|
When it
comes to war, you have to be suspicious of the United
States. In March 1999, the U.S. launched an illegal war
in
support of terrorists trained by Osama bin
Laden
bent on dismembering and ethnically cleansing a sovereign
nation that had been one of America's closest allies in two
world wars: Serbia.
President
Bill Clinton's justification for the war - that "tens of
thousands" of civilians had been killed - was shown to be a
blatant lie by the Senate Armed Services Committee. The war
violated the U.N. Charter and the NATO Treaty. In fact, the
U.N. was never consulted and the Security Council never
endorsed the U.S. military action. As unprovoked aggression,
the war was both unjustified and illegal under International
Law.
The Kosovo
War had only one goal, which it accomplished as designed. It
diverted public attention from the Cox Commission Report -
detailing illegal Chinese influence at the highest levels of
American politics - released just days after Clinton
launched his brutal aggression. Thankfully, the Clinton
presidency is over, and already the name of the worst
president in American history - and his wife - are beginning
to rot. But part of the Clinton "legacy" is that the world
is now - rightfully - suspicious of U.S. military
action.
Unlike the Kosovo War, War with Iraq is Just and
Legal
The
world's suspicions are unfounded in relation to military
action by the United States and its Arab, Asian, and Western
allies to enforce the U.N. Security Council resolutions
directing Iraq to turn over nuclear, chemical, biological,
and missile weapon plans and materials to the U.N. for
destruction. Under the U.N. Charter and International Law,
those suspicions are also unfounded even if the U.S. acts
unilaterally to disarm Iraq and force Saddam Hussein out of
power.
To
understand why U.S. military action alone or with allies is
just and legal, we must actually read Chapter
VII of the U.N. Charter
(specifically Article 51) and:
- Security
Council Resolution 687
( April 1991) - dictating the terms for cessation of
hostilities which Iraq accepted to suspend the Persian
Gulf War of 1991, and
- Security
Council Resolution 1441
(November 2002) - the most recent of the 17 resolutions
which reiterate the conditions imposed on Iraq and Saddam
by S.C.R. 687.
Uninformed Criticisms are Meaningless
Secular
leaders - from Democrats in the U.S. to Nelson Mandela in
South Africa - and even some supposedly Christian leaders -
have claimed U.S. action would violate International Law and
the Law of God. Because the U.S. is under attack by Muslim
terrorists and Iraq is, by its constitution, an Islamic
country, religion is an important factor, and we'll deal
with the religious arguments at the end of this article.
But you
can't evaluate a claim about International Law unless you
have read Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter and the Security
Council resolutions linked to above. Criticism that is not
based on the terms of these legal rules is uninformed and
therefore meaningless.
U.N. Weapons Inspectors are NOT Responsible for
Disarming Iraq
On 2
August 1990, Iraq invaded its neighbor Kuwait. The same day,
the U.N. Security Council passed resolution 660, the first
of a series of resolutions that eventually authorized the
use of military force to expel the Iraqi army and restore
Kuwaiti soveriegnty. Paragraph 8 of S.C.R. 687, the last of
this series, demanded Iraq shall:
|
"unconditionally
accept the destruction, removal, or rendering
harmless, under international supervision of all
chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of
agents and all related subsystems and components
and all research, development, support and
manufacturing facilities".... [as well as]
"all ballistic missiles with a range greater than
150 km and related major parts, and repair and
production facilities"
|
S.C.R. 687
required the U.N. Secretary-General to establish a special
commission to supervise the destruction of these materials.
This was UNSCOM, the special commission of weapons
inspectors which Iran kicked out in 1998. But UNSCOM was not
responsible for discovering what Iraq possessed. S.C.R. 687
required Iraq to submit, within 15 days of agreeing to the
terms of 687:
|
"a
declaration of the locations, amounts and types of
all items specified in paragraph 8...[and]
the locations, amounts, and types of all
|
Further,
687 required:
|
"the
yielding by Iraq of possession to the Special
Commission for destruction, removal or rendering
harmless, taking into account the requirements of
public safety, of all items specified under
paragraph 8.... [and Iraq] "shall
unconditionally undertake not to use, develop,
construct or acquire any of the items specified in
paragraph 8
|
Similar to
the provisions relating to chemical and biological weapons
and missiles, paragraph 12 of 687 required Iraq:
|
"shall
unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop
nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material
or any subsytem or components or any research,
development, support or manufacturing facilities
related to the above."
|
And Iraq
was required to disclose the "locations, amounts, and types"
of all such items within 15 days of agreeing to the cease
fire. 687 called upon the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) to assist UNSCOM in taking "exclusive control, for
custody and removal" of these materials and rendering them
harmless.
UNSCOM was
never responsible to play "hide and seek" with Iraq for the
materials and facilities Iraq was required to disclose and
hand over. 687 did authorize UNSCOM to conduct on-site
inspections in Iraq to verify that Iraq had completely
complied with 687's terms and gave UNSCOM the authority to
designate additional materials and facilities that must be
turned over and destroyed.
Additional Requirements of S.C.R. 687
687 also
required Iraq:
|
"to
inform the Security Council that it will not commit
or support any act of international terrorism or
allow any orgainzation directed towards commission
of such acts to oerate within its territory and to
condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts,
methods and practices of terrorism."
|
Iraq was
also required to surrender to the Red Cross people and
property listed as taken by Kuwait and other
nations.
To ensure
that Iraq complied with 687's requirements, the
Secretary-General was required to develop an ongoing
monitoring and verification plan. Paragraph 24 of 687
imposed sweeping restrictions on the sale by U.N. member
nations to Iraq of equipment or technology that could be
used to produce, utilize, or stockpile the prohibited
weapons as well as "all forms of conventional military
equipment." A number of nations, including France, Germany,
Russia, China, Serbia, and South Africa appear to have
violated these provisions.
Iraq Never Complied with S.C.R. 687
Iraq, in
12 years, never complied with the terms of S.C.R. 687.
Specifically, Iraq:
- Never
fully disclosed the types, locations, and amounts of its
chemical, biological, missile, and nuclear weapons and
facilities
- Hid
the prohibited weapons
- Obstructed
and engaged in espionage upon the UNSCOM inspectors,
finally expelling them.
- Continued
to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear
weapons
- Developed
and deployed ballistic missiles with ranges in excess of
150 km.
- Funded
and trained Palestinian terrorists
- Refused
to cooperate with the Red Cross and surrender hostages,
prisoners, and property taken during its invasion of
Kuwait
Iraq's Refusal to Comply with the Terms of the Cease
Fire Authorizes the U.S. to Continue Hostilities begun in
the 1991 Gulf War
S.C.R.
687 is explicit that the cease fire between Iraq and Member
States that participated in the Gulf War is not effective
until Iraq accepts the conditions imposed by 687:
|
"upon
notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and
to the Security Council of its acceptance of the
provisions above, a formal cease fire is effective
between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States
cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with
resolution 678."
|
It is a
settled matter in every area of law, including International
Law, that a party's failure to perform obligations imposed
on it by agreement is a breech of that agreement. Since Iraq
never complied with the terms of 687, the cease fire never
became effective.
Aticle 51 of the U.N. Charter Gives the U.S. Authority
to Conduct Military Operations Against Iraq Independent of
S.C.R. 687
Article
51 of Chapter VII
of the U.N. Charter preserves the inherent right of all
Member States under International Law to take military
action in self defense:
|
"Nothing
in the present Charter shall impair the inherent
right of individual or collective self-defence 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-defence 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. "
|
On
September 11, 2001, the United States did suffer an armed
attack against the civilian targets of the World Trade
Center in New York and the headquarters of the U.S. military
in the Pentagon in Washington, DC. An additional attack,
most likely on a civilian, governmental target such as the
White House or the Capitol, was only averted by the
elf-sacrifice of brave citizens who died crashing a hijacked
airliner.
