The international community is consumed with whether or not there is a casus belli to justify attacking Iraq. There is a clear division of opinions on how this should be decided and it is marked in a geographic and historic context.
The statements have been clear from France, move slowly and seek Security Council approval. Germany has been even more reticent.
The leadership in Washington will almost certainly not move slowly. Waging war in Baghdad is bad enough but in a sweltering summer it would be extremely risky. Also, the leadership is convinced – rightly or wrongly – that Iraq poses a clear and present danger to the United States and its interests.
Washington is operating under the assumption that they have the right to protect American interests with or without instigation or justification recognized from the international community. UN approval, to Washington, is a convenient way to sell the war to the people of the world. It is a pragmatic option that can reduce risks and expenses.
The assumptions in continental Europe are much different.
The countries that suffered the most from World War One and Two are also the countries that want America to wait for a clearly written resolution, based on evidence of course, to attack Iraq.
Continental Europe, always more historically minded than America, has legitimate reason to be wary of a powerful nation exercising its will around the world. It was just this sort of preference for military might over diplomacy that lead to the terrible wars of the past century.
The conceptual ramifications were plain enough. With no international body to govern disputes a regional crisis in the Balkans exploded into The Great War.
From afar, America remained unengaged throughout the majority of the war. We have always had that luxury and it has shaped our concept of the world tremendously.
The hope of a supra-national method toward peacemaking was neglected. England and France maintained their military might and subjugated Germany to an oppressive treaty.
Depression and oppression had the results that history would have predicted. Germany rebuilt itself under fascism and in the east, Japan attempted to carve out its own empire. The war to end all wars was follwed two decades later by a more grisly sequel.
The United Nations emerged as a sort of stopgap among the great powers. In the charter of The Security Council, it states that the council “shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, and shall make recommendations or shall decide what measures shall be taken … to maintain or restore international peace and security.”
With this potential war, the validity of the timid United Nations is in jeopardy.
America’s desire to preserve its own interests at the expense of international treaty could have dreadful repercussions.
The lessons of two terrible wars are at risk from being erased from the historical record. We are inching down a scary path where the international community could be ignored for the interests of a few powers. History has shown that security based on military and not diplomacy is temporary at best.
Leave a Reply