War against Iraq, An Evil Example for Pre-emptive Strike

Home>>Opinion

Last updated at: (Beijing Time) Thursday, March 27, 2003

War against Iraq, An Evil Example for Pre-emptive Strike

The action taken by the US this time for pre-emptive strike is in violation of the aim and principle of the Charter of the United Nations, having damaged the rules of the international law and norms for international behavior coming into being after World War II. What is even worse is that the armed attack has set an evil example, possibly to break a path for other countries to follow the bad example.

DISCUSSION

CHINESE

SEND TO FRIEND

For several days after the outbreak of the war in Iraq one sees conflagrations at night and thick smokes over above the sky of Baghdad with scores of common people killed and wounded. The peace loving people the world over, are yelling that the US army must at once put a stop to the war.

The originally avoidable war has not only brought great sufferings, causing losses of lives of properties to the area along the two river reaches and the whole Middle East but what is more effected a great damage to the norms of civilization practiced in the existing international relations, and further to effect serious consequences in international relations and orders in the new century.

The war launched by the US upon Iraq is not only a big challenge and damage to the authority and reputation of the UN but also an example in actuality for pre-emptive strike.

Judging from the wars in human history, the attack of pre-emptive strike is usually seen at the initial stage when an unjust war is going to break out. It's not difficult for people to call to mind how the Germany kicked off the blitz war against the USSR and Japan's raid of the Pearl Harbor.

It was because of the great casualties and serious losses enacted by World War II on the mankind that the predecessors of statesmen created the United Nations and worked out the norms governing the international relations and for all countries of the world to abide by so as to avoid the repetition of the tragedy in history.

The action taken by the US this time for pre-emptive strike is in violation of the aim and principle of the Charter of the United Nations, having damaged the rules of the international law and norms for international behavior coming into being after World War II. What is even worse is that the armed attack has set an evil example, possibly to break a path for other countries to follow the bad example.

At the end of last year, Howard, Prime minister of Australia followed closely behind Bush, saying that Australia also had the right to take the action for pre-emptive strike. He even went a step further than Bush by saying that the UN Charter has now gone out-dated, need to be modified so as to allow member countries of the UN to go over to other countries for hitting terrorism. (What Prime Minister Howard said has just proved the fact, even he himself also thought that pre-emptive strike is not in conformity with the relevant rules of the UN Charter.) His address roused the moment out of his mouth a great protest in the Southeast Asian countries.

On the 13th of last February an officer with the Japan Coastal Guard also stated that if DPRK were found to make nuclear bombs Japan would "take the initiative to strike first". Since Japan hasn't so far been able to face squarely with its aggressive war in history his belligerent words had naturally incited the uneasiness and protests of its Asian neighbors. In view of the fact, once the US strategy of pre-emptive strike is taken by other countries to follow suit, it will bring a serious consequence of destructiveness to the world order.

Therefore, France, Russia, Germany and China together with the most of the countries in the world are against the war. It is in view of maintaining the norms of the order for a civilized social community in the present-day world, and in view of maintaining the general situation of peace and security of the world.

The argument, judging from a strategic point, has things to do with the general tendency of the international community and what a world order is going to be established after the ending of the cold war era. It is a question of whether to put up a unilateral world or a multilateral world, to build up a democratized world order or a world order allowing power politics to run wild.

If a country is allowed to go unlawfully and to do whatever it likes by resorting to its super-military powers or a strong country allowed to "take the initiative by striking first" against a weak country without being condemned, this would mean that the UN is in existence in name only and the international law a piece of waste paper. And so there is no world order at all. The jungle law of the weak being the prey to the strong will once again get the upper hand.

However, people of the world are of course not hoping that the world order will return to the times of "might being right". This is one of the important reasons why the far-sighted personages all over the world are all against the war.

By People's Daily Online

Questions?Comments? Click here

War Situation Impacts Psychology of Americans

Experts: Consequence of the Iraq War Is Worrying

>> Full Coverage

The US Must Not Put Pressure On the UN ( 3 Messages)

Saddam Vows to Globalize War if Attacked ( 5 Messages)

China's Z11 Helicopters Get Green Light for Civilian Use ( 5 Messages)

New Premier Comes from Grass Roots ( 2 Messages)

China Hopes War can be Avoided: FM ( 3 Messages)