Justice Weeramantry’s speech at the London University on Thursday, February 27, 2003
Preserving peace at any cost — the need of the hour

We are meeting at a very grave moment in the history of the world. The world is on the brink of a precipice. No one can predict what may happen if one steps beyond the brink. There are many scenarios that can be visualized in regard to what may happen. The best case scenario one can see is a short, sharp war of a few days. That is what we are assured might be possible. But a short, sharp war of a few days can lead to a long, long legacy of generations of bitterness, not to speak of the enormous suffering that it will impose upon tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people. Other possibilities range through to the destruction of civilization and the values we cherish. Once war starts, there is no saying, what levels it might reach and what kind of escalations might take place. And then, the civilizations and the values that have taken thousands of years to establish would be in danger — civilizations and values built upon patient and bitter human suffering for generations and based upon the sacrifice of millions of lives. All of this can be in danger. The matter is very urgent and that is why we have called this meeting at such short notice and in the past few weeks I have strained every nerve to do what I can, to work up opinion in little pockets here and there in relation to the problems that arise in this regard.

These efforts have ranged from appeals addressed to thousands of school children to appeals addressed to international lawyers. At The Hague I was asked to draft a petition which school leaders from a hundred and eighty countries assembled there have signed urging the leaders of the world to follow a course of peace. Thousands of signed copies of that leaflet have been sent to the Secretary General of the United Nations. There is also a general appeal which I have drafted which is on internet. It also so happens that I am currently the President of the International Association of Lawyers against Nuclear Arms. In that capacity we have drafted a document in terms of international law setting out a number of illegalities that would be involved in the proposed course of action. In a matter of a few days this was signed by hundreds of international lawyers across the world and has been presented to the Secretary General of the United Nations. So we are hoping in these small ways, to stir up opinion. We have also sent a legal statement to the Vatican in regard to the legal implications of the present crisis.

So all of these we hope, in their little ways will make some impression upon the minds of people and all this in accumulation along with all the protests of well meaning people across the world may hopefully even at this eleventh hour turn leaders away from what seems to be a course of violence and destruction on which they are bent.

I must make it clear that, there are perhaps a dozen principles of international law which would be violated by the proposed course of action, of unilateral use of force by one or two or three nations against Iraq. I will deal with those in detail later on. These basic principles of international law needs to be widely known. They are not generally known or discussed. And even legislators seem to be unaware of them. It is surprising to see legislators, in so many countries where the Rule of Law is supposedly well established not seeing the obvious illegality of the course to which they are committing their people, very often against their will.

Even in today’s paper I see a headline, an announcement by President Bush that the US can attack Iraq without a new UN resolution. That is what today’s paper carried. The statement is supposed to have been made yesterday. And such a statement, as I said, teems with illegalities and it is somewhat disconcerting that statements of that sort should emanate from the leader of the world’s foremost democracy.

Now whilst saying this by way of criticism , I should also point out, that I am one who has been deeply inspired by the moral and intellectual achievements of America. It emerged in 1776 as a symbol of equality and freedom dedicated to the higher principles of justice, and to the concept of a higher law that rules all nations. It was born of lofty idealisms, and the vision of the founding fathers was a beacon light to the whole world. It was expected to lead the world towards the ideals of equality and freedom for which the United States stood at its inception. Actions such as it envisages at present are a far cry from the high idealisms that prevailed at the time of the foundation of the United States. I feel distressed by America’s present policies particularly because I have had a long, friendly and continuing contact for 35 years with America, its people, its academics and its students, commencing with a very extensive lecture tour of major universities in 1968. In 1976 there was an immense Congress on Equality and Freedom held as one of the events of the bicentennial celebrations which I was asked to address on the ideals of equality and freedom viewed from the stand point of the third world. Since then I have kept up my contact with the United States in very many ways. So I have a great regard for the United States and for its people and that is why I feel especially disturbed by current events, which I believe do not truly reflect the friendliness, the goodwill and the intrinsic goodness of the American people.

Now let me give you some perspectives against the backdrop of world history. In 3000 years of world history it has never occurred that one single nation has been universally looked upon as the world’s leader, the pre eminent power of the world. Not the Egyptians or the Persians or the Romans or the Greeks, not the Portuguese or Spanish or Dutch, not the Germans, the British or the French, not the Indians or the Chinese or the Japanese or anybody else ever had this universal recognition. No nation in history ever had this position, virtually dropping into its lap, of being the universally acknowledged super power of the world. Since it is the first time in human history that this has occurred, imagine the responsibility this throws upon that nation for leading the entire world towards that sunlit plateau of peace and justice and prosperity which is the dream of all the nations. That is the obligation that lies on the United States at this moment. And it is sad to see instead of that moral leadership, a leadership crying out for war.

