In the wake of the collapse of the Iraqi
regime of Saddam Hussein, advocates of the invasion of Iraq have celebrated the
“victory” largely in terms of the claim of liberation and the new possibilities
that now may open up for both Iraqis and others within the region. Also, President Bush and his key advisors are
keen to savor the military prowess of the US military and claim that a strike
against international terrorism has been made in this adventure.
Yet, one principle usually considered
important in securing international peace is left out of the rhetoric: respect
for international law. This is wise for
one central reason: The US broke the law.
Indeed, the US broke the law as deliberately,
as firmly and as violently as Saddam Hussein did when he sent the Iraqi army
into Kuwait a decade ago. In neither
case was the aggressor nation state attacked nor under imminent threat by the
nation state under assault and then occupied.
Kuwait did not threaten or attack Iraq in 1990 nor did Iraq engage in
similar threats towards the US.
Article 51 of the Charter of the United
Nations articulates quite clearly that nations have a right to self-defense if
attacked or if an imminent threat faces them.
However, outside of those two scenarios, states cannot claim a right to
engage in military attack upon another nation state, unless sanctioned by the
Security Council of the United Nations.
Hence, the US Government violated
international law in a second instance when it failed to get a UN resolution
authorizing the use of force but went ahead any way with its attack, invasion
and illegal occupation.
Once upon a time, international law appeared
to be important to the US, at least rhetorically. In August of 1990, the US Government rightly
condemned Iraq for engaging in a war of aggression against Kuwait. In fact,
President George H. bush declared loudly that the US was obligated to defend
the sanctity of international law and the sovereignty of Kuwait. This was part of the rallying cry to build a
coalition then that led to the Persian Gulf War and the attack on Iraqi forces
in Kuwait and southern Iraq as well as Baghdad.
Today, however, we must forget this history
because otherwise we would have to face the hypocrisy in our foreign policy: we
refuse to apply to ourselves the moral principles we demand of others. Or, regarding international law, we use it
when it suits our interest; violate or ignore it otherwise.
As the world's undisputed, sole super power,
the US has substantial influence over the character of world order. The consequences of our actions carry
disproportionate weight in the international system. Will we contribute to a system based on the
rule of law or the rule of force? The
law of civilized states or the law of the jungle? The war and continued military occupation in
Iraq sends the world a menacing message of our present choice.