HOME
DV NEWS
SERVICE ARCHIVE SUBMISSIONS/CONTACT ABOUT DV
Violated
International Law
by
Dan Bacher
May
31, 2003
Burns
Weston, Director of the University of Iowa Center for Human Rights and a
leading authority on international human rights law, contends that the U.S. and
British war in Iraq was completely illegal, according to the existing body of
international law regarding military interventions.
Weston’s
contention occurs at a time when human rights activists in many countries are
filing lawsuits against the U.S. and British governments for war crimes in
Iraq. A Belgian lawyer on May 14 filed
a suit against General Tommy Franks, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, under
Belgium's law that allows its courts to try foreigners for war crimes. Lawyer Jan
Fermon filed the suit in a Brussels court on behalf of 19 Iraqi victims of
cluster bombs and U.S. attacks on ambulances and civilians.
The
Bar Association of Athens, Greece said it will also file a suit against British
officials, including Prime Minister Tony Blair, at the International Criminal
Court - the recently created tribunal for cases of war crimes, crimes against
humanity and genocide.
The
long implications of the illegal intervention in Iraq - and so-called
anti-terrorism laws like the Patriot Act - are alarming for the future of our
country and the world. What Weston and other human rights experts see in Iraq -
rather than a “Pax Americana” - is the imposition of an aggressive military
empire designed to control resources to offset future economic competition from
the European Union (EU) and China.
“Our
country is moving further and further into a peculiarly American type of
fascism that has its roots in the belief that international law doesn’t
matter,” said Weston.
This
is strong, powerful talk for a legal scholar who carefully prefaced his talk by
emphasizing that he wasn’t a pacifist and believed that “use of force to depose
Saddam Hussein may have been necessary.”
Weston,
at a talk sponsored by Sacramento Yolo Peace Action and other peace and human
rights groups in Sacramento in May, went point by point through how the Iraq
War violated Articles 51 and 39 of the United Nations Charter and other
international laws.
Article
51 of the U.N. Charter provides that “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.”
Bush
and Blair tried to justify the intervention on the presence of so-called
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and by drawing an implicit connection of the
Hussein regime to Al Qaeda.
“Neither
of these contentions stood the test of scrutiny,” said Weston. “No WMD ever
existed at the ready with a hands-on-the-trigger scenario. Not only were these
weapons ever found, but there is no evidence that they could have been deployed
even if they had been found.”
Regarding
Bush and Blair’s claims that Saddam supported “terrorism,” Weston said it was
“difficult to believe that there was any serious connection with Al Qaeda,
especially when bin Laden saw Saddam as an infidel, although he supported Hamas
and Hezbollah.”
“To
suggest suicide bombings - terrorism for self determination versus messianic
terrorism - are comparable to Al Qaeda
is pretty serious offense to common sense,” said Weston.
Bush
- rather than advocate for “preemptive war” against an immediate threat -
developed a doctrine of “preventive war” for a country supposedly considered a
long term threat. The concept of “preventive war” is illegal under Section 51,
according to Weston.
The
second article justifying water under the U.N. Charter is Article 39, that
provides the three circumstances for the use of force: (1) a threat to peace,
(2) a breach of peace and (3) an act of aggression.
“Bush
kept insisting on Article 39, that there would be serious consequences against
Iraq if they didn’t comply with the Security Council’s wishes, but most of the
Council didn’t buy into it,” said Weston.
U.N.
Resolution 1441 didn’t authorize the immediate use of force, only the
inspections for WMD in Iraq. “The war wasn’t authorized by Article 39, so it
was an act of aggression by Bush and Blair,” said Weston.
Under
the standards of the Nuremberg trials, the war in Iraq is considered a crime
against peace. “If the regime engages in war crimes, the architects of the war
are considered war criminals. Therefore Bush and his entourage are war
criminals under international law,” concluded Weston.
Another
justification for the war by Bush and Blair was the previous authorization of
force by the U.N to go to war over Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. However,
Resolution 687 brought the Iraq war to an end and previous agreements were
terminated. “I can’t see how the UN Charter could possibly justify what Bush
and Blair did in Iraq this year,” added Weston.
There
is one other possible argument - that the Iraq intervention was required as a
humanitarian intervention under international law when there is an act of
genocide that requires a state or group of states to intervene swiftly enough
to stop the slaughter of innocent people. “It was on this basis that I defended
Clinton on the intervention in Kosovo,” he said (an intervention that many in
the audience, including myself, adamantly opposed).
“However,
it was a very bad precedent that Bush didn’t even go to the Security Council
asking for humanitarian intervention,” said Weston. “It is transparently
laughable that the U.S. intervened to bring human rights to Iraq.
The
new national security strategy, as outlined in the Project for a New American
Century, calls for unchallenged U.S. military power throughout the world to
engage in preemptive strikes against potential opponents and to avoid even
going to the U.N. for authorization.
Calling themselves the “Straussians,” they argue for a interpretation of
Ancient Rome that it is OK for imperial powers to vanquish those who didn’t
live up to their standards of “civilization.”
But
besides imperial hegemony and control of world resources, there is a second
reason for U.S. intervention, a “burning interest” by the U.S. military and the
weapons manufacturers to test out new weapons in the field, said Weston.
“International
law was fundamentally violated,” concluded Weston. “There were alternatives.
First, Saddam could have been contained. Second, there was always the
possibility of the multi-lateral use of force with legitimacy - and allow 3
more months of inspections.”
By
spending taxpayers’ money on military adventures, the Bush administration has
taken money that could have been better spent for feeding people, building
schools and economic and social development in the U.S. and throughout the
world.
“The
law has to be applied to everyone equally,” Weston concluded. “However we have
a bankrupt political process where the Democrats serve as door mats for the
Bush administration. The media has completely forgotten their Fourth Estate
role. The American people have allowed Bush to seduce us into a self absorbed
fear after 9-11 - and a lot of the American people have bought into it.”
Is
there any room for optimism? Weston points to February 15, an extraordinary
event in U.S and world history, when unprecedented millions of people joined in
a world wide movement against intervention in Iraq, protesting not just war,
but affirming “the right to peace.” Indeed, this is the “Second Super Power”
that has emerged to challenge the national security state that kills people
abroad while destroying our rights here at home.
“We
need to engage in the same vigor and sense of purpose that the Republican Party
engages in,” he said. “This year’s worldwide protests sent us a tiny ripple of
hope that we need to build on to sweep down the walls of oppression.”
Daniel Bacher is an outdoor
writer/alternative journalist/satirical songwriter from Sacramento California.
He is also a long-time peace, social justice and environmental activist. Email:
danielbacher@hotmail.com