· on May 11th, 2007 said:
The following statement by
>>Because the Bush administration was not acting in self-defence (sic), the tragic invasion and occupation of
I am going to try to make this as simple for you as I can. The second Gulf War, as well as the first Gulf War, had its origins in a defensive action on the
We replied, “OK, we will grant your cease fire, provided certain conditions are met. You see we don’t trust you with weapon of mass destruction. We have seen you are willing to engage in wars of conquest and that you are also willing to use poison gas against even your own people. Therefore, we will let you live, if you fully cooperate with certain controls we will put in place. Those controls include weapons inspectors and reports that you will fill out documenting how you are destroying the WMD programs you already have.”
To make a long story short,
Additionally
There was nothing illegal about our entrance into the Second Gulf War, and
· 5 on May 11th, 2007 said:
“Because the Bush administration was not acting in self-defence (sic), the tragic invasion and occupation of
The UN Charter is quite clear on this: the use of force is only legal in self-defence or without UN Security Council authorisation. As then-UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw explained, it is clear what it meant by “self-defence”:
“The conditions that have to be met for the exercise of the right of self-defence are well known:
i) There must be an armed attach upon a State or such an attack must be imminent;
ii) The use of force must be necessary and other means to reverse/avert the attack must be unavailable;
iii) The acts in self-defence must be proportionate and strictly confined to the object of stopping the attack.
The right of self-defence may only be exercise until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to ensure international peace and security and anythign [sic] done in exercise fo [sic] the right of self-defence must be immediately reported to the Council.
6. for the exercise of the right of self-defence there must be more than “a threat”. There has to be an armed attack actual or imminent. The development of possession of nuclear weapons does not in itself amount to an armed attack; what would be needed would be clear evidence of an imminent attack. During the Cold War there was certainly a threat in the sense that various States had nuclear weapons which they might, at short notice unleash upon each other. But that did not mean the mere possession of nuclear weapons, or indeed their possession in time of high tension or attempt to obtain them, was sufficient to justify pre-emptive action. And when Israel attacked an Iraqi nuclear reaction, near Baghdad, on 7 June 1981 it was “strongly condemned” by the Security Council (acting unanimously) as a “military” attack ….in clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct”.”
Since the
Needless to say, your history of the first Gulf War is, shall we say, incomplete (you neglect to mention, for example, that Saddam was “petitioning” for a ceasefire with withdrawal before the war). But let’s focus on the most recent Gulf war, since that is what Rocky Anderson was talking about. You say:
“To make a long story short,
No, they were withdrawn. They weren’t kicked out of
“When I left
We blanketed
If no one were watching,
The relevent point is that there were weapons inspectors in
“There was nothing illegal about our entrance into the Second Gulf War”
In fact, it was the supreme war crime, as acknowledged virtually across the board, and where there is a crime there are criminals. Those criminals must be held to account.
· 6 on May 11th, 2007 said:
I know I have heard this baloney before. I don’t want to go back and forth with you on whether they were kicked out or they left of their own accord. It’s not really the point. The Iraqis weren’t cooperating with the inspectors to our satisfaction. Nor were they making reports on the destruction of their nuclear weapons to our satisfaction. Since they had been the aggressors and since they were the ones who petitioned for the cease fire, our satisfaction is the operative word here. Remember this was not a treaty; it was only a cease fire. It was by definition a lull in the fighting. It was only operative as long as they met our conditions.
When the Iraqis fired on our planes while we were defending the Kurds, all semblance of a cease fire was gone and it was perfectly legal and proper for us to take action.
Not only were our actions not a supreme war crime, but it was not a war crime at all. Even
· 7 on May 11th, 2007 said:
“I know I have heard this baloney before. I don’t want to go back and forth with you on whether they were kicked out or they left of their own accord. It’s not really the point.”
Well, stop making patently untrue assertions, then.
“The Iraqis weren’t cooperating with the inspectors to our satisfaction. Nor were they making reports on the destruction of their nuclear weapons to our satisfaction.”