This
attack, independent of S.C.R. 687, authorizes the U.S. or
its allies to take the actions they feel necessary to defend
themselves. This is an inherent right of sovereign nations
that was not surrendered by signing the U.N. Charter and, as
Article 51 shows, is explicitly recognized by the U.N.'s
founding document.
In fact,
Iraq's non-compliance with 687 stengthens the U.S.'s
authority to act on its own initiative since the Security
Council, for 12 years, has been unable to force Iraq to
comply with the measures it has already dictated as being
necessary to international peace and security in relation to
Iraq.
The U.S. has given the U.N. Process - and Saddam - One
More Chance
Iraq's
failure to comply with S.C.R. 687, which caused the Gulf War
cease fire to never become effective, and the right to self
defense after an attack give the U.S. two independent
authorities under which it can justly and legally conduct
military operations against Iraq.
So far,
the U.S. has left its citizens exposed to increased risk of
a terrorist attack involving weapons of mass destruction by
foregoing its legal authority to take military action
against Iraq in favor of giving Iraq and Saddam one more
demand, and one more opportunity to comply, with the
requirement to voluntarily disarm which Saddam agreed to in
1991.
In
September, 2002, President Bush addressed the United Nations
asking the Security Council to pass a 17th resolution
reiterating the requirements of S.C.R. 687 passed 12 years
earlier. In November, 2002, the Security Council unanimously
passed S.C.R. 1441.
The
unanimous vote of the Security Council to once again demand
Saddam hand over his weapons and reveal the location of his
facilities so that they can be destroyed is evidence that
Iraq's neighbors are indeed threatened by Saddam's outlaw
behavior. At the time of the vote, Syria was a member of the
Security Council and voted in favor of S.C.R. 1441. Syria
shares a border with Iraq, but more importantly, at the time
Saddam came to power in 1979 Syria had negotiated an
agreement to completely merge with Iraq, forming a single
state. The agreement was never executed because just a year
after taking power Saddam launched an invasion and war with
Iran and refused to share power in the new state with Syrian
leaders.
Under S.C.R. 1441 it is Iraq's Duty to Voluntarily
Disarm, it is NOT the Responsibility of Weapons Inspectors
to Discover Hidden Weapons or Disarm Iraq
S.C.R.
1441 essentially repeats the requirements of S.C.R. 687 as
if the disarmament process was beginning as it should have
in 1991. It requires Iraq to submit:
|
"a
currently accurate, full, and complete declaration
of all aspects of its programmes to develop
chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons,
ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such
as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems
designed for use on aircraft, including any
holdings and precise locations of such weapons,
components, subcomponents, stocks of agents, and
related material and equipment, the locations of
its research, development and production
facilities, as well as all other chemical,
biological, and nuclear programmes, including any
which it claims are for purposes not related to
weapon production or material."
|
This was
the document Iraq submitted in December, 2002.
Unfortunately, Iraq did not comply with the disclosure
requirements. Missing from its document were details of
weapons which the U.N. knew Iraq possessed as a result of
UNSCOM's attempt in the 1990s to verify Iraq's disarmament.
In January, inspectors uncovered new weapons that Iraq
failed to disclose. Also missing were declarations of
materials the Security Council knew Iraq had acquired thanks
to intelligence information supplied by several Member
States.
It is
really a misnomer to call the U.N. personnel attempting to
enforce 1441 in Iraq "weapons inspectors." They are part of
UNMOVIC,
The U.N. Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission
and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Their job is not
to attempt to find Saddam's weapons and facilities, their
job is simply to verify the disarmament process the U.N. has
demanded of Iraq for 12 years. They are "VERIFIERS" not
detectives.
The burden
of proof to disclose, surrender, and destroy weapons rests
on Iraq, not on the United Nations or the UNMOVIC
Verifiers.
