Reader responses
Subject: view on Iraq
Date: Wednesday, March 19
From: David W. Martin
The United Nations was created in part to deal with rogue states like Iraq. Rather than become a rogue state ourselves, we should work through the UN to bring Iraq back into the community of nations.
Subject: Honest Abe
Date: Tuesday, March 18
From: John S. Shackelford
Funny that the rally was at his statue. If he were President today, Iraq would be a collection of smoldering cinders.
Subject: In response to Gordon Baldwin
Date: Wednesday, March 12
From: Daniel Ryan Kinney
A succinct statement from Oxford, Cambridge and other professors.
War would be illegal
Friday March 7, 2003
The Guardian
We are teachers of international law. On the basis of the information publicly available, there is no justification under international law for the use of military force against Iraq. The UN charter outlaws the use of force with only two exceptions: individual or collective self-defence in response to an armed attack and action authorised by the security council as a collective response to a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression. There are currently no grounds for a claim to use such force in self-defence. The doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence against an attack that might arise at some hypothetical future time has no basis in international law. Neither security council resolution 1441 nor any prior resolution authorises the proposed use of force in the present circumstances.
Before military action can lawfully be undertaken against Iraq, the security council must have indicated its clearly expressed assent. It has not yet done so. A vetoed resolution could provide no such assent. The prime minister’s assertion that in certain circumstances a veto becomes “unreasonable” and may be disregarded has no basis in international law. The UK has used its security council veto on 32 occasions since 1945. Any attempt to disregard these votes on the ground that they were “unreasonable” would have been deplored as an unacceptable infringement of the UK’s right to exercise a veto under UN charter article 27.
A decision to undertake military action in Iraq without proper security council authorisation will seriously undermine the international rule of law. Of course, even with that authorisation, serious questions would remain. A lawful war is not necessarily a just, prudent or humanitarian war.
Prof. Ulf Bernitz, Dr. Nicolas Espejo-Yaksic, Agnes Hurwitz, Prof. Vaughan Lowe, Dr. Ben Saul, Dr. Katja Ziegler
University of Oxford
Prof. James Crawford, Dr. Susan Marks, Dr. Roger O’Keefe
University of Cambridge
Prof. Christine Chinkin, Dr. Gerry Simpson, Deborah Cass
London School of Economics
Dr. Matthew Craven
School of Oriental and African Studies
Prof. Philippe Sands, Ralph Wilde
University College London
Prof. Pierre-Marie Dupuy
University of Paris
Subject: Iraq and Gordon Baldwin’s worldview
Date: Wednesday, March 12
From: Kathleen Oriedo Staff:
I am interested in Gordon Baldwin’s expression as written in Liz Beyler’s article: “Baldwin doesn’t feel that the approval of other countries is a necessary component of a foreign policy decision. ‘We can afford, at least in the short run, to reject world opinion. It’s not unusual for a nation to decide to do what it thinks its foreign policy interest requires it to do without getting U.N. approval,’ he said.”
I am remembering this kind of rhetoric from President Lyndon Johnson – oh, so clearly I can hear his voice in my head.
I am trembling to recall touching my hand to my age mates’ engraved names, there at the Viet Nam memorial in D.C.
I am working hard to change the “Baldwin concept” of U.S. foreign policy and the world.
Subject: Iraq War
Date: Wednesday, March 12
From: Darlene White
No one likes war; however, Sadam is making a fool of us. We have to help the people in Iraq to free themselves, as Sadam is so evil!
It’s too bad we can’t help the Iraq people to help themselves.