Actually, in 1998 the weapons inspectors considered
As to the rest of what you say - I’m not sure how else to respond except by repeating what I said earlier. Under international law, it is illegal to use military force without authorisation from the UNSC unless in response to a direct attack, or an “imminent” attack. This wasn’t the case with
As for
“regime change per se is no justification for military action; it could form part of the method of any strategy, but not a goal. Of course, we may want credibly to assert that regime change is an essential part of the strategy by which we have to achieve our ends - that of the elimination of Iraq’s WMD capacity; but the latter has to be the goal;”
Of course, there were no WMD to begin with (except for those in the process of being dismantled by the UN - after the inspectors were ordered out by the U.S., they kept watch by satellite and witnessed a systematic looting of these UN sites. Who took them and for what purposes is unknown). Likewise, see the famous Downing Street Memo:
“The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult.”
So in other words, we’d have needed another UNSC resolution. So I’m afraid that you’re just plain wrong on this. Even rabid war-hawks like Richard Perle have now admitted that the war was illegal (they supported it regardless). Please read the UN Charter - it’s quite explicit about this. The invasion of
· 8 on May 11th, 2007 said:
I do not concede that I made an untrue assertion. I just consider the point irrelevant; just as just about everything else you said is also irrelevant.
The point that you seem to be missing is this: there is really no Gulf War I and Gulf War II. We were already at war when the so called Gulf War II began. True, there was a significant lull in the fighting after Gulf War I, but there was no formal treaty to end the war. We granted Saadam a reprieve provided that he would be on his best behavior. But, after the cease fire Saadam was anything but on his best behavior.
Also, I repeat, Saadam was already firing rockets at us when the so called Gulf War II began. Now, it is a well established principle of international affairs that you don’t shoot bullets or rockets or any other harmful stuff at people with whom you wish to have a cease fire. This is all covered thoroughly in Cease Fire 101, which is taught in many universities. Because of Saadam’s bad faith, we had every right to cease the cease fire and to continue the war in earnest.
That the Gulf War was not legal (Whatever that means, by the way; on our side of the pond, we haven’t exactly given up our sovereignty so some world government) is an extremely foolish argument to make. Making such a stupid assertion is just one of the reasons
· 9 on May 12th, 2007 said:
If you don’t concede that the weapons inspectors were withdrawn as opposed to being “kicked out” then you’re just showing your ignorance. There’s no controversy over that - it’s an openly acknowledged fact.
I’m afraid you don’t just get to decide to re-start a war that was fought 12 years ago. That was had a very specific mission - to force a withdrawal from
So the invasion in 2003 was not UNSC authorised and it was not an act of self-defence. Hence, it was an illegal aggression.
“Whatever that means, by the way; on our side of the pond, we haven’t exactly given up our sovereignty so some world government”
Well, here you show your true colours. The law matters, I’m afraid, and both your government and mine broke it.
· 10 on May 12th, 2007 said:
There can be no controversy that Saadam resisted allowing the inspectors into his country long after we demanded that they return. And, we could discuss the degree to which Saadam’s bad behavior led to their leaving in the first place. But, that is a long fruitless discussion that leads us away from the central issues
Regarding your statement about re-starting the war; that was not exactly what happened. The war really continued throughout that period of time. There were a steady steam of really nasty provocations by Saadam (some of which were covert); there were bombing and rocket raids in response to some of the provocations; and there was a steady stream of missile attacks upon our airmen–just to cite a few illustrations of the war’s continuing.
I don’t deny that I wish that stronger action had been taken against Saadam earlier. But you have to do the best you can with the situation you are given.
Remember the Treaty of Versailles and the aftermath of World War I? Many historians have come to the following conclusion: if the allies had been more willing, from the beginning, to enforce the provisions of the treaty ending World War I, much of the carnage spawned from World War II could have been averted. How many women and children in
I have no inclination to hide my true colors (as you put it). I proudly proclaim that
Our use of the military to overthrow the government of
To say that we are war criminals on the scale of the Nazi war criminals who were tried at
· 11 on May 12th, 2007 said:
Well, as I say, you can (if you really want to) treat the whole thing as one conflict for the purposes of analysis. I think that’s silly, but let’s not go into that here.
