|
[Previous entry: "Sod nukes; old-fashioned high explosive kills too"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "The Grey (alien) and the Blue (whale)"] 07 January 2004: "Is there something in the water at the Pentagon?"
Admittedly, I'm a little bit late with this, but had I mentioned before that in my not so humble opinion, Richard Perle is a fucking moron? Evidently I hadn't. So I'll say it now: International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.Fucking moron. I'm sorry, I just can't emphasise that enough. All right, let's go over this again. UNSC resolution 678 (1990) authorised armed force against Iraq. UNSC resolution 687 (1991) set the terms of a cease-fire between the members of the 1991 Coalition and Iraq. UNSC resolution 1441 (2002) affirmed that Iraq was in "material breach" of its obligations under resolution 687 and gave it one last chance to comply, which Iraq failed to do. Since Iraq had violated the terms of the cease-fire, the other parties to the cease-fire were therefore justified in resuming hostilities. The weak link here is arguably 687, since the UN Security Council declared the cease-fire between the members of the Coalition and Iraq and therefore, or so the argument goes, it is up to the UNSC to authorise resumption of hostilities. But is that really the case? The sneaky bit about the wording of 687 is that the cease-fire is not between the UNSC and Iraq, but between the members of the Coalition and Iraq; the cease-fire is merely brokered by the UNSC (and its agent, the Secretary-General of the UN). Now, I believe you're going to be very hard-pressed indeed to find a legal precedent of a cease-fire agreement entered into by two parties where a resumption of hostilities by one party in response to a violation by the other first had to be approved by whoever brokered the agreement. Aside: I believe the wording of 687 was produced by someone with amazing foresight (and a very devious mind) in the first Bush administration (and/or the Major government). Recognising that the need might arise to clobber Iraq again, he wrote para. 33 of 687 in terms which would allow the US to bypass any and all members of the Security Council who were not part of the Coalition, including the veto-wielding then-Soviet Union and China. But in the interest of ass-covering, affirimation form an independent source was sought that Iraq was in violation of the cease-fire declared in 687, and that's where 1441 came in... This was, in broad terms, the argument wielded by the government of the United Kingdom (and declared valid by its Attorney-General), and also that of the United States, though in the latter case it got drowned amid a clutter of less-than-coherent utterings about "grave" and "growing" threats, "pre-emptive" action and whatnot. So why has Perle not only chosen not to avail himself of this argument, but indeed to blithely ignore it while making his claim? Quite simply, Perle's record of having little else than contempt for international law—like many other neoconservatives—is a matter of public record. Note how, in this context, he accuses international law of having "stood in the way of doing the right thing." In March of last year, he wrote a column in the Spectator (reprinted in edited version in the Guardian) in which he predicted and hailed the imminent collapse of the UN's role in world affairs, predicting: What will die is the fantasy of the UN as the foundation of a new world order. As we sift the debris, it will be important to preserve, the better to understand, the intellectual wreckage of the liberal conceit of safety through international law administered by international institutions.(Emphasis in italics mine.) Need I say more? He's not arguing against the invasion of Iraq because it was (purportedly) illegal, he's arguing against international law because, to his mind, it formed an obstacle. Now, when people possessed of a working intellect have a problem with the law, they argue an interpretation which is to their advantage, or they hire a lawyer to do it for them. In the case of international law, this is sufficient in and of itself, since there is no currently no court with the remit to handle such a case. But not Richard Perle; unable to deal with the notion that his vision of "moral clarity" might not meet with universal agreement (since not everyone is a fucking moron), indeed, even with challenges, his response is simply to dismiss the results of several hundred years of international relations as an obstacle to doing "the right thing." It's all rather reminiscent of a petulant and badly brought-up six year-old. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that the anti-war crowd has seized on Perle's moronic statement as the vindication of their opinion. If they consider Perle's opinion on this matter to be valid, however (and I note that Perle is not a lawyer), I assume they also agree that invading Iraq was the "right thing," and that the concept of "safety through international law administered by international institutions" is merely "the intellectual wreckage of [a] liberal conceit." One way or the other, guys. UPDATE: Robert H. writes in to suggest some ways in which Perle's comments could, hypothetically, have been ripped out of context. For instance, the quote at the top of the page could have been preceded by a string of preconditions, which were omitted from the article. I can't deny there is something highly suspicious about the story. From the Grauniad article: Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing," [and also said that] "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone"A Google search turns up scores of reports of Perle's address, all of which contain only those two quotations, right down to the ellipsis in the same place. Indeed, Julie C. writes in to inform me that: [The story] provoked a flurry of letters to the Editor [of the Guardian], and it became obvious that the story was a fiction and those words were never said. I am sorry I don't have links to send you, but I read it all in print.Make of that what you will. All that said, however, such a statement would be entirely in character for Perle, as becomes evident from a perusal of his material on the website of the American Enterprise Institute. Or, if you're in the mood, check out The Economist's review of An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror (a title the reviewer, with a keen sense of understatement, describes as "immodest") co-written by Perle along with David Frum, also of the AEI. (Nevertheless, thank you, Julie and Robert, for writing in.) I understand Perle revels in his nickname "the Prince of Darkness"; huh. "Prince of Dimness" is more like it, if you ask me. |
Navigation: home archives backgrounder Blogs:
au currant Miscellanea:
Care to contribute |
