Further, let's consider the build-up to the invasion of Iraq. A key component of the "rationale" for war was the new security policy of "preemption" promulgated by the Bush administration. Put simply, it basically asserts the right of the United States to wage war in "self defense" against any perceived threat, including future threats which have not really fully materialized, but are merely incipient threats, in the view of the president. It also asserts this as a unilateral right, that is, it essentially argues that the United States will be bound not be international legal and treaty obligations, but by it's own determination of what constitutes a threat. In this sense it deals a severe blow to the notion of multi-lateralism, and greatly weakens the United Nations in its efforts to secure peaceful solutions to conflicts. It also represented a radical, 180-degree shift from previous US security postures, which largely promoted the notions of multi-lateralism and collective security within the context of international law.
Now, approximately 300,000 Americans lost their lives in the fight against fascism in World War II. An important legacy directly resulting from this American (and Allied) sacrifice was the establishment of an international organization (the Unite Nations), and a framework for international law, both of which essentially grew out of the Nuremberg war-crimes tribunals. Indeed, the notion that the affairs of States should be bound by a legal framework, and that leaders could and would be held accountable for their actions, held the great promise of finally ending the scourge of war, or, if not ending it, then at least seriously constraining it. The legal framework is codified in the Nuremberg Principles. A key component of the principles is the definition of crimes against peace;
-
- (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
-
- (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
Moreover, the United Nations Charter, which has the force of international law, states in article 2 that; 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. The UN charter, and other international legal agreements, also establish that the only legal justification for the use of force is self defense against attack. In this context self defense is meant to be defense against an imminent threat of attack against a nations territory. It does not, however, contemplate the preemptive use of force to defend from "perceived" threats.
The Bush doctrine of preemptive war seriously undermines the entire framework for international law that several hundred thousand American servicemen gave their lives to help bring into existence. I would call that a serious betrayal of the legacy of those Americans who served in World War II. Moreover, the claim of the right to now commit US troops to preemptive actions outside of the legal framework of international law is yet another betrayal, but now of those presently in uniform. I wouldn't call these the actions of a friend.
No comments:
Post a Comment