

Since I have been living in Germany I hear more than the usual, North American level of criticism of George W. Bush’s actions in invading Iraq. I first realized the German position shortly after September 11, 2001, while at a party at the University of Constance, in the south west corner of Germany on the border with Switzerland. A political science student was emphatically lecturing me on the dangers of America invading Afganistan without waiting for the consensus of the United Nations. Later I also recognized this also a popular French opinion. I don’t like politics too much; I don’t like hearing all the lies behind the real reasons leaders of countries do things. Nor am I going to criticize either side (European or American) because I think they’re both right on many points, the Europeans are right to be nervous about a trigger happy crusading America, and America has perspectives and interests to look out for at home.
Rather, I would like to comment on a popular phrase being thrown around in the media and on University campuses across Europe, Canada and America. This accusation is that the invasion of Iraq is an “Illegal War”. The fact such an accusation can be made strikes me as something atrocious because it implies that there would, under some circumstances be a legal war. What would a legal war look like anyway? A big country with lots of firepower rolls into a little one and holds up a court order saying “We are aloud to kill everyone of you that resists us”. I mean, what is the world coming to? Apparently some people, the UN included, believe it can say when it is legal for countries to kill each other and when it is not.
More likely however, since big countries just ignore the UN, these laws would protect a little country’s rights. What would this look like? Little country armed with horses and swords approaches bigger country’s borders and reads the UN’s order that this war is legal. The border guard pulls out his reading glasses and studies the international court order and says “well I was going to blow you guys away, but according to this order you are legally allowed to kill anyone who stands in your way”. He ponders for a few seconds looks around, embarrassed that he is now the bad guy when minutes before he was convince his cause was right. He says “if you would just give me a minute to deactivate the nuclear warhead aimed for you capital I will come back and then you can kill me and continue pillaging my country. I wouldn’t want to mess with the United Nations since our country has a policy of strict cooperation with the UN.”
But because a legal war implies that both sides are legally allowed to defend themselves, perhaps a legal war would look more like a soccer match, with the UN providing the referees. Kofi Annan, dressed in black and white, starts out the match between the two enemies ready to kill each other. “OK, now I want this to be a good clean match. Anyone using chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons will get an immediate red card and be kicked out of the game. As well this will be an equal opportunity war, women and minorities should be given equal time in the fight. And I don’t want to see you surrounding your men with women and children again Sadam! Each side will provide 12 months of maternity and paternity leave to all players. Up to a maximum of 15 sick days per year will be allowed to each player. Play will be halted during religious holidays; Easter, Christmas, Ramadan, Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, Rakhi, Uposatha and Chairman Mao’s birthday. Wounded will receive adequate pensions and free tuition for their children to Universities. At the end of 1.5 years, the side with the most people left, that haven’t been lost to red cards, yellow cards, maternity leave, wounded, dead, retired or gone back to school to upgrade their education, will be declared the winner. Now let’s have a fair, safe war!”
I guess you would have the hooligans too, making up chants for each side; “Ai-O….. Ai-O Ai-O Ai-O…..”. You might need to hire a police force to control the fans. Maybe there would be trading allowed too, or a beginning of season draft pick, with the most promising young men or women going to the highest bidder. Of course, there would have to be UN subsidizing for poorer countries that couldn’t afford the best fighters. Or maybe the worst performing countries from the year before could get the first draft pick.
Seriously though, I think every war represents a failure of humanity to communicate and understand one another properly. In every conflict, all outside efforts possible should be made to bring peace through diplomacy and peace keeping forces, if invited. To say that one war is illegal, however, implies that there is such a thing as a legal war. Tragedies happen, but who decides when a war is legal or not? Such a statement teeters very close to a global tyranny that none of us would invite. Although war is a tragedy, it is sometimes the only way a people can defend themselves and live, or die, free. I hope that the people who believe they (or anyone else for them) can decide when a war is legal or not, never gain real power, because their rules, backed by military forces, would become too oppressive.
Unity, the core purpose of the United Nations, is an ideal, and something that all people should work towards. In reality it is hard work and sometimes goes backwards, but legislation and policing, alone, does not lead to unity. Through legislation you end up with an absurd and cruel concept that someone can say when a war is legal. Therefore you people that say that this war is illegal, consider carefully what you are saying. You could be shaping a governing body that will one day dictate that your fight is illegal when your turn to defend your freedom arrives.