PRE-EMPTION
It has been suggested that the rationale of the Iraq invasion was to initiate a pre-emptive war. I don't pretend to know the merits of pre-emption, except when playing bridge, as I am no warrior. I really do feel that it is a code word along the lines of Newt Gingerich, or more to the point double-speak from George Orwell's 1984. I would like to discuss Aggression, which seems sensible to me, as growing up in WWII all we ever heard of was that Japan and Germany were Aggressors, and that was enough to bring us into conflict. After all, the German U-boats had sunk the Lusitania, and that gave us cause to enter WWI, which broke our pledge made in the Monroe Doctrine.
Below is a clip of Aggression from the Enclyclopedia Britannica, but first more on the Iraq War, and a special individual, Robin Vansittart. I feel Robin's pain, as he could see right before his eyes, Aggression, and no-one would do anything about it. Especially the Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain. Here is his EB Bio (2003)
Vansittart , Robert Gilbert Vansittart, Baron
born June 25, 1881, Farnham, Surrey, Eng.
died Feb. 14, 1957, Denham, Buckinghamshire
British diplomat, author, and extreme Germanophobe.
Vansittart was educated at Eton and then trained for diplomatic service. He was first secretary at the Paris Peace Conference (1919–20) and principal private secretary to Lord Curzon (1920–24) and to successive prime ministers (1928–30). As permanent under secretary at the Foreign Office (1930–38), he warned the British government of the growing military power of Germany and insisted that Great Britain should rearm. Vansittart espoused a Germanophobic doctrine—which became known as vansittartism—that held that the conduct of German war leaders from the time of the Franco-German War (1870–71) had had the wholehearted support of the German people and that Germany had to be permanently demilitarized to ensure against future agression.
Vansittart was regarded by Neville Chamberlain as a hindrance to the British government's efforts to reach a settlement with Hitler. During the Czech crisis of 1938 Vansittart was made chief diplomatic adviser to the government, a post of no importance. He retired in 1941 and was raised to the peerage (which became extinct upon his death).
Vansittart wrote novels, verse, and plays, among them Les Pariahs (1902) and Dead Heat (1939). In his autobiography, The Mist Procession, published posthumously in 1958, he could recall no major issue on which his advice was taken, and he described his life as "a story of failure."
_____________________________________________________
Next I want to take you on a trip to Wikipedia, which I have found to be a comprehensive view of recent developments, especially Bush's pre-emptive (read Aggressive) war in Iraq---
Prelude
Since the end of the Gulf War of 1991, Iraq's relations with the UN, the US, and the UK remained poor. In the absence of a Security Council consensus that Iraq had fully complied with the terms of the Persian Gulf War ceasefire, both the UN and the US enforced numerous economic sanctions against Iraq throughout the Clinton administration, and patrolled Iraqi airspace to enforce Iraqi no-fly zones. The United States Congress also passed the "Iraq Liberation Act" in October 1998, which provided $97 million for Iraqi "democratic opposition organizations" in order to "establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq." This contrasted with the terms set out in U.N. Resolution 687 [20], all of which related to weapons and weapons programs, not to what regime was in place. Weapons inspectors had also been used to gather intelligence on Iraq's WMD program, information that was then used in targeting decisions during Operation Desert Fox [21], [22]. At the same time Tony Blair's Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, could not guarantee that an invasion in the circumstances would not be challenged on legal grounds [23].
