JCP Shii criticizes Bush doctrine of war against Iraq

Japanese Communist Party Executive Committee Chair Shii Kazuo appeared on an ASAHI NEWSTAR TV program broadcast on October 10 and discussed in detail the dangerous character of the U.S. Bush administration's new war strategy and its military attack plan against Iraq. Following is a gist of the interview:

Q: The U.S. government on September 20 published the U.S. National Security Strategy report. The new U.S. strategy is referred to as the Bush doctrine, which contains important issues. It will also have an important bearing on U.S. policy toward North Korea. The JCP has consistently examined U.S. strategies and policies. Now, how do you analyze this new U.S. strategy?

Shii: The Bush doctrine has been formulated through the Defense Report (August) and the National Security Strategy (September). The new doctrine openly adopts a preemptive attack strategy.

In the past, the United States carried out preemptive attacks on several occasions, against Grenada and Panama for example. In these attacks, the United States explained to the world that its military action was in compliance with international law. This time, however, the U.S. openly declares a policy of preemptive attacks. The "defeat before defeated" concept has become the basis of U.S. global policy, which is dangerous and incompatible with the U.N. Charter.

The U.N. Charter only allows member countries to use force for self-defense in response to an invasion until the U.N. takes necessary steps. But the U.S. now allows itself to carry out a preemptive attack against countries the United States doesn't like. Such an attitude will promote lawlessness in the world.

If such an unjustifiable behavior is condoned in the world, every country will have to deal with foreign policies on the assumption that preemptive attacks are things to consider. It's a completely wrong course going back to the jungle law era, I think.

Preemptive attack violates Article 51 of U.N. Charter

Q: In the Bush doctrine, "self-defense" includes "preemptive actions." Do you think the idea is dangerous?

Shii: The doctrine uses the word, "preemptive actions." However, asked if "preemptive actions" includes "preemptive attacks," U.S. officials have said, "Yes." "Preemptive actions" is a broader concept than "preemptive attacks," but the core of the idea is preemptive military attacks, as U.S. officials admitted. The idea is in contravention of international law.

Q: Does the doctrine say that preemptive attacks are within the right of self-defense?

Shii: The right of self-defense, according to Article 51 of the U.N Charter, means that nations can use the right only after they are invaded or attacked by other nations. Therefore, preemptive attacks completely conflict with the U.N. Charter.

Q: In the past, Japan invaded other countries alleging that the attacks were in self-defense. What should Japan do to deal with the issue of Iraq?

'Fight against terrorism' cannot be used to justify an attack on Iraq

Shii: Japan's government should decisively oppose a U.S. attack on Iraq and make clear that it won't cooperate with the war. There is no good reason for the U.S. to strike Iraq.

First of all, the "fight against terrorism" cannot be the reason for attacking Iraq.

The JCP opposed the U.S. retaliatory war on Afghanistan. At that time, the U.S. government, considering the terrorist attacks on the United States as "armed attacks," insisted that the war on Afghanistan was a "counterattack for self-defense."

This time around, since the Bush administration cannot show any evidences that connects Iraq with al-Qaida, it cannot justify its attack on Iraq by using the rhetoric of "terrorism."

The U.S. is interfering with U.N.-Iraq Agreement on inspections

Second, the issue of weapons of mass destruction is a problem that should be settled through negotiations by parties concerned, a matter that should not be settled by war.

Under U.N. Security Council Resolution 687, which dealt with the cease-fire of the Gulf War, the Iraqi government has promised the international world to destroy its weapons of mass destruction. Consequently, Iraq has due responsibility to completely implement the 687 resolution.

A forward-looking agreement was reached on October 1 between Iraqi officials and Hans Blix, United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) chair, on inspections based on Resolution 687. All Middle East countries welcomed this as did the rest of the world.

However, just when the U.N. and Iraq agreed on inspections, the U.S. began demanding that the U.N. Security Council make a new resolution for compulsory inspections of Iraq, and that if Iraq rejects this, use of force will be allowed. This is an unreasonable demand that Iraq can hardly accept.

The U.S. also calls for a halt to the already agreed inspections until a new U.N. resolution is made. The country resisting U.N. inspections on Iraq is not Iraq but the U.S. itself.

Now that the U.N-Iraq agreement on a political settlement is made on this issue, steps be taken for inspections to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Any paths to war must definitely be avoided.

Q: You mean resorting to arms should be avoided even if Iraq makes an inadequate response to the inspections, if enacted, and the U.N. council adopts a new U.S.-proposed resolution?

Shii: There will be various possible results if the inspection agreement is enacted and the U.N. takes new steps, if needed.

Generally speaking, the question of possession or abolition of weapons of mass destruction should not be settled by war. This is a matter which needs to be solved through political negotiations.

Thousands of people in Baghdad will be killed by a massive war, a war waged to destroy weapons of mass destruction. Imagine that the war on Iraq escalates to Palestine and Israel and on to a major regional war, who can deny the possible use of weapons of mass destruction in these wars?

Therefore, the question of Iraq needs to be settled through political negotiations by the international community. (end)