Deep Blade Archive
Cutting through the machinations and
effects of the U.S. empire
2003 Archive
Archive of 2003 War Resources
Archive of 1991 Gulf War Articles
911 Archive
Why People Must Stop Bush's
"Preemptive" War of Aggression
George W. Bush has declared his intention
to wage a 'preemptive' war against Iraq and is now seeking to
strong-arm the international community, the U.N. and the
Congress into support and submission. As members of Congress
rush to show their obedience and member states of the U.N. line
up to receive the anticipated spoils of war, the [Bush]
Administration is now waging a campaign to convince the people
of the United States to fall into step and finance with money
and blood this war brought for conquest on behalf of the
corporate and oil interests that make up Bush's true
constituency.
Bush's preemptive war is a war of
aggression. The U.S. policy supporting the war is not the rule
of law, but the rule of force.
But no U.N. resolution and no
Congressional resolution can legalize an illegal war against
Iraq. With pen to paper and votes of support, they can only
commit to wilful ratification, complicity and responsibility
for illegal acts by endorsing a criminal enterprise.
A war of aggression against Iraq violates
the United States Constitution, the United Nations Charter and
the principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal. It violates the
collective law of humanity that recognizes the immeasurable
harm and unconscionable human suffering when a country engages
in wars of aggression to advance its government's perceived
national interests.
The National Security Strategy:
Blueprint for Global Empire
On September 20, 2002, the Bush
Administration issued its blueprint for global domination and
ceaseless military interventions, in its comprehensive policy
statement entitled "The National Security Strategy of the
United States." The National Security Strategy sets forth
the U.S. military-industrial complex's ambition for the U.S. to
remain the world's superpower with global political, economic
and military dominance.The stated policy of the U.S. is
"dissuading military competition"1 and preventing any
other world entity or union of states "from pursuing a
military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the
power of the
United States."2 [nss.pdf]
United States."2 [nss.pdf]
The strategic plan elevates free trade
and free markets to be "a moral principle. . . real
freedom"3 and endorses a comprehensive global conquest
strategy utilizing the World Trade Organization, the Free Trade
Act of the Americas, the International Monetary Fund, the World
Bank, among other mechanisms.
The Washington Post reports that the
National Security Strategy gives the United States "a
nearly messianic role" in its quest for global dominance.4
The National Security Strategy confirms
and elaborates what was reflected in the January 2002 Nuclear
Posture Review, that the Bush Administration maintains a policy
of preemptive warfare contemplating the use of non-conventional
weapons of mass destruction as a first strike measure.5
Turning Logic on Its Head
Bush's preemptive war policy is a war
without just cause. Under international law and centuries of
common legal usage, a preemptive war may be justified as an act
of self defense only where there exists a genuine and imminent
threat of physical attack.
Bush's preemptive war against Iraq
doesn't even purport to preempt a physical attack. It purports
to preempt a threat that is neither issued nor posed. Iraq is
not issuing threats of attack against the United States. It is
only the United States which threatens war.
It is not a war for disarmament. It is
the U.S. which has stockpiled nuclear, biological and chemical
weapons. It is the U.S. which is directly threatening to use
these weapons against another country. It is the U.S. which has
bombed Iraq relentlessly for more than ten years, killing
scores of innocent civilians.
The Bush Administration turns logic on
its head, twisting reality in order to create the pretext for
its war of aggression. The Administration claims that the
necessary prerequisite of an imminent threat of attack can be
found in the fact that there is no evidence of an imminent
threat, and therefore the threat is even more sinister as a
hidden threat. The lack of a threat becomes the threat, which
becomes cause for war.
By the U.S. Government's own claims, it
destroyed 80% of Iraq's weapons capability in the earlier Gulf
War, and subsequently destroyed 90% of the remaining capacity
through the weapons inspections process. There has been no
evidence that Iraq is capable of an attack on the U.S., let
alone possessing the intention of carrying out such an attack.
Bush's Proposed War and Current
Threats Violate the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter and
International Law
Bush's preemptive war policy and proposed
attack on Iraq cannot be justified under any form of
established law.
The preemptive war policy and Bush's
threatened new military assault on Iraq violates U.S. domestic
law and international law. The warmongering, preparations for
war, and threats of violence coming from Bush, Cheney,
Rumsfeld, Rice and other White House and Pentagon hawks, are in
and of themselves violations of international law and
constitute crimes against peace.
