Jim, having read through the remainder of your post, I think I understand a bit better what you are trying to get across. I nevertheless suspect you are suffering from a case of failing to see the forest for all the trees.
You make a good point that the ICJ’s interpretation of Article 51 is too narrow, and I’m inclined to agree with you. It would for example seem natural for states to have a right to defend themselves militarily from other states that supply weapons to proxy armies within their borders, and might also be a practice established by “state custom.” But while I agree with you that most of international law is, and should be, derived from state practice, I submit that it’s absurd to use such a standard as the sole guideline in this case. First, because the history of state relations is really one long story of states using violence against other states, so by your standards, “self-defense” would actually devolve to its polar opposite – a right to armed aggression guaranteed by Article 51. Second, because doing so would render to concept of “self-defense” entirely meaningless, since states always couch their military adventures in terms of “self-defense.” (For example, the US was in no sense ever threatened by Grenada, but nevertheless defended its invasion of that small island as an act of “self-defense” protected by the provisions of Article 51.)
In other words, even if we broaden the concept of “self-defense” somewhat, I still contend that it would not be “plausible” to claim that the US complied with international law when it invaded Iraq. Your argument leads inevitably to the paradoxical conclusion that acts of armed aggression by states against other states are to be understood as acts of self-defense. Since such acts really are the “norm” in the history of state relations, I submit that such a history cannot serve as our only point of reference when we formulate a legal concept of “self-defense.” And I note that you carefully side-stepped that point in your response to me, so I ask again: are you prepared to defend the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 as a legitimate act of “self-defense” protected under the provisions of Article 51, in accordance with the standard practice of state custom? That invasion certainly falls within the norms of such praxis, and Iraq claimed the invasion was really in self-defense.
I would also like to respond to this:
No, the point is that the either the US must abide by the rules – which thereby gives us a legitimate right to respond to countries that fail to do so – or quit claiming that 1) it abides by the rules (though it does not), 2) other countries don’t abide by the rules (though they do), and 3) running around invading everybody. Because this is what is really going on behind the rhetoric, and (coupled with the fact that so many Americans seem unable to grasp this fact) why many of us in Europe, for example, find US actions so alarming.
I think most americans just wanted revenge or the satisfaction of seeing their country using military muscle. What genocide would you be talking about ?
Then even if we agree that Saddam needed to be taken down… which most would agree. Why the hurry ? Why step on everyone’s toes whilst doing it ? How can a war against such an impopular dictator have become even more impopular ? How you do things are just as important as why.
Hussein was committing genocide against Shiites and Kurds for years. He had mostly stopped by 1991, but only becuase of the ILLEGAL no-fly zones and ILLEGAL American occupation of Northern Iraq.
Hurry? It should have been done at least 12 years ago!
12 years ago that wasn’t a factor. The answer has to do with the individual beliefs of each President. Bush was a Kissinger-type, preferred stability over everything else. If Saddam fell, there was no telling what would replace him. So they decided to not mess with him more than they had to. Clinton didn’t want to undertake the Iraq mission because it would be very costly and difficult. He was willing to take on Haiti and Kosovo, because those were relatively easy. Bush II didn’t invade Iraq for humanitarian reasons, but once the decision to invade was made, he was committed to making it a humanitarian-style mission. We didn’t have to work towards democracy, we didn’t have to truck in food relief, we don’t have to spend billions in reconstruction. But we are.
**The world is so much more complicated than good and bad adaher… that even when you can do good things… you might just have other things in mind.
**
This is true. I only wish all the knee-jerk opposition to the US felt that way. The same people that tell us that not everything is black and white see the US in those terms.
Iraq War a humanitarian mission ? Sorry for being skeptical.
As for being easy… Bush II prefered Iraq than Korea because it was easier. I think most agree that Korea is far more dangerous to the world than Saddam. (not that a military solution is my suggestion).
So its easy to invade countries and claim moral superiority when obviously things could have been done differently or within a better diplomacy.
Well, Bush didn’t start with Korea becuase when Korea started their crap, we already had most of our military in the Gulf.
It’s not North Korea we are worried about, but China. Even in 1950, when our military might was a lot less than today and our position was a lot less secure, we kicked their butts hard. It wasn’t until China intervened that we had a hard time. North Korea’s army would fold up as surely as Iraq’s did. The only worry would be WMD, which they don’t even really have the means to deliver anyway.
… but they don’t need missiles to deliver nukes do they ? They can sell them to terrorists. The whole point of responding to 9/11 wasn’t to stop poor Iraqis from suffering… but to fight terrorism and attacks on the “homeland”.
Which is more dangerous... Iraqi terrorists or Korean nukes sneaked into the US ?
From what I have been reading the money spent on security in ports and borders has been less than generous. Airport security has been shown to have a lot of weak points too. Not that $87 billion would make security perfect… that is impossible… but certainly a bit more investment has been lacking.
… well the point wasn’t if it CAN be stopped… but what is more dangerous to the US homeland if it wasn’t stopped? Non existant Iraqi Terrorists or AQ buying a Korean Nuke ?
Iraq was a proliferation threat as well. And Iraq doesn’t need to worry about a blockade because Al Qaeda roamed freely through the Middle East.
If they wanted to get a nuke from North Korea, they’d have to transport that huge thing either by sea, through China, or through Russia. That is extremely risky, and if they were caught, any American President with guts would immediately declare war on North Korea and end that regime. Russia would to, because that nuke could easily be headed for a Russian city, since Al Qaeda considers the Chechnya battle to be just as important as any other.
Still the fact remains tht the nukes are more dangerous and relevant than Iraq… the same way Afghanistan should be more relevant than Iraq but seems to have become secondary.
Afghanistan isn’t secondary, it’s just that the strategic realities dictate that we have less of a presence there.
Nukes are the biggest threat, and North Korea will be dealt with at some point. It won’t be by war, but they are hurting right now and really want something from us. And they will only get it if they agree to a verifiable disarmement. Not verified just by the IAEA, but by OUR weapons inspectors as well.
Actually, as a US citizen I have every right in the world to criticize the actions of my government.
But I’ve never claimed that Europe was better, or always abides by the rules. And when a European government does something stupid or “illegal,” you will be sure to find me among the first critics. I invite you to join me.
Really? Thank you for lecturing me on the blazingly obvious.
Actually, you are incorrect. As this recent Gallup poll reveals, yours is a distinctly minority opinion among your countrymen:
Sorry to shatter your fine illusions of nobility. But tell me, in you next reply, could you try to be just a little bit more better-than-thou? I’m not sure you’ve really fully conveyed how much better you are than all the rest of us, yet.