The Rajpal Abeynayake Column

The Rajpal Abeynayake Column By Rajpal Abeynayake

Lawbreakers cannot take moral high ground on Iraq- World Court Judge Weeramanthry
Would a second UN resolution 'authorising' the United States to go to war against Sadaam Hussein, clear the way for George Bush to launch an attack on Iraq? Most Americans think 'yes' -- and that's the message that George. W. Bush has been pushing. But 'no' says Christopher. G. Weeramanthry, former Vice President of the International Court of Justice. Weeramanthry is leading one of the most persuasive campaigns so far against George Bush's contemplated strike on Iraq -- and he is the most authoritative voice yet that has come out strongly against the illegality of the contemplated adventure of the American President.

In Weeramanthry's opinion, the current situation is one of the most 'dangerous moments in world affairs.' But, he considers it illegal for the UN itself, to vote against the principles of its Charter to sanction a war against Iraq. Judgements delivered in the Lockerbie case for example, he says, make it clear that UN resolutions have to be within the framework of the UN Charter. Weeramanthry's critical eye offers as credible a case as there is against the declaration of war on Iraq.

One reason is that Weeramanthry cannot be tagged with 'fanatically anti American credentials.'' He is a friend of America. As a Vice President of the World Court, and currently a judge ad hoc of that court, Weeramanthry has developed international credentials that makes him more sought after by people in Washington and New York than those in Colombo. But the other more compelling reason that Weeramanthry's opinion on Iraq and the war packs punch, of course is the fact that there could be no better arbiter of international law than this internationally recognised jurist with vast experience in interpreting international law.

President Bush, he says is determined to dismantle the system of international law 'that has taken a good 3000 years to establish.'' What's most persuasive about Weeramanthry's case against George Bush's push for war is that it is totally unequivocal. There are no 'buts' or 'maybes' in this position articulated by this former Vice President of the World Court (ICJ), who has to his credit the most voluminous amount of judgements delivered by any single judge sitting on a bench of the International Court of Justice.

He easily exposes the hypocrisy in the position that is adopted by George Bush and British PM Tony Blair, which is that 'there is a moral imperative for war' due to ' weapons of mass destruction being amassed by Sadaam Hussein.'' "The development of weapons of mass destruction anywhere in the world is contrary to the universal norms against the acquisition possession and threat of use of such weapons, and must be addressed. However, the 'preventive' use of force being considered against Iraq is both illegal and unnecessary and should not be authorised by the United Nations or undertaken by any state.''

That's a quote taken from a document prepared by the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms. Judge Weeramanthry is a signatory. "The process of diplomacy is not exhausted,'' he says on the issue of dismantling Iraq's purported possession of 'weapons of mass destruction.'' Moreover, he says that all alternatives to a strike -- such as seeking the good offices and intervention and or mediation of neighbouring countries, have not yet been considered.

George Bush and Tony Blair should hear this sober and intellectually rigorous judge talk about their ballyhooed 'moral imperative' to strike Iraq. (Blair has been recently hitting the lectern and the bully pulpit even more than George Bush, pontificating how it is 'morally correct' and necessary for the world to confront Saddam Hussein.) "Lawbreakers can hardly be the people to invoke the moral imperative,'' says Justice Weeramanthry, and he is not talking of Sadaam Hussein either. His finger is firmly pointed at the Bush-Blair combination. At least the public opinion in the United Sates, and several other parts of the world including Europe should have a 'telling effect on US actions' he thinks.

Asked whether the tenets of international law have sometimes been observed anyway in the breach, he says 'yes' but asserts that international law in the main has achieved its objective. For example, even though a judgment of the International Court is not binding, the case of the border between Chad and Libya proved that ICJ judgments have been accorded worldwide sanctity that establishes the fact that a solid framework of international law has evolved over the years, though there may be some instances of disobedience of world court judgements.

In the said border case, which involved a strip of land as wide as the size of Sri Lanka, the court ruled in favour of Chad. The two countries proceeded to observe protocol, raise the flags of their respective countries in the newly demarcated border as per ICJ decision at an appointed hour, establishing the fact that international law had arrived at a juncture in which its enforcement could be achieved by the mere strength of sanctity attached to the system, sans an iota of force.

George Bush's theory of deterrence is also summarily debunked by Weeramanthry. He asserts that the theory that 'the US should take an aggressive position against Iraq in order that Saddam Hussein does not use his weapons of mass destruction' 'does not pass the tests of either practicality or legality.'' Deterrence necessarily connotes a preparedness to use force if deterrence fails. This use is not a token but substantial use. Such use will necessarily provoke retaliation, which would mean an all out war, and the result would be the very values which it was sought to preserve, he explains.

Weeramanthry's is a clinical and dispassionate assessment -- and he says the issue (of the US led strike on Iraq) can be canvassed in the ICJ, even though it will take time for results to accrue. But perhaps his most compelling argument is simply that this is the most dangerous moment in contemporary world affairs, and that the US is about to destroy the gains of 3000 years of careful development towards a world order characterised by a system of accepted international law.

"This pre emptive strike if it takes place will make it far easier for other nations to break international law with impunity,'' he says. In an appeal for peace that he drafted and which was delivered at the door of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, Weeramanthry simply says 'at a time when there is a confluence of civilisations in the cause of peace needs to be stressed, there is much uninformed talk of conflict of civilisations. People of goodwill across the world need to unite in the defence of peace, and values we all hold dear.'' He reminds me, as an aside that the prevalent international system of jurisprudence arose from an Islamic idea.

Weeramanthry is doing the global circuit, pushing his informed campaign for peace. An impressive array of scholars signed his appeal for peace 'and it took only half an hour to get them to do it.'' For those who want to find a cloak of legitimacy behind a 'second UN resolution sanctioning the strikes,'' (George Bush's manthra) here is a man who says 'don't even try it.'' The simple reality is that it is illegal.

Back to Columns