Pre-emptive strikes are wrong

Why the doctrine of pre-emptive strikes is wrong

Stuart Yates

Since the invasion of Afghanistan the US has declared that pre-emptive strikes against states which she deems pose a threat to the US are justifiable. Not even at the height of the Cold War was such a doctrine held to be justified: both the US and the Soviet Union agreed a 'no first strike' policy in the interests of world peace. In other words, Soviet missiles had to be actually on their way to the US before the US regarded it as legitimate to launch its own weapons. Any state that claims to be halfway civilised would eschew a first-strike policy: this is why the military arms of government always go by the name of 'Ministry of Defence' etc. It would not do to have the name 'Ministry of Attack'. So the presumption is that armed forces are there to defend the country, not to attack others. Attacking another country can only be justified if it is in defence of one's own country.

So one's country has to be threatened before it can be justifiable to attack another country and it almost goes without saying, but needs to be said at these times, that the country attacked is the one which is doing the threatening. There has to be a credible threat i.e. A threat which is capable of being carried out and which is either being already carried out or which is so imminent that timing is critical. Defending oneself, as an individual, is also subject to the 'use of reasonable and proportionate' force rule and I would argue that this should also apply to states. In the same way that it is unreasonable to shoot someone who accidentally jostles you, so it would be unreasonable to launch nuclear weapons against a neighbouring state which is merely trying to extend marginally some disputed territory.

So, in order to be justified in attacking another state which is not presently attacking your state, it needs to be shown

1. that your state is in real and imminent danger

2. that the timing of an attack is crucial and

3. the force used is reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.

There is a fourth justification which is not applicable to individuals but is applicable to states. A mutual defence treaty enables a state to attack another state which is itself attacking a state with which there is a defence treaty.

It could be argued (assuming that the US was duty bound by treaty) that the first 'Gulf War' was justified by this fourth condition as there is absolutely no doubt that Iraq invaded Kuwait. Did these conditions however apply in the most recent attacks on other states by the US and UK 'coalitions' - Afghanistan and Iraq?

In the case of Afghanistan there was no threat at all from the Afghan state itself. Terrorists which the US claimed (and claim) were based in Afghanistan were regarded by the US to be responsible for the September 11th attack. Negotiations between the US and Afghan governments failed to resolve this issue even though it appears that the Afghan government distanced itself from Osama bin Laden, offering first to refer Osama bin Laden to either an Afghan Court or to alternative Islamic jurisdiction, then to ensuring that he left Afghanistan. However dissembling that might have been, at one level it is reasonable for a sovereign state to request evidence before handing over a foreign citizen to a hostile power, especially when we take the Islamic tradition of hospitality and the religious tensions inherent in the situation into account. As for the original opinion that it was obvious that Osama bin Laden was responsible for September 11th and that the attack came from Afghan-based training camps, well, the evidence is mounting that September 11th was sourced from Germany. In any case, it is by no means proven that September 11th was funded, supported and carried out under the direction of the Afghan government.

Furthermore, horrific as September 11th was, it was not an attack on the US state, an attack which threatened the very existence of the state. In other words, even if it were proven that Afghanistan was behind the attack, we have to apply the 'reasonable and proportionate' rule to any military response. If we take a UK example, there was never any justification in the face of continuing terrorist attacks in Northern Ireland and the mainland to attack 'terrorist bases' and the whole infrastructure of the Republic of Ireland. I am sure that such a course was never considered for a moment by any British government.

The invasion and occupation of Afghanistan was therefore not justified in terms of an existing and imminent threat. It could only be justified in defensive terms on the possibility of future threats. There are more ways of preventing future terrorist threats than high altitude daisy cutter and cluster bombing.

Iraq is a different case but I believe war was not justified here either. Here indeed was a potential or actual threat from a state, but who was Saddam Hussein threatening, with what and over what timescale? Moreover, did Iraq pose a threat to the two countries which actually invaded - the US and UK? Hardly. So a possible justification might have been an obligation under a treaty to protect another country already under attack or under imminent threat. The only candidate for this is Israel but any references to invading Iraq in order to save Israel have been muted to say the least, for very obvious reasons. In any case, Israel was not in the same position as Kuwait, and Israel has made it clear that if attacked, she will not hesitate to use nuclear weapons. In the raid on the Iraqi nuclear capability Israel also made it plain that she could cope with any Iraqi threat.

It seems that the now-infamous '45 minute' claim in the UK dossier was an attempt fulfil the imminent threat requirement and that the farrago of intelligence on weapons of mass destruction was designed to hype up the size of an Iraqi threat. We now know that any WMD were so well hidden (if they existed at all) that not even the Iraqis can get hold of them, either to stem the invasion or to use against the occupying forces now. In retrospect the 45 minute claim would be laughable if it were not tragic.

The 'reasonable and proportionate' rule has also been well and truly exceeded in Iraq as in Afghanistan: in each country far more civilians have been killed than died on September 11th (and will continue to be killed by for example cluster bombs, let alone the occupying forces). The terrorism of September 11th can never be justified, but, unless the accepted reasons for invading another country are met, violent state response to terrorism is itself terrorism. In my book, state terrorism is worse than individual terrorism, hence my continuing stance not only this issue but on the Middle East.

Pre-emptive strikes not meeting the conditions outlined above do not form part of a civilised world order. They meet only the following criteria: 'I am stronger than you, I believe I am right and you are wrong, you will not agree with me or do what I say, so I am justified in forcing you to agree or do as I say'. When you see it like this, the parallel of the man who batters his wife comes to mind. George Bush and Tony Blair are doing the political equivalent of battering their wives.

September 2003