FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Libyan War

UN Security Council Resolution 1973 has bestowed the blessings of international law on NATO’s war with Libya. True, the vote was met with abstentions by China, Indian, Russia, Brazil and Germany, but the assent of former superpowers France and the United Kingdom, six other nations and (of course) the United States was enough to stamp “Operation Odyssey Dawn” with the UN’s great seal. Compliance with international law is proof positive for many intellectuals that this act of war is just and necessary. The estimable Juan Cole, scholar of the Middle East and influential blogger, supports the war because it is legal and multilateral, as do many others on the liberal-moderate spectrum. “The Libya intervention is multilateralism at its best,” says Stephen Szabo, director of the Transatlantic Academy in Washington. (As for the American right, the greater part of it is so reflexively pro-war that reasoned justifications are scarcely necessary.)

Suppose that our act of war in Libya is perfectly legal. This is to overlook the absence of congressional authorization, a clear violation of the US Constitution, but let’s leave that aside for now. If our war in Libya is legal does that make this war prudent, effective, benevolent, worthwhile? Does the legality of this war imply a moral obligation to wage it?

A little reflection shows that legality in itself is never enough to justify any action. It is perfectly legal (for instance) too donate all your worldly wealth to the Scientologists, to Newt Gingrich’s political action committee or to Harvard Law School and then (legally) move your family into a cardboard box. It is perfectly legal to have unprotected sex with a houseful of heroin addicts. It is perfectly legal to — you get the picture. Whatever value we attach to legality, it is never a proxy or substitute for prudence, good sense or morality. Every day we are all presented with choices that though legal would be foolish and destructive.

But the Libya campaign is multilateral—surely that makes the difference? Multilateralism has certainly beguiled many great liberal minds in the past. Norberto Bobbio and Jürgen Habermas, to name two famous examples, were dazzled by the multilateralism of the 1991 Gulf War and eagerly championed the campaign — at first. Once they saw the amazing carnage wrought by the war and its lasting damage to ordinary Iraqis, all of it authorized by UN Security Council Resolution 678, the chastened philosophers muttered recantations. As for the economic sanctions against Iraq, they quickly turned into a cold act of unspeakable cruelty against a civilian population, killing tens of thousands of innocent people trapped in an authoritarian state. These sanctions, authorized by Security Council Resolution 661, were fully multilateral and, as far as the UN goes, perfectly legal. (Former chief sanctions administrator Denis Halliday quit the program in Iraq on the grounds that its actions probably met the UN definition of genocide; needless to say this serious accusation spawned no tribunal or special court.) In short, multilateralism under the auspices of the UN is never a guarantee of prudent or even minimally humane policy.

Bismarck’s greatest cliché likened treaties to sausages; you don’t want to know what goes into their making. Yet the unedifying origins of the UN would make an Upton Sinclair retch. At the founding conference in San Francisco, the US government tapped foreign delegates’ phones, bugged their hotel rooms and left no chance for any outcome other than an institution under the full control of Washington. Despite all the stuck-pig squealing of John Bolton and other jingoistic know-nothings, the UN has never been a diabolical restraint on American adventures abroad—if anything, it’s been a condom for great power prerogatives. Although the UN’s various commissions and bodies do much valuable work, the UN Security Council is no more a democratic forum for the world’s peoples than was the Holy Alliance of 1815.

It is puzzling, then, that our bien-pensant anti-Boltons gesture with such reverence to the resolutions issued by the UN Security Council. (Or perhaps they only pretend to: when the NATO air assault on Serbia in 1999 proceeded without UN authorization, few seemed to mind.) Does the seal of approval of the Security Council really guarantee flawless judgment? Put concretely, if the 2003 invasion of Iraq had obtained a legal permission slip from the Security Council, would that war have been any less calamitous? The question answers itself.

Why then do so many bright people come to find mere legality to be sufficient grounds for war?

Part of the reason is that opposition to Bush and Blair’s invasion of Iraq dwelt heavily on the war’s illegality, which was indeed brazen. It is true enough that international law gave us a readymade vocabulary to articulate much of why that war was so wrong.

And yet the emphasis on law, I think, was misplaced. Inside the United States international law has very little clout and is felt by most Americans, right or wrong, to lack democratic legitimacy. And if you want to convince people of something, why lead with an argument that’s dead on arrival? Especially when there were so many compelling reasons stemming from self-interest as much as compassion. Even in the UK, where international-law talk carries greater currency, it must be acknowledged that legal institutions and arguments failed utterly at forcing New Labour to change its disastrous course in Iraq, or holding officials to account. (Sorry, but the Chilcot Commission’s feeble “grilling” of a cheerful Tony Blair was a bust even as theatre.)