S.C.R. 1441 Contains Provisions to Assist the UNMOVIC
Verifiers
Given
Saddam's 12 year history of hiding weapons and obstructing
the Verifiers, S.C.R. 1441 imposes some provisions to help
the Verifiers determine if Iraq is fully disclosing,
surrendering, and destroying the prohibited weapons and
facilities. Paragraph 4 of 1441 requires:
|
"Iraq
shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate,
unimpeded, unconditional, unrestricted access to
any and all, including underground, areas,
facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and
means of transport which they wish to inspect, as
well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and
private access to all officials and other persons
whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the
mode or location of UNMOVIC'S or the IAEA's choice
purusant to any aspect of their mandates; further
decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their
discretion conduct interviews inside or outside
Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those
interviewed and family members outside Iraq, and
that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC AND THE
IAEA, such interviews may occur without the
presence of observers from the Iraqi Government;
and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to
resume inspections no later than 45 days following
adoption of this resolution and to update the
Council 60 days thereafter."
|
The
UNMOVIC Verifiers also:
|
"have
the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all
personnel currently and formerly associated with
Iraq's chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic
missile programmes and the associated research,
development, and production facilities"
and
"have
the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing
a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including
surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which
Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so
that nothing is changed or taken our of a site
being inspected."
|
1441 calls
on Member States to assist UNMOVIC by "providing any
information related to prohibited programs or other aspects
of their mandates, including Iraqi attempts since 1998 to
acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be
insepcted, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such
interviews, and data to be collected."
UNMOVIC Says Iraq has Failed to Comply with 1441
According
to Hans Blix,
Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, as of 27 January 2003,
Iraq
- "unlike
South Africa, has not come to a genuine acceptance, not
even today, of the disarmament demanded of
it"
- has
cooperated only on access, not on substance
- failed
to permit oveflights of inspection sites
- likely
encouraged and initiated harassment and demonstrations
against Verifiers
- failed
to account for 6,500 chemical warfare bombs
- moved
and stored chemical rocket warheads into a new bunker in
the last few years when it should not have had such
weapons
- failed
to account for several thousand chemical
rockets
- probably
misled about converting VX nerve agent into
weapons
- failed
to account for anthrax it possessed
- imported
banned items, including 300 rocket engines
- stored
chlorine gas precursor discovered by the
Verifiers
- concealed
information required to be disclosed in private
homes
- failed
to make a complete and accurate disclosure as required
simply to begin the Verification process
Under S.C.R. 1441, the U.S. is NOT Required to Wait
for a Second Security Council Resolution Before Conducting
Miliatry Action
1441
states that the Security Council will convene upon a report
that Iraq has failed to comply with the resolution's
requirements "to consider the situation and the need for
full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions
in order to secure international peace and security." Blix's
report of 27 January shows Iraq has failed to comply, so the
Security Council will convene to consider what action to
take.
But the
U.S. is not requried to wait for this decision to take
action itself, either alone or with allies, because the U.S.
already has an independent right to take military action
under Article 51. Since this right is an inherent right of
nations, protected in the U.N. Charter, even a decision by
the Security Council not to take action would not impede the
U.S.'s independent right of self defense.
The reason
for this is quite simple. If a member of the Security
Council could block a nation's right to self defense it
would be possible for two nations to conspire to attack a
third with impunity. As long as one nation is on the
Security Council and can cast a veto, (i.e., is one of the
five permanent members) the other nation can attack the
third nation without worry that the Security Council will be
able to take action to protect the third nation. A group of
nations who were not permanent members with veto power could
execute the same strategy, so long as they could command
enough votes on the Security Council to prevent the Council
from taking action to protect the target nation.
An
independent right of self defense is essential to the proper
functioning of the U.N. security system.
Religious Considerations
Arab and Other Muslim Nations Want the U.S. to Take
Action Against Iraq
Iraq's
constitution establishes Islam as its official religion.
This fact makes it difficult for other Islamic nations -
like Saddam's neighbors - to directly voice their support
for action against Iraq. Islam does not recognize national
boundaries, because Islam is both a political and religious
system. Islam considers all Muslims wherever they are to be
members of a single community - the "umma".
