| |
Of man and God and law
By
Thalif Deen
NEW YORK - Groups
representing more than 300 international lawyers, jurists,
physicians and preachers have warned that a military attack on
Iraq would not only be a blatant violation of
international law but could kill over 260,000 people.
The statements, issued separately by two groups,
have been transmitted to the 15-member UN Security
Council, which is expected to decide soon whether to
authorize a US-led attack on Baghdad.
"[US]
President [George W] Bush has no interest in or
understanding of international law,'' said Peter Weiss,
vice president of the International Association of
Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA). "He is in the
process of dismantling the entire structure of law-based
international security created since World War II."
Weiss said that an attack on Iraq would likely
be "extremely devastating", based on US Secretary of
State Colin Powell's doctrine of "quick victory through
overwhelming force".
Medact, a British affiliate
of the group International Physicians for the Prevention
of Nuclear War (IPPNW) has estimated that a war on Iraq
could cause 48,000 to 261,000 deaths on all sides within
the first three months and another 200,000 longer-term
deaths, said IPPNW spokesman Victor Sidel, professor of
social medicine at New York's Albert Einstein College of
Medicine.
"As physicians, many of whom have seen
and responded to the consequences of war for both
combatants and non-combatants, we consider the price
that the Iraqi people are about to pay unacceptable,
especially when clear alternatives to war exist and have
been advocated throughout the international community,"
he added.
Last month, a team of 10 health
experts said that Iraq's 13 million children face
greater danger than prior to the 1991 Gulf War. "Iraqi
children are at grave risk of starvation, disease, death
and psychological trauma," concluded their report.
IALANA, a coalition of more than 200
international lawyers and jurists from over 30
countries, says that "there is no precedent in
international law for the use of force as a preventive
measure when there has been no actual or imminent
attack".
"The Security Council has never
authorized force based on a potential, non-imminent
threat of violence. All past authorizations have been in
response to actual invasion, large-scale violence or
humanitarian emergency," it added.
The group
also said that the Security Council has established
mechanisms to address the concerns regarding alleged
Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD), including
diplomatic pressure, negotiations, sanctions on certain
goods with military applications, destruction of
stockpiles of WMD and inspections of facilities able to
help produce such weapons.
Evidence to date is
that these mechanisms are not perfect, but are working
effectively enough to have led to the destruction and
curtailment of most of the Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction capability," it added.
The United
States, which is seeking Security Council authorization
for a military attack on Iraq, is facing opposition by
three veto-wielding permanent members of the Council -
France, Russia and China. The other Council members with
veto powers are the United States and Britain, while the
remaining 10 members are rotating, non-permanent and
have no-veto powers.
An expected US resolution
calling for the use of force would need nine positive
votes and no vetoes to be adopted. The resolution, which
is likely to be tabled after UN arms inspectors report
on their Iraqi mission to the Council on Friday, could
also survive if Russia, China and France abstain,
instead of exercising their vetoes.
Bush has
warned that he is willing to attack Iraq with or without
Security Council authorization.
Last week, a
group of 45 experts on international law disputes
challenged the president's assertion that the United
States does not need Security Council authorisation to
attack Iraq.
The writers, all from US
universities and non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
advocating nuclear disarmament, said the
administration's position "is incorrect and poses a
grave danger for the future of international law, the
United Nations and a peaceful international order".
The administration is basing its argument on its
own interpretation of Security Council resolution 1441,
which was unanimously adopted late last year and sent
inspectors back to Iraq to search for evidence of
biological, chemical and nuclear weapons after a
four-year hiatus.
"It is clear from that
resolution that no individual member state is authorised
to use any violation by Iraq, whether very minor and
technical or more serious, as legal justification to
attack Iraq," said University of Pittsburgh law
professor Jules Lobel.
The letter said, "We urge
the Bush administration to comply with the US
constitution, to comply with the UN charter, and not
unilaterally attack Iraq."
(Inter Press
Service)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
