The Last Empire

An essay on the illegal war in Iraq and its consequences

By Andrew du Boulay

(2005)
 The Last Empire
If the republic is small, it is destroyed by a foreign force
if it is large, it is destroyed by an internal vice 1

Introduction

This essay critically analyses whether the Coalition of the Willing's invasion of Iraq was legal and
whether the occupying forces met their International Humanitarian Law obligations. While the
United States (US) justification for the war remains inadequate at the international level, their
foreign policy doctrine demands expansionist behaviour and condones military action. The paper
proves this by delving into the history of US foreign policy to discover that regardless of the
dictates of international law, the US pursued a course of action that was in direct conflict with their
United Nation's obligations. By briefly scrutinising international law and deriving the basic
obligations of member states, this paper shows how the US's actions clearly fell outside the rules of
international protocol. International law holds those who authorize acts of war responsible for all
subsequent actions. Because the Coalition of the Willing participated in an illegal war they are
accountable. But despite the international codification of the rules of war, and despite the
obligations ratification of those rules demands, there exist a state that cannot be policed. The US
subsequently makes a mockery of international law. International law is thus rendered ineffective
when the world's only superpower pursues the conquests of an empire.

Regrettably Australia joined the Coalition of the Willing and was directly involved in the invasion.
This means that Australia was a party to an illegal war. This means Australia is culpable. It means
Australia must make amends before it is too late.

1
Montesquieu, C. (1748) The spirit of the laws, ed. Cohler, A. et al (2002), Cambridge University Press, Great Britain,
Book IX Ch 1, p 131.

1
 We are fools to make war on our brothers in arms 2

The art of war

The invasion of Iraq began on the 20th March 2003, when military forces led by the United States
(US) and the United Kingdom (UK) invaded Iraq3. Several other countries aligned themselves with
the US and the UK thus becoming known collectively as the Coalition of the Willing. The Coalition
of the Willing4 included Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Colombia, Denmark, El
Salvador, Eritria, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania,
Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines and Poland. Fifty thousand Kurdish militia
from within Iraqi also supported the invasion. In total the willing nations amounted to
approximately one fifth of the worlds population, however this is deceptive because for instance
70% of the citizens in Australia and Japan opposed the war5. Citizens of other participating nations
shared similar views and had similar statistics. The vast majority of the world's population did not
want or authorize this war.

The bulk of the international community was adamantly united in opposing the US led invasion,
but despite protest marches around the globe and even within the capital cities of the belligerent
nations, the despicable governments ignored their own constituents and proceeded with the war.
After approximately three weeks of fighting in which thousands of innocent civilians perished,
Iraq's Ba'athist government toppled. Saddam Hussein went into hiding and thus the military
occupation of an innocent nation began.

Because there is no entity that can police the hostile actions of a government with the most
powerful military force on the planet, it demonstrates that the rhetoric of international law and
human rights is somewhat worthless and ineffective to the people who need it the most. The
invasion of Iraq proves that the US continues to follow an agenda that clearly outlines its long-term
objective of global domination. While the US outwardly supports the United Nations (UN), the UN

2
Knopfler, M. (1984) Dire Straits - Brothers in Arms, PolyGram Records, Australia.
3
The US military operation in this war was conducted under the codename of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
4
Willing may be the wrong word. The large majority of these countries have substantial economic trade relations with
the US. Support for the US invasion by coalition members was encouraged with the incentive of potential Free Trade
Agreements being negotiated after the invasion. Australia was one such participant who benefited by the arrangement.
New Zealand on the other hand, opposed the invasion, did not lend its support to the US and was not in turn invited to
the negotiation table for Free Trade Agreements. The willing were compromised into being part of the invasion strategy
through economic benefits. Simply put, it amounted to bribery and coercion.
5
Moore, M. (2003) Dude, Where's My Country?, Allen Lane - Penguin Group Publishers, Melbourne, p 71.

2
has been a tool employed by the US to hoodwink the rest of the planet into making them believe
that the US regime cares about their fellow man. The facts will show that the US is not concerned
about human rights and only spruiks the humanitarian and moralistic cause when it needs to justify
its actions or gain political mileage. Not wishing to turn this paper into a discussion of the political
economy, it is however imperative that we examine the economic reality.

Money for nothing and your oil for free

The motivation behind the invasion of Iraq is buried in the treacherous history of US foreign policy
and their physical need to secure energy resources. US consumption, industrialisation and
capitalism demands uninterrupted access to Middle Eastern oil. The recent action by the US
administration makes it apparent that they will (and did) go to any lengths to secure that supply.
The fact that the US had instigated and enticed the UN into imposing economic sanctions on Iraq in
1992 in the aftermath of the first Gulf War, was a catalyst that converted the sale of Iraqi oil from
US dollars into euro. Although only a recent phenomenon, the euro, was fast becoming one of the
most sought after currencies on the planet. It was over taking the US dollar as the preferred trading
currency of many nations, including the Middle East. As the demand for euro increased the demand
for US dollars fell6. With the euro becoming the stronger currency this added more pressure on the
dollar to continue its downward trend.

Iraq needed to earn foreign reserves so that it could pay for its imports. Although there were UN
sanctions in place, Iraq regularly traded with the rest of Europe in euro via the back door through
Turkey. Even with the UN oil for food programme in place and 40% of Iraq's oil still going to the
US, the euro represented an outstanding opportunity for Iraq and the Middle East to escape the
clutches of the USs economic strangle hold on the region. If other oil producing nations made the
switch to selling their oil in euro, it would have undermined the US banking system. By 2002 over
56 countries7 had abandoned the US dollar and were using the euro to some extent as their anchor
and international trading currency. Needless to say, after the US invasion of Iraq the US took
control of its oil sales and reverted back to selling Iraqi oil in US dollars thus propping up their own
declining currency in the process. One can only imagine the subliminal message being conveyed to
Saudi Arabia and other oil producers that they too should stick with the US dollar or suffer the

6
This is one of the reasons why the US dollar has been steadily dropping in value against most other currencies in
recent times, CF du Boulay, A. (2002) The euro and beyond, James Cook University Press, Townsville.
7
Mersch, Y. (2002) In the run-up to an enlarged Europe, Speech by Mr Yves Mersch, Governor of the Central Bank
of Luxembourg, at the 6th European Congress of the Association des Cambistes d'Internationaux (ACI) (Financial
Markets Association), Luxembourg, 25 th May 2002.

3
same fate as Iraq. Unfortunately, if it cannot be put down to sheer stupidity on the part of the US,
witnessing their blatant self-serving actions discredits the intelligence of the rest of the global
community. What this then demands is an answer as to what motivates a regime to act in such a
hostile manner toward a former ally8?

