'I AM THE LAW'

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90-00965R000503820019-7
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 27, 2012
• Sequence Number: 19
• Publication Date: May 5, 1986
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/02/28: CIA-RDP90-00965R000503820019-7
Anthony Lewis
ARTICLE APP Rga, N-W YORK TIMES
ON PAGE ~,j?`~, 5 May 1986
`I Am the Law
N ick and Sam are in a violent
feud. Nick goes to court to settle
who is the aggressor, who the
victim. After the court says it is
ready to decide, Sam denounces the
proceedings and walks out. He goes
on shooting at Nick's house, saying he
has a legal right to do so because Nick
is an aggressor.
That is the concept of law advanced
'by the legal adviser to the State De-
partment, Abraham Sofaer. Of
coifrse he does not put it so simply.
Bui that is what he means in his state-
ments justifying American policy in
Nicaragua. He means that the United
States, one party to the dispute, can
decide on its own that it has a legal
right to use force.
In March, after Nicaraguan troops
followed "contras" to their bases in
Honduras, Mr. Sofaer said Nicaragua
could not justify the incursion under
To justify
the use of
U.S. force
in Nicaragua
international law as an act of self-de-
fense. It could not, he said, because
N,icaragua was "an aggressor state."
"An aggressor state does not have
the right of