War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal Oliver Burkeman and Julian Borger in Washington Thursday November 20, 2003 The Guardian 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. In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing." President George Bush has consistently argued that the war was legal either because of existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq - also the British government's publicly stated view - or as an act of self-defence permitted by international law. But Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone", and this would have been morally unacceptable. French intransigence, he added, meant there had been "no practical mechanism consistent with the rules of the UN for dealing with Saddam Hussein". Mr Perle, who was speaking at an event organised by the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London, had argued loudly for the toppling of the Iraqi dictator since the end of the 1991 Gulf war. "They're just not interested in international law, are they?" said Linda Hugl, a spokeswoman for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which launched a high court challenge to the war's legality last year. "It's only when the law suits them that they want to use it." Mr Perle's remarks bear little resemblance to official justifications for war, according to Rabinder Singh QC, who represented CND and also participated in Tuesday's event. Certainly the British government, he said, "has never advanced the suggestion that it is entitled to act, or right to act, contrary to international law in relation to Iraq". The Pentagon adviser's views, he added, underlined "a divergence of view between the British govern ment and some senior voices in American public life [who] have expressed the view that, well, if it's the case that international law doesn't permit unilateral pre-emptive action without the authority of the UN, then the defect is in international law". Mr Perle's view is not the official one put forward by the White House. Its main argument has been that the invasion was justified under the UN charter, which guarantees the right of each state to self-defence, including pre-emptive self-defence. On the night bombing began, in March, Mr Bush reiterated America's "sovereign authority to use force" to defeat the threat from Baghdad. The UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, has questioned that justification, arguing that the security council would have to rule on whether the US and its allies were under imminent threat. Coalition officials countered that the security council had already approved the use of force in resolution 1441, passed a year ago, warning of "serious consequences" if Iraq failed to give a complete ac counting of its weapons programmes. Other council members disagreed, but American and British lawyers argued that the threat of force had been implicit since the first Gulf war, which was ended only by a ceasefire. "I think Perle's statement has the virtue of honesty," said Michael Dorf, a law professor at Columbia University who opposed the war, arguing that it was illegal. "And, interestingly, I suspect a majority of the American public would have supported the invasion almost exactly to the same degree that they in fact did, had the administration said that all along." The controversy-prone Mr Perle resigned his chairmanship of the defence policy board earlier this year but remained a member of the advisory board. Meanwhile, there was a hint that the US was trying to find a way to release the Britons held at Guantanamo Bay. The US secretary of state, Colin Powell, said Mr Bush was "very sensitive" to British sentiment. "We also expect to be resolving this in the near future," he told the BBC.
Duh. Of course it was against international law. The hawks didn't care, they were too busy hyping but not planning the war. Maybe they would be better farmers, we could pay them to not grow corn.
Refreshingly candid remarks. He clearly supports the decision to go to war, but acknowledges that it was not consistent with international law. I thought this was a telling quote: The same could be said of the Bosnian crisis -- which is why it was never put to a UN vote. Bush's glaring weakness is diplomacy. (though I have huge ideological differences with him, others may not). The excessive spin just didn't work. Even the strongest supporter of military action should acknowledge that, based on the UN protocols, this action did not strictly adhere to the spirit of 'international law' unless you take a pretty loose interpretation of 'pre-emptive self defense.' I've read some pretty convincing opinions that the UN simply isn't structured to address these types of conflicts. Perle's comments mirror that. Perhaps this bold acknowledgement can start genuine discussion on setting up process to deal with these issues. Of course it will more likely spark further "i told you so" "no you didn't" partisan bickering.
I think bnb is right...I think this is far more of an indictment against the UN's ability to deal with this sort of situation than it does with the US's position.
Sorry, MadMax, but it is not just the UN - the invasion would have been considered illegal - before the whole discussion about this concrete invasion started - by practically all authorities on public international law. One can still argue (as Perle does) that the public international law was wrong as it just did not foresee a case like this and that there may be cases like this one where the traditional rules of public international law are not sufficient to bring justice and deal with a situation in the way it had to be done (I am still not sure one way or the other in this case, and I will admit that). However, it is not just the UN's ability to deal with something, as you say. It is/was international law on which there was a consensus up to that point, and what Perle is saying is true - at least technically speaking, what happened is not in compliance with the traditional consensus of international law. By the way, and this is only partly another discussion, the same goes for the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. One can try to argue that "international law is in the way of doing the right thing" here as well, but what is going on there is clearly against international law.
