America’s justified war?

national | miscellaneous | news report Monday March 24, 2003 16:43 by bruno

the US war on Iraq is itself the most fundamental violation of international law. In the language coined at the Nuremberg trials, it is a crime against peace.

After another night of heavy bombardments against Baghdad, after bloody fights in the south of Iraq and after another weekend of global protests against the US-led war in the Gulf, it has become clear that these are the great days of the speechless and the helpless. Words are used as pure propaganda, help is further away from the many victims in the war-zone than ever before.

At their summit in Brussels the deeply divided European Union heads of State and Governments did the only possible thing: they started to plan for the post-war period, underlining their desire to play a constructive role in the region.

Washington will welcome this for sure, as the Bush administration’s own ambitions and readiness to really help the people in this region just seem to be words – of propaganda.

However, there is one notion that must make us attentive. "This is a justified war", commented the US daily "Sacramento Bee" on Sunday, summarizing a firm belief shared by many people on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean, even outside the White House and Downing Street Number 10. The Californian paper continued: "It is justified by past UN resolutions, by it being a continuation of the first Gulf War, justified as an act of self-protection and justified in its rescue of the viciously oppressed Iraqi people."

Thomas Aquinas’ six tests
What medieval theologians such as Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and Suarez developed and lawyers like Vattel, Grotius and Gentili later tried to incorporate into international law has become Washington’s (and London’s, and Copenhagen’s....) main argument for using violence against another state: "This is a justified war!"

From the history of political thought, six tests can be derived for a "justified war", as Alois Riklin has emphasized in the March issue of "Schweizer Monatshefte." 1) Iusta causa– the just cause, 2) Recta intentio – the honest intention, 3) Proportionalitas – the appropriateness of going to war, 4) Legitima auctoritas – the authorization through a legitimate organization, 5) Ultima ratio – war as a last resort, 6) Ius in bello – even in a justified war, certain rules of international law must be respected.

Irrespective of your stand on the war up to now, you will come to the same conclusion when testing the six "justified war" criteria against the ongoing battle in the Gulf.

1) Washington has declared war on Iraq in order to prevent Iraq declaring war on America. This is not allowed by international law.
2) The Bush administration stresses its honest intention to liberate the Iraqi people from a tyrant, but the government does not say anything about its intention to control the important oilfields south of Baghdad. At the same time, all the chief warmongers in the White House (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice) have close links to the oil industry. Thus, the intentions are at best semi-honest.
2) A war can only be justified if the consequences are less harmful than the evil being fought. But even if the war is fairly short, international organizations are reckoning with catastrophic consequences for the people in the region. A worst-case scenario predicts terror attacks all over the world and extended warfare in large parts of the Middle East.

What makes Iraq so different?
4) Resolution 1441 of the UN announced "serious consequences" against Iraq. But there was no agreement on going to war. Furthermore, the UN resolution demanded disarmament from Iraq - not a change of regime.
5) Violence can only be used if all other means are exhausted. This has obviously not been the case as the UN inspectors wanted to continue their work and as the option of containment is normally chosen against dictatorial regimes like North Korea or Belarus. What makes Iraq so different?
6) "We expect them to be treated humanely", said US President Bush last night after having learned about the Iraqi capture of US soldiers. But in its own strategy the Bush administration is consciously ignoring international law, by e.g. torturing prisoners of war in Guantanamo and by planning the use of nukes.

America not only ignores the so-called Geneva Convention on war prisoners and has introduced the principle of preventive war; Washington is also ignoring the UN monopoly on force and confuses containment with appeasement.

In other words: America’s war in Iraq is NOT justified. In fact, the US war on Iraq is itself the most fundamental violation of international law. In the language coined at the Nuremberg trials, it is a crime against peace. Former Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, chief U.S. prosecutor at the first Nuremberg trial, called waging aggressive war "the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole".

Join the debate

BRUNO KAUFMANN – is a peace- and conflict researcher, radio journalist and president of the Initiative & Referendum Institute Europe in Amsterdam. A debate on the democratic prospects in times of warfare will be held at the IRI Europe Barcelona Forum on Friday this week. For more information: www.iri-europe.org.