Commentary: There should be a war crimes tribunal for Iraq invasion

The long-awaited report of Britain's official inquiry into the war on Iraq confirms what has long been suspected, but it fails to take notice of an inconvenient truth by not mentioning that it was a war waged illegally.x There should be a war crimes tribunal for the perpetrators of the war that left hundreds of thousands dead and millions homeless and had been at the root of the wave of refugees plaguing Europe years later.

The inquiry led by retired British civil servant John Chilcot found that the British government based its decision to deploy troops to Iraq on flawed intelligence and underestimated the consequences of the invasion.

In other words, the key findings of the report are only that the intelligence before the war was "not good enough," and that the preparations for the aftermath of the war were "not adequate."

"The UK chose to engage in the invasion of Iraq before the peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted. Military action at that time was not a last resort," the report added.

Obviously such a report still implies that it is justified to throw away the pretense of internal law and wage a war to topple the recognized government of a sovereign state despite the absence of an authorization from the United Nations.

It is unfortunate and unfair that the people should pray they do not live in the countries in the Middle East toppled in this way -- not only Iraq, but also Libya. Syria is a victim, too.

Hundreds of thousands of lives were lost, and millions of people were made homeless. As a spillover effect, the refugees flooded Europe, creating one of the toughest challenges for the members of the European Union bloc in its history.

Comments made by Western leaders were in the same vein when they admitted that the plan for the aftermath of the Iraq invasion was inadequate but failed to reckon with the inconvenient truth that the war has been waged in violation of international law.

It is legally justifiable to bring a case against the perpetrators of the war in Iraq, as it is common sense that a war without legal ground is a crime. The International Criminal Court, though, has conveniently said that the "decision by the UK to go to war in Iraq falls outside the court's jurisdiction."

Such a situation makes an interesting contrast with the South China Sea issue, in which international law has been used as a pretext to force a far-fetched political farce in the name of international law on China. This will only escalate tensions and create disorder in the region.

Again, the tribunal ignores the inconvenient truth that the arbitration brought by the Philippines is inevitably linked to maritime delimitation and sovereignty issues, which fall outside the jurisdiction of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Such an act not only harms the interests of China but will also jeopardize the integrity of international law. It is by no means conducive to the joint management of the sea.

The double standards cannot be more obvious when countries like the United States, along with Britain, carry out their acts of interventionism and hegemonism. Endi