Alright, let's clarify the differences between world politics and the domestic political workings. Hopefully this will help to show that the war in Iraq is not legitimized by the claim that since Saddam Hussein didn't comply with the UN's resolutions, we are justified in pre-emptively attacking Iraq.
Domestic politics differs from world politics in that there is authority in domestic politics and anarchy in world politics. There is government and law in the domestic realm, whereas in world politics there tends to be a conflict of ideologies due to the fact that there is no international governing body. Under the authoratative manner of domestic politics, there is a fear of misuse of power. However, under the anarchy of world poliltics, there is chaos, a free-for-all, and no security. Government gives security by making and enforcing rules designed to ensure individual security. Domestic poltics creates an environment of safety based on social and legal limits. World politics creates an environment of risk based on the idea that there is no insurance of safety- individual gain motivates actions with no fear of legal repercussions. In domestic politics there are strong legal and social norms which are expected to prevail. If they are broken, punishment ensues. In the realm of world politics, however, there are weak legal and social norms, meaning no fear of punishment.
Accordingly, the UN and international law cannot dictate any sort of absolute code of legal norms. Sovereign nations make up world politics (along with IGOs, NGOs, MNCs, etc.). These nations operate under their own set of legal and social norms, and when combined with all the nations of the world, there is a conflict of ideologies in which the anarchic system of world politics is incapable of enforcing legal standards. Treaties can be signed, UN resolutions made, agreements, armistices, but none of these can be relied on. This is why there is a security dillemma inherent in world politics. And this is why it is not a legitimate argument to state that Iraq violated UN resolutions, therefore the US was justified to invade.
Even if we operate under the naive assumption that all "legal" matters in the arena of world politics are to be taken up with the United Nations, the claim that the US attacked Iraq pre-emptively in the name of self-defense is inaccurate. There is no evidence of the so-called imminent threat posed by Iraq, though it has been well known for years that Hussein is someone to look out for. In terms of legality based on the UN's standards, this war was not justified. In terms of true world poltics, I suppose you could say that since it is a system of anarchy, it really doesn't matter, there is no form of justice and thus no necessity for justification. But you also have to consider how the decision to go to war affects and involves areas associated with domestic politics. Domestic issues have gone unaddressed and unanswered because of the preoccupation inevitable with war. National security is one thing, but, in my opinion, pre-emptively attacking a country where there is a risk of attacks on us by weapons of mass destruction, seems more like national [b]in[/b]security. This last point is more opinionated than fact-based, but the argument still stands that no war can be legitimized by standards associated with the UN or international law.
you are absolutely right ... there is NO EVIDENCE that Saddam Hussein posed a threat ... in fact, HE DIDN'T
the greatest threat to world peace is the corrupt neo-con, neo-nazi Bush regime
if a nation thinks that a regime should be toppled, then it is obliged to work with the world community to accomplish that goal multi-laterally ... not the insane CORPORATE-TAKE-ALL TO RAPE IRAQ OF THEIR OIL & BUSINESSES, AS THE CORRUPT BUSH/CHENEY INC. HAS DONE
posted by: SamAdams (reply)
post date: 11.23.03 (6:42 pm)
Yes, but it is too bad that nations (e.g. USA under Bush) refuse to use the U.N. as a forum to co-operate in vital issues ... Co-operation is the vital means of achieving global objectives (e.g. reduction in terrorism; fighting disease; environmental issues; fighting poverty; etc.) ... and for any single nation's leader to unilaterally behave as an aggressor and pre-empt the world community: is arrogant, barbaric & criminal, in my opinion.
Yes, as a general principle, one should abide by the treaties that you have signed and ratified, but the state of international law is such that even the good ole' USA violates international law all the time, and if we were to invade every nation that defied the UN, well, we'd be in a mess.
Right, as a matter of principle, you should abide by treaties and cooperate with the UN and such, BUT the nature of world politics is such that this is only a matter of principle and not something that can be enforced.
"Tragically, a nation that was created by intellectuals and visionaries has now been completely taken over by venal corporate gangsters, delusional Christian fruitcakes and hopelessly shallow Texas shit-kickers." -Tom Robbins