In
reality, historical, cultural, ethnic, and economic
differences in the Islamic world do make national and other
boundaries important. In fact, Saddam has established a
reputation for war that makes neighboring states want to see
Iraq disarmed and Saddam removed. Iraq initiated a war
against Iran that dragged on for 8 years. To sustain this
war, Iraq borrowed billions of dollars from Saudi Arabia and
Kuwait. In 1990, Saddam demanded the loans be forgiven. When
they were not he repaid them by invading Kuwait and lobbing
Scud missiles at Saudi Arabia. Iraq's recent development of
long range boosters for the Scuds has expanded the number of
Muslim countries who see Iraq as a military threat.
It is
essential to recognize that no nation outside the Persian
Gulf could successfully wage a military campaign against
Iraq without the assistance of other Gulf States. Although
Arab and other Muslim states have not been vocal in their
support for U.S. military action, they have clearly
expressed their approval by allowing the U.S. to base troops
and command facilities in their nations, and to fly strikes
into Iraq from their airfields.
Arguments Against the War by Supposed "Christians" in
the U.S.
Given the
principles of International Law laid out above, it is clear
that U.S. military action against Iraq is both just and
legal under the law of man. The question remains, is it
approved under the Law of God?
Down
through the centuries since Jesus rose from the dead,
Christians who follow an orthodox interpretation of the
Bible have never questioned that war is just - and therefore
approved by God - in certain circumstances. Great Christian
thinkers such as Augustine of Hippo, Aquinas, Grotius,
Puffendorf, Locke, and Burlamaqui, to name just a few,
actually found the ideas that are the basis of Western Civil
and International Law in the Scripture.
Since
nations are nothing more than groups of individuals, the
rational for just war on a national level proceeds directly
from the Biblical principles that authorize individual self
defense. Two ideas in particular are relevant:
- First,
that God is the author of life, and therefore He alone
has the power to set the number of man's days,
and
- Second,
the 6th Commandment prohibiting murder
Since man
receives his life from God, it follows that man lacks the
moral authority under God's laws to commit suicide. Since he
cannot kill himself, man likewise cannot allow himself to be
killed. Thus, anyone who attempts to murder another is
putting himself in the place of God, and his attempted
murder not only can be, but must be, resisted. Self defense
is thus not only a right but a duty.
The
principle of national self defense is nothing more than the
collective right of every individual in a nation to protect
his own life and that of his countrymen from external
aggressors. We find this confirmed in Romans 13:3-4 which
tells us that government does not bear the sword in vain,
but is a minister of God to execute wrath upon
evildoers.
The right
of self defense is not unlimited, of course. As articulated
by Francis Shaeffer, before one can oppose force to violence
one must first protest and attempt to flee. Force may be
used only when protest and flight have failed or are
impractical. Likewise, the amount of force that may be used
is limited to that amount reasonably calculated to overcome
the force with which one is faced.
These
principles led to the development of the doctrine of limited
war, a concept never recognized outside the Christian West
and now largely ignored in the Post-Christian era. Limited
war principles prevent the targeting of civilians, provide
for humane treatment of prisoners, and forbid the use of
weapons of mass destruction, among other things.
Should We "Turn the Other Cheek"?
In the
United States today, most mainline Protestant denominations
have now strayed far from orthodoxy, and few of their
members are familiar with the ideas of orthodox Christian
scholarship. In particular, they fail to realize that God
has not only created the individual but also established the
institutions of government and the family, and has given us
particular commandments for how we are to discharge our
duties depending on the context in which we are
operating.
Individual
Christian believers are commanded to show forgiveness to
their enemies by "turning the other cheek." But this is not
the command individual believers are to follow when they
bear the responsibility for the conduct of government. As we
have seen from Romans, Government has a duty to punish and
deter violations of God's law, like murder or unjust war. A
Christian who turns his nation's collective cheek when
attacked is NOT following God's commandments for how he is
to discharge his responsibility as a national
leader.
|
