|
No
War Against Iraq
By
TFF
associates
David
Krieger, President,
The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
and
Richard
Falk, Professor Emeritus of
International
Law and Policy at Princeton University,
Chair of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
August 27, 2002
The Bush administration's apparent resolve to wage war
against Iraq, tempered for the moment by conservative
critics, violates the spirit and letter of the US
Constitution, as well as disregards the prohibitions on
the use of force that are set forth in the UN Charter and
accepted as binding rules of international law. Article
2(4) of the UN Charter states: "All Members shall refrain
in their international relations from the threat or use
of force against the territorial integrity or political
independence of any state, or in any other manner
inconsistent with the Purposes of the United
Nations."
Nothing in Iraq's current behavior would justify a
preemptive attack against Iraq based upon self-defense as
set forth in Article 51 of the Charter. Even Henry
Kissinger has stated, "The notion of justified
pre-emption runs counter to modern international law,
which sanctions the use of force in self-defense only
against actual not potential threats."
The proposed war would also have dangerous,
destabilizing and unpredictable consequences for the
region and the world, and would likely bring turmoil to
the world oil and financial markets. While certainly not
endorsing the current repressive governments in Egypt and
Saudi Arabia, a war against Iraq could likely produce
militantly anti-American governments in these countries
that would intensify the existing dangers of global
terrorism.
We oppose on principle and for reasons of prudence,
the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction,
especially nuclear weapons, by any country, including, of
course, Iraq. Our position is one of support for the
Non-Proliferation Treaty as a temporary expedient, while
a good faith effort is being made to achieve the overall
abolition of nuclear weapons through a disarmament treaty
with reliable safeguards against cheating. At the 2000
Review Conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the
nuclear weapons states made an "unequivocal undertaking
to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear
arsenals." Unfortunately, they have not taken this or
other promises for nuclear disarmament seriously and, at
present, no effort to achieve nuclear disarmament is
being made. US policy under the Bush administration has
been particularly egregious in obstructing movement
toward eliminating nuclear arsenals.
At the same time, the acquisition of nuclear weaponry,
prohibited to Iraq by Security Council resolution, is not
itself an occasion for justifiable war. After all, the
United States, along with at least seven other countries,
possesses and continues to develop such weaponry. There
are good reasons for supposing that Iraq can be deterred
from ever using such weapons, or from transferring them
to al Qaeda or other terrorist groups. The government of
Iraq, notwithstanding its record of brutality and
regional aggression, has shown a consistent willingness
to back down in the face of overwhelming force, as it did
in the Gulf War and during the subsequent decade. As
well, Iraq has had a general posture of antagonism toward
political Islam, and as a radical secular state is a
target of al Qaeda rather than an ally. The alleged
prospect of a transfer of weapons of mass destruction by
Baghdad to those engaged in global terrorism is either an
embarrassing display of ignorance about the politics of
the Islamic world or it represents an attempt to arouse
the fears of Americans to win support for war.
It is necessary to take seriously the possibility that
al Qaeda operatives could gain access to weaponry of mass
destruction, and would have little hesitation about using
it against American targets. Unlike Iraq, al Qaeda cannot
be deterred by threats of retaliatory force. Its absence
of a territorial base, visionary worldview, and suicidal
foot soldiers disclose a political disposition that would
seek by any means to inflict maximum harm. The US
government should be devoting far more attention and
resources to reducing these risks, especially with
respect to the rather loose control of nuclear materials
in Russia. Going to war against Iraq is likely to
accentuate, rather than reduce, these dire risks. It
would produce the one set of conditions in which Saddam
Hussein, faced with the certain death and the destruction
of his country, would have the greatest incentive to
strike back with any means at his disposal, including the
arming of al Qaeda.
The recent hearings of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee did not provide an occasion for public debate,
as the witnesses called accepted as legitimate the goal
of a regime change for Iraq, disagreeing only with
respect to the costs and feasibility of a war strategy.
No principled criticism of the strategy itself was
voiced, and thus the hearings are better understood as
building a consensus in favor of war than of exploring
doubts about the war option. As well, it is regrettable
that the hearings paid no attention to the widely
criticized punitive sanctions that have had such harsh
consequences on Iraqi civilians for more than a decade.
The hearings also failed even to raise the critical
Constitutional issue of authority to wage war, which
vests in the Congress and not with the President, and
requires a casus belli as defined by international
law.
Granting the concerns of the US government that Saddam
Hussein possesses or may obtain weapons of mass
destruction, there are available alternatives to war that
are consistent with international law and are strongly
preferred by America's most trusted allies. These include
the resumption of weapons inspections under United
Nations auspices combined with multilateral diplomacy and
a continued reliance on non-nuclear deterrence. This kind
of approach has proved effective over the years in
addressing comparable concerns about North Korea's
pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability.
We are encouraged by the reported practical objections
to the proposed war by important US establishment figures
and most US allies. Personally, and on behalf of the
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, we urge the American people
to exercise their responsibilities as citizens to join in
raising their voices in opposition to waging war against
Iraq, not only because of its high risks of failure and
blowback, but on principled grounds that this country
upholds international law and respects the constraints of
its own Constitution, and is respectful of world public
opinion and of the United Nations framework dedicated to
the prevention of war.
The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation can be found at
www.wagingpeace.org
©
TFF & the author 2002
Tell a friend about this article
Send to:
From:
Message and your name
|