Afghanistan War Not Really A War

national | anti-war / imperialism | opinion/analysis

Monday December 19, 2005 17:45

by Michael

It was a war of course. It was a war, and the aim was to depose the Taliban regime, replacing it with a different one. Lots and lots of people died in the process. And as RAWA wrote to the Seattle Times recently: 'It goes without saying that Afghans will not see as their “liberators” those who drove the Taliban wolves through one door and unchained the rabid dogs of the NA through another.' (http://www.rawa.org/seattletimes.htm)

You can take it that I was very disappointed to hear the news from the High Court the other day -- Eoin Dubsky -v- Government of Ireland. When I get a chance this Christmas, I will scan and OCR the 50 page judgement, then post a link up here.

To protect us from a warlord Government gone mad, Article 28.3.1 of the Constitution says "War shall not be declared and the State shall not participate in any war save with the assent of Dáil Éireann." Ms. Justice Macken appears to have said that the war in Afghanistan wasn't really a "war" in the Irish legal sense though, so no parliamentary vote was necessary.

She didn't say what makes a conflict actually a war, except that the war in Afghanistan wasn't one. She noted that Ireland never recognized the legitimacy of the Taliban state (the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan was only recognised by some Muslim countries). I can't tell what other factors make a conflict a "war", and I'll look carefully for other ones in the Court's written judgement. This one surely can't be her strongest point: Generally a state which recognizes the legitimacy of another state (it's definite territory, organised government, and sovereignty) isn't likely to participate in a war against that state. I can't imagine Bertie ever saying: "We recognize the sovereignty and legitimacy of X, and now we're going to help Y go over there and bomb the place to bits!" -- It just wouldn't make any sense.

Remember that prior to 1999, the Irish Constitution included the Six Counties are part of the definite national territory of Ireland. From what I've understand of the judgement, the Government of Ireland could have ordered a military attack (without declaring war -- be careful of that word!) against the British in Northern Ireland on any day of the week. And Dail Eireann and the citizens of Ireland could do nothing to stop it, or the inevitable retaliation that it would have invited from UK forces. That doesn't seem very democratic to me. And I wonder whether the President of Iran even has that kind of freedom to wage war (by any other name) against countries he doesn't recognize as legitimate.

The United Nations Charter begins with the words "We the Peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war," and then never repeats the word "war" ever again. It's such a dirty, inhuman, and criminal business, and I'm sure the Court would agree. Assaulting reason and language -- calling the war on Afghanistan "international policing" or some other Pentagon-ism -- is not the only way to avoid it though. If the Constitution says no war without Dail approval, then that's got to mean something surely.

Surely the Constitution of Ireland -- which begins with the words "In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred" -- doesn't allow the Government to turn over our airports and airspace for war-making against people who've never threatened or harmed us without even a debate?

save preference

Comments (1 of 1)

War is illegal

by CouldBe

Tue Dec 20, 2005 23:30

The UN Charter made war illegal in 1945. The Afghanstan invasion was designed to depose the regime there and replace it with another one, so we're not just talking about war here, we're talking about a "total war". Total war was outlawed back in 1648 by the Treaty of Westphalia.

The good judge took her time with this case, which was heard in the Four Courts almost a year ago. She must have gone over all the arguments many, many times. And she must have realised that if the plaintiff - Eoin Dubsky - was right, then the Government of Ireland must be a band of criminals. The people who just made her a Supreme Court Judge are guilty of high crimes for which Germans and Japanese were executed 60 years ago.

"Few of us," wrote Arthur Miller, "can easily surrender our belief that society must somehow make sense. The thought that the state has lost its mind and is punishing so many innocent people is intolerable. And so the evidence has to be internally denied."

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

The Saker

Public Inquiry

Lockdown Skeptics

Afghanistan War Not Really A War

Comments (1 of 1)