide considered assessments of the issues for judgement, and also to suggest new possibilities for peoples' action.

A Note on Presentation:

The presentation on each issue in Part 1 of the Session may begin by a personal narration of experience upon the issue which leads to a first person accusation. This 'voice' represents an embodied voice of a who category of accusers in accordance with the issue concerned. For example:

On (1) - a narrative of the experience within the UN, perhaps by a UN diplomat from one of the pressured countries of the Security Council or a weapons inspector, telling the story of UNSC 'deliberations' prior to the attack on Iraq, demonstrating the perversion of the UN, the coercive methods employed by US/UK etc, leading up to a personal accusation along these lines. This would then be substantiated by more 'detached'/'objective' presentation of evidence by the Commission of Enquiry relating to these accusations.

On (2) - personal narrative of suffering/victimage arising during the war, perhaps an experiential account of a survivor of a particular incident of 'coalition' atrocity.

Etc. The point being that this enables giving embodied voice to the issue, it provides the human experience of violation that fundamentally is the subject demanding judgement. From the specific, a voicing of an accusation that is representative of a category of accuser, then can me demonstrated the general violation. This also provides for different variety in the 'language' of the session.

Subsequent to the process of cross-examination, and possible questioning by the Panel(s) - (this is an issue that needs to be discussed) the call to judgement by the Iraqi interrogator may be repeated for the issuance of a verdict.

Part 2 of the tribunal can again contain within it an aspect of personalised narratives which give human contexts to generalised issues. These may then be complimented by testimonies and evidence, either experiential, or 'expert', relevant to the issue concerned. These testimonies again will be subject to cross-examination.

Panel of judgement

The constitution, and even forms of the 'Panel of Judgement' for the session needs to be discussed. Suggestions include have a broad panel of judgement 25-30 people including the mine worker and the aborigine alongside the others; having a broad panel of judgement consisting of different constituent groups (for example one being composed of renowned public personalities of 'conscience', eg with religious leaders, personalities like Mandela, retired judges of the World Court etc, another still being one that is of the voice of conscience of 'ordinary' people - comprising community leaders, educationalists, mine workers, aborigines, Chiapas, etc. - , one with representatives of previous sessions).

Issues relating to methods of selection, ideological orientations etc, also require thought.

All these matters basically involve serious thought on the nature of what we are trying to do through a 'peoples tribunal', and the challenges we set ourselves for this. It involves how we envision our political project! This discussion is on-going.

Our Vision

We hope from this process to initiate movements of imagination and action that asks, and acts on, questions that go to the heart of a peoples' reclaiming of political spaces. And in this process we have to recognise the discrepancies of power and voice within peoples movements themselves!

We believe that the Istanbul session bears the responsibility of culminating a process already initiated and beginning a process yet to be imagined. This we see as the potential of the WTI as an political project of relevance for the global peoples' movements.

In hope and solidarity
WTI Platform in Turkey