War is Peace

Karl-Heinz Kamp, head of the Department for Planning and Fundamental Questions of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation is the memo's author. The Frankfurter Rundschau, considered leftwing liberal and associated with the red-green federal government, documented the whole paper.

The German ,,security expert" argues that the UN Charter's ban, under international law and with the primacy of national sovereignty, against military intervention, has been softened for years: ,,Already in 1999, NATO conducted a war of aggression against the regime of Slobodan Milosevic without a mandate of the Security Council and without an immediate military threat by Serbia which would have justified preventive self defense." The thought of a ,,right to preemptive defense" increasingly finds an ever broadening international response.¹⁾ The point is ,,to newly define the understanding of 'defense"', in order to justify formerly prohibited first military strikes: ,,While preemption as an aspect of immediate defense against danger can be quite legitimate, a preemptive war which uses precaution to achieve one's interests by military means, generally is difficult to justify".

Attack equals defense...

Kamp demands a ,,new realignment of the partially outdated interpretation of international law", which breaks with the ,,primacy of national sovereignty" and legitimizes ,,preemptive military deployments". The formal interpretation of international law which protects each state from external intervention, must be replaced by the ,,mechanism of interpretation and assessment" of the various basic values of international law. Such values as ,,respect for elementary human rights", the ,right of self determination of nations" and the ,,protection of basic living conditions" would be in competition with the prohibition of intervention which thus could be overridden according to ,,discretion and judgment". According to Kamp, ,,hegemony states would inevitably be favored because they have the appropriate political, military and legal instruments at their disposal to gain attention for their interpretation."

The German ,,security expert" wants to craft the basis for the ,,legitimacy of preemptive actions" as broadly as possible. A preventive war should not have to be justified solely due to ,,danger from weapons of mass destruction" or ,,humanitarian requirements": ,,In an extreme case, it would also be conceivable to justify intervention for the protection of basic living conditions when, for example, an ecologically irresponsible dam project or an unsafe nuclear plant near a border, poses a vital threat."

... with every means

Once general authority for ,,preventive" wars of aggression has gained acceptance, the complete military arsenal should become available. According to Kamp, the spectrum of possible ,,options for preemptive actions" is considerably broader than the predominantly discussed ,,full scale military action against a state". Likewise, non-military or ,,semi-military" actions against governments as well as non-political protagonists would be conceivable. These could take place within states or, perhaps, in international waters and include the disruption of lines of communications, the raising of ships, extensive blockades or sabotage activities. These could be carried out by regular armed forces, ,,special forces" or secret services: ,,Even nuclear preemption is, at least theoretically, a conceivable option."

1) See also earlier articles Plans for Action and EU Strategy: ,,Preemptive Wars", worldwide

See also earlier article In Love - War

Source:
Vorbeugende Militaereinsaetze (Preemptive Strikes). Arbeitspapier/Dokumentation Nr. 120/2004; www.kas.de
Die Bedrohung bekaempfen, bevor sie akut wird. Die internationale Politik muss eine Debatte ueber die voelkerrechtliche Zulaessigkeit von Praeventivschlaegen fuehren; Frankfurter Rundschau 04.02.2004