From: Ian Hunt (Ian.Hunt@flinders.edu.au)
Date: Sat Apr 05 2003 - 02:02:40 EST
Is the US led invasion of Iraq legal? Is it justified? The answer to the first question is determined by whether it conforms to the UN Charter. The answer to the second depends on whether the war had acceptable aims, whether there was any peaceful alternative, and what the consequences, good and bad, are likely to be. The US and its allies have gestured to 'self-defence', which is a legitimate cause for war under the UN Charter. The problem here is that the US has not proved that Iraq has any intention or capability to join with Al Quaida to attack it with weapons of mass destruction. Rather, the US stretches 'self-defence' to include waging war against another country that the US is not assured might not in the future acquire the ability and intention to attack the US. This doctrine of 'pre-emptive' defence clearly makes a mockery of the UN Charter and must be rejected. In notifying the UN Security Council of its intention to wage war, the US and its allies cited resolutions passed by the UN Security Council in 1990/91 for legal authority. However, the UN authorised force in 1990 to end Iraq's illegal occupation of Kuwait. That conflict concluded with a ceasefire agreement imposing all sorts of conditions on Iraq, including destruction of its weapons of mass destruction capability. The US hardly has reason to resume war under the original authorisation for force of 1990, since Iraq no longer occupies Kuwait nor poses any threat of re-occupation. The question is rather what the UN Security Council should do about the alleged failure of Iraq to comply with the terms of the ceasefire in 1991. Even if that allegation is true, it is not self-evident that members of the UN should simply resume hostilities, given twelve years have passed and Iraq's military capability, including stocks of WMD, has been reduced substantially. The issue of what to do is addressed by UN Security Council resolution 1441, passed unanimously with the understanding that it did not contain any hidden trigger for war, and with the Security Council making it clear that it wanted to decide whether Iraq had failed to comply and what action to take. The US might claim that Iraq is in breach of a UN resolution but it should leave it to the UN to determine whether that is so. That is why weapons inspectors were sent to Iraq. In any case, the legality of war under UN resolutions turns on the truth of the US allegation that Iraq has banned weapons, which is rejected by Iraq, and is not supported by findings of UN weapons inspector, who have claimed that Iraq only still needs to account completely for weapons stocks it once possessed. This Iraq did not get a chance to do, as the US attacked on the pretext that the UN Security Council had refused to enforce its own resolution and that the US could not allow 'indefinite delay' in determining whether Iraq has banned weapons, including WMD. Since the UN Security Council simply wanted to give the weapons inspectors more time to make a finding before it considered enforcement of its resolution and was not proposing indefinite delay, the US pretext for attack is baseless. War was clearly unnecessary to ensure that Iraq complies with resolution 1441. A sensible way of enforcing this resolution would be to exert pressure on Saddam's regime by building up military forces, which could attack if there was no evidence of significant compliance. If there was evidence of compliance, such as that provided when Iraq started destroying missiles that weapons inspectors claimed were illegal, military forces could be scaled down, pending a final report from the inspectors. Inspectors could even have been given until the end of the Northern Autumn to make a final report on whether Iraq was disarmed. If the inspectors reported non-co-operation over that period, the UN Security Council could then have considered war to enforce its resolutions. Waiting until November would not, as the US and Howard claimed, put off the issue indefinitely. It would have set a very definite timeline with ample room for the inspectors to complete their task. As it was, France proposed that inspectors be given another month and that might have sufficed to determine Iraqi compliance with 1441. Despite unquestioning acceptance by Western media, the US allegation that Iraq has WMD is inherently incredible. Possession of nuclear weapons can make other countries think twice before attacking, but everyone accepts that Iraq does not have these and would not be able to acquire them with UN weapons inspectors in place. Biological and Chemical weapons may be effective in terrorising defenceless people such as the Kurds, but are relatively ineffective against a military power such as the US, and cannot be used against other countries without massive retaliation. Their possession also has the overwhelming disadvantage, at least since Bush's 'axis of evil' speech, of provoking attack by the world's only superpower. Iraq would have to be incredibly stupid to have WMD, as the US alleges, especially since they are not so difficult to acquire that Iraq would lose them forever by getting rid of them now. We could reasonably conclude immediately that Iraq does not possess WMD but for one thing: Saddam has already shown incredible stupidity when he persisted with his occupation of Kuwait. However, even if Saddam has been incredibly stupid, and still has WMD, his known malevolence suggests that these will be passed to Al Quaida, if possible, once he faces certain defeat. This would be nice revenge for an attack nominally aimed at getting rid of this threat. This brings us to the real aims and the real consequences of the US led invasion of Iraq. Disarming Saddam is clearly a mere pretext for the attack. The rulers of the US are not stupid: they knew that weapons inspections were working and that waiting a further month or even half a year would not amount to an indefinite wait. From the known positions of Bush's neo-conservative advisors, it is clear that the US invasion is calculated to increase US power in the Middle East, so that it is better able to deal with Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Control of Iraq's oil will counter any Saudi threat, implicit or explicit, to turn off oil supplies if the US rides roughshod over Saudi interests. The US will be able to pressure Saudi Arabia to suppress Islamic fundamentalism internally and to concede more to Israel, such as Israeli control of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, in a peace settlement for Palestine imposed by the US. The US has clearly hoped to intimidate Arab opposition to its policies in the Middle East and to push Arab governments toward US inspired 'reforms'. These war aims are hardly acceptable to anyone other than supporters of a US imperium for the twenty first century. As to the consequences of the invasion, there is only one clear positive. Iraq will manifestly be better off without Saddam's fascist regime. Against this is the death and destruction of war, however 'smartly' waged. Further, the hostility already generated in the Arab world to an attack without UN sanction will make the US and the West at large less rather than more safe from terrorist attack. Al Quaida now has more chance of recruiting and operating securely. Pakistan has recently helped to catch some important Al Quaida operatives but it is unlikely that the intelligence and enthusiasm required for further success will now be forthcoming. Osama Bin Laden can sleep more soundly at night and wake smiling in the morning at his newly enhanced prospects. The humanitarian benefits of deposing Saddam could have justified an invasion if his regime had precipitated a humanitarian crisis. However, it is now clear that the invasion itself threatens such a crisis and will prove counterproductive for security against terrorism. The war in Iraq is neither legal nor just. -- Associate Professor Ian Hunt, Director, Centre for Applied Philosophy, Philosophy Dept, School of Humanities, Flinders University of SA, Humanities Building, Bedford Park, SA, 5042, Ph: (08) 8201 2054 Fax: (08) 8201 2784
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Apr 06 2003 - 00:00:01 EST