He who desires peace, should prepare for war 9

The US agenda

Throughout history, military power has always been considered the final recourse. Statesmen have
treated the acquisition of additional power as an obvious and paramount objective that helped
preserve the sovereignty and independence of nations. It is within this frame work that on the 14th
June 1960, Senator John F. Kennedy10 delivered a speech on foreign policy to the US Senate11. In
that speech Kennedy outlined a twelve point agenda that was to become the magnificent blueprint
of US foreign policy for his administration once he took office. That same frame work still exists
and continues to influence the decision makers of today. By reviewing this historical perspective
and comprehending the motivation behind US foreign policy, it demonstrates quite clearly how the
US has been pursuing a course of action that demanded it to lead a military invasion into Iraq.
President George Bush Jnr. had no alternative other than to bow to the wishes of the machinery that
put him in office. Bush ordered his troops to attack Iraq killing over 6,806 innocent civilians 12 in
the process. This figure is twice the number of people that were killed in the attacks of the 11th
September 2001, and demonstrates that the humanitarian justification of liberation was secondary
to securing the uninterrupted supply of energy to the US. In the mean time, while Kennedy's

8
During the Iran - Iraq war between 1980 - 1988, the US supported Saddam Hussein's regime in the fight against Iran.
With the return of the exiled Ayatollah Khomeini from France in 1979, Iran expelled the US installed Shah. At this
time the US lost their influence in the region and needed to quickly re-establish some form of control. They did this by
propping up another ambitious general and a regime that would benefit US interests. From 1979, Gen. Saddam Hussein
served as president, commander of the armed forces, and secretary general of the Baath party. Hussein did this with
the support and encouragement of the US.
9
CF the writings of Vegetius and was a keystone in Roman foreign policy. Imperial Rome, Time-Life Books, The
Netherlands, p 89.
10
John Fitzgerald Kennedy was the 35th president of the United States (1961-63). At the age of 43 he was the youngest
man and the first Roman Catholic ever elected to the presidency.
11
Titled A New Approach on Foreign Policy - A twelve-Point Agenda, reproduced as an addendum in Kennedy's 1960
work, The Strategy of Peace, Harper & Row Publishers, New York.
12
Moore, M. (2003) Supra p 75.

4
strategy remains in place, innocent casualties continue to rise on a weekly basis as US troops
occupy Iraq.

Kennedy's national strategy was based, not on eleventh hour responses to crises, but a
comprehensive set of carefully prepared13, long term policies designed to increase the economic
and military strength of the free world14. Kennedy's first strategy was to make a nuclear retaliatory
power second to none by stepping up development and production of a multitude of sophisticated
weapons, continental defence and early warning systems. Secondly there was a plan to modernise
and increase the mobility and versatility of the Army and Marine Corps so that the US would have
the ability to intervene effectively and swiftly in any limited war 15 anywhere in the world. Thirdly
there was the desire to build NATO into a viable and consolidated military force that would be
unified in weaponry and responsibility. This would also be instrumental in building mutual
consultation and respect, enhancing America's determined effort to create a free world economy.
Forth there was to be a collaboration with Western Europe and Japan to increase the flow of capital
to the underdeveloped nations of the world, so designed, to frustrate Communist expansion16 by
enabling emerging nations to achieve economic as well as political independence. Fifth, there was a
desire to re-construct relations with Latin-American democracies through technical assistance,
development capital, private investment, exchange students and stabilisation of agricultural
commodity prices.

Recognising the US's insatiable demand for energy, the sixth strategy on the agenda concerned the
Middle East. Kennedy formulated an imaginative new approach to deal with the Arabs. He
cautioned restraint in not pressing the US case so hard that it would threaten Arabic neutrality and
nationalism. The strategy was aimed in a way to channel efforts along constructive lines in order to
secure access to oil reserves, while at the same time promoting the acceptance and permanence of
Israel. Kennedy said "Guns and anti-Communist pacts and propaganda and the traditional
piecemeal approach are not enough17 - refugee resettlement and a regional resources development
fund in full partnership with the Middle Eastern nations, are part of a long-range strategy which is

13
Kennedy had devised many of these strategies which he outlined in his book, The Strategy of Peace.
14
Free world was the name given to countries that were non-Communist in their political ideology ~ meaning
specifically the United States of America and to a lesser extent its democratic laissez fair capitalist allies.
15
Limited war referred to use of ground troops, it did not include nuclear confrontations.
16
The name for this policy was Containment.
17
Does this really mean: propaganda, pacts and guns are not enough? As if that wasnt enough already!

5
both practical and in the best interest of all concerned". [It is imperative to note here, that this
strategy allowed US corporations to access and develop the vast oil reserves of this region which in
turn provided considerable economic benefits to the Middle Eastern nations. It also provided the
US with the required energy it needed to support its highly industrialised productive output.]

The seventh strategy dealt with Africa, the eighth Berlin, the ninth with Eastern Europe and the
tenth with China. All these strategies remonstrated the US's policy of containing the expansion of
Communism by pro-actively demonstrating the economic benefits of capitalism and the political
stability of democracy.

Kennedy's eleventh strategy focused on the need for the US to play an active role in designing
workable programmes for peace through arms control. He spoke of the US's reluctance of
disarmament and the need for technical studies to detect and monitor the vast and complex
weapons systems of modern warfare. At the same time he said that the US should move toward the
eventual rule of world law by working to strengthen the United Nations and to increase its role in
resolving international conflicts.

The final strategy put forward was to build a stronger America, one which the US's ultimate ability
to defend the free world depended. This would include increased scientific and technological
advancements in: space exploration, education and economic capabilities. Kennedy threw down the
challenge to build an America that the rest of the world would envy. He ended his senate speech by
quoting Thomas Wolfe18, "the true discovery of America is before us - the true fulfilment of our
mighty and immortal land is yet to come".

But waittheres more

Another initiator of US foreign policy was Henry Kissinger19. In 1969 Kissinger released a series of
essays in his book American Foreign Policy20 in which he spoke candidly about the state of global
affairs. He suggested that the challenge of those times was whether the US could deal consciously
and creatively with what in previous centuries was adjusted through a series of more or less violent

18
Thomas Clayton Wolfe, (b. 1900, d. 1938), was an American novelists. Wolfe conceived the idea of an epic novel
that would capture the restlessness of the modern American and convey the vastness and variety of his continent. His
works included a series of novels spanning the history of the American nation.
19
Henry Alfred Kissinger ( b. Germany, May 1923), was US Chief Foreign Policy Advisor and Secretary of State to
Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. In these positions he attained unusual power and prestige.
20
Kissinger, H. A. (1969) American Foreign Policy, Lowe & Brydone (Printers) Ltd, London.

6
and frequently catastrophic upheavals. He said "We must construct an international order before a
crisis imposes it as a necessity"21 and that "the age of the super power is now drawing to an end"22.
Kissinger extolled the virtues that a new concept of international order was essential and that
without it global political stability would prove elusive. He said that "This problem is particularly
serious for the United States. Whatever our intentions or policies, the fact that the United States
disposes of the greatest single aggregate of material power in the world is inescapable. A new
international order is inconceivable without a significant American contribution. But the nature of
this contribution has altered. For the two decades after 1945, our international activities were based
on the assumption that technology plus managerial skills gave us the ability to reshape the
international system and to bring about domestic transformations in emerging countries. This direct
operational concept of international order has proved too simple. Political multipolarity makes it
impossible to impose an American design. Our deepest challenge will be to evoke the creativity of
a pluralistic world, to base order on political multipolarity even though overwhelming military
strength will remain"23.

From the perspectives of Kennedy and Kissinger, we can see that the US agenda of creating a
world in their own image is based primarily on military supremacy and a self righteous
proclamation to use that power in pursuit of achieving national objectives. Following Roman
conquests from two thousand years ago and applying the principles of empire building, the current
mind-set of US thinking continues in the same vein.

The warlord must understand there is no progress without conflict 24

The Project

The Project for the New American Century25 was established in March 1997. President Kennedy's
strategy of thirty seven years earlier was reiterated in the Project's founding Statement of
Principles:

21
Kissinger, op cit. p 49.
22
Kissinger, op cit. p 56.
23
Kissinger, op cit. p 59.
24
The first tenet of Sun Tzu's Art of War, as translated by Kaufman, S. (1996), Charles E. Tuttle Co. Inc. Boston, p1.
25
Project for the New American Century describe themselves as a non-profit, educational organization with a goal to
promote American global leadership. The point of contention here is, why would a non-profit educational think tank be
concerned with American global domination? The truth is; it was a highly funded right wing political think-tank that
included people such as Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz (now all employed in the Bush
administration). The ultimate goal of the Project was to achieve an unchallengable military-imposed, US run world that
promotes and protects liberalism and laissez fair capitalism. CF Moore, M. supra p 101.

