September
01 , 2006
War In
Iraq: The Crucial Issue in Midterm Elections
The media hype over the Lebanese
war, the London plot to bomb ten commercial flights
over the Atlantic, the bombing of Bombay’s
and London’s commuter trains, the new restrictions
at airports clogging the movement of passengers,
and more recently the furor over the arrest of the
suspect in JonBonet Ramsey murder case, did spur
a lot of frenzy and fear among the public but it
failed to divert attention from the crucial, and
controversial issue of the war in Iraq.
Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) had advised his
Prince to keep the emotions of the people on the
boil all the time to deflect their attention from
his own failures. Ironically, the political guru
failed himself to win the heart of a young girl
of his neighborhood for the simple reason that the
girl was deeply in love with a young man while Machiavelli
was a middle-aged diplomat. Somerset Maugham weaved
his first novel, published in 1898, about this episode
that describes the brilliant machinations of Machiavelli
to generate compulsions for the girl and her family
to acquiesce into marriage with him. By the time
the reader reaches almost the last page of the fascinating
story, he is convinced of the success of the plot.
The girl, however, elopes with the boy hours before
Machiavelli reaches the church to claim her hand
in marriage. He was a brilliant planner but the
imperative of truth was not with him.
Only a few days back a section of the press reported
that the Republicans were banking on the strategy
that Carl Rowe is expected to devise to counter
the general disappointment with Bush Administration’s
decision to invade Iraq and to stay the course despite
setbacks and growing opposition.
The fact of the matter is that moral and legal imperatives
are not in favor of staying the course. As for the
moral imperatives, it may be recalled that exceptionally
large rallies were held throughout the world against
the war. Yet, the Bush administration could launch
the war as over two-dozen Democrats, deviating from
their party stand, had voted for the resolution
authorizing the President to do so. Subsequent developments
in Iraq have forfeited that support, as evidenced
by the failure of Senator Lieberman (D -Ct) to win
in the Primary for his State. His ardent support
of the war in Iraq was made the crucial issue by
his opponent, newcomer Lamont.
The Bush administration had built a morally plausible
case for the war. Saddam regime was alleged to have
links with Al Qaeda, provided financial support
to terrorists, and possessed weapons of mass destruction.
It was subsequently found that these allegations
were based on faulty, incorrect and subjective information.
The people at large, irrespective of their party
affiliations, were shocked by this aberration of
their leaders. The administration has thus lost
the confidence of the people in its moral stand
on the war. Instead of a thriving democracy, Iraq
is witnessing a thriving insurgency and mounting
anti-American feelings. The material and moral support
of Israel in its attacks on Lebanon has only aggravated
those feelings. The murder of civilians in the aerial
bombings, has murdered also all moral justification
for the attack.
The aerial bombings have destroyed more than 1/3rd
of the infrastructure of Lebanon setting the tiny
state back by a couple of decades. But, Hizbullah,
the chief target, has emerged as a powerhouse and
has given the Arabs a confidence vis-à-vis
Israel that is no more taken as invincible.
By conniving in the destruction of Lebanon, the
US has invited doubts about its moral values and
abridged its goodwill in the oil-rich region.
As for the legal status of the war, an overwhelming
majority of legal academics and practitioners of
law have found the war invalid under the existing
global laws.
Since the signing of the UN Charter in June 1945,
the only body with the authority to initiate action
is the UN Security Council, except in the case of
self-defense when an armed attack has actually occurred
against a sovereign state.
Article 2.4 of the Charter says: “All members
shall refrain in their international relations from
the threat or use of force.”
Article 51 d lays down that even in self-defense,
a state may not go to war “until the Security
Council has taken measures necessary to maintain
international peace and security”.
Preemptive war is not permitted by the UN Charter
no matter how much evidence there is of a potential
for violence. No wonder, the US could not garner
enough support in the Security Council for the war
on Iraq despite intensive diplomatic efforts.
The UN was designed, with the US playing a leading
role, to save succeeding generations from the scourge
of war. The US contended that Sadam’s Iraq
was a gathering threat to the US and as such justified
a preemptive war. It was also contended that Sadam’s
deplorable record of violations of human rights
made a convincing case for a regime change. Such
arguments were considered by the International Court
in case No. 70 of 28th June 1986 of Nicaragua vs.
USA and were found untenable.
Another argument repeatedly presented by the Bush
Administration was that Iraq was in material breach
of UN resolution calling it to disarm. The UN Resolution
1441 did warn Iraq of serious consequences if it
did not comply with the UN demand to disarm. Iraq
submitted to the UN that it had no weapons of mass
destruction and that it had fully complied with
the UN resolution. Several distinguished professors
of law hold that authorization by Security Council
was not explicit. More importantly, any action against
the defaulting party had to be taken under the supervision
of the UN.
The US, it may be recalled, kept marching ahead
till it became the wealthiest nation and a Super
Power by avoiding, as long as possible, entanglement
in world conflicts. This point is underscored by
Pat Buchanan in his book ‘Where the Right
Went Wrong’.
Benjamin Franklin gave the dictum to be followed
by his successors that “there never is a good
war or a bad peace”. Another President, William
McKinley laid down: “Let us ever remember
that our interest is in concord, not in conflict,
and that our real eminence as a nation lies in the
victories of peace, not those of war”.
The US challenged three of its closest allies -
Britain, France and Israel - before the UN in 1956
when they invaded Egypt to overthrow the radical
anti-Western regime of Gamal Nasser. What a contrast
with the US itself invading Iraq and that too on
flimsy ground and faulty evidence!
The absence of moral and legal under pinning of
Bush administration’s stance on the war in
Iraq has exposed the Achilles’ heel to the
Democrats. And, they are unlikely to let the opportunity
pass them by in the forthcoming mid-term elections.
arifhussaini@hotmail.com
