|
|
|
Note:
Paul Goldman wrote the main body of this piece on
March 18, before hostilities started. He has updated
the column to renew his call for Governor Warner and
Speaker Howell to jointly sponsor a resolution at
the Upcoming Reconvened Session of the General
Assembly showing Virginia's support for our troops,
a goodly number of them Virginians, and their
Commander-in-Chief, President George Bush.
Let
me ask you: When was the last time anyone paid
attention to a French lawyer, unless she was wearing
something slinky without anything underneath?
Certainly not anyone who knows anything about the
law. And for good reason: French law is not based on
English common law, meaning the French are in a
legal world unto themselves, as far we Yanks, the
Brits and the rest of the English-speaking world are
concerned.
Like I say, I prefer my French lawyers with long
legs, short skirts and a French farmhouse about 35
miles from Arles. Dream on, you might say. But at
least I knew better than try to reason with those
French lawyers, all trained by the ones who wrote
the WW I peace treaty and the ones who thought they
had cut some deal with a guy named A. Hitler.
So,
President Chirac, listen up: Truth is, there hasn't
been a military brain in France since Napoleon, and
there hasn't been a decent French diplomat since
Talleyrand.
Despite the French, German and Russian positions
taken in the debate before the United Nations
Security Council, the Iraq War is legal under
generally accepted principles of international law.
At the invitation of several countries and
resolutions of the United Nations, American forces
were asked in 1991 to end the aggression of Iraqi
military forces against their neighbors. Yes, it was
an international coalition, but in name only, as
American forces were authorized and expected to
provide the might to end the illegal Iraqi
aggression.
We
won the war, and in return, the Iraqi government,
led by Saddam Hussein, agreed to certain
pre-conditions and post-conditions in order to
secure a ceasefire and stay in power.
These
pre-conditions and post-conditions have not been
met. Indeed, there has been a material breach on
several conditions, as admitted by the international
community in a series of resolutions over a decade
running through the most recent U.N. resolution
passed last year.
Saddam
Hussein now has conceded that he did, in fact,
possess weapons banned by the cease-fire conditions
subsequent to the cease fire, although he now claims
to have destroyed them.
The
1991 cease-fire conditions prohibiting the Iraqi
government from possessing certain types of weapons
are both legal and historically valid. Indeed, it
was Hitler's violation of a WW I treaty requirement
that was repeatedly overlooked by the French and the
Germans. The WW II peace treaty with Japan likewise
banned certain weapons. The resolution of the Cuban
Missile crisis likewise banned certain weapons in
Cuba.
Thus, demanding that the Iraq government not have
certain weapons, and enforcing this demand, is both
legal and has historical precedents.
Finally, there is absolute proof that Saddam
Hussein's government, as a stated policy, seeks to
harm to American interests and that of its allies by
whatever means of armed combat is within their
means, including the use of such weapons.
On December 11, 1941, America declared war against
Germany and Italy, even though they had not yet
engaged in formal hostilities against us. Both Axis
powers had declared war against us earlier that day,
but we surely didn't have to wait to find out
whether they really meant it.
In 1962, JFK was prepared to declare war on the
Soviet Union, not just Fidel Castro, on account of
the Russians putting missiles in Cuba. JFK said that
war was necessary as a preventive measure even
though neither the Soviets nor the Cubans had fired
a shot nor had they stated any aim of using said
missiles to start hostilities with the US.
Essentially, it was the logic of the Monroe Doctrine
that led to our assertion of the right to protect
our interests, and that of our allies in the OAS.
For sure, the OAS supported the quarantine of Cuba,
and the stopping of Russian ships on the High Seas,
both acts of war in a legal sense under
international principles.
But clearly, JFK was not using the OAS as a legal
basis for effectively going to war against either
Cuba or the Soviet Union, for he would have done the
same thing even if the OAS had taken the route of
France, Germany and Russia today relative to Iraq.
Bottom line: Legally and historically, the failure
of Saddam Hussein to live up to the cease fire
conditions, the recognition of such by the
international community, and his stated policy of
doing harm to American interests by whatever means
are at his disposal provides a solid legal
justification for waging war.
The idea that any sovereign nation has ceded the
right to protect itself unless so permitted by the
United Nations charter is not contained anywhere in
that charter nor is it a principle of international
law, either now or historically.
The Iraq war is legal, there should be no doubts
about that -- no matter what the French and their
lawyers claim. It is absolutely contemptible for the
French to tell Americans, as their troops prepare
for battle, that an attack on Iraq would be illegal.
Hypothesized
connections between Hussein and 9/11, further plots
and terrorist groups miss the legal point: The 1991
cease-fire accord, and the failure of Hussein to
abide by its terms in either pre- or post
conditions, added to his threats and admissions,
provides all the legal basis for war, with UN
resolution 1441, at least in my view, added legal
justification, not primary.
Enforcing the 1991 cease-fire agreement, which has
never been properly implemented by the losing party,
is a solid and historical legal basis for the Iraq
War.
Moreover,
Americans need to make it clear to friend and foe
alike that we are united and want the President to
pursue the War without fear of any partisan
wrangling or positioning for later advantage.
This is not a Democrat or Republican War.
Thus, it would be both useful and proper for Gov.
Mark R. Warner, along with Speaker of the House of
Delegates Howell, R-Fredericksburg, to announce that
they will jointly sponsor a resolution backing our
men and women in uniform and their Commander-in-
Chief,
given how many of these soldiers are Virginians.
The time has come for the politicians to stand down
as the real heroes take their posts.
--
March 24, 2003
(c) Copyright. All rights reserved. Paul Goldman.
2003.
|