In terms of legality, though, the law is crystal clear: any use of force that is not authorised by the UNSC and is not carried out in self-defence is a crime against peace, defined at
Now, as to Hitler - I’m not saying Bush/Blair are as bad as Hitler or Saddam Hussein. Frankly, I don’t think such comparisons are useful, even when accurate. I’m saying that they committed the exact same crime for which Nazis were hanged - the crime of aggression. And yes - there is no moral difference between the Nazi invasion of
Hitler is worse for other reasons - he systematically murdered six million Jews, for example. That’s a crime which even Bush/Blair haven’t matched. But I don’t that should really give us any comfort - that the American President and the British Prime Minister are not as bad as Hitler is not something that should make our hearts swell with pride. That’s not really the standard we should be using. The standard we should be using is international law, and by that standard both Blair and Bush deserve to be tried and convicted for war crimes.
· 12 on May 13th, 2007 said:
Not only is it not silly, but it is important to look at so called Gulf War I and Gulf War II as two episodes in one long conflict. Hell, there are many historians who think that World War II was really a continuation of World War I. If those two wars should be viewed as two chapters of the same war, then how much more should Gulf Wars I and II be looked upon as two episodes in the same conflict? The Gulf Wars were not as many years apart as the two World Wars. There was no formal treaty ending Gulf War I as there was with World War I. There were more of the same actors involved in the Gulf Wars than there were in the World Wars. There was continued fighting in the years between the Gulf Wars while the Versailles Treaty did provide a number of years of peace.
I find your assertion that Nuremberg Tribunal defined international crime as “any use of force not authorized by UNSC” to be laughable. The Nuremberg Tribunal was convened specifically to try Germans for war crimes. If the Tribunal had used your definition, any verdict of guilty would have been absurd. The United Nations Security Council did not even exist until 1946. All of the crimes with which he Germans were charged took place on before 1945. No one could have expected the Nazi defendants to get approval from the UNSC for their questionable actions, since it did not exist. Also, Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Winston Churchill, and Bernard Montgomery should consider themselves fortunate that they could not be tried by the Nuremberg Tribunal. They absolutely did not get authorization from the UNSC for executing an invasion of
I strongly agree with your illustrations of why the actions of Blair and Bush (and Churchill and FDR, for that matter) cannot begin to compare with the monstrous evil that Hitler committed. I also agree with you that, in this case, comparisons to Hitler are not particularly useful. But
Neither you or I or most sane people believe that Bush and Blair are in any way similar to the Nazis who were tried at
· 13 on May 13th, 2007 said:
As I said - regardless of how you treat the
Why don’t you read the Tribunal? It said “that to initiate a war of aggression… is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime”. That’s a quote. It is for this crime that Nazi foreign minister Von Ribbentrop (among others) was hanged.
The UN defines “a war of aggression” as the use of force not authorised by the UNSC and not in self-defence.
This isn’t that hard to follow… No one said anything about the UN existing during WWII, for example.
Anyway, I think we’re both just repeating ourselves now. Thanks for commenting.
· 14 on May 13th, 2007 said:
[I don’t think I have directly made the following point before but I am sure as Hell making it now,] The law regarding Gulf War II is not nearly as clear as you are suggesting. And, I am going by the law as you have recited it. According to you, a nation may go to war legally if the war is in self defense or if the nation receives authority from the UNSC.
Let’s look at the first part of your formula. Is the war in self defense? That question spawns many thorny problems, doesn’t it? For example, must the threat be immediate, or can the country look at threats to its long-term security? Suppose a country has a mutual defense pact with an ally. If the ally is attacked, can the country, because of its treaty, come to the aid of its partner? Or, must the country wait and watch its ally be overrun? Suppose a country’s military is being fired upon by an enemy. Is the country for that reason allowed to invade the enemy country and quash the threat to its military?
Of course, I understand why you think the law is crystal clear. You are completely disregarding the first part of the formula. Thus, you are reading the law to say that if a country’s use of force is authorized by the UNSC, the force is legal. If the force is not authorized by the UNSC, it is not legal. That’s what you think is clear.