7
 [What we require is] a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future
challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles
abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities. Of
course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot
safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership of the costs that are associated with its
exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the
Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental
interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape
circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The
history of the past century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American
leadership.26

From its inception, the Project had been concerned with the decline in the strength of America's
defence and in the problems they perceived this would create for the exercise of American
leadership around the globe. Acting in line with US policy, 1998 saw the US Congress pass the
Iraq Liberation Act27 which stated "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to
remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq". Despite keeping a set of
increasingly unpopular and detrimental economic sanctions in place against Iraq, President Bill
Clinton's administration did little to achieve that goal.

In September 2000, the Project think-tank advocated in their report28 that the US should take a
stronger military position against the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Guarding the American security perimeter today - and tomorrow - will require changes in
US deployments and installations overseas. the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides
the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf
transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.29

The attack on Iraq was planned well in advance and was to be implemented after the inauguration
of George Bush Jnr. The various reports originating from the White House indicated that the
administration was following their preset agenda but were only marking time, awaiting the
opportunity to implement their plan when conditions would be such that, favourable opinion would
be on their side. The US administration needed justification to implement their plan. What would

26
Project for the New American Century Statement of Principles can be found at, http://newamericancentury.org
27
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (US) available at http://www.fcnl.org/issues/int/sup/iraq_liberation.htm.
28
Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century, available at
http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
29
Ibid p 14.

8
that justification be? They waited. On the 11th September 2001after a bold and daring attack on US
home territory their reasons became justifiable. Their plan could now be put in motion.
By November 2001, following a swift and successful military campaign in Afghanistan which over
threw the Taliban30, the US administration's plan gathered momentum. Bush made it quite clear that
the war on terrorism would continue indefinitely. In a nationally broadcast television speech to the
US Army's 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, Bush said, "we are ahead on
the scoreboard but the game is far from over. Not only do we have to win the second half, but we
must remember we face tougher opposition next timeAfghanistan is just the beginning of the war
on terrorism we will keep on fighting until our victory is complete"31.

The broad mass of a nation will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one 32

And the truth shall go marching on

The US administration continued the rhetoric of war for the next year. To condition the people of
America and her allies into the legitimacy of war with Iraq, a concerted effort was initiated to
discredit Saddam Hussein and his regime. A propaganda campaign was launched insinuating that
he was responsible for the World Trade Centre atrocities and was planning other attacks. The
campaign was highly successful in shifting attitudes33. It soon drove American public opinion off
the global spectrum enabling the administration to establish Iraq as a proper "test case" for the
newly announced doctrine of resort to force at will34. After the barrage of disinformation over half
the Americans polled35 wrongly thought that Iraqis were responsible for the attacks on the World
Trade Centre. They also believed that the US had found weapons of mass destruction within Iraq.
The trouble with this was, of the alleged 19 hijackers that were supposedly successful on the 11th
September 2001 in achieving their objective, 15 of them were Saudi Arabian nationals. If the US

30
The Taliban emerged as an Islamic fundamentalist regime guided by their own interpretation of Islamic law. They
captured more than two-thirds of Afghanistan from the Mujahedeen and imposed draconian rules on a nation that was
already frozen in medieval times.
31
Romei, S. (2001) War has only just started, The Australian, 24th November 2001.
32
Hitler, A. (1925) Mein Kampf, vol 1. CF Jay, A (1996) The Oxford Dictionary of Political Quotations, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, p 179.
33
Understanding the quantity of resource that the US has at its disposal, it is easy to comprehend that a negative
advertising campaign about a recalcitrant despot would eventually arouse support. A voluminous bombardment of
negative propaganda, channelled through the media, designed to instil hatred and fear among the constituents has a
persuasive effect on the mind-set of any nation. Swaying public opinion in a direction that the surreptitious
implementer desires, thus becomes a powerful tool to justify the wrongful and illegitimate activities of any regime.

34
Chomsky, N. (2003) Hegemony or Survival - America's Quest for Global Dominance, Henry Holt and Co.,
Metropolitan Books, Melbourne, Ch 2.

9
administration was honest with itself it would have attacked Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan or
continued onto Iraq.

The US National Security Strategy of September 2002 contained the following observation:

The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a
sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of
inaction and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend
ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemys attack. To
forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary,
act preemptively.36

To this end, on the 12th September 2002, Bush Jnr. spoke before the General Assembly of the
United Nations and outlined the complaints the US had against the Iraqi government. He detailed
Iraq's alleged non-compliance to the terms of 16 resolutions of the Security Council since the first
Gulf War of 1991. Bushs yet to be confuted non-compliances included:

Violation of Security Council Resolution 137337. Bush stated "Iraq continues to shelter and
support terrorist organization that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western
governments....And al-Qaida38 terrorists escaped from Afghanistan are known to be in Iraq."

UN Commission on Human Rights found "extremely grave" human rights violations.

Iraqi production and use of biological weapons, chemical weapons, and long-range missiles
were all in violation of UN weapons of mass destruction resolutions.

Iraq used the proceeds from the "oil for food" UN programme to purchase weapons rather
than food for its people.

Iraq flagrantly violated the terms of the weapons inspection programme before
discontinuing it altogether.39

35
Moore, M. (2003) supra p 77.
36
The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, September 2002, p15.
available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf.
37
UN Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001). On 28 September 2001, acting under Chapter VII of the United
Nations Charter (concerning threats to international peace and security), the Security Council adopted Resolution 1373
which reaffirmed its unequivocal condemnation of the terrorist attacks which took place in New York, Washington,
D.C. and Pennsylvania on the 11th September 2001. The Resolution expressed its determination to prevent all such
acts. It also established the Counter-Terrorism Committee (known by its acronym: the CTC), being made up of all 15
members of the Security Council. The CTC monitors the implementation of resolution 1373 by all States and tries to
increase the capability of States to fight terrorism.
38
Al Qaida was established by Usama Bin Ladin in the late 1980s to bring together Arabs who fought in Afghanistan
against the Soviet Union. Al Qaida helped finance, recruit, transport, and train Sunni Islamic extremists for the Afghan
resistance. Al Qaida's current goal is to establish a pan-Islamic Caliphate [ruler] throughout the world by working with
allied Islamic extremist groups to overthrow regimes it deems non-Islamic. Al Qaida issued a statement under the
banner of the World Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders in February 1998, saying it was the duty
of all Muslims to kill US citizenscivilian or militaryand their allies everywhere. Al Qaida merged with Egyptian
Islamic Jihad (Al-Jihad) in June 2001.

10
Following the speech, intensive negotiations began with members of the Security Council
specifically the three dissenting permanent members of the Council with veto power, Russia, China
and France. On the 26th September 2002, US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld accused Iraq
of harbouring al Qaida terrorists and aiding their quest for weapons of mass destruction.

In October 2002, the US Congress granted their president the authority to wage war against Iraq.
Congress's resolution to authorize the use of US armed forces against Iraq was worded in such a
manner so as to encourage, but not require, UN Security Council approval for military action.

