Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (151349)	11/26/2004 3:48:19 PM
From: Michael Watkins	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

No, the war is not legal (have meant to address this point for a while, if you are wondering why I am digging back in time) Your opinion writer based his view on whether Iraq was disarming. As we know, Iraq had disarmed, years, decades, before. The author you've cited uses Hans Blix to justify his argument, yet Hans Blix demanded more time, and was cut off by Bush. He cites agreement by the coalition of the willing and coerced (tell me Japan wasn't coerced and I have a bridge to sell you) as proof of legitimacy, which is legal quackery given the majority of the world said no. We'll he may be a lawyer but his opinion remains his personal opinion alone. The law - the UN charter - and common sense are quite clear. It wasn't Bush's decision to determine if Iraq was not compliant nor to proscribe a penalty, but since he's a cowboy, judge, jury and executioner (some rather God-like powers, one might argue) - Bush took the reigns and did whatever he damn well pleased. Meanwhile, the head of the UN weighed in and pronounced the war illegal. We can safely assume that he asked for legal opinion on this matter before doing so, since all communications from the UN have been consistent in this regard for over 2 years now. Common sense say the war is illegal, and in law, common sense is paramount. Motives are also important in law and here Bush steps on quicksand. Bush had may motives for going into Iraq without world opinion or law on his side, in fact some of his objectives would be seriously hindered by a non-US driven invasion and occupation. - to build precedent (although in this case such precedents tend to paint a nation as a "rogue" nation) - to gain physical control of Iraq - to install a government of the US choosing - to obstruct Russian and French commercial interests in Iraq - to avoid having to lose face and deal with Husayn Follow the money and these motives are strong indeed. The US war on Iraq is both illegal and dangerous to world order. Not only was the rational for going to war with Iraq faulty - intentionally or not (you know my opinion on this) - but by usurping international law Bush has, perhaps deliberately so, set dangerous precedent which is likely to set in motion an unravelling of international agreements, and increase political, economic and military tensions. Its likely other powerful nations will use this case ("me-too") to break international law in similar ways and shove hypocritical and inevitable US protests aside. Yes, the war is illegal. Legal opinions which hold the war illegal are numerous, which anyone applying common sense to the issue, will not be surprised to learn. Other Australian legal opinion begs to differ with your opinion writer: (tit for tat?) lawyersweekly.com.au After all, we have been here before. For example, “preventative wars” of the sort undertaken in Iraq are nothing new – the Soviet invasions of Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan come to mind. Each was justified by the USSR as a preventative measure. Each was roundly condemned in the West as illegal. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan presents us with a particular irony. It resulted in the emergence of a highly aggressive fundamentalism in that country. Here's but one useful review with citations: globelaw.com The international community finds itself in at a critical juncture. The guarantees of international peace and security and the determination to avoid the scourge of war put in place following World War II have been undermined and even imperiled by the use of military force under the doctrine of ‘preventive war’ and the invasion of Iraq. It is critical that member States following the attack on Iraq re-acknowledge their commitment to avoiding war and to the principles and purposes of the United Nations Charter, in order that the role of the rule of law in avoiding future wars may prevail. In its National Security Strategy, the United States described the utility of ‘coalitions of the willing’ as standing outside the current institutions, saying that “[t]he United States is committed to lasting institutions like the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the Organization of American States, and NATO as well as other long-standing alliances. Coalitions of the willing can augment these permanent institutions.” Thus the United States has put itself and, by extension, the ‘coalition of the willing’, apart from the permanent institutions and international law, and is setting its own law and policy unilaterally. States in the ‘coalition of the willing’ have aligned themselves with the policy of ‘preventive war’ and with the legal position of the United States in the Iraqi war, a war described by the UN Secretary-General as not in conformity with the Charter, and a war which still continues. This position also aligns States with a strategy which espouses a unilateralist approach to international problems and thus threatens a rift with other institutions which underpin the international system. Nations have a stark choice: they can choose multilateralism, the rule of law, and respect for international law, treaties and institutions; or, they can choose a unilateralist approach in which States pursue their own interests, irrespective of the will of the world community, and accept the rule of economic and military power.