First, your understanding of the law seems to be different from the way that you stated it. Secondly, I doubt that any member of the United Nations intended that their ability to act forcefully be held hostage to the UNSC. An example is NATO. NATO is essentially a mutual defense pact between a number of European nations,
Applying your law to our conflict in
For the present, let me just mention the most obvious reason that the war was a defensive war. The Iraqis were shooting at our airplanes. Why were our airplanes flying over Iraqi airspace? We were trying to defend our allies, the Kurds. The Kurds had helped us during the first conflict, and we believed (and they believed) that Saddam would have retaliated brutally, if we had not intervened. Because they assisted us, we were honor bound to protect them. It was a testament to our engineering and the flying skills of our airmen that none of our planes were shot down. Yet, one day, after taking enough shots at our airplanes, Saddam probably would have actually destroyed at least one of our aircraft. We could not maintain those flights forever. The time was fast coming when we needed to “put up or shut up” that is, we needed to take aggressive action to eliminate the threat or withdraw and watch our friends be massacred because they helped us.
There were no war crimes committed by Bush and Blair. The only war crimes were committed by Saddam and his henchmen. Have done with this inflammatory and baseless rhetoric! You are only making yourself look bad.
· 15 on May 13th, 2007 said:
“Is the war in self defense? That question spawns many thorny problems, doesn’t it? For example, must the threat be immediate, or can the country look at threats to its long-term security?”
What is meant by “self-defence” has long been understood (see Jack Straw’s comment above). It means in response to an armed attack. See the UN Charter (Art. 51):
“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.”
However, it has since expanded to include preemptive attack - but this has an extremely strict definition. The basic formulation of what it means was put forth by U.S. Secretary of State Daniel Webster back in 1842. The use of preemptive force is justifiable only in response to a threat that, as he put it, is “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation”. In other words, it can’t just be a general threat. It has to be in response to definite knowledge that an imminent attack is about to take place.
Anything else is “preventive”, which under international law is indistinguishable from the crime of aggression. In 2004, a high-level UN panel addressed much of what you’re talking about. From it’s report:
“The Charter of the United Nations, in Article 2.4, expressly prohibits Member States from using or threatening force against each other, allowing only two exceptions: self -defence under Article 51, and military measures authorized by the
Security Council under Chapter VII (and by extension for regional organizations under Chapter VIII) in response to “any threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression”.
For the first 44 years of the United Nations, Member States often violated these rules and used military force literally hundreds of times, with a paralysed
Security Council passing very few Chapter VII resolutions and Article 51 only rarely providing credible cover. Since the end of the cold war, however, the yearning
for an international system governed by the rule of law has grown. There is little evident international acceptance of the idea of security being best preserved by a balance of power, or by any single — even benignly motivated — superpower.
1But in seeking to apply the express language of the Charter, three particularly difficult questions arise in practice: first, when a State claims the right to strike preventively, in self-defence, in response to a threat which is not imminent; secondly, when a State appears to be posing an external threat, actual or potential, to other States or people outside its borders, but there is disagreement in the Security Council as to what to do about it; and thirdly, where the threat is primarily internal, to a State’s own people…
The language of this article is restrictive: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self -defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken
measures to maintain international peace and security”. However, a threatened State, according to long established international law, can take military action as long as the threatened attack is imminent , no other means would deflect it and the action is proportionate. The problem arises where the threat in question is not imminent but still claimed to be real: for example the acquisition, with allegedly hostile intent, of nuclear weapons -making capability…
Can a State, without going to the Security Council, claim in these circumstances the right to act, in anticipatory self -defence, not just pre -emptively (against an imminent or proximate threat) but preventively (against a non -imminent
or non -proximate one)? Those who say “yes” argue that the potential harm from some threats (e.g., terrorists armed with a nuclear weapon) is so great that one simply cannot risk waiting until they become imminent, and that less harm may be
done (e.g., avoiding a nuclear exchange or radioactive fallout from a reactor destruction) by acting earlier.
The short answer is that if there are good arguments for preventive military action, with good evidence to support them, they should be put to the Security Council, which can authorize such action if it chooses to. If it does not so choose, there will be, by definition, time to pursue other strategies, including persuasion, negotiation, deterrence and containment — and to visit again the military option.
For those impatient with such a response, the answer must be that, in a world full of perceived potential threats, the risk to the global order and the norm of non - intervention on which it continues to be based is simply too great for the legality of
unilateral preventive action, as distinct from collectively endorsed action, to be accepted. Allowing one to so act is to allow all.