Another reason for our fixation on law is that the antiwar discourse has gotten pulled into the orbit of the human rights industry. Although the Ivy Leaguers who staff these nonprofits do sterling work on a limited set of issues, the lawyered-up lingo of their trade is woefully insufficient as politics. The whole doctrine of human rights bases its legitimacy, in fact, on being expressly apolitical. Not surprisingly then, most of the biggest issues we face both domestically (national healthcare, education, government budget crises) and internationally (whether to stay or leave Afghanistan; immigration policy) are not in the least amenable to human rights covenants or institutions, in practice or even theory. This is not to trash the human rights industry, which within its sphere does much fine work; it is merely to point out that the legal pronouncements of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch offer zero guidance to many our most pressing concerns. (Of course HRW does occasionally stray from its mandate, as when it blurted an endorsement of the Libya War for reasons poorly grounded in human rights doctrine.) Although international law is an important strand in any debate about warmaking, it should never crowd out discussions of interests, morality and consequences. In short, we need to relearn how to talk about foreign policy overtly as politics rather than couched as a legal matter.

After all, our foreign policy discourse has not always choked on legalism. The American “Peace Progressives” of the early 20th century’s interwar years negotiated arms-limitation treaties, got the US out of the Caribbean, prevented war with Mexico, and presciently urged recognition of the Soviet Union—and yet these same peaceniks were also dead against the League of Nations and Wilson’s liberal legalism. Likewise, the antiwar movement of the 1960s tended to invoke international law only ritualistically before quickly moving on to the more urgent reasons to oppose the Vietnam War. Is our dependence on legalism really an advance? It has been too easily forgotten that war is not primarily a matter of law.

CHASE MADAR is a civil-rights lawyer in New York. He reviews and reports for the London Review of Books, Le Monde diplomatique and CounterPunch. He can be reached at chase.madar@gmail.com.

This article was originally published by the American Conservative.

 

 

 

 

 

 

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
August 17, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Daniel Wolff
The Aretha Dialogue
Nick Pemberton
Donald Trump and the Rise of Patriotism 
Joseph Natoli
First Amendment Rights and the Court of Popular Opinion
Andrew Levine
Midterms 2018: What’s There to Hope For?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Running Out of Fools
Ajamu Baraka
Opposing Bipartisan Warmongering is Defending Human Rights of the Poor and Working Class
Paul Street
Corporate Media: the Enemy of the People
David Macaray
Trump and the Sex Tape
CJ Hopkins
Where Have All the Nazis Gone?
Daniel Falcone
The Future of NATO: an Interview With Richard Falk
Robert Hunziker
Hothouse Earth
Cesar Chelala
The Historic Responsibility of the Catholic Church
Ron Jacobs
The Barbarism of US Immigration Policy
Kenneth Surin
In Shanghai
William Camacaro - Frederick B. Mills
The Military Option Against Venezuela in the “Year of the Americas”
Nancy Kurshan
The Whole World Was Watching: Chicago ’68, Revisited
Robert Fantina
Yemeni and Palestinian Children
Alexandra Isfahani-Hammond
Orcas and Other-Than-Human Grief
Shoshana Fine – Thomas Lindemann
Migrants Deaths: European Democracies and the Right to Not Protect?
Paul Edwards
Totally Irrusianal
Thomas Knapp
Murphy’s Law: Big Tech Must Serve as Censorship Subcontractors
Mark Ashwill
More Demons Unleashed After Fulbright University Vietnam Official Drops Rhetorical Bombshells
Ralph Nader
Going Fundamental Eludes Congressional Progressives
Hans-Armin Ohlmann
My Longest Day: How World War II Ended for My Family
Matthew Funke
The Nordic Countries Aren’t Socialist
Daniel Warner
Tiger Woods, Donald Trump and Crime and Punishment
Dave Lindorff
Mainstream Media Hypocrisy on Display
Jeff Cohen
Democrats Gather in Chicago: Elite Party or Party of the People?
Victor Grossman
Stand Up With New Hope in Germany?
Christopher Brauchli
A Family Affair
Jill Richardson
Profiting From Poison
Patrick Bobilin
Moving the Margins
Alison Barros
Dear White American
Celia Bottger
If Ireland Can Reject Fossil Fuels, Your Town Can Too
Ian Scott Horst
Less Voting, More Revolution
Peter Certo
Trump Snubbed McCain, Then the Media Snubbed the Rest of Us
Dan Ritzman
Drilling ANWR: One of Our Last Links to the Wild World is in Danger
Brandon Do
The World and Palestine, Palestine and the World
Negin Owliaei
Toys R Us May be Gone, But Its Workers’ Struggle Continues
Chris Wright
An Updated and Improved Marxism
Daryan Rezazad
Iran and the Doomsday Machine
Patrick Bond
Africa’s Pioneering Marxist Political Economist, Samir Amin (1931-2018)
Louis Proyect
Memoir From the Underground
Binoy Kampmark
Meaningless Titles and Liveable Cities: Melbourne Loses to Vienna
Andrew Stewart
Blackkklansman: Spike Lee Delivers a Masterpiece
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail