[Peace-discuss] International Lawlessness

[Morton K. Brussel]

The view of Le Monde Diplomatique of events in Iraq.

COLLATERAL DAMAGE FROM AN ILLEGAL WAR

Lawless war

By IGNACIO RAMONET

THE preamble to the United Nations Charter - the shared law of our 
planet - states: "We the peoples of the United Nations, determined to 
save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, and to ensure, by 
the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed 
force shall not be used, save in the common interest, have resolved to 
combine our efforts to accomplish these aims." The first article of the 
Charter says that the purpose of the UN is to "maintain international 
peace and security" and to suppress "acts of aggression or other 
breaches of the peace".

So, when the United States and its British allies launched their 
"preventive war" on Iraq at dawn on Thursday 20 March, in invading that 
country without a UN mandate and without the authorisation of any other 
international body they were violating international legality, wiping 
their feet on the most basic principles of the UN, and behaving as 
aggressors.

Faced with this crime against peace the world community finds itself in 
an unprecedented position. Never since the creation of the UN in 1945 
have we seen two countries that are founder members of that 
organisation, permanent members of the Security Council, among the 
world's oldest democracies, so brutally flouting international law and 
thereby making themselves, under the terms of that law, into delinquent 
states.

World order has been inverted. Not the hierarchy of power, because US 
power remains incontestable. But in political values. The protests of 
millions of people around the world, even within the US and Britain, 
against this war were motivated by the feeling that it is immoral. 
People may not have many illusions, but they do expect the most 
powerful country in the world to be guided by ethics, to champion 
respect for the process of law and to be a model of obedience to the 
law. At the very least they don't expect it to turn its back on the 
basic principles of political morality.

However, it seems that since the attacks of 11 September 2001 the US, 
under the administration of President George Bush, has arrived at a 
cynical definition of proper behaviour by governments. Perhaps with an 
eye on Machiavelli - "to maintain his state a prince is often forced to 
act in defiance of good faith, of charity, of kindness, of religion" 
(1) - Bush and the hawks surrounding him decided to take action which 
is against morality, human rights and international law.

After an unprecedented diplomatic disaster in which the US hyperpower 
was incapable of rallying support within the Security Council from 
countries that have long been within its sphere of influence (Mexico, 
Chile and Pakistan), the US had another big setback when Turkey, an 
ally of long standing, refused to allow US troops to cross through its 
territory. Regardless, Bush maintained his project of aggression 
against Iraq and claimed the support of a "coalition" of 40 in which 
former communist countries figure largely, including Uzbekistan and 
Turkmenistan, two of the most sinister neo-totalitarian states. Saddam 
Hussein may be odious and tyrannical, but Bush and his entourage have 
hardly distinguished themselves for their morality. Their contempt for 
international law and the arrogance engendered by the force of their 
military power have caused the biggest wave of anti-Americanism since 
the Vietnam war (1961-75).

The Geneva-based International Commission of Jurists, a consultative 
body within the UN, warned on 18 March 2003 against attacking Iraq 
without a UN mandate, referring to an "outright illegal invasion of 
Iraq, which amounts to a war of aggression" (2). (These words had been 
preceded by similar warnings from lawyers' associations in Britain, 
France, Belgium and Spain.) It said there was no possible juridical 
basis for such an intervention. In the absence of authorisation from 
the Security Council, no state may have recourse to force against 
another state except in legitimate defence, in response to an armed 
attack.

The US has invoked legitimate defence to justify its attack on Iraq, 
but for domestic public consumption - trying to link the 11 September 
attacks to the Baghdad regime (an unproven case) - and not for the 
Security Council. The view of the Council, up to 20 March, was that 
Iraq was not an immediate threat of the kind that would justify an 
immediate war. Moreover the legitimate defence argument presupposes the 
existence of a prior armed aggression, which Iraq has not committed. 
And legitimate preventive defence is not admitted under international 
law.

Bush has also justified his invasion of Iraq by the need for regime 
change, getting rid of Saddam Hussein. Admirable as such an intention 
may be, it is not enough under the UN Charter to justify a unilateral 
recourse to force. As to the US claim that it is installing democracy 
in Iraq, this has no status as a legal justification for aggression. In 
the 17th century the jurist Grotius,founding father of human rights, 
wrote that "wanting to govern others against their will, under the 
pretext that it is good for them" was the most frequent justification 
for unjust wars.

(1) Machiavelli, The Prince , Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, 1982.

(2) www.ulb.ac.be/droit/cdi/appel_irak.html


Translated by Ed Emery 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 6056 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20030416/eb6cdd5d/attachment.bin