We do not favour the rewriting or reinterpretation of Article 51.
Emphasis not mine.
You know, I could go on, but I don’t see why I should go to the trouble of finding all these well-known documents to support well-known facts when it’s clear you’ve not bothered to do any research at all. I can simply say what I’ve said before: at the time of the invasion
· 16 on May 14th, 2007 said:
Yes yes. I am really awed by your extensive research into the pontifications of various panels of the United Nations. I am also amazed that you think that research is worthwhile or that you actually think that blatherings by United Nations’ panels are important. However, putting aside my abject cynicism regarding the United Nations for a moment . .
You have to understand that the document that you quoted from is an idealistic, futuristic report. Virtually by its own admission, the report has little to do with realpolitik. The document is saying essentially that panelists believe (unlike what is happening now) that most matters relating to force should be submitted to the Security Council. For that reason, the UNSC really needs to clean up its act. They make many proposals for “improving” the UNSC, including the elimination of the veto power.
The document acknowledges that nations have not and are not using Security Council to resolve hostilities for good reasons. One factor has been the cold war, which the panel members assure us is now over. However, I am not as optimistic. The report also mentions that the UNSC has been paralyzed and perceived to be corrupt.
Well, no kidding. One of the reasons that the Security Council did such a dismal job in handling the crisis leading up to Gulf War II was the corruption surrounding the “food for oil” programs. It seems that the Secretary General of the UN and many of the members of the Security Council were receiving payoffs to take no action.
Much of your previous post was rebutting the idea of going to war for preventative reasons. While I believe that in an era of a paralyzed UNSC and heightened threat of nuclear terrorism, long term security concerns are an excellent reason for going to war, I deliberately left out any “preventative” arguments. I just did not want to open an unnecessary bag of worms in my conversation with you. So much of what you said was not really responsive to my previous post.
The most straight forward reason for our going to war was the imminent threat to our airplanes and the immediate threat of the genocide of our allies. We could not trust the matter to the UNSC, because that body had proven itself incapable of action and was under the taint of corruption. Those are two good reasons your document gives for nations’ taking unilateral action. Thus, Gulf War II was a just war and Bush and Blair should not be regarded as war criminals, but heroes.
· 17 on May 14th, 2007 said:
It’s not that it’s “extensive research”. On the contrary - as I say, all this is really well known, and it’s just annoying to have to go to the trouble of finding it all when you show no indication of being familiar with any of it in your comments.
You can think whatever you like about the UN. The fact is, as that report I linked to shows and as is well known, the definition of a war in “self-defence” is one that is in response to an armed attack. Nothing more.
A pre-emptive war is also now generally considered to be legally justified but, as I say, the term “pre-emptive” has a precise legal definition. One can’t just call any old use of force “pre-emptive”. The first-use of force only qualifies as pre-emptive if it is in response to an “imminent” threat of attack, leaving no moment for deliberation and no choice of means. Anything else is simply aggression, which is the supreme war crime.
I only mentioned preventive in my response because that’s what the
Your criticisms about the UN and the UNSC are irrelevent, even if true (and yes, of course the UN needs reform, which is what the report basically says). If you want to take the position that the law doesn’t matter, then that’s one thing (and I disagree strongly with that, but that’s a whole different discussion). But there’s no denying that the invasion was illegal, whether that matters to you or not.
· 18 on May 14th, 2007 said:
At this point in history, speaking of the UN’s enacting laws is really a misnomer. UN “laws” are not laws as we know them in the
Remember the defendants at
Contrary to what you may have heard, the UN is not God. It does not write moral law. To say that a country is not following UN guidelines (especially when the UN is corrupt and impotent) is not the same thing as saying that that country has broken a moral law or committed a crime against humanity. That is a leap of logic that you are just not allowed to make. You were more right than you knew when you said that Hitler’s situation is not a useful comparison with the circumstances surrounding Gulf War II. To coin a hackneyed phrase, “it is like comparing apples with oranges.”
Hitler invaded
If you really can’t tell the difference between the invasion of
No comments:
Post a Comment