Re: War illegality made plain?

I agree. Donna Clark
--- Kendall Clark <kendall-4GNy1lrxftmrG/[email protected]> wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> The US can legally use force internationally against
> another state in one of
> two (not mutually exclusive) ways: first, in an act
> of self-defense; second,
> in an act authorized by a UN Security Council
> resolution.
> 
> Bush is apparently going to do what other recent US
> presidents haven't been
> willing to do: try to break the UN publicly by going
> to war after *losing* a
> UNSC vote explicitly authorizing the use of force.
> The goal, his press
> conference comments notwithstanding, is to break the
> UN, particularly since
> the US isn't able to get what it wants from it just
> now. 
> 
> But this may be a tactical mistake because it will
> make the illegality of a
> US invasion of Iraq undeniable. Simply put, if UNSCR
> 1441 authorizes an
> invasion, why ask for *another* resolution? And if
> it doesn't authorize
> invasion (as France, China, and other states seem to
> think), and the US
> needs another resolution, and invades despite not
> getting one, the US will
> clearly be in violation of its obligations under
> customary international law
> and the UN Charter, which is very clear on this
> point.
> 
> The only exception is to use force under the right
> of self-defense; despite
> all of Bush's lies and deceptions, the US is not
> under imminent threat from
> Iraq. (Even if ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda could
> be proven demonstrably,
> it's not clear that those ties *alone* constitute an
> imminent threat of
> attack *from Iraq*, though such ties would make
> getting a UNSCR much more
> likely.) Iraqi troops are not massing at US borders
> or at the borders of any
> US allies. In short, the (almost certainly illegal)
> US doctrine of
> preemptive attack is very different than the legal
> and universally
> recognized right of self-defense against imminent
> attack. 
> 
> Further, though this is perhaps a minor point in
> comparison, it's illegal,
> under the UN Charter and customary international
> law, to *threaten* the use
> of force, in the absence of a UNSCR or an event
> which justifies invoking the
> US right to self-defense. Given the massive,
> systematic US provocations --
> the war threats from the Bush Admin and moving
> 200,000+ troops to stations
> at *Iraq's* borders -- Iraq's restraint is worth
> considering. (Yes, it's
> tactical, not principled restraint, but isn't that
> point of a containment
> policy to begin with?)
> 
> One wrinkle from my point of view is that, however
> illegal and dangerous to
> innocent Iraqis a US invasion will be, it may be (on
> strictly utilitarian
> grounds) preferable to another 10 or 12 years of
> murderous US sanctions --
> which basically constitute a form of siege warfare
> -- at the cost of another
> untold, largely invisible genocide. UN and other aid
> agency estimates put
> avoidable Iraqi deaths, largely children, as a
> result of sanctions at as
> many as 500,000. It seems an illegal US invasion is
> the only realistic way
> of ending the US's murderous regime of sanctions;
> I'm not sure that
> constitutes a good reason to support an illegal
> invasion, but it could be an
> unintended good consequence nonetheless.
> 
> Given that Iraq retains the right to use force in
> self-defense, the Gulf War
> armistice agreements and UNSCR's notwithstanding,
> how would the US condemn
> an attack by the Iraqis on US forces massing at its
> borders? Surely the US
> presents a more real, imminent threat to the
> security of Iraq than Iraq does
> to the US?
> 
> Most US presidents in recent memory have chosen not
> to ask the UNSC for an
> uncertain resolution in order to justify the use of
> force (Grenada, Panama,
> El Salvador, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and
> so on). Bush's
> arrogance knows no bounds: not only is he gambling
> by invading Iraq, he aims
> to break the UN in the process. But that exposes him
> to risks, too,
> primarily by making very plain the illegality of his
> invasion. Of course,
> that's a *civilized* risk, not the sort the leader
> of the world's chief
> rogue nation (i.e., "superpower") is likely to
> respect.
> 
> Kendall Clark
> -- 
> Jazz is only what you are. -- Louis Armstrong
> _______________________________________________
> Bonobos maillist  -  Bonobos-4GNy1lrxftmrG/[email protected]
> http://monkeyfist.com/mailman/listinfo/bonobos


=====
Donna Clark
48 Windbluff Court
The Woodlands, Tx 77382
email: gaga_clark-/[email protected]
Have a wonderful day!

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/