The United States Republican Party's campaign platform in the U.S. presidential election, 2000 called for "full implementation" of the Iraq Liberation Act and removal of Saddam Hussein with a focus on rebuilding a coalition, tougher sanctions, reinstating inspections, and support for the pro-democracy, opposition exile group, Iraqi National Congress then headed by Ahmed Chalabi. [24]
In September 2000, in the Rebuilding America's Defenses (pg. 17) report, Project for the New American Century, a right-wing think tank, suggested that the United States shift to more ground-based air forces to help contain the forces of Saddam Hussein so that "the demand for carrier presence in the region can be relaxed." Upon the election of George W. Bush as president, many advocates of such a policy (including some of those who wrote the 2000 report) were included in the new administration's foreign policy circle. According to former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill, as widely reported by the mainstream press, an attack was planned since the inauguration, and the first security council meeting discussed plans on invasion of the country. O'Neill later clarified that these discussions were part of a continuation of foreign policy first put into place by the Clinton Administration. [25]
Notes from aides who were with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center one year later, on the day of the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack, reflect that he wanted, "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit [Saddam Hussein] at same time. Not only [Osama bin Laden]." The notes also quote him as saying, "Go massive," and "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."[26] Shortly thereafter, the George W. Bush administration announced a War on Terrorism, accompanied by the doctrine of 'preemptive' military action dubbed the Bush doctrine. A preemptive war requires that the declared purpose be to respond to an imminent threat of war by the other power, whereas wars instituted against a hypothetical future threat are more properly called preventive war and generally considered a war of aggression. From the 90s, US officials have constantly voiced concerns about ties between the government of Saddam Hussein and some particular terrorist activities, notably in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which have been confirmed by subsequent reports; on the other hand, the September 11 commission in June, 2004 released a staff report that said it found 'no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.'"[27]
In 2002 the Iraq disarmament crisis arose primarily as a diplomatic situation. In October 2002, with the "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq" (Adopted 296-133 by the House of Representatives and 77-23 by the Senate), the United States Congress granted President Bush the authority to wage war against Iraq. The Joint Resolution was worded so as to encourage, but not require, UN Security Council approval for military action, although as a matter of international law the US required explicit Security Council approval for an invasion unless an attack by Iraq had been imminent â the US administration argued that there was an "urgent," "growing," and "immediate" threat. [28] The joint resolution allowed the President of the United States to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
In November 2002, United Nations actions regarding Iraq culminated in the unanimous passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 and the resumption of weapons inspections. However, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan later stated that the subsequent invasion was a violation of the UN Charter. Force was not authorized by resolution 1441 itself, as the language of the resolution mentioned "serious consequences," which is generally not understood by Security Council members to include the use of force to overthrow the government; however the threat of force, as cultivated by the Bush administration, was prominent at the time of the vote. Both the U.S. ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, and the UK ambassador Jeremy Greenstock, in promoting Resolution 1441 on 8 November 2002, had given assurances that it provided no "automaticity," no "hidden triggers," no step to invasion without consultation of the Security Council [29]. Such consultation was forestalled by the US and UK's abandonment of the Security Council procedure and their invasion of Iraq. Richard Perle, a senior member of the administration's Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, argued in November 2003, that the invasion was against international law, but still justified [30], [31]. There is still much disagreement among international lawyers on whether prior resolutions, relating to the 1991 war and later inspections, permitted the invasion.
The United States also began preparations for an invasion of Iraq, with a host of diplomatic, public relations, and military preparations.
___________________________________________
Returning to the Encyclopedia Britannica, pub.1972
we found an article that goes to the United Nations as well as the League of Nations, and gives us a thumbnail sketch of Aggression, which is what we came to detest in the conduct of the War (II).
AGGRESSION refers in a psychological sense to any manifestation of a self-assertive disposition, in a political sense to any manifestation of an expansive policy, in a military sense to an unprovoked military attack and in a legal sense to the use ofarmed force by a government in violation of an obligation under international law or treaty. In the last sense, the term has appeared in numerous treaties and official declarations since World War I, including the League of Nations covenant (art. 10) and the United Nations charter (art. 39). The acceptance by most states of obligations not to "resort to war" (covenant, art. 12). not to use nonpadfic means for the settlement of disputes (Kellogg-Briand pact, art. 2), and to "refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force" (UN charter, art. 2. par. 4) has often made it necessary for international organs to consider the problem of aggression in the hostilities which have occurred after World War I. In such cases the League of Nations and the United Nations usually followed the procedure of ordering a "cease-fire" ("provisional measures") and considered a government an aggressor only if it failed to observe that order.
