Top Scoops

Book Reviews | Gordon Campbell | Scoop News | Wellington Scoop | Community Scoop | Search

 

Scoop Editorial: Let There Be No Mistake

Let There Be No Mistake


Scoop Editorial - By Alastair Thompson

" [Senator Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va] Byrd also criticized Bush's request for power to carry out "pre-emptive attacks" and send troops to Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, the West Bank and anywhere else in the Middle East. ‘I cannot believe the gall and the arrogance of the White House in requesting such a broad grant of war powers,’ Byrd said. ‘This is the worst kind of election-year politics.’" - From…. “Bush's War Plans are a Cover-Up, Byrd Says “

Senator Byrd’s concerns about George Bush are both honourable and commendable. However he is missing the point.

Let there be no mistake about what George Bush is up to in the Middle East.

This is not a matter of “election year” politics. It is infinitely more than that.

President Bush’s resolution to Congress is nothing less than an attempted coup-d’etat, against not only the constitution of the United States – which gives the US Congress the sole power to make war - but against the International Rule of Law and the UN Charter.

If Congress approves Bush’s power to make “pre-emptive” war it will be in effect throwing away the founding principles of the United Nations which state - extremely clearly – that self-defence is the only ground for military action not sanctioned explicitly by a United Nations Security Council resolution.

Moreover the UN Charter states that self-defence requires the existence of a “clear and present” danger to the nation planning on exercising its right.

George Bush has made it extremely clear that he intends to make war against Iraq with or without the United Nations authorisation.

Just today he repeated his refrain again:

“However, for the sake of freedom and peace, if the United Nations will not deal with Saddam Hussein, the United States and our friends will. “ - President Bush at Doug Forrester for Senate Event

Let there be no mistake about what this means.

George Bush is saying in so many words that he intends to break the law.

His statement is the equivalent of a sheriff announcing publicly that regardless of whether he is granted an arrest warrant or not by a magistrate he intends to enforce his own justice anyway.

The President’s arrogance in doing so is breathtaking in its gall. His comments come across as a challenge to the United Nations to defy him. “And then we’ll show them,” he is saying.

From the perspective of International relations nothing could be more serious than this affront to the legal framework that has prevented, so far, a major conflagration since the end of the Second World War.

This is not to say that the USA hasn’t fairly routinely flouted this law in the past, rather than in the past it has tended to at least attempt to pay lip service to the UN Charter.

Former Democratic Presidential challenger Al Gore today pointed out that the nations of the world are more concerned at present about the actions of George Bush than they are about terrorism. He is right to say this, they are.

A recent poll of Britons even found that the general public regard George Bush as the third greatest threat to world peace, after Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Notably this means they consider George Bush a greater threat to world peace than Ariel Sharon, an individual who surely takes some beating.

Let there be no mistake, if George Bush is given the green light he has requested from Congress to make war of his own volition, pre-emptively, this will mean the end of multilateralism. It will mean nothing less than the end of an International Rule of Law.

The doctrine of self defence as defined in Article 51 of the UN Charter has been commonly used in recent weeks to argue a legal basis for the new proposed US doctrine of pre-emptive strike.

“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security. “ – Article 51 – UN Charter

As stated earlier Article 51 requires - according to the normally accepted understanding of the law – a “clear and present” danger to the party asserting it as justification for a strike. This must be considered a greater threat than the “grave and gathering” danger that has been referred to by the President in recent speeches.

That said, on its face, the provision requires more than even that. By one reading it actually requires an “armed attack” to have occurred.

Moreover as the provision above clearly records - even the existence of an actual attack would not preclude the UN Security Council from requesting a nation state from desisting from retaliating.

Furthermore the fact that the provision requires the immediate reporting of any act of “self defence” to the Security Council tends to indicate that the provision is intended to act only in circumstances when a swift response to an actual attack is deemed necessary.

Those circumstances clearly do not exist at present.

Given the United States pre-eminence in all things military – the fact that it spends more on the tools of war than the rest of the G8 put together – it is doubtful if any nation could ever pose a clear and present danger to United States interests such that an action under Article 51 could be justified.

Rather in almost all circumstances the US might be expected to first seek a UN mandate for any action it intended to take.

On requesting his war authorisation George Bush has been given several series of questions to answer concerning his war plans by Congressmen and Senators, including Senator Byrd whose quote introduced this editorial.

However almost without exception they miss the main point.

George Bush should be requested by Congress and Senate to answer one simple question.

How will Congressional approval of a resolution that destroys the norms of International relations make the United States of America more secure?

He cannot of course answer this question, because it can’t.

There can be no possible justification for the US Congress and Senate approving the President’s resolution, unless it too decides to discard the United Nations. It is as simple as that.

If the US sees itself as the world’s policeman, as it so clearly does, then the US - and this means the US Congress and Senate as well as the President - have clear responsibilities which are carried with their presumption.

First and foremost among these is the need to observe and respect the Rule of Law that they seek to defend and enforce.

Otherwise they become what they accuse their enemies of being, despots and aggressors.

Anti©opyright Scoop 2002

© Scoop Media

 
 
 
Top Scoops Headlines

 

Globetrotter: The Geopolitics Behind Spiraling Gas And Electricity Prices In Europe
The current crisis of spiraling gas prices in Europe, coupled with a cold snap in the region, highlights the fact that the transition to green energy in any part of the world is not going to be easy. The high gas prices in Europe also bring to the forefront the complexity involved in transitioning to clean energy sources... More>>

Julian Assange: A Thousand Days In Belmarsh
Julian Assange has now been in the maximum-security facilities of Belmarsh prison for over 1,000 days. On the occasion of his 1,000th day of imprisonment, campaigners, supporters and kindred spirits gathered to show their support, indignation and solidarity at this political detention most foul... More>>

Binoy Kampmark: The Mauling Of Novak Djokovic
Rarely can the treatment of a grand sporting figure by officialdom have caused such consternation. Novak Djokovic, the tennis World Number One, has always had a tendency to get under skin and constitution, creating a large following of admirers and detractors. But his current treatment by Australian authorities, and his subsequent detention as an unlawful arrival despite being granted a visa to participate in the Australian Open, had the hallmarks of oppression and incompetent vulgarity... More>>


Off To The Supreme Court: Assange’s Appeal Continues

With December’s High Court decision to overturn the lower court ruling against the extradition of Julian Assange to the United States, lawyers of the WikiLeaks founder immediately got busy... More>>


Forbidden Parties: Boris Johnson’s Law On Illegal Covid Gatherings

It was meant to be time to reflect. The eager arms of a new pandemic were enfolding a society with asphyxiating, lethal effect. Public health authorities advocated various measures: social distancing, limited contact between family and friends, limited mobility. No grand booze-ups. No large parties. No bonking, except within dispensations of intimacy and various “bubble” arrangements. Certainly, no orgies... More>>

Dunne Speaks: Question Time Is Anything But
The focus placed on the first couple of Question Time exchanges between the new leader of the National Party and the Prime Minister will have seemed excessive to many but the most seasoned Parliamentary observers. Most people, especially those outside the Wellington beltway, imagine Question Time is exactly what it sounds... More>>