On the 8th November 2002, United Nations actions regarding Iraq culminated with the unanimous
passage of UN Security Council Resolution 144140 which demanded the resumption of weapons
inspections. Within a week Iraq, while denying all charges, announced that it would permit the re-
entry of UN arms inspectors into Iraq. Because of Iraq's compliance, the UN had no justification to
proceed with any military action against Iraq. The US characterized this as a ploy by Iraq and
continued to call for a Security Council resolution which would authorize the use of military force.
Although the US may have made the invasion of Iraq legal within its own eyes, the international
community recognized the illegality of such a manoeuvre and profusely protested. Fortunately
Russia, China and France held steadfast and did not bow to US pressure. The US was now
compromised into a position where the implementation of their global conquest strategies would be
against the international communitys wishes and in violation of international law. However with
US determination they continued toward their ultimate objective.

Know your enemy and know yourself 41

Invasion justification and goals

39
On this point it is necessary to understand why the UN weapons inspectors were absent from Iraq. In 1998 Saddam
Hussein disallowed the UN to continue with the inspections. He accused the US of planting intelligence operatives
within the UNs inspection team. The UNs chief weapons inspector Richard Buttler, denied knowing anything to
support the allegations but admitted such a scenario was not inconceivable. Townsville Bulletin, Saturday 8th July
2000, p 48.
40
UN Security Council Resolution 1441 (2002). This resolution offered Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its
disarmament obligations" by providing "an accurate full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by Resolution 687
(1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles". Resolution
1441 threatened "serious consequences" if the UN demands were not met. It reasserted that UN weapons inspectors
should have "immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access" to sites of their choosing, in order to ascertain
compliance. Iraq agreed on the 13th November. Weapons inspectors, absent from Iraq since December 1998, returned
later that month, led by Hans Blix.
41
The second tenet of Sun Tzu's Art of War, as translated by Kaufman, S. (1996), Charles E. Tuttle Co. Inc. Boston.

11
The US prepared for the invasion of Iraq, with a host of diplomatic, public relations and military
preparations. Their justification for the invasion included Iraqi production and use of weapons of
mass destruction, links with terrorist organizations and human rights violations being committed
under the direction of Saddam Hussein. The legitimisation of the illegal invasion of Iraq could be
justified by shifting the focus to the positive aspects of liberating a suppressed people from the
clutches of an evil monster42. Phase one of the desired goal could therefore be achieved through
moral justification. To that end, the stated goals of the invasion, according to Secretary of Defence
Donald Rumsfeld, were: to end the Saddam Hussein government and help Iraq's transition to
representative self-rule; to find and eliminate weapons of mass destruction and terrorists; to collect
intelligence on networks of weapons of mass destruction and terrorists; to end sanctions and to
deliver humanitarian support; and to secure Iraq's oil fields and resources.

According to the Research Unit for Political Economy43, the propaganda originating from the US
that the invasion of Iraq would bring representative self-rule to the Middle East was a fallacy. It
said in a context where so many rulers of the Middle East were themselves clients of the US, the
war was aimed not at the rulers but at the masses of ordinary people whose hostility to imperialism
had not yet been broken even by corrupt and autocratic rulers. The Research Unit said the remaking
of Middle Eastern power with a global awareness is what was truly at stake. Weighing the evidence
carefully and tracing events to their root causes, they moved beyond moral outrage to a clear view
of the process being set in motion by the US led invasion of Iraq. They showed that the invasion of
Iraq ~ apart from being part of US foreign policy ~ was a desperate gamble by a section of
American capital to secure their hold on power by averting an economic crisis through military
means44. The Research Unit said the US efforts would not simply end with Iraq but would require
the re-colonisation of the entire Middle East to sure up the sinking US dollar.

The next phase would be the occupation of an acephalous nation by the military forces of the
invading power and the imposition of martial law on a bewilderedly disorientated populous.
However before we move onto that topic, this paper will examine the illegality of the war but to do

42
Milbank,D. (2003) Bush Remarks Confirm Shift in Justification for War, Washington Post, 1st June 2003, p 18.

43
The Research Unit for Political Economy (2003) The Invasion of Iraq, Monthly Review Press, published May 2003.
The Research Unit for Political Economy publishes a range of research initiatives covering geo-political economic
topics .
44
The strategy of boosting economic activity through government spending (fiscal policy) was theorised in 1936 by
British economist John Maynard Keynes in The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. Military
spending is one such activity, which promotes job creation and expands productive capabilities. To capitalise on
military spending, the military exercise is then required to secure resources which further enhances the economic
prosperity of the victor. At present, it is the US government that is administering the sale of Iraqi oil.

12
this, it is necessary to first understand the role and composition of the international legal system,
with respect to crimes of war, and then scrutinise the processes that were breached.

Justice is the conscience of the whole of humanity. Those who clearly recognize
the voice of their conscience usually recognize the voice of justice 45

The International Criminal Court

War crimes are violations by civilian or military personnel of the international laws of war.
Included are crimes against the peace, crimes against humanity46, violations of the rules of conduct
of hostilities, mistreatment of civilians and prisoners of war, and belligerent occupation of enemy
territory.

Although there was a stirring of enthusiasm for the establishment of international war crimes trials
after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, neither the United Nations or the member states
followed up the proposal. Despite the hard line threats of President George Bush Sen. saying
"Saddam Hussein must know the stakes are high, the cause is just, and today, more than ever, the
determination is real"47, it was only after the crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia did a war
crimes tribunal come to fruition.

Under the terms of the Geneva Conventions, the United Nations Security Council in 1992 voted
unanimously to establish a war crimes commission to investigate reports of "ethnic cleansing" and
other atrocities in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Following these investigations, which uncovered serious
violations of human rights and crimes against humanity, the Council then established the
International War-Crimes Tribunal to try the perpetrators for acts of genocide. With growing
international acceptance that a permanent court designed to deal with crimes against humanity, be
established, the UN set about bringing one to fruition.

45
Solzhenitsyn, A. (1967) The Struggle Intensifies, a letter to students, reproduced in Solzhenitsyn: A Documentary
Record, ed. Leopold Labedz, (1970).
46
Many tenets in law concerning the conduct of war were derived from a body of customary principles formed over
several centuries, but the great bulk of contemporary law on war is found in the Hague Conventions of 1907 and the
Geneva Conventions of 1949. Crimes against the peace (aggression) and crimes against humanity (including genocide)
are comparatively recent additions to the code of war crimes. Although both have their beginnings in international
customary law, they were not authoritatively considered war crimes until the Charter of the International Military
Tribunal (the Nuremberg Charter) authorized the Trials of post World War II.
47
Power, S. (2002) A Problem from Hell - America in the age of Genocide, Harper Collins Publishers, London, p 480.

13
The Statute outlining the creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) was adopted at an
international conference in Rome in July 1998. Following intense negotiations, 120 countries voted
to adopt the treaty. While 21 countries abstained from voting, almost all of US's allies voted for the
ICC. However the US, China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar and Yemen staunchly voted against it.

Sixty-six countries ratified the treaty by the 11th April 2002, which then allowed the ICC to
commence operations on the 1st July 2002. The Rome Statute granted the ICC jurisdiction over the
crimes of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity ~ provided of course, those crimes
occurred within the territory of a state party or were committed by another participating states'
nationals48. While the Statute allows a state party to conduct its own investigations and
prosecutions, the Court still retains the authority to investigate or prosecute an offender if a state
party is unwilling to do so itself. Because of non-retroactivity, crimes committed before July 2002
cannot be brought to the court. But projecting forward, and with the benefit of 20-20 vision of
hindsight, one can see why the US didn't want to ratify the Rome Statute. The US was acutely
aware and knew that in pursuing their long established foreign policy agenda they would,
ultimately in time, be in violation of international law and that their president could subsequently
be subpoenaed by the ICC.

