THE WAR ON TERROR and THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

The mere possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) is not necessarily considered as a terrorist act. In fact, according to Arms Trade Oversight Project, US is the largest supplier of conventional weapons. This tells us that even the state that questions the possession of weapons of other states also has weapons of mass destruction. In answer to this, we would often hear from the news that the US's possession of weapons is not a threat to international peace and security; that the threat to peace is not on the possession but on the use of weapons. Hence, there is an assumption that the states that are being questioned due to WMDs will use these weapons in a future aggression.

Aggression is a terrorist move. By arguing that the states in question will soon resort to aggression, states like US and its allies have received a worldwide support, with the thinking that these states are performing terrorism. However, it does not mean that if the US has considered these states as terrorists, then they are indeed terrorists. Terrorism is a relative term; we call those who we support as freedom fighters while those we abhor as terrorists. In this case, those that US considers as resorting to terrorist moves have never been allies of the US.

The declaration of war against one country is being permitted in the UN Charter provided that it is for self-defense. US is justified in its war against Iraq if and only if it is done for self-defense and not merely an aggression. However, this may only be done if it would be proven that the purported terrorist attacks in the US were indeed responsibilities of Iraq. Only if it would be proven that Iraq, as a state, played a major role in the terrorist attacks in the US would the US be justified in its military operations in Iraq. In its claim that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, US saw Iraq as a potential adversary. This had legitimized the war on terror as an anticipatory self-defense.

Assuming, but never conceding, that Iraq has indeed the weapons of mass destruction, US is acting as a hero in international politics. Legally speaking, the use of force against a state in the absence of proof of an attack is impermissible. But US's use of force in Iraq has a historical precedence. US President George W. Bush claimed a right of 'pre-emptive action' against potential adversaries in order to prevent any attack just like what Austria-Hungary had done in Serbia. If Iraq is indeed a potential adversary, US had/have been only securing the peace in international community. However, this is only under the assumption that Iraq is a potential adversary that will use its purported WMDs in threatening international peace and security. Until now, US have not proven to the world the existence of these weapons. As a corollary, there is a perception that the US is only acting upon its self-interest; that it only hopes to invade Iraq for its own purpose. And as consequence of the war on terror, human rights of Iraqis (i.e. right to life, etc.) have been violated.

It is quite questionable that the US immediately declared a war on terror against Iraq even though there is no enough evidence that the latter has WMDs when it had not done any serious actions towards the North Korea, which evidently has nuclear weapons. Furthermore, the UN Charter would only permit the use of force (or in this case, war) if peaceful means have been exhausted. However, there seems to be no peaceful means that have been exhausted by the United States.

In cases of Iran and North Korea, however, sanctions were imposed (but a war on terror was not declared) in order to stop nuclear program. As aforementioned, there is an assumption that this nuclear program is a threat to peace. Sanctions against Iran date back to 1979. Sanctions against North Korea were just recently imposed. North Korea is pressured to give up its pursuit of WMDs in the hope to give its people a better future. Some of the sanctions being imposed were the ban on trade of military equipment with North Korea and a ban on trade of luxury goods.
I agree with the UN's moves to impose sanctions on North Korea, as nuclear tests may be dangerous, not only to the people of North Korea, but also to the people of its neighboring countries. The North Korea itself is manifesting acts of aggression, hence making UNSC's (United Nations Security Council) sanctions against it warranted. However, the imposition of sanctions is warranted if and only if the members of the Security Council will take into account that they are not merely punishing the state but also helping the state. It may be the case that the imposed sanctions are so severe that they soon lead to the disadvantage of the people of the sanctioned state.

If we were to be completely just, US also needs to be sanctioned in its war of aggression against Iraq. It may not serve as a potential adversary to its allies but it does to countries that are not part of its allies. There is no need to use Bush's justification on right to 'pre-emptive action' because there is a clear evidence of attack against Iraq. Perhaps, instead of asking the legality behind the use of force, it would be better to ask whether this use of force is necessary. Let me give four reasons for proving the non-necessity and wrong-ness of the 'war on terror':
1. Aside from being extrajudicial (use of force against a state in the absence of proof of aggression is not permitted in UN Charter), the absence of proof of the existence of WMDs in Iraq cannot warrant a war that is declared due to the existence of WMDs.
2. The absence of proof of the existence of WMDs in Iraq cannot justify the claim that Iraq is a potential adversary that can use WMDs in terrorism.
3. The inability to find proof of existence of WMDs in Iraq after years of 'war on terror' cannot warrant the continuance of this 'war on terror'.
4. The argument that there is a need to democratize Iraq does not justify the war on terror because 'war on terror' is declared due to the alleged existence of WMDs and not for the purpose of democratization.