The United States has become widely unpopular around the world because of the war in Iraq, carried out in apparent violation of international law. But in the US there has been little public debate over the morality and legality of the war. The mainstream critics of the war at home complain not about the illegitimacy of the war, but mainly about the fact that the US seems to be losing and not winning it. Even those outraged about the war are often less than clear about the nature of its illegality.
Yet there should be no confusion over this. What constitutes an illegitimate war was largely defined by the United States itself in its application of international law to the Nazis put on trial at Nuremberg after World War II.
When most people are asked about the Nuremberg Tribunal and its indictments against Nazis, they usually recall the phrases 'war crimes' and 'crimes against humanity.' And these are indeed two of the three types of crimes set out by the Tribunal. But what most people forget is that the first set of crimes actually listed are 'crimes against peace.' The idea that there can be crimes against peace has been largely forgotten, yet it is more crucial than ever -- in light of the Iraq war and the 'war against terror' -- that such crimes be recognized and prosecuted.
According to the Nuremberg Tribunal "crimes against peace" include the following: "1. Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assuurance; 2. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (1)."
Thus 'Crimes against peace,' as well as 'war crimes' and 'crimes against humanity,' are part of the principles of international law recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal, officially adopted by the International Law Commission of the United Nations in 1950.
As part of the treaty obligations of the United States, according to Article VI of the Constitution, these principles have the force of law in the US. To violate these principles is to violate the law -- an impeacheable offense for the president and vice-president, and arguably the most serious of all, in the case of Iraq involving the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.
Nazi Germany launched wars of aggression against Poland, the Soviet Union, and a number of other sovereign states, and for this and other crimes the major Nazi leaders tried at Nuremberg were convicted, eleven of them receiving the death sentence.
In 2003 the United States appears to have done exactly what Nazi Germany did. It launched a war of aggression -- what is now euphemistically called a war of choice -- against Iraq. The US acted unilaterally, without specific UN authorization to invade Iraq. Kofi Annan, former General Secretary of the UN, has called the US invasion of Iraq 'illegal.'
The Bush administration started out claiming the war was justified by the imminent threat posed by Sadaam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons.
But the possession of such weapons is not in itself a cause for invasion; if it were, the US itself would be liable to invasion by other countries. In fact, subsequent events have shown that Sadaam Hussein did not possess such weapons, and that the administration had no evidence he did.
The Bush administration further claimed that some kind of link existed between Sadaam Hussein and various terrorist organizations, including Al Qaida, through which alleged weapons of mass destruction could be obtained by terrorists and used against the United States.
But even if Sadaam Hussein or any head of state had such weapons and gave them to terrorists, that would not constitute an act of war. Article 51 of the UN Charter allows member states an inherent right of self-defense only if 'an armed attack occurs' against one member state by another. Iraq did not attack the US.
The Bush administration's final claim is that the Iraq war is part of a larger 'war on terror.' It described the attacks of 11 September 2001 as 'another Pearl Harbor,' justifying in self-defense a global 'war on terror.'
But 9/11, unlike Pearl Harbor, was not an armed attack by a foreign power, and conspicuously not an act of war. The analogy is false.
Adrian Kuzminski is a local activist in upstate New York, and Research Scholar in Philosophy at Hartwick College. He is the author of FIXING THE SYSTEM: A HISTORY OF POPULISM, ANCIENT & MODERN (Continuum Books).
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