What "sort of situation?" What "type of conflict?" There is nothing legitimate about this conflict and the situation was being handled by the international community and weapons inspectors. Proof that they were working is in the dearth of WMDs found in Iraq. And we're talking about what was going on before the war, not the made-up after-the-fact justificantions the administration floats every week. This is another example of this administration crying "rule of law" when it suits them and ignoring or skirting the law when it doesn't fit some preconceived ideological position.
you left out the key part of that quote "french intrasigence" imagine, just for a moment, that france had decided that solving the crisis in iraq was more important than tweaking the US's nose. real pressure could've been put on Saddam, by a united UN, backed by the force of the US. but mons. de villepin was too concerned that actual action might mess up his coiffure.
My god, how many piles of sh-t does Perle have to step in before he gets canned? What a total liability he is...this is only the second scandal this week for him.
I left out that bit on purpose. The point of my post (and i think of his comments) was that international law (and i'm taking that to mean as defined by the UN) does not effectively deal with certain situations. The fact that it was France, was not as relevant as it could have just as easily have been Russia (which i think was the case in Bosnia) or another country. Rimrocker -- my personal views on Iraq are probably more in line with yours than with many of the other posters here. I did not see the urgency given the inspectors were there, and suspect that some in the administration had the old itchy trigger finger. The situation (post 9/11) had set the stage for war and by golly, old George was ready. But we've had that debate countless times already. THe 'type of situation' is one in which military action may be desirable, but others on the Security Council may have a vested interest -- either economic or political. I'm not suggesting that had a process been available it would have condoned the war, but rather that the lack of such a process opened the doors for the US and the UK to justifiably (in their view) sidestep the UN. Usually, the UN is sidestepped by avoiding it (which, again, is my impression as to what happened in Bosnia), but George erred (at least diplomatically) in allowing the UN to take center stage here. I think Perle's comments are important in that he says -- "look, we were wrong by the rules, but it was the right thing to do." At least it sets the stage to debate why 'the rules' did not result in 'the right thing.'
this is the key point i think, and something that should be addressed in the UN. unfortunately, it's not likely to happen as long as france wants to keep pretending it's a major power and the leader of the "third way."
There's no way to really know if we could have gotten a war resolution passed on Iraq since Bush from the outset worked to make any opinions other than ours irrelevant. We got 1441 and if we had actually worked with other nations and continued to value their opinions I don't think there's any reason to believe we couldn't have gotten another resolution to go to war. The French even prior to the war simply wanted a bit more time, I believe 30-60 days, before they would throw their support behind a resolution for war. The problem with the UN in my view is that it's so slow moving, not that it couldn't deal with Saddam. It could have dealt with Saddam just like it did in 1991 but the aims, consensus building, and diplomacy of George Sr. will never be confused with that of George Jr.
Forget for a moment the record of those nations which have adopted the attitude that they were a better determinant of international law than the international community, and as such felt justified in superceding it and invading other nations. Overlook for a moment the situation in thw world before there was internationally upheld laws, and just concentrate on this; In order to suggest, as bmb, basso and others here do, that it is ok for individual nations to invade other nations contrary to international law whenever those individual nations feel that the law is incorrect or that the international body inufficient, you have to acknowledge one of two postions; a) That all nations have the right to do this. b) That the United States has a unique mandate to do what it sees fit whereas other nations don't. Now if you choose a, we are back to the Middle Ages. Saying everyone has the right to decide if and when they will be restrained by international law is the exact same thing as aying that there is no international law. Max, as a jurist, knows this I'm sure. We will have undone all the work of those who invented the ideas of diplomatic pressure from the international community, we will have ignored all the reasons for formulating organizations such as the League of Nations in the first place, and we will be acknowledging a might makes right international policy. If you chose b, which, sadly, many people actually will advocate, forget the sheer arrogance of that position, it's self-interested premise, etc., and remember this; All nations feel that they have persuasive reasons as well, and aside from might is right, any other reason you may suggest for the US being in a unique position is dissolved by the very fact that we ourselves have said nations need not abide by any restraint, only by that which they impose on themsleves. So even if people believe that we are so good, so noble, and so gosh darned superior to others because we have the most money and bombs, there would be nothing but naked power to make others agree with that assessment. Again, back to might makes right. I have being saying since the beginning that this entire wat, and how we handled it, was a comple excercise in Might is Right. Ironically, those who disagreed based on the fact that we had the right to defend ourselves aginst Saddam's nukes are now, short of said nukes, coming around to defending the position that we have the right to disagree with everyone else, even if it's in another country, and have the ability to do so because of our guns. Might makes right. For those who do advocate this position....that this is more an indictment of the UN than the US, etc., one question; What happens to the world when everyone else gives themselves the same right to do what they want when they feel in the right, irrespective of international law or opinion?