"Impunity" a good reason why the US did not want to be a signatory to the Rome Statute

Because the ICC could bring actions against civilian and military personnel of a member state that
was a signatory to the Rome Statute, in May 2002, the Bush administration resolved to "unsign" the
Statute49. The US had reservations against an international body such as the ICC having legal
jurisdiction over US citizens. Bush's officials argued that nullifying the US signature meant that the
US would not be bound by the ICC's jurisdiction or have to follow any of its orders. But that was
the case whether or not the US became a signatory anyway. If needed, a participating state could
circumvent ICC jurisdiction by investigating any charges against its own citizens itself. In this
instant ICC jurisdiction would be deferred to that of the member state. American justice could
investigate Bush's track record and conclude that he did nothing wrong. Adding more protection to
US sovereignty, Article 20 (3) of the Rome Statute would disallow Bush to be retried by the ICC, if
he had already been acquitted by a US court first. Even if the ICC felt that the US court system was
shielding Bush, no end of resource could be thrown at the ICC to bog it down in paper work. At the

48
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998) Article 12.
49
Smith, D. (US Colonel Retired),(2002) Dropping Out - American Style, CDI Weekly Defence Monitor, Volume 6,
Issue #14, 16th May 2002.

14
end of the day because of scares resources, it just wouldn't be worth the effort of the ICC to pursue
a culprit from the most powerful nation on Earth.

The escape route most desirable for the US was simply not to be part of the Rome Statute. Article 4
(2) of the Statute specifically limits the court's jurisdiction to "the territory of any State Party and
by special agreement, on the territory of any other State". Because neither Iraq nor the US is a
signatory, this means the ICC would simply have no jurisdiction over either of them. The UN
Security Council would also be ineffective because the US would simply veto any call from the
other councillors to be held accountable. Any way we examine this, the US can brush the rest of the
international community aside and continue doing exactly as it pleases. Having the hegemonic
position, negates international law, supplements increased expansion, enhances even greater power
and equates to ultimate control.

Laws were made to be broken 50

The flawed justification

It is difficult to comprehend how military action against Iraq was an urgent necessity to which there
was no practical non-violent, peaceful alternative. The tactic of the US administration was to justify
their course of action by devising multiple spheres of reason. Tugging on the heart strings of a
moral cause to free an oppressed people from a tyrant was one reason, another was the possession
of weapons of mass destruction, another harbouring and financing international terrorists, another
was the threat of an imminent attack on the US. Taking each concocted reason by itself would be
insufficient as a means of legal justification in the eyes of the world. However, by eliminating
American fear by removing the threat, by appealing to the nobility of rescuing a suppressed people
and by pampering to national pride to gain support, the US administration synergistically combined
these reasons into an overall package which gave them the necessary ammunition to implement
their plan.

Opposing the US governments flawed justification, Human Rights Watch51 said in its Annual
Report52 prior to the invasion, that the Bush administration was using threats to national security to

50
North, C. (1830) Noctes Ambrosianae, (night food for the gods), Blackwood's Magazine, May 1830.
51
Human Rights Watch is an international Non Government Organisation based in New York focussing on human
rights issues. The organization was started under the name Helsinki Watch in 1978 to monitor the Soviet Union's
compliance to the Helsinki Accords. Other watch organizations were established to cover other parts of the world.
These organizations consolidated in 1988 to form Human Rights Watch.

15
justify putting executive action in place and the US above international law. By itself, it would have
been extremely doubtful that anticipatory self-defence could have been relied upon by the US to
justify military action against Iraq. Realistically, an attack by Iraq against the US did not represent
a clear and present danger.

Post war. On the matter of justifying the war retrospectively as an effort to save human life, Human
Rights Watch said53 "Only mass slaughter might permit the use of military force for humanitarian
purposes". It said "Brutal as Saddam Hussein's reign had been, the scope of the Iraq Government's
killing in March 2003, was not of the exceptional and dire magnitude that would justify
humanitarian intervention". By examining the realities behind each flawed justification, it becomes
apparent that the men who authorized this war have got some serious explaining to do.

When men assume public trust, they should consider themselves public property 54

I take this solemn oath

Mr Bush, Mr Blair and Mr Howard have come under mounting pressure from critics of the war
over their failure to produce convincing evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed banned weapons
of mass destruction. UN reports submitted to the Security Council before the war by the Chief UN
arms inspector Hans Blix and Mohamed El Baradei55, had been largely validated by US's own
weapons teams after the war. The UN's reports were based on information gathered over more than
seven years of UN inspections in Iraq before the 2003 war. They held the belief that there were no
weapons of mass destruction of any significance in Iraq since 1994, yet the US refused to
acknowledge this finding.

Bill Nichols from USA Today reported that there were a number of White House officials who were
harshly critical of the UNs inspection effort in the months leading up to the war. US Defence
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in August 2002 that the UN inspections "would be a sham"56. The
Bush administration also point blank declined UN offers to help in the post war weapons hunt,

52
Human Rights Watch, http://www.hrw.org/library/annualreport/2002

53
BBC world news article dated Monday 26th January 2004 titled, Ousting Saddam 'no cause for war' available at
www.worldnews@bbc.com.uk
54
Jefferson, T. (1807) in a letter to Baron von Humboldt, reproduced by Rayner, B. L. (1834) The Life of Jefferson.
55
Mohamed El Baradei is Director General of the UNs International Atomic Energy Agency.
56
Nichols, B. (2004) UN: Iraq had no WMD after 1994, USA Today, 3rd February 2004, available at
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-02

16
preferring instead to use US inspectors and specialists from other coalition countries such as Britain
and Australia57.

Ironically after months of investigation carried out in the post war period, David Kay, the US's own
chief weapons inspector testified that Iraq had no banned weapons in its possession. While backing
the UN findings, Kay's testimony had the embarrassing effect of severely discrediting the Bush
administration by exposing the fraudulent representations they extolled in order to invade Iraq. Mr
Kay said he thought the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) owed Mr Bush an explanation for the
incorrect warnings about the threat Iraq posed. But regardless of who is to blame for the incorrect
intelligence, Kay's finding rendered the Bush, Blair and Howard governments negligent and
ultimately culpable for crimes against humanity. In an effort to exonerate themselves from any
impropriety, these governments then commissioned enquiries into their respective intelligence
organisations pleading misleading information as an excuse for their criminal acts58.

As I intend to prosper and repent, so thrive I in my

dangerous affairs of hostile arms 59

The illegality of the invasion with respect to International law

The USs failure to find any weapons of mass destruction, as well as the lack of evidence to prove
an Iraqi connection to al Qaida and the 11th September 2001 attacks has exposed serious flaws in
Bushs argument necessitating the war. But an even more compelling issue is that the invasion of
Iraq was in violation of international law. Under the UN Charter, there are only two circumstances
in which the use of force is permissible; in collective or individual self-defence against an actual or
imminent armed attack; and when the Security Council has directed or authorized the use of force
to maintain or restore international peace and security. Neither scenario was present. The US led an
invasion of military personnel into Iraq and killed thousands of civilians. Their acts were crimes
against humanity. The US led war was undertaken without UN Security Council authorization and

57
Dinmore, G. Harding, J. and Newman, C. (2003) Iraqi Arms Finds Not Likely, Says US Official, Financial Times
(London), 3rd May 2003, p 1.
58
Former British cabinet secretary Lord Butler, chaired a five-member committee examining whether the pre-war
intelligence was legitimate. The Butler report found no evidence of deliberate distortion or culpable negligence by the
spy services. Similarly, the Australian version of the report by former intelligence chief Philip Flood found Australia's
Defence Intelligence Organisation and Office of National Assessments failed to judge accurately the extent and nature
of Iraq's WMD programme. The report stated that Australian intelligence relied on thin and ambiguous information to
assess Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, but miraculously there was no evidence of political pressure "to bolster the
case for war".
59
Shakespeare, W. (1592) King Richard the Third, Harper Collins Publishers Glasgow, Act Four Scene IV.