Against such a panoramic view of history let us look also at certain other ideals, which took 3000 years to establish. For 3000 years war was considered a normal part of the human condition. All through recorded history we know that war was a natural means of resolving disputes. War was a natural extension of diplomacy. Philosophers like Clausewitz, the German philosopher, in fact, taught that the war was a natural extension of diplomacy. And so it was regarded in all the nations, in all the capitals of the world. So it was regarded by all the common people. It was an inevitable evil. It required two World Wars to displace that. It required two World Wars to establish the Charter of United Nations and for the first time, war was declared illegal, through the Charter of the United Nations, subject to very minor limitations, which I will deal with. The basic principle of the illegality of war never known before was thus established for the first time, after 3000 years of struggles, tribulations and sacrifice. Now that principle is in danger.

Even before World War II, after World War I, when they were trying to establish a permanent Court of International Justice the Belgian delegate at Versailles, speaking on behalf of the small nations of the world made a plaintive lament, when he said — "Ladies and Gentlemen, we have assembled here to create a better world order, a better world order for which millions of young men sacrificed their lives. What are we doing here? It is only a travesty of justice. We are creating only the pale shadow of what they died for." He said, "I do not have the oratorical skills of a Demosthenes or a Cicero. But bear with me for one moment. Preserve silence in this room. And from that window you will hear the sound of wailing and mourning. What is that. That is the wailing and mourning of the wives and mothers of our best young men who sacrificed their lives to give us a better world. Preserve silence for just another moment and you will hear from the other window another sound of wailing and mourning. And what is that. That is the wailing and mourning of our best and brightest young men who gave their lives to give us a better world. What are we doing here. We are betraying their memory if we do not create a better world order."

That was said at Versailles after World War I. But the world rarely learns lessons. And they could not establish a viable League of Nations. Even though the President of America, Woodrow Wilson, in his idealism, suggested the League, America did not support the League and the League failed. Had America given it the necessary support, it might have averted World War II. But they had to have World War II and sacrifice many more millions of lives before they established the UN Charter at San Francisco. And there for the first time, war was declared outlawed. Now that is the principle, that is in danger now. A principle that took millions of lives to establish. And we are therefore at a very, very seminal moment in world history if that principle is in danger.

Take again the establishment of the United Nations. As I just observed even the League of Nations could not succeed and it required World War II to establish a Council of the World where all the nations could meet on a footing of equality and discuss the affairs of the world as a Council of all the nations. This again was achieved for the first time in world history after 3000 years of effort and sacrifice. That institution is also in danger. So these are the factors that make us all as citizens of the world consider what is afoot at the present moment and do what we can each in our own small way to avoid what can be a tragedy of gargantuan proportions.

The Charter of the United Nations is drafted very clearly, with certain major purposes in view. The Preamble sets out the scope of the Charter and gives us the way in which the Charter is to be understood. And this is how the Preamble starts — We, the Peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war which twice in our life time has brought untold sorrow to mankind — those are the key words which set the framework of the entire Charter. And any interpretation of a Charter provision has to be in the light of that pre eminent principle and objective of the United Nations. And what are its purposes?

Article 1 — Paragraph 1. To maintain international peace and security. And to that end to take effective, collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression , for other breaches of the peace and to bring about by peaceful means — and these world are very important — "and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law" the adjustment and settlement of international disputes.

The importance of these words can be seen when we remind ourselves that they were not contained in the original Dumbarton Oaks draft but were deliberately inserted into the Charter before it was finally adopted because it was thought that otherwise the powers of the Security Council would be excessive. There is too often a tendency to forget the debates that preceded the inclusion of this phrase and hence overlook its importance.

One of the submissions I will be making to you is that whatever we read anywhere, about Security Council resolutions and so forth, everything that is done in the United Nations has to be done within the framework of the Preamble and within the framework of Article 1, Paragraph 1. In other worlds, it must be in conformity with the principles of justice and international law.

