US Prepared to Violate International Law

February 1, 2003

In a fundamental change of policy, the Bush administration has embraced the doctrine of pre-emptive war, including the first strike use of nuclear weapons, and has now applied it to Iraq. Speaking in Davos, Switzerland, on 26 January 2003, US Secretary of State, Colin L. Powell, said: "We continue to reserve our sovereign right to take military action against Iraq alone or in a coalition of the willing . . ." It is exactly the same pre-emptive strike excuse Hitler tried to use for invading Poland.

There is no such unqualified sovereign right. On the contrary, as a member state of the United Nations, the US is obliged by law to pursue peaceful means in international relations, as stated in the UN Charter, Chapter 1, Article 2:

"All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered; and, All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner consistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

The UN Charter does recognize the use of unilateral military force by a member state, but only for purposes of self defence and only when an "armed attack" has occurred against that state, as stated in Chapter 7, Article 51 of the UN Charter:
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security
."
Iraq has not been shown to have carried out "an armed attack" on the United States. No evidence has been offered that assigns any responsibility to Iraq for the attacks on the United States made on 11 September 2001, or any other attacks. Iraq has not been shown to be a credible threat to the US.

Possession of weapons of mass destruction by Iraq, (which it didn’t have) weapons already widely distributed among many countries, does not constitute an "armed attack" on anyone; nor does it justify unilateral US military action. If such weapons are a threat to its neighbours or anyone else, including the US, this is a matter for UN action, not unilateral American military action outside the UN.

Even if Iraq had links to Al Queda (which it didn’t), it does not constitute an "armed attack" on anyone. If such links constituted a serious threat, that too was a matter for UN action, not for unilateral American action.

A US led Coalitional attack against Iraq, absent evidence of an Iraqi armed attack against the US, violated international law and rendered the UN impotent. It only served to promote the US as world dictator, accountable to no one, creating inevitable resentment abroad. Such a Coalitional attack may very well someday be determined a war crime, and those Leaders with authority to carry out such attacks, war criminals.
The US must respect international law and work through the United Nations to resolve international disputes, and not act unilaterally to impose its own will on the world. If the US is unhappy with decision-making at the UN, it should work to make that organization more democratic and accountable.

Consider this: The US has been the only superpower since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. It could have used its power during that period to strengthen international institutions and establish a more responsible global democratic system, but under both Democratic and Republican administrations it has chosen not to do so.

To renounce the UN and other international institutions such as the World Court in favour of the U.S’s own military and economic power is not the path of Democracy it is the path of Empire and Tragedy, so often followed in the past. It is the signs of a Democratic Nation in its death throes, desperately grasping at power through domination and can only end in absolute power or absolute Tragedy and so the past repeats itself. Have we learned nothing? The alternative path, that of working for a just and democratic world order, still remains open to us. We should take it before it is too late.








.

 

Menu