A Legal Quagmire
A Legal Quagmire
The US and UK governments
are aggressors. They stand condemned for launching an attack
on an independent state while the UN Security Council was still
dealing with the question of Iraq and weapons inspections, and
UN inspectors were operating under a UN mandate.
The US and UK have a duty to protect and care for the people
of Iraq and should pay the cost of reconstruction as reparations
for their war of aggression. Jim Addington puts the case.
The US and British governments have stepped into a legal quagmire.
Failing to gain UN authority for the attack on Iraq they have
the responsibility for paying for the war damage. Under international
law, as occupying powers, they are required to protect the people
of Iraq, maintain order and provide essential humanitarian aid.
This is required by Article 55 of the 4th Geneva Convention
and Article 69 of the 1st Protocol. The British government has
acknowledged this responsibility but not the compensation. Unless
the international community, the United Nations, can enforce
the Geneva and Hague conventions which impose this liability
restoration may be paid by the Iraqi people.
The 'allies' claim their action was justified, citing UN Security
Council resolutions, principally 678 and 687 of the 1991 Gulf
war to evict Iraq from Kuwait, and 1441 of November 2002 which
called on the Iraq government to disarm. No state was asked
to undertake military action. The UN authority in 1991, was
supported by many UN member states. No such support was forthcoming
for a renewed attack this year. There was no majority in the
Security Council for an attack. It was opposed by three permanent
members, France, Russia and China. The French government, within
its rights under the UN Charter, threatened to use its veto.
The position of the US and British governments, under International
law and the practice of the Security Council under the Charter
is quite clear. They are aggressors. Nobody questions the authority
of the UN Security Council to deal with international peace
and security. The Charter states that while the Council "is
seized of a matter" it cannot be dealt with by any other
agency, and the Council is still involved.
When military action was taken on 20th March the Council was
dealing with Iraq's compliance with resolution 1441. UN appointed
inspectors were about to issue a further interim report. But
the US and UK governments prevented it. Nobody questions the
appointment of the inspectors or their duty to report to the
Council. They were only recalled from Iraq after the de-militarised
zone between Kuwait and Iraq was entered by US forces and the
US government warned through an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein
that military action was imminent. No resolution was
put to a vote.
In 1991 enforcement action was taken by a wide coalition of
states under the direction of the United States, many of whom
took an active part in the military action. This time the principal
military action has been by two states, the US and UK who conducted
the invasion. They are responsible to the United Nations for
their actions. Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, told
the Spanish newspaper El Pais that "there is evidence that
this war was planned well in advance". He accused the US
and Britain of "fabricating evidence" of weapons and
said that Iraq was paying "a very high price...in terms
of human lives and the destruction of a country" when the
threat of banned weapons could have been contained by UN inspectors.
Having dismissed the UN inspectors, the United States government
has now sent its own. Non-governmental humanitarian agencies
are standing by to bring aid to the people of Iraq. The United
Nations has a duty to assist and is willing to provide assistance.
Under the Conventions the occupying power has a duty to work
with them and has a responsibility to provide support. No time
should be lost in creating the conditions in which aid can be
brought in safely. The occupiers have no other status in international
law and should withdraw, allow the United Nations to take the
primary role in assisting the Iraqi people to take control of
their country and pay reparations for the enormous suffering
and damage they have wantonly caused. This must be resolved
by an urgent UN Security Council meeting. If the Council is
again unable to reach agreement it should be referred to the
General Assembly under the 'Uniting For Peace' Resolution No.
337 of 1950. It will then be a responsibility of all the members
of the United Nations.
Jim Addington is chair
of the UK group Action for UN Renewal
|
|
SPECTREZINE
Homepage
Weblog
Spectremail
Contact
LATEST
FEATURES
the
practical internationalism of the Dutch Socialist Party - by Ronald van
Raak
The
Left in Italy - by Paolo Gerbaudo
Europe
and the Lisbon Treaty - by Susan George
The
Last War of the 20th Century - Part Thirteen - by Jan Marijnissen and
Karel Glastra van Loon
LATEST
NEWS FROM
THE WEBLOG
Weblog-
Homepage
The Saintes Appeal
for a Nuclear-free Europe
Italian Left Euro-MPs:
Exploitation of fear for political purposes unacceptable
Turbulent times for Eurozone
CATEGORIES
Africa
Book Reviews
Corporate Crime
Current Issues
Economy and Society
East Asia
Editorial
Environment
Europe
Global Resistance
Latin America/Caribbean
Middle East
North America
Progressive Press
War
ARCHIVES
News
Review 2001-04
Features
2001
Features 2002
Features 2003-04
|