In my days as a judge of the International Court I had occasion, in more than one of my separate judgments, to draw attention to this fact, because there were cases where it was argued, as in the NATO case and in the Lockerbie Case — and I took exception to that in the judgments that I wrote — that the Security Council is the final arbiter of matters in relation to war and peace. I there articulated very clearly the proposition, that the Security Council itself is the creature of the UN Charter. The Security Council can therefore function only in terms of the UN Charter. And even a hundred resolutions of the Security Council cannot break through these words of the Charter. Whatever is done, must be in conformity with the principles of justice and international law. I shall show you presently a dozen principles of international law which will be violated by the proposed action and even the Security Council cannot authorize it, because if it authorizes it, well, it is going contrary to the Charter.

So that is the background against which I would like to address these various arguments to you.

But before I do so, may I refresh your mind about what some leaders of the past have said.

This is what President Kennedy said: Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind.

General McArthur: The very destructiveness of war to friend and foe makes it useless as a means of settling international disputes.

General Eisenhower: (And who knew war better than General McArthur and Eisenhower?) I speak as one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war. As one who knows that another war could utterly destroy the civilization that has been slowly and painfully built over thousands of years.

General Sherman, a great figure in American history: It is only those who have never fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.

And Dag Hammarskjold: War has always seemed to me the ultimate insanity. Violence and war are against my religious beliefs, my sense of morality and my commonsense.

Also if I may give just one more, in the context of the nuclear age in which we are, since there is no saying to what extent there will be an escalation of weaponry in this nuclear age. This is what Henry Kissinger said — and Henry Kissinger is looked upon as one of the architects of American foreign policy — The economy of the Middle Ages was far less productive than our own but it was exceedingly complex. It would not be within the capacity of people in our time suddenly to establish a medieval economic system in the ruins of their twentieth century one. Sitting among the debris of the space age they would find the pieces of a shattered modern economy around them. Here an automobile, there a washing machine, mismatched in their elemental needs, they would not be worrying about rebuilding the automobile industry or the electronics industry. They would be worrying about how to find non radio active berries in the woods. Or how to tell, which trees have edible barks. That is what would happen if there is a nuclear war. You cannot rule out the use of weapons of mass destruction in the current situation.

Now then, what are the obvious practical consequences of war? Let us look at these before we get on to the legal arguments — Lets look at a common sense view of war. The bulk of casualties will be civilians, because in modern war an increasing proportion of casualties are civilians. The population of Baghdad is 5 million. Even an extremely limited Kosovo war cost 500 civilians killed. In Afghanistan, even a Red Cross building clearly marked with a Red Cross symbol was attacked. Several wedding parties were destroyed. It is said that if there is a war now it will be a much more intensive bombing than took place in the Gulf War. In 1991 in the first 24 hours, there were 150 strategic targets that were attacked. It is said, if there is a war now, within a matter of minutes, not 150, but 500 strategic targets would be attacked. There is a talk of bombs, 300 missiles going out every day. Now imagine what that would do to a city with a population of 5 million people. There was talk in 1991 of smart bombs, but those bombs were not so smart. They killed a number of civilians and in any event it has later been revealed, that of the bombs used in the Gulf War only one out of ten was a so called smart bomb.

And there is a huge proportion of children in Iraq’s population — one estimate placed it as 50% of children — and these will be the targets of attack when the attack takes place. Not of course deliberately, but they are what in the euphemism of military language is called "collateral damage". That’s a very nice euphemism. It papers over the real damage that is being done. Collateral damage will be done, but in real terms it means the deaths of tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent harmless men, women and children and mind you the claim against Iraq is that it is a dictatorship. Now if it is a dictatorship, the people of Iraq are not responsible for what the dictator does. So the people then are suffering for no fault of their own. And as I said earlier, if there is quick victory within 5 days, there will be five generations at least of anger and bitterness. These are common sense observations. Anybody could understand how true they are. It is also a common sense observation that war is easy to enter into but difficult to stop. You can enter into war in a matter of days and hours. It will take you months or years to unravel the damage that has been done and to get out with some degree of honour.

Then again, there are the unpredictable ramifications of war. You start a war in any region; every country has friends and enemies. Those friends and enemies get drawn in and the battle escalates. New participants are drawn in, participants in the hostilities, and you can never say where it will end. This is particularly so, in a powder keg like the Middle East, a volatile background against which anything can happen. And there are so many different loyalties in that part of the world and so many fuses that can be lit. Little sparks can ignite quite a tornado if we do not watch this situation and there is no think tank, however clever, however well armed with information, anywhere in the world which can anticipate all these events.