Pre-emptive Strike or Pre-emptive Murder?

“Innocent until proven guilty” is one of the few concepts that are said to be universal, accepted in all cultures and civilizations. Such a notion should be the bedrock of the United Nations and manifest in the behavior of the international community. The recent talk of a preemptive strike against Iraq is diametrically opposed to the above universal concept. Such an action has serious implications in many arenas, as explained in the following points:

A) Ethical: -

Many of the hawks in Washington are presenting the view that, since Saddam has in his possession weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and he is likely to use them, hence there is sufficient grounds for military action.

First premise, the possession of such weapons does not prove guilt, as many other nations like US, Israel and India have huge quantity of such weapons in their possession. Why is it that possession of such weapons go unnoticed with nations like Israel but there is an outcry if it happens to be an Arab or a Muslim country? Do they not have the same right of self-defense? Some may argue that the Iraqi regime could be tried for using such weapons in the past, but again one has to ensure that this is not selective, in order to satisfy US political objectives. US have used such weapons and worse, many times, long before Saddam. As many would point out that US is the only country in the world that has used Nuclear weapons against civilians. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not military or strategic targets. Agent orange and B52 bombs were dropped on the ordinary Vietnamese population in a brutal and indiscriminate manner. Weapons of similar nature were also dropped on Iraq during the Gulf war and more recently in Afghanistan. Hence if the Iraqi regime is to be tried for using WMD, so should the US government, who committed such actions much earlier and with greater magnitude then the Iraqi regime. Even if Saddam were to be tried for those crimes selectively, then his entire accomplices should also stand trial. This includes countries that supplied him with the raw materials for profit, with full knowledge for their intended usage.

Second premise is even more absurd, since Saddam has used WMD in the past, and he is likely to commit the same crimes in the near future. Surely, such arguments would imply that one should embark to kill all known criminals in the society, as they may repeat the same crimes in the future. Every decent civilized society punishes for acts that has been committed and proven in a court of law. Hence a pre-emptive strike would tantamount to the reversal of the above stated universal principal, thus “everyone is guilty until proven innocent”!

However that does not mean one should not take precautions, but precautions are naturally exercised if there are genuine signs of threats. With the Iraqi army confined to its borders, such signs are hard to prove. In any case, taking precautions does not entitle one to dispense any kind of per-emptive punishment on a unilateral basis. Powerful nation like the US has many tools at her disposal, to undertake precautionary measures.

B) Political Stability: -

As Nelson Mandela recently stated the implication of unilateral action by the US would introduce chaos into the international situation. US lecture the world day and night about the sanctity of the UN, but now she wants to ignore, as it is inconvenient. Such hypocritical behavior was also demonstrated by her refusal to ratify the Kyoto accord and her refusal to join the ICJ (International court of Justice) along with many other examples of US unilateral actions. There is outrage and deep anger in the Islamic world, as Israel has been flouting the UN resolution in the most flagrant manner from her very inception. Such selectivity only reflects the status of UN as a convenient tool of US foreign policy, rather then a genuine international institution. Attacking a sovereign nation without a clear UN mandate would clearly violate the UN charter. Furthermore one can even argue, does the UN charter have any kind of jurisdiction for such a mandate! Can the international community undertake a pre-emptive military action against a sovereign country? Iraqi regime already has an existing case against the US, with regards to the no-fly zone. There is no existing clear UN mandate for it. Hence it is a direct violation of UN charter as the sovereign air space of Iraq is violated on daily basis.

Consequence of pre-emptive strike would also provide a green light to other countries, thus India could also make a pre-emptive nuclear strike against a relatively weak and unstable Pakistan. China could also use similar arguments to act against Taiwan and Japan. Chaos would really flourish.

C) Retaliation: -

If the US can exercise pre-emptive strike against the Islamic world, then surely the same could be expected from the Islamic world in return. The US is clearly perceived as the sole financier of the leading terrorist state called Israel. With whom many major commercial companies on the US have direct or indirect links. Likewise every single US citizen under a certain age is a potential F15 fighter pilot, or a cruise missile operator or CIA assassin and executioner. Hence the Islamic world would also be entitled to take similar pre-emptive measures to cut support for terrorist activities emanating from the US and Israel. Resulting in the perpetual increase in the cycle of violence.

In any case to punish an entire nation for the crimes of a particular regime, which has never been elected or sanctioned by the masses, is a criminal act, to say the least. The notions of a pre-emptive strike, tantamount to acting as judge, jury and executioner over a crime that has not been committed. Hence a pre-emptive strike is merely euphuism for pre-emptive (pre-meditated) murder of the innocents. If Iraq is attacked, the Muslims of world will not forget nor will they forgive.