Power and Opposition to State
Aggression as far as interstate relationship is concerned can be termed as the violation of another state’s territorial rights particularly through an unprovoked invasion that is neither justified nor given a green light by the Security Council (United Nations). The Rome’s statute listed this crime in 1998 on article five as one of the main crimes together with genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Brown (29), notes that the Rome statute both failed to define aggression and to establish jurisdiction over the same. The decision on the activation of jurisdiction by the court will be made by state members in the year 2017. It should be noted that non member states have been excluded from jurisdiction of the UN court .This happens especially when such crimes have been committed on their soil or by their nationals.
When a state falls victim of aggression from another state, there are various avenues through which it can pursue liberation. This is an intricate process subject to manipulation by a myriad of factors such as the power of the aggressor. This power can be estimated through casting an eye on the GDP (gross domestic product) of such a state and then take into account that of the victim state. GDP can be calculated in various ways (income and production approach) and is the value of all services and goods produced within a state’s borders. This is seen as an expression of a state’s quality of life and in this context its ability to propagate aggression. Taking into consideration that aggression refers to a military attack, the GDP directly translates into the aggressor’s ability to launch and sustain such an attack.
Considering the security interests, notably, USA is a superpower and always of military supremacy. The mention of the Iraq possessing the nuclear weapons came as a threat to its military supremacy. This is the reason why USA always stayed at the forefront in the UN Security Council when the rules for disarmament of Iraq were being set. Every resistance from Iraq appeared, as an opportunity for the US to strike. US had to act quickly to avoid any humiliation by this nation. Secondly, the US had economic interests on Iraq. In Haiti US only appeared for a short period and the army might have been said to be of no help. In Sudan, Darfur region, US had signs of intervening earlier than the UN but shifted the interests to Iraq. This left Sudan unattended. Compared to the Arab countries, African countries could not cover up for the cost of war or bring in profit. Iraq possesses oil and this was what the US government wanted to benefit from and manipulate the production. The USA’s third objective was to change the Iraq’s political system of governance and transform it into a democratic system. Through the democratization of Iraq, the US hopes and objectives were to spread the political systems to other Arab countries, primarily Syria and Iran.
One such avenue of seeking liberation from an aggressor is by a country forming a coalition against the aggressor. A coalition is viewed as the action of states coming together to work towards a common interest or overlapping interests. Ordinarily this sort of coalition is not formal but temporal in nature. For instance, if the US attacked Iraq, what measures should Iraq take to liberate itself from such aggression or mitigate the effects of the same?. According to Goldstein, (31), the US had a GDP of 14000 billion US dollars in the year 2009 against that of Iraq that amounted to about 100 billion US dollars. Clearly, in terms of retaliation Iraq would be at a loss if the US attacked her forming coalitions would probably be her best shot against such an attack.
First we have established that the aggression is an invasion into a country that is not permitted by the UN Security Council. Therefore Iraq being a member of the United Nations can seek help from this council which has 15 powerful members including the US, France, The Great Britain, Italy among others. With the backing of these other nations against a US invasion, Iraq would be standing in a much better position. This is as opposed to being alone as the military power of these the US is no match for Iraq’s.
It is also possible that US invasion of Iraq could take turns such as the victimization of Muslims. This is not a farfetched idea taking into consideration that this has been a highly contentious issue with matters against the fight against terrorism. Many times the fight against terrorism is viewed as one that victimizes Muslims and Muslim nations. One cannot afford to be blind to the fact that Iraq is a Muslim nation and the US is not. This people of Iraq have bigger gains at making a coalition with Muslims all over the world and indeed with those in the US to demonstrate or put pressure for the US to withdraw their troops from Iraq. There are various Muslims organizations such as those of Britain and other Islam nations in the Middle East who can lobby for the exit of the US troops from Iraq.
Another avenue which can be used is the teaming up with other nations to impose trade sanctions against the US. When this happens, the US will be denied of essential commodities such as petroleum products among others. This will weaken the nation and ultimately leave the US with no option but to withdraw from Iraq. A coalition can also be used in a bid to do arbitration of the US and Iraq through diplomacy on platforms for instance provided by United Nations (Art & Patrick 47). Evidently a nation sometimes can be helpless against a powerful aggressor such as those of the magnitude of the world’s super powers. In such situations coalition can be the best weapon a victim state could use. Through coalition, a nation can accomplish meaningful demonstrations all over the globe against its aggressor or deny its nationals essential commodities through trade sanctions and embargos that will eventually cause withdrawal of troops. Diplomacy and arbitration can be done but if all that fails a nation can be aided by a coalition to provide the capacity to exit her aggressor forcefully.