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