Actually, that's quite the opposite of what's being suggested. The quote by Perle and some of the comments here are suggesting that UN may not be a good measure of what is right. I don't think that means anything goes, but rather it may be a call to establish some other process -- so we're not left with the free for all. You seem dismayed that the US would go against international opinion -- as expressed by the UN. Yet the US did not get UN approval for Kosovo, Libya, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Panama, and Granada (my historical knowledge is nowhere near yours McB -- so cut me some slack if i've got a couple of those wrong ). The point being, circumventing the UN is already established practice. The UN is extremely political. And it doesn't deal well with interventionalist policy. Which I suppose is ok if you're an isolationalist, but not so swell if you're not. If it's already standard practice to circumvent the UN, then who decides whether it's justified (kosovo) or not (iraq). This really wasn't something new here. I posted my thoughts on the iraq situation, and I continue to believe ol'W is treading on dangerous ground, but i'm not as fomfotable as you are to leave it all up to the great minds at the UN. I also disagree with your assumption that if it's ok for the US then it's ok for everybody. Some countries simply ARE more just and accountable than others. That certainly doesn't give them carte blanche to do as they please (much to george and dick's chagrin) but it's not as cut and dried as your if A then B analogies. And, as Sir Jackie noted, none of this justifies the Guantanamo Bay nonsense.
Wow, I can't believe Perle actually admitted this. When I saw the headline I thought it must have been talking about another Perle. As far as the UN being wrong, doesn't really excuse not obeying international law. If the laws are wrong, then change them or amend them through regular channels. As far as the French tweaking their nose at us, that is in part accurate but in part not accurate. The French were willing to vote on armed back up to the inspectors given thirty days more time. The French also had another proposal with the Russians. That means that they weren't just obstructing. They had alternative solutions as well. It also means that not every diplomatic avenue was explored before making the decision to put American lives on the line.
actually, we don't. your post assumes all nations have an equal presumption of sovereignity, whether they invade their neighbors, murder their own people, or are dominated by ruthless dictators. surely you recognize that a liberal democracy such as, say denmark, is fundamentally different from a stae such as somalia, where there is little or no functioning central government and the country is dominated by warlords. just because they may both have seats at the UN and borders that can be drawn on a map, doesn't mean they are both sovereign countries. inherent in the bush doctrine is the belief that countries by their actions forfeit the rights afforded other, peaceful states. invade your neighbors, kill your people, defy the UN, threaten global security, and eventually you lose the rights of nationhood. by your arguement, the US would have had no right to land on normandy beach, because, after all, france was a sovereign country, albeit it's government wasn't one of it's own choosing. but then, neither was iraq's.
The headline deals with a technicality. I think it is more important that he cites us as doing the right thing.
One can't help but notice how Bush-Cheney are more like Osama and Al Qaeda than the traditional diplomats who have built the world system of the twentieth century. Osama and Bush-Cheney both are fundamentalists who believe that God is on their side. Neither believes that they have to be concerned about such niceties as international law or building world consensus for their viewpoints, since they are right and everyone else is not only wrong, but a wuss.
I keep wondering where they think they are going with this hardline stuff on Iran versus the rest of the world unless we plan on invading.