Such cease-fire orders ended the hostilities between Turkey and Iraq in 1925, Greece and Bulgaria in 1925, Peru and Colombia in 1933 (Leticia Trapezium), Greece and its neighbours in 1947, the Netherlands and Indonesia in 1947, India and Pakistan in 1948 (Kashmir), Israel and its'neighbours in 1949 and 1967, Israel, Great Britain and France against Egypt in 1956, factions in the Congo in 1960 and in Cyprus and the Dominican Republic in 1965. None of the participants was at the time declared an aggressor. On the other hand, Japan was found to be an aggressor in Manchuria in 1933, Paraguay in the Chaco area in 1935. North Korea and the People's Republic of China in Korea in 1950 and 1951, and the Soviet Union in Hungary in 1956 because they refused to observe cease-fire orders. The aggressions of Italy in Ethiopia in 1935 and of the Soviet Union in Finland in 1939 were so flagrant that aggression was found without cease-fire orders. In Italy's attack on Corfu (1923), the Italian and German interventions in the Spanish civil war (1936), Axis attacks after 1938, Indian occupation of Goa (1961), Chinese invasion of India (1962) and United States intervention in Cuba (1961) and its presence in Indochina during the 1960s and early 1970s, cease-fire orders were not given for political reasons. A commission of jurists implied that Italy was an aggressor in Corfu, and the Axis aggressions were established by general recognition and the post-World War II war crimes trials. The Israeli-U.A.R. conflict of 1969-70 was ended by a cease-fire at the suggestion of the United States, although intermittent fighting occurred.
International organs have usually been able to stop hostilities or to determine the aggressor but they have often failed to frustrate the success of the aggressor, at least for a considerable period. Economic sanctions have proved inadequate and military sanctions have not been undertaken for they might widen local hostilities into general war unless it appeared that overwhelming force could be collected as in the case of Korea. Eventually, however, Japanese aggressions in Manchuria, Italian in Corfu and Ethiopia, Russian in Finland, and Axis aggressions in World War II failed.
For the purpose of reparation or punishment after hostilities, aggression has been defined as any use of armed force in international relations not justified by defensive necessity, international authority or, in the absence of serious civil strife, consent of the state in whose territory force has been used. This conception was applied by the Nuremberg and other war crimes tribunals in dealing with the indictment of certain Axis leaders for initiating aggressive war and was accepted by the United Nations International Law commission in its draft code of "Offenses against the peace and security of mankind." This code included among acts of aggression "the employment by the authorities of a. state of armed forces against another state for any purpose other than national or collective self-defense or in pursuance of a decision or a recommendation of a competent organ of the United Nations." After it was found that the invasionary force that attacked Conakry, Guinea, in November 1970 consisted mainly of African troops from Portuguese Guinea led by Portuguese army officers and was an attempt to destroy the liberation movement in Portuguese Guinea, the United Nations Security council condemned Portugal and demanded that it make reparations to Guinea.
The United Nations general assembly has recognized the need for a definition of aggression which would command universal acceptance, but continuous efforts have failed to produce such a definition largely because of the desire of some states to include "indirect aggression" such as subversion, infiltration, hostile propaganda and other acts of psychological or political aggression. The purpose of a definition of aggression is, however. To designate the circumstances which justify military action in self defense as an international sanction. That such action is permissible only in response to an illegal use of armed force has been affirmed by practice and by art. 42 and 51 of the charter. See also BELligerency; conquest; league of nations; PEACE INTERNAtional; united nations; war; war crimes.
bibliography.—Q. Wright, "The Concept of Aggression in International Law," Amer. J. Int. Law, vol. xxix, p. 373 1935
____________________________________________
Oh, I went to look up War Crimes, too, but I think you have had about enough. I did want to mention Robert H. Jackson, a Supreme Court Justice, whom we employed to act as one of the prosecutors in Nuremburg, site of the War Crimes Trials of the German accused War Criminals. I also wanted to credit Robert A. Taft, Jr. who was an outspoken critic of these trials, and who was a Senator from Ohio at the time. Later we sponsored War Crimes Trials in Japan, but did not pur Emperor Hirohito on the stand. JEO
posted by James E. Opfell @ 7:11 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home