Nuremberg’s shadow O12810

An ongoing investigation of the United Kingdom’s role in the invasion of Iraq has opened a window into the backstage maneuvers of the governments leading up to the war.  A great many documents are now available for inspection and testimony of leading UK politicians are exposing flawed justifications for the attack on a sovereign nation.

International legal scholars have long held that the invasion was not justified under international law and was in fact contrary to international law and the UN charter.  The Bush administration rejected this position and repeatedly attempted to force the UN to sanction its strike on Iraq.  Seeking allies for its intended course of action the administration resorted to a massive dis-information program to cloak illegality in a fog of known false claims. 

The British inquiry has discovered that legal opinions in the UK also concluded that such action was illegal and based on false claims.  Political pressure was brought to bear on both the intelligence and legal establishment to support Prime Minister Tony Blair’s decision to side with the Bush administration.  Bush and Blair attempted to coerce a justifying resolution from the UN Security Council but failed.

During the Cold War both America and the Soviet Union generated proxy coups to overthrow sovereign governments.  Direct foreign invasions to effect regime changes however have been acknowledge as illegal since WW II.   No matter how odious and onerous a Saddam Hussein may be no state has the unilateral authority to dispose him. This appears an objective of invasion as Gordon Brown (current Prime Minister) states the attacked lacked plans for reconstruction that would allow Iraq to recover.

Whatever the outcome of the inquiry its ramifications will resonate through international affairs.  While America is a founding member of the UN and its world court, America has repeatedly opted out of their jurisdiction.  Using Nuremberg findings over half a century ago member states have generated a body of laws governing interactions between states.  Although a number of cases have appeared before the world court on these laws, there is now precedent for abrogation of those laws.  Eventually the international community will decide on matters of law and justice.

It is unlikely that the UK inquiry or any future American investigation will produce any immediate clarity or implement international reforms.  Ultimately however shredded documents and “lost” computer drives documentation will become available.  The proliferation of copy machines and electronic mail has resulted in most records surviving political efforts to rewrite a politically acceptable history.  A future change in the international power structure may decide that compliance to international law is important to all states and punish past transgressions.

When it was in its interest America established the precedent that there is no statue of limitations on crimes committed during modern warfare.

NOTE: During his testimony Blair admitted that Saddam’s WMD program and links to al-Qaida were non-existent.   However, he continues to argue that the war was justified because Saddam could not be trusted.  Blair, now serves as peace envoy to the Middle East, stated that Iran now poses a similar danger of WMD and terrorism.  The question is whether Blair has the credibility to drive the UK into another invasion?