|
Thursday, April 03, 2003
Aportadera: Liberators or aggressors?
By Billy Aportadera
COMMENTARY
AS the war machines of the coalition forces race to reach Baghdad, there is growing concern on their real role and purpose. Are the United States and Great Britain liberators of the Iraqi people from the militaristic clutches of Saddam Hussein?
Are they saviors of the world from the dangers of the weapons of mass destruction that he is believed to possess? Or, are they foreign aggressors that seek to occupy Iraq and control its oil reserves by replacing Saddam Hussein with a leader friendly to them, and with a new government that guarantees their oil supply?
As the war drags on to its final conflict, there is the absence of scenes of enthusiastic Iraqi people welcoming the arrival of the coalition forces. There are also no widespread voluntary surrenders and desertions of Iraqi soldiers. This is an ominous sign of events to come as the coalition forces prepare to enter Baghdad.
A miscalculation of the patriotic spirit of the Iraqis would prove very costly for the coalition forces. With their clear military superiority over the Iraqi army, they are expected to win the battle of Baghdad.
But they could lose the War of Iraq, which is not popular beyond the shores of the United States and Great Britain. If they do not win over the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people to accept them as liberators, their victory would be pyrrhic. The war they started becomes a war of aggression.
An “aggressive war” is a crime against the peace. Article 1 of the Definition of Aggression adopted by the UN General Assembly on Dec. 14, 1974 defines “aggression” as “the use of armed force by a State against sovereignty, the territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.
Article 3 thereof enumerates acts of aggression to include, (a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack...(b) Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State; (c) An attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State.
Finally, Article 5 (1) states that, No consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression.
Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal otherwise known also as the Nuremberg Charter defines crimes against the peace as planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements, assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing.
War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” (Excerpts from “Judgment of the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, September 30, 19460”)
(Billy Aportadera writes for Sun.Star Davao).
(April 3, 2003 issue)
Want Sun.Star news on your mobile phone? Click here.
Write letter to the editor. Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board. Click here. |
|
[ return
to top ]
[ home
]
|
LOCAL NEWS
BUSINESS
OPINION
SPORTS
LIFESTYLE
FEATURE
SUPERBALITA
WEEKEND
|