17
was therefore in violation of the UN Charter. As a result it was illegal, and those who carried it
out, can and should be held responsible for war crimes.

The Preamble to the UN Charter begins by declaring its primary purpose is "to prevent the scourge
of war". Article 1 repeats and emphasizes this prerogative by stating that the UN's role is to
"maintain international peace and security." Article 2(4) prohibits the use of military force in
international affairs except in accord with the guiding principles of the UN. These being "All
members shall refrain . . . from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political
independence of any state or in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations."
This emphasis can be appreciated as a consequence of the UN Charter having been drafted and
adopted at the end of World War II, but its rejection to warfare is still relevant today especially in
relation to the recent international debacle over Iraq.

Articles 41 and 42 of the UN Charter, Chapter VII, specify under what circumstances military force
can be sanctioned. Article 41 declares that effective means short of conflict should first be
employed to resolve differences while Article 42 states that the Security Council can permit
military intervention only after having voted that these preliminary measures have failed. This
decision is obtained by a majority vote as specified by Article 27(3) in the Charter.

Edward Jayne and Ronald Kramer who wrote on the illegal invasion60 said if preventative measures
were found to be unsuccessful, then, and only then, could the Security Council decide to permit
warfare. Firstly they said, there must be an effort short of combat, as explained by Article 41, and
then if necessary, as explained by Article 42. Combat may be undertaken once the consent of the
Security Council has been obtained by its finding that preliminary efforts have been unsuccessful.
Consent can only be ascertained by means of a vote. Articles 41 and 42 impose a simple
unavoidable sequence; first effective and preventative measures short of military force should be
explored before the Security Council can decide that every alternative short of military conflict has
been exhausted without success, whereupon, if (and only if) it makes this decision, military force
can be undertaken. The first and third steps are optional, but without exception, the second step
necessitates a majority vote to mandate an attack. Here is where the US crossed the line of
illegality. US Secretary of Defence Colin Powell skipped this step by jumping from the use of
preventative measures (i.e. UN inspections) to an invasion of Iraq not sanctioned by the Security
Council. The US was not able to recruit a majority of Security Council delegates to support the

60
Jayne, E and Kramer, R. (2002) The illegal invasion of Iraq, Truth In Action, available at www.truthinaction.com

18
invasion and even if they had, both France and Russia were prepared to veto the measure. As a
result the US ignored the procedure totally and Bush launched his illegal act of war.

Article 51 part of Chapter VII did also not apply. The procedures described in Articles 41 and 42
were not made redundant by A 51 which states "Nothing in the present charter shall impair the
inherent right of individual or collective self defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of
the United Nations". The situation with Iraq did not fit this description. Apart from the stories
emanating from the White House, there was simply no evidence of any threat of an imminent attack
by Iraq against the US or any other country.
Because the US is a signatory of the UN Charter, this gives the Charter the status of a treaty
guaranteed by the American Constitution. The US Constitution's Supremacy Clause in Article VI,
Section 2, specifically grants international treaties the same status as the US Constitution.

Article VI, Section 2, of the US Constitution states;

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance
thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United
States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound
thereby

Article 103 Chapter XVI of the UN Charter reads;

In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations
under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement,
their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.

As indicated by Article 103, the UN Charter prevails and supersedes all other international
agreements and imposes that obligation on UN members. Henceforth, the Supremacy Clause in the
US's own Constitution extends to the application of the UN Charter's Articles 41 and 42 to the rule
of warfare conducted by their own government.

The use of the term "crimes against humanity" implies that state parties to the UN Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights have the duty to do everything possible to promote peace and avoid the
use of indiscriminate armed force. If they participate in the formulation and implementation of
plans that are contrary to the Covenants principles then they are guilty of a crime against humanity.
Recalling the origin of this concept61 was in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal (the
"Nuremberg Charter"), of which Article 6 (c) enumerated the following crimes against humanity:
murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts committed against any
civilian population. Article 6 of the Nuremberg Charter concludes as follows: "Leaders, organizers,

61
See Foot Note # 46.

19
instigators, and accomplices, participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan of
conspiracy ... are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan".

As defined by the Nuremberg Charter and pointed out by Jayne and Kramer in their article, without
the consent of the UN Security Council, those who planned and implemented the invasion of Iraq
were in direct violation of the Nuremberg Charter's prohibition against "crimes against peace" and
"crimes against humanity" and can be held responsible for war crimes. They are liable for criminal
prosecution by the ICC. Regrettably Jayne and Kramer doubt this would ever happen, since the
victors seldom prosecute themselves. A reality check would conclude that it would be a very
strange day in global affairs if the US were to ever hand their president over to a war crimes
tribunal. The Nuremberg Charter also prohibits "Crimes against Peace" through "planning,
preparation, initiating or waging of wars of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties
or participating in a common plan or conspiracy to wage an aggressive war". The invasion of Iraq
clearly fell into this category. The Nuremberg Charter notes that "to initiate a war of aggression . . .
is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime". Starting a war without
adequate justification, Jayne and Kramer profess, is the most serious war crime of all.

The international laws of war prohibit the use of weapons or tactics that cause indiscriminate harm
to non-combatants. The indiscriminate bombing of Baghdad with cluster bombs and the use of
depleted uranium-tipped shells violated every international law. Government officials and military
personnel who engaged in these violations can and should be prosecuted under the ICC. Although
the US is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, the Iraqi government has the right to remit to the UN.
The ICC would then have the technical jurisdiction over any war crimes committed during the
conflict.

The US, UK, Australia and the rest of the Coalition of the Willing acted as aggressors in the
invasion of Iraq. They were in clear violation of international law. It is irrelevant how vicious or
despicable the acts of Saddam Hussein or his regime were, the final responsibility for the crimes
during conflict must be assigned to the leadership of the nations who exercised the authority to
launch the illegal war. It is George W. Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard that are responsible for
the heads of school children being blown off. They are the ones responsible for the other seven
thousand deaths of innocent civilians and as such they should be held accountable.

20
 As a quaestor in Spain he had amassed a great fortune. As a general in Gaul
he added all the lands west of the Rhine to Roman territory 62

The illegality of the continuing occupation forces

It stands to reason that if the invasion of Iraq and use of military force was illegal, then the military
forces occupying Iraq must also be illegal. But considering that phase one of the US empire
building strategy has been completed and there appears that there is very little anyone can do to
undo that mess, the next phase of the strategy ~ the occupation, which still continues even after the
formal hand-over to the Iraqi Interim Government on 30th June 2004 ~ can be examined.

One month after the invasion began, Amnesty International delegates arrived in Iraq. They were
monitoring human rights issues, specifically in the areas of policing and detention. Amnesty
International (AI) produced a Report on Iraq in July 200363. In that report they outlined a list of
concerns relating to law and order in Iraq in the post invasion era. A primary concern related to the
need for ensuring accountability of the Coalition Provisional Authority64 (CPA) as well as the
Coalition Forces. The report also made recommendations relating to law and order, legislation and
practices. It highlighted issues relating to the overall legal framework, addressed in some detail
concerns relating to the use of force, detention practices, treatment in custody, body searches and
the role of the judiciary. The memorandum also included a number of cases illustrating the nature
of Amnesty International's concerns. As part of its recommendations, AI called on the CPA to carry
out competent, independent and impartial investigations into these individual cases.

