The aim of the War on Iraq

Part I - The aim of the War on Iraq is to declare a global state of exception that does away with the United Nations system. Part II - The illegality of this war from the perspective of International Law

The Nizkor Team

Statement on the War on Iraq

Introduction

A few days ago we called upon¹ all those governments in a position to convoke an emergency special session of the United Nations General Assembly to put into effect the provisions set out in the UN Charter and the so called "Uniting for Peace" Resolution.²

We now call upon you again to convince your respective governments to take all actions necessary in order to put this mechanism into effect, thereby making use of the resources of the United Nations system so that all appropriate means are used to demand that the United States, England and Spain end military operations. These countries are using both diplomatic and military means to put an end to the United Nations and to declare a de facto state of exception at a global level allowing them to put aside norms of international law and in particular those of international humanitarian law and international human rights law.

The war with Iraq, or rather the war in Iraq, is nothing more than a pretext to legitimize a theory that really only seeks to eliminate the system of international law. This is similar to the justification for the Polish invasion at the hands of the army of the Third Reich, which according to Goering, put an end to the system of law imposed by the French Revolution.

If any doubt remains, the White House official - and the theorist of the neo-conservatism which is being forcibly imposed - has made these extreme views quite clear in an article which we have reproduced in English and translated into Spanish. The title of the article leaves no room for romantic interpretation: "Thank God for the death of the UN. Its abject failure gave us only anarchy. The world needs order". Its author goes on: "Saddam Hussein's reign of terror is about to end. He will go quickly, but not alone: in a parting irony, he will take the UN down with him. Well, not the whole UN. The 'good works' part will survive, the low-risk peacekeeping bureaucracies will remain, the chatterbox on the Hudson will continue to bleat. What will die is the fantasy of the UN as the foundation of a new world order. As we sift the debris, it will be important to preserve, the better to understand, the intellectual wreckage of the liberal conceit of safety through international law administered by international institutions"

And of course it is these people who will impose a "New Order," leaving behind the annoyance of international law. Richard Perle who signed the article, describes perfectly the profound and genuine view of what is at stake here. Richard Perle is the chairman of the defence policy board, an advisory panel to the Pentagon.³

It is evident that the point of the war is not the democratization of Iraq; in fact, that word is not used in any official communications. Nor could it be as that would be misleading. What is being attempted here is contrary to any form of rule of law or civil liberties as we know them. What is being attempted is to create a new category of persons who would be placed outside the ius gentium. No legal norm would apply to these persons. In order to achieve this, the United Nations must fall, and the system returned to that in effect before 1928, at the moment prior to the formation of the League of Nations.

That is why Jose Maria Aznar's discourse consistently invokes the relevance of the demise of the League of Nations.

The disproportionate use of force towards an enemy that has no real military response manifestly demonstrates that what is attempted is the intimidation of governments and civilian populations worldwide. The Dante-esque spectacle of using the latest technologies on a city such as Baghdad makes this patently clear. The explosives used have had a destruction capacity superior to those used in Hiroshima; albeit without using nuclear explosives.

A spokesperson for the Pentagon made clear the purpose of this disproportionate use of force. It is simply the application of terror in order to obtain control of the civil population. What is not said but is evident to any scientist in social psychological behaviour, is that the impact of the images transmitted through TV worldwide is intended to have the same effect on thousands of millions of people.

This is the explanation for the bombardments which, as we said, have shown us how to achieve the destruction capacity of Hiroshima in just a few seconds…, not days. And the purpose of it is to destroy the infrastructure of life in that city and thus to exhaust the civilian population physically, emotionally and psychologically in just two, three…, days.

As a senior Pentagon official has publicly stated: "There will not be a safe place in Baghdad... you have this simultaneous effect, rather like the nuclear weapon at Hiroshima, not in days or weeks but in minutes." The purpose is to "take the city down. By that I mean you get rid of their power, water. In two, three, four, five days, they are physically, emotionally, and psychologically exhausted"⁴

What this spokesperson is saying (with the use of very precise language) is indicative of this form of terror planning and constitutes a flagrant violation, not only of international law, but also of the minimum standards granted by the Geneva Conventions, and even of those set out in the Lieber Code.

The Secretary of Defense of the United States, Donald Rumsfeld, has stated that the attack against Iraq will be of "a force and scope and scale beyond what has been seen before", and the TV images showed us how the Secretary violated "strictu sensu" Protocol I to the Geneva conventions.

Article 33 of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Convention IV), states: "No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited", and "Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited."

And Article 51 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), states:

"Protection of the civilian population

1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in circumstances.
   
2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.
   
3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.
   
4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:
• a] Those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
• b] Those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
• c] Those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.
5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:
   
• a] An attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and
• b] An attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
6. Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited.
   
7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.
   
8. Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57".

And Article 52 - "General protection of civilian objects

1. Civilian objects shall not be the object of attack or of reprisals. Civilian objects are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 2.
2. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military of advantage.
3. In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used".

Under this guise there is an attempt to achieve what Carl Schmitt described as a "state of exception," which in the terminology of the time was a state where the "sovereign is he who decides on the exception." In this case the "sovereign" is the neo-conservative forces which control the White House, and all those who support them recognize that ability through the exception. The exception is nothing more than the destruction of the system of international law; destruction which results in a permanent destabilization where the law of force can be applied as a means to solve conflicts.

The proponents of this view would replace international law and international humanitarian law with "classical military law" and apply the theory of the partisan; from this perspective, the law of exception consists of deeming the civil population to be part of the conflict, but divesting it even of the rights of a belligerent, thus placing it outside the law. As a consequence, the civilian population cannot rely on the protection of any normative system established by the laws of war.

Only when considered in this light, can the military destruction -in a matter of minutes- of the infrastructure of a city where more than five million people live, be understood. This is the manifestation of the anti-terrorist doctrine post-September 11 which has resulted in the resignation of the most senior member responsible for the battle against terrorism in the US National Security Council. His problem: Iraq is simply an excuse.

By destroying international law, and turning arrogance and impunity into virtues, a worldwide state of exception would ensue.

Benjamin Franklin expressed it with complete clarity a long time ago when he addressed the Pennsylvania Assembly on 11 November 1755: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety".

We must confront this situation.

Gregorio Dionis
Director del Equipo Nizkor
UE, 22mar03

Part II - The illegality of this war from the perspective of International Law

Notes

1 - we called upon

2 - Uniting for Peace.

3 -The Spanish original version of this Statement was released on March 22, 2003, when Richard Perle was still chairman of the Defence Policy Board. He resigned on Thursday, March 27, 2003.

4 - Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) Press Release, NY, March 21, 2003