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution
establishes that ratified treaties, such as the U.N. Charter,
are the "supreme law of the land."
The Article 1 of the U.N. Charter
establishes:
"The purposes of the United Nations
are. . . To maintain international peace and sovereignty, and
to that end: to take effective collective measures for the
prevention and removals of threats to the peace, and for the
suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the
peace and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity
with the principles of justice and international law,
adjustment or settlement of international disputes or
situations which might lead to a breach of the peace. . .
."
Article 2 states that all member states
"shall act in accordance with the following Principles:
"
"...All members shall settle their
international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that
international peace and security, and justice, are not
endangered.
"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...."
Under this framework, acts of aggression,
such as Bush's threatened attack, are to be suppressed and
force is used only as a last and unavoidable resort.
The U.N. Charter was enacted in 1945 in
the aftermath of the devastation and suffering of World War II.
The Charter was enacted to bring an end to acts of aggression,
"to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war,
which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to
mankind."
Disputes which might lead to a
breach of the peace are required to be resolved by peaceful
means.
Chapter VI of the U.N. Charter,
"Pacific Settlement of Disputes," requires countries
to "first of all, seek a resolution by negotiation,
enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial
settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or
other peaceful means of their own choice."
No Resolution by the U.N.
Security Council can Legalize a Preemptive War or First Strike
Plan
Bush has asked the U.N. Security Council
to support execution of Bush's policy of a potentially nuclear
"preemptive" war, as if that Council could endorse a
war of aggression. The Security Council lacks the legal
authority to grant such permission. The Security Council, by
affirmative vote or by acquiescence to U.S. policy, cannot
abrogate its own mandate. No collective action by the fifteen
permanent and temporary members of the Security Council can
lawfully violate the Charter which is the sole source of their
collective authority.
This is made clear in the U.N. Charter
itself, which provides in Article 24, that "In discharging
these duties the Security Council shall act in accordance with
the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations."
While there are, of course, procedures by
which collective use of force may be authorized by the Security
Council to maintain or restore international peace and security
(Articles 41 and 42) those procedures may not be used to
endorse aggression in violation of the primary purposes of the
U.N. Charter. Article 51 of the U.N. Charter acknowledges the
right to 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." None of the provisions allow for authorization
for Bush's war plans and first strike strategies. Any
resolution authorizing a preemptive war of aggression is ultra
vires, or null and void as beyond the authority of the Council
to enact.
The very issuance of the Bush doctrine of
preemptive warfare and also the threat to wage war against Iraq
are, each, a violation of international law as a crime against
peace, which is defined in the Nuremberg Charter as the
"Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of
aggression or a war in violation of international treaties,
agreements or assurances."
Responsibility for War Crimes
Neither Congress nor the President has
the right to engage the U.S. in a war of aggression and any
vote of endorsement, far from legalizing or legitimizing global
war plans, serves only as ratification of war crimes. Under the
principles of universal accountability established at
Nuremberg, "The fact that a person who committed an act
which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head
of State or responsible Government official does not relieve
him from responsibility under international law."6
The execution of economic sanctions by
the Bush I, Bush II and Clinton Administrations, which has
caused the deaths of over one million people, primarily
children and their grandparents, is likewise sanctionable as a
crime against humanity under the Nuremberg Charter and under
the International Criminal Court Statute as "the
intentional infliction of conditions of life,. . . the
deprivation of access of food to medicine, calculated to bring
about the destruction of a part of a population."7
The Bush Administration has rejected the
International Criminal Court treaty signed by over 130
countries. This rejection is an admission of the
Administration's consciousness of guilt and of criminal
intentions. The Bush Administration acts with a conscious
disregard of humanitarian laws and a stated intention to avoid
accountability for their crimes under international law
prohibiting crimes against the peace, war crimes and crimes
against humanity. The National Security Strategy promulgated by
the Bush Administration states that the United States
"will take the actions necessary to ensure that our
efforts to meet our global security commitments and protect
Americans are not impaired by the potential for investigations,
inquiry or prosecution by the International Criminal Court
(ICC), whose jurisdiction does not extend to Americans and
which we do not accept."8