Primarily, AI was deeply concerned by the lack of law and order prevailing in many areas of Iraq 65.
Many Iraqis had repeatedly expressed their sense of fear and insecurity. AI was also concerned
about the impact on the lives of ordinary Iraqis of looting, revenge killings, kidnappings and other
violent crimes. Several incidents involving the shooting of Iraqi civilian demonstrators by US

62
Referring to Julius Caesar. CF Imperial Rome, Time-Life Books, The Netherlands, p 43.
63
Amnesty International Index: available at http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE141572003
64
The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) was the name of the temporary governing body which had been
designated by the United Nations as the lawful government of Iraq until such time as Iraq was politically and socially
stable enough to assume its own sovereignty. The CPA governed Iraq from April 2003 to 30th June 2004. At that
point, the CPA officially handed control back to Iraq's Interim Government, but US and Coalition forces, never the less,
remained in Iraq on stand-by to assist the newly installed government.
65
Other minor issues raised by AI included; Criminal code legislation being issued by the CPA in contravention of
Article 65 of the Fourth Geneva Convention; Prisoners of war and their treatment regulated by the Third Geneva
Convention; Personal liberties; Implementation of judicial decisions and the failure of Coalition Forces to implement
the decisions of the Iraqi magistrates; Access to lawyers by criminal detainees suspected of a felony offences.

21
soldiers in disputed circumstances, prompted AI to document other killings which took place when
security forces failed to use non-lethal means initially to disperse the rowdy but unarmed
demonstrators.

Although the Coalition Forces were dealing with an emotionally charged situation of occupation
they were still engaged in combat activities, whereby the rules of international humanitarian law on
the conduct of hostilities applied. Such rules include the prohibition of direct attacks on civilians.
Of course this is circumvented if the civilians take a direct part in the hostilities but the principles
of proportionality still apply to the necessary use of force by the military. In these circumstances
policing methods are required, in line with human rights standards of law enforcement such as the
UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials. AI was concerned that the appropriate
standards appeared not to have been followed. This necessitated AI to call on the CPA and the
Coalition Forces to take urgent steps to fully restore law and order in all parts of Iraq.

Seemingly on a positive note, when the invading powers first assumed control of Iraq, there
appeared to be some positive steps towards fulfilling humanitarian protocols. The US and UK
governments, in exercising their [disputed] authority through the CPA, made use of international
human rights standards in the formation of new legislation and the suspension of certain provisions
of Iraqi law which were inconsistent with international law. Supposedly the provisions of the UNs
Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners was used as a basis for the CPA's
Management of Detention and Prison Facilities which led to the suspension of the death penalty.
But shamefully, with the widespread exposure of the mistreatment of prisoners which came to the
world's attention via the media at Abu Ghraib prison in April 2004, all credibility was destroyed.
The subsequent US military report on the abuse of Iraqi prisoners 66 by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba
slammed the military and placed a damning indictment on the Coalition governments for
mismanaging the entire affair.

Amnesty International stressed that to be consistent with international humanitarian law, coalition
states were also under an obligation to respect the provisions of the human rights treaties to which
they were a party, as well as those to which Iraq was a party, especially given that these treaties67

66
Titled: Article 15-6 Investigation of the 800th Military Police Brigade, available at www.lulu.com/content/54077
67
Iraq is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights; the Convention on the Rights of the Child; the International Convention on the Elimination
of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against
Women.

22
had been formally incorporated into Iraqi domestic law. The Human Rights Committee, set up
under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, has consistently ruled that such
obligations extend to any territory in which a state exercises jurisdiction or control, including
territories occupied as a result of military action. This imposes obligations on the US and the
Coalition to abide to the rule of law. Unfortunately as it was previously established, the US and its
Coalition allies had already made a mockery of international law by invading Iraq in the first place.
With the continued occupation and growing number of civilian deaths rising and being attributed to
them, it becomes plainly evident that they are again in breach of international law. Regrettably, the
UN is simply incapable of solving this problem68 and consequently, the rule of law remains the
weapon of the mighty and the bane of the meek.

I have a dream that this nation will one day rise up and live out
the true meaning of its creed 69

The unfinished canvas

It took just three weeks for the second Gulf War to shake the world. Despite public protest and
months of international negotiations, the illegal bombs still fell on Baghdad. In hindsight the
international community can see the full picture. Journalists from around the world ~ some of them
in the heat of battle, some of them from a more reflective distance ~ have assembled the stories of
the most controversial war of modern times70. Launched by the mightiest military force on Earth to
topple Saddam Hussein, the devastating attack on Iraq brought havoc to the cradle of civilization. It
showered horror, pity, death and despair on innocent people whom history had already burdened
with oppression and tyranny. The massive and largely indiscriminate application of firepower by
US and British forces, maintained an objective that was long established and imbedded in US
foreign policy. But to totally blame Bush, Blair and Howard could be a mistake. Other villains
include Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney and all those, who as part of the Project for the New

68
Oppenheimer Report (2004) The U.N. Human Rights Commission is a joke, posted Sunday 21st Mar 2004.
The United Nations Human Rights Commission, has become such a joke ~ thanks to members such as Cuba, China
and, yes, the United States ~ that it may be time to dissolve it and put an independent agency in its place. Leading
international human rights groups agree that the 53-member UN Commission has been virtually taken over by the
world's worst dictatorships, with the worst human rights records and have formed a mutual protection club that blocks
any serious investigation into any of their peers. Amnesty International said ''The U.N. Commission on Human Rights
must reform itself, or risk irrelevance,''. Human Rights Watch called on the commission to "gain some of the credibility
it has lost in recent years".
69
CF Rev Martin Luther King, Jr., (1963) speech, Ennobling the Civil Rights Movement at the Lincoln Memorial.
70
Randeep Ramesh (Editor) et al (2003) The War We Could Not Stop: The Real Story of the Battle for Iraq, Faber
and Faber Publishers, London.

23
American Century had set upon the course of Saddam's destruction long before George Bush Jnr.
had even become president. The real villain is the machination of US foreign policy, the plotting
and the planing to ensure supremacy.

However, there does come a time when blame ceases and accountability begins. But who does it
begin with? As leaders, the buck ultimately stops with them71. Our leaders were responsible for the
deaths of thousands of innocent victims. The environmental damage, the cancers and birth defects
of the new born that result from the radio-active fallout from depleted uranium shells must be
attributed to the leaders who ignored public opinion, violated international law and defiled human
decency. They are guilty of crimes against humanity and no longer deserve the respect of any
nation nor the honour or responsibility of their position of power. They must be removed from
office, hopefully this might happen. They should be brought before the International Criminal
Court, but sadly that might not happen. These stupid white men72, these guilty men, these murderers
will walk free. And the remainder of humanity will perpetually suffer the consequences of
economic sanctions, invading forces, hijacked planes and explosions on crowded trains. And still,
one nation's freedom fighter will be called another nation's terrorist, and one more territory will
need to be conquered, and another empire built and the war will go on.

Evil triumphs when good men do nothing73

A new approach - do something!

