Stopping the Illegal Massacre of USA

President Bush’s threats of war over the last months are now being realized. Although it is hard to believe by those with a conscience and who realize the degree of devastation the US will wreak, Iraq is indeed now under attack. It is not really a war at all because the power of the two parties is so unbalanced and because the invasion goes against international law. The right term is invasion, and from the victim’s point of view might as well be called a “massacre” due to the incredibly destructive power of the US’s high technology war machine.

The only US justification for the Iraq invasion which has a legal basis is that Iraq has violated the UN resolution which compelled it to destroy all their weapon of mass destruction, including nuclear, chemical and biological weapons (CBW), after its occupation of Kuwait (1991). Though this resolution is legal it has several problems. 

First, all countries that violate the UN resolution and international treaties should be treated the same way. Instead, almost 90 similar resolutions have been violated by the US closest allies. For example Morocco’s invasion of the western Sahara, Turkey’s occupation of Northern Cyprus and of course, the Israel occupation of Palestine alongside the violation of many resolutions of the Security Council and General Assembly of the UN over the last 25 years. 

If Iraq should be punished, so should India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel. All of the latter violated the non-proliferation treaty (NPT), which limits the possession of nuclear weapons to those in the “The nuclear club.”

Second, the US invasion of Iraq violates international law because, according to article 41 and 42 of the UN charter, no member has the right to implement any military resolution unless the security council first determines that material breach of the resolution has occurred. 

According to the UN Charter, the Security Council should first determine whether all non-military solutions have been unsuccesful, and then it is up to the Security Council to authorize the use of military force. Untill the latest meeting last month, the Security Council had still not given this authorization although the US attempted to assure the council that Iraq does possess weapons of mass destruction weapon - though it has apparently done so through the manipulation of data.

That mechanism for approving military action was put in place in November 1990 when the security council implemented resolution 678 as a response to the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait. This action violated several resolutions issued in August 1990 which pressured Iraq to back up. Iraq eventually obeyed that resolution in March 1991. Of course it is debatable whether that resolution is still valid in 2003 when the issues are all so very different.

The US understands the rules of the game. That is why, since the beginning, they have attempted to gain the UN Security Council’s support though relentless praise by President Bush for the institution. Nevetheless as the Security Council’s resistance grew clearer, Bush threatened that regardless of support from the Couincil, the US would attack Iraq unilaterally.

Through its illegal action the US seeks an excuse to “change the Bagdhad regime” and depose President Saddam Hussein. Considering that the main victims will be the Iraq people, and that it will involve the violation of UN authority, it will open the door for international anarchy. This action will be the first unilateral action in the UN history. 

One senior US military figure, ex- commander of Desert storm operation (1991) General Norman Swarszkopf, has objected to the invasion as have those who fear US casualties. Those who most deeply desire to attack Iraq, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Rice, are civil figures. They do not understand or do not want to consider the terrible consequences of war. US army officers consider that this invasion could cause an even more agonizing trauma than that caused by the Vietnam war in that it is expected that 500.000 Iraqi regulars will fight tothe death to hold back the US soldiers.

The economic cost will be huge and will certainly affect the American economy which is in recession. Because this invasion is to be unilateral, the expenditure and the costs of reconstruction after the war should be accounted for by America alone. 

William Nordhaus, a professor at Yale and ex-economic advisor to the US president, forecasts the economic consequence within ten years (2003-2012) through considering two alternative scenarios depending on whether the war is short or long. In the first scenario, US would pay US$ 151 million for transporting the soldiers and materials, US$ 75 million for occupation and safeguarding security after the war, US$ 25 million for reconstruction, and US$ 1 million for humanitarian aid. But with the possibility of a US$ 30 million profit due to the war’s impact on the oil market, the US net expenditure could be US$ 121 million.

In the second scenario, the US expenditure would be ten times greater, that is costing around US$ 1.595 million. The details are: US$ 140 million for transporting the army, US$ 500 million for occupation, US$ 100 million for reconstruction, US$ 10 million for humanitarian aid, a US$ 500 million loss due to the war’s impact on the oil market, and lastly a US$ 345 million loss due to the impact upon the macro economy.

Where will the US get those funds from? The main source of revenue will be from the sale of Iraq oil. In this context, this invasion is actually an American colonization of Iraq, consequently the future relationship will be one of the colonizer and the colonized.

With the current rate, and assumption that Iraq succeed in returning its exploitation of reserves to three million barrels a day, the US would gain US$ 25 billion per year –so the number would be only US$ 250 billion for ten years or only about 6,5 percent of the total expenditure. On the contrary, if the first scenario of a quick outcome occurs, the US would gain a large sum.

What is is it that the US wants to achieve? The US wants to construct a new world map and to become the single dominant actor. This is clearly exposed in the “Bush doctrines” provided in the publication—“The National Security Strategy of the United States of America”.

Especially in the Middle East, the US will implement this domination through Israel—the dominant power in the Middle East. Bush and his advisors calculate that the short term losses will be outwighed by the long-term benefits.

Do the US people believe that this illegal action will benefit the national interest? We do not know. However, the FBI has reported that the resistance towards the Iraq invasion is far greater than the opposition toward the Gulf War 1991(New York Times, 19/3/2003).

Now that the US invasion has come true, though the results remain to be seen, what the people of the world must do is to hold more and more demonstrations so that the US will halt the slaughter soon.[]