The causes that animate the "invisible wars" as well as the "preventive wars" are various. The means used by some States (relevant case, the United States of GWBush) have evolved (¿) progressively, from the “gunboat diplomacy” to the active and predominant action of indiscriminate air “raids” against strategic objectives of the attacked country, without any consideration for the innocent civilian population.
To all this is added the psychological weapon, which acts on the enemy by modifying his point of view on the conflict, putting pressure on him as well as other groups linked or dependent on any of the opposing actors.
When analyzing the situation in the Middle East, it can be seen that world geopolitical change is part of a continuous process, not easy to predict its end. The guidelines are revealed to us looking back, from the end of the Second World War and, later, of the Cold War. But current events could be described as the prelude to a Third World War, with very particular and subtle characteristics.
This is how various essays have pointed out: "The Clash of Civilizations" (Huntington); "The war of the XXI century" (L. Thurow); “The empire and the new barbarians” () JCRufin); "The great world board" (Z. Brzezinski); "Interview on the XXI century" (E. Hobsbawm); "Geopolitics of chaos" (Le monde diplomatique).
The international system
A first perspective to be achieved lies in reaching a set of approaches that could be grouped under the title of International System: studies concerned with discerning and specifying the rules of operation, permanence and change, which will configure the form of organization of the world order, of which so much is said but that is not defined. In my opinion, the problem lies in the interpretations that various sectors give to the meaning of international relations.
1.- Economists, concerned with trade and the international monetary system or with the interdependence of national economies in a global market, generally abiding by the rules of the IMF or the World Bank or the WTO, these agencies depend on the Bilderberg club.
2.- Hegemonic investment groups, who understand that the basic configuration notes of the international system are the modalities by which the economic organization of production and the hegemony or prevalence of their particular interests are established -on a planetary scale.
3.- Historians - such as Toybee, Huntington, Fukuyama - who envision in History a unity that can be captured by means of the comparison of civilizations.
4.- The jurists, who construct the Law of Peoples from the notion of international community.
5.- The interpretations of political scientists of the most varied inclinations –traditionalist or quantitivist- who see decentralization and the individual distribution of power among sovereign units as a basic characteristic of the international system, whose competence characterizes the specificity and dynamics of life world.
From diplomatic approach to aggression
From the creation of the League of Nations to the constitution of the current United Nations - both created after the two great world conflicts - international society has not yet obtained a consensus to correctly and humanely define the scope of the term AGGRESSION and, to be able to conclude on its intrinsic content.
Although the issue was permanently included on the agenda of the UN General Assembly, at a certain point a compromise was reached: creating a special committee to deal with the question of the definition of aggression. This term, for some countries, included exclusively military aspects; for others, they added typifying elements of economic and ideological aggression. It was not until the meetings of March-April 1974 that the Committee was able to present a draft resolution to the General Assembly, which was accepted at the XXIX session of 1974.
What is "aggression" for the UN? "
Article 2 of United Nations Resolution 3314 (XXIX) establishes:
“The first use of armed force by a State, in contravention of the Charter, will constitute“ prima facie ”evidence of an act of aggression, although the Security Council may conclude in accordance with the Charter that the determination that it has been committed an act of aggression would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts in question or their consequences are not serious enough ”.
Are not under this concept the actions of the United States in the former Yugoslavia, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Grenada, in support of Israel against Lebanon and Palestine? To cite some notorious and current cases.
The agreed definition - but not applied by the UN - was the product of a combination of the objective and subjective elements of the projects presented, which, far from being contradictory, are complementary. The three previous projects for the definition of AGGRESSION were elevated by a) the then Soviet Union; b) by the so-called Group of 13 (Cyprus, Colombia, Czech-Slovakia, Ecuador, Spain, Ghana, Guyana, Haiti, Madagascar, Mexico, Uganda and Uruguay); and c) by six western countries (Australia, Canada, the United States, Italy, England and Japan).
Added or combined the objective and subjective elements, the definition of Resolution 3314 (XXIX) indicates that aggression is a violation of International Law that results from the performance of certain prohibited acts. I believe that prior to the qualification act, an objective analytical study of the causes that led to such effects should be carried out. To cite some situation: in the US war against Iraq, such as Israel's invasion of Lebanon or Palestine, there are underlying economic, strategic and particular and global motivations, as well as internal politics. But the two cases cited have different characteristics.
Whatever the possible combinations of forces. Constellations diplomatiques ”, Raymond Aron would say, the current international model is not yet in a position to solve in a definitive and favorable way for world society, the problem of aggression, given that the global institutional apparatus, It has been demonstrating its inability to enter the preserve of the great powers. It gives the feeling that you have great fears.
Demonstration of the failure of the Security Council, with the use and misuse of the veto of the great powers. The General Assembly is for mere decorum.
The current problem that Man lives, who tries to handle himself according to moral values, in no way, in the face of current events that are convulsing the world (terrorism, drug trafficking, child theft, lack of citizen security, etc.), is protected before the instability of the concept of aggression dictated by the United Nations.
This is how Pierre Raton points out - a leading specialist in international affairs - "the definition adopted by the UN does not fully satisfy anyone, since it is the result of a compromise and presents serious deficiencies."
Text of Resolution 3314
The United Nations General Assembly, on December 14, 1974, adopted the following definition of aggression.
Art. 1 “Aggression is, the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other way inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as stated in the present definition. "
Art. 2 "The first use of armed force by a State in contradiction to the Charter, constitutes prima facie evidence of an act of aggression."
Art. 3 “Any of the following acts, regardless of whether or not there is a declaration of war, is characterized as an act of aggression:
• the invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, even temporary, resulting from said invasion or attack, or any annexation, through the use of force of the territory of another State or from him;
• the bombardment, by the armed forces of a State, of the territory of another State, the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State;
• the bombardment of the ports or coasts of one State by the armed forces of another State;
• the attack by the armed forces of a State against the armed forces of land, naval or air of another State or against its merchant or air fleet.
If only the UN can authorize or legitimize actions of force when it is "necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security", the Bush administration seems to remain outside the provisions or laws of the UN by not wanting to recognize that on the law federal international law exists; demanding, in addition, bilateral agreements with various countries to protect their soldiers and civilian agents, giving them immunity before the International Criminal Court in The Hague and thus not being accused or prosecuted for war crimes of genocide against humanity (criminis iuris gentium or delicta iuris gentium). UN?