The contemporary dilemma for us is, there appears to be no total solution to this problem. We live
in a world gripped by revolutions in technology, values, institutions, religious doctrines, political
ideologies and capitalistic expansion. We have in the making an international legal system that is
struggling to establish itself as an effective tool to promote the cause of humanity through the rule
of law. There exists a contradiction of ideologies yet humanity lacks the mechanisms to police the
crimes of the powerful rouge nation. The world exists with unaccountable political regimes, hidden
agendas, clandestine agencies and lethal military might. We are told we need these things for
national security and some people believe this. We employ governments to better our lot in life yet

71
The buck stops here was an un-attributed motto on President Harry S. Truman's desk. CF Jay, A (1996) The Oxford
Dictionary of Political Quotations, Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 372.
72
Attributed to Michael Moore, (2002) Stupid White Men, Penguin Group Publishers, Melbourne.

24
take no responsibility when those governments overstep the mark of what we accept as tolerable
human behaviour. We are immersed in an unending process, searching for the Utopian existence
that hopefully resembles the impossible dream of a world living in peace and harmony. Of course
as this paper has shown, the US would like us to be living in a US-opian world of peace and
tranquillity of their own design, under their own control. It appears that they might be successful. Is
there anything wrong with that? The US, Britain and Australia share the same values and enjoy the
same fruit of capitalistic providence. It is good for us. But what about the victims? What chance
have they got if our system is so designed to marginalise the meek even further. What chance have
we got if we continue making enemies and dont correct the situation now? Seemingly, the more
powerful nations become ~ like the frail human being ~ power tends to corrupt them, absolute
power tends to corrupt them absolutely. The dilemma here is, we are the them. Our system is
starting to display the flaws of corruption and the cracks of disaster. Our governments should be
smart enough to realise that popular morality deserves to be taken seriously. Our governments
should be smart enough to realise that it is impossible to win a war that is fought against blind
passion, because that passion is ultimately prepared to pay the highest price. Our leaders may
comprehend the price but it is a cost they chose to ignore.

The problem of finding equitable solutions, in accordance with the rule of international law and
establishing equilibrium in the balance of power however, is not in the physical dimension of
military might or political supremacy as some regimes would have us believe. The real answer is in
the temporal and moral fabric of humanity. Regrettably this is something that the US administration
appears to have forgotten. True their moral fabric made them great, their competitive edge made
them strong, their resources made them powerful but nevertheless, their selfish greed may destroy
them. It is ironic that the nation, that led the modern world into democracy, now wishes to rule the
world by force. It is mismanagement that, in the richest country on the planet, an un-proportionally
high percentage of the population lives in poverty. It is arrogant that a nation, with 5% of the
world's population, wants to impose their ideologies on the other 95% of the planet. It is
unacceptable that a child is terminated at the will of a belligerent state. It is hypocritical that that
nation contradicts its own values to achieve those ends. It is shameful that a nation supports their
leader who authorizes such atrocities. It is complacent to allow such things to continue. It is
commonplace for the smaller republic to be destroyed by the larger foreign force. It is a certainty
that the corrupt republic is destroyed from within. It is a blessing that all empires crumble.

73
Attributed to Edmund Burk in a number of forms, CF Jay, A. (1996) The Oxford Dictionary of Political Quotations,
Oxford University Press, Oxford, p68.

25
Bibliography

Chomsky, N. (2003) Hegemony or Survival - America's Quest for Global Dominance, Henry Holt
and Co., Metropolitan Books, Melbourne.

Dinmore, G. Harding, J. and Newman, C. (2003) Iraqi Arms Finds Not Likely, Says US Official,
Financial Times (London), 3rd May 2003.

du Boulay, A. (2002) The euro and beyond, James Cook University, Townsville.

Hadas, M. et al (1966) Imperial Rome, Time-Life Books, The Netherlands.

Jay, A. (1996) The Oxford Dictionary of Political Quotations, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Jayne, E. and Kramer, R. (2002) The illegal invasion of Iraq, Truth In Action.

Kennedy, J. F. (1960) A New Approach on Foreign Policy - A twelve-Point Agenda,

Kennedy, J. F. (1960) The Strategy of Peace, Harper & Row Publishers, New York.

Keynes, J. M. (1936) The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, (1964 Paperback
edition) Macmillan, London.

Kissinger, H. A. (1969) American Foreign Policy, Lowe & Brydone (Printers) Ltd, London.

Milbank, D. (2003) Bush Remarks Confirm Shift in Justification for War, Washington Post, 1st
June 2003.

Montesquieu, C. (1748) The spirit of the laws, ed. Cohler, A. et al (2002), Cambridge University
Press, Great Britain.

Moore, M. (2003) Dude, Where's My Country?, Penguin Group Publishers, Melbourne.

Moore, M. (2002) Stupid White Men, Penguin Group Publishers, Melbourne.

Nichols, B. (2004) UN: Iraq had no WMD after 1994, USA Today, 3rd February 2004.

Power, S. (2002) A Problem from Hell - America in the age of Genocide, Harper Collins
Publishers, London.

Randeep Ramesh (Editor) et al (2003) The War We Could Not Stop: The Real Story of the Battle
for Iraq, Faber and Faber Publishers, London.

Research Unit for Political Economy, (2003) The Invasion of Iraq, Monthly Review Press, May
2003.

Romei, S. (2001) War has only just started, The Australian, 24th November 2001.

Skatssoon, J. (2000) Deadly Serious, Townsville Bulletin, 8th July 2000.

Smith, D. (US Colonel Retired),(2002) Dropping Out - American Style, CDI Weekly Defence
Monitor, Volume 6, Issue #14, 16th May 2002.

26
Speeches

Mersch, Y. (2002) In the run-up to an enlarged Europe, Speech by Mr Yves Mersch, Governor of
the Central Bank of Luxembourg, at the 6th European Congress of the Association des Cambistes
d'Internationaux (ACI) (Financial Markets Association), Luxembourg, 25th May 2002.

Legislation, International Charters and Treaties

United States of America

Constitution of the United States of America (1789) (US)
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (US)

United Nations
United Nations Charter (1945) (UN)
Charter of the International Military Tribunal (1945) (UN)
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) (UN)
Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (1955) (UN)
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) (UN)
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) (UN)
Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials (1979) (UN)
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998) (UN)

UN Resolutions
UN Security Council Resolution 687 (1991)
UN Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001)
UN Security Council Resolution 1441 (2002)

Quotations

Hitler, A. (1925) Mein Kampf, vol 1. CF Jay, A. (1996) The Oxford Dictionary of Political
Quotations, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Jefferson, T. (1807) A letter to Baron von Humboldt, reproduced by Rayner, B. L. (1834) in

The Life of Jefferson.

King, M.L.Jr., (1963) Ennobling the Civil Rights Movement at the Lincoln Memorial.

Knopfler, M. (1984) Dire Straits - Brothers in Arms, PolyGram Records, Australia.

North, C. (1830) Noctes Ambrosianae, Blackwood's Magazine, May 1830.

Shakespeare, W. (1592) King Richard the Third, Harper Collins Publishers Glasgow.

Solzhenitsyn, A. (1967) The Struggle Intensifies, a letter to students, reproduced in Solzhenitsyn:

A Documentary Record, ed. Leopold Labedz, (1970).

Sun Tzu's Art of War, as translated by Kaufman, S. (1996), Charles E. Tuttle Co. Inc. Boston.

Vegetius, Imperial Rome, Time-Life Books, The Netherlands.

27
Web sites

Amnesty International Index, http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index

BBC world news, http://news.bbc.co.uk

Human Rights Watch, http://www.hrw.org

Project for a New American Century http://newamericancentury.org

Rebuilding Americas Defences, http://newamericancentury.org

The Australian, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au

The liberation of Iraq, http://www.fcnl.org

The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, http://www.whitehouse.gov

The Oppenheimer Report, Miami Herald, http://www.miami.com

Truth In Action, http:// www.truthinaction.com.

US Today World news, http://www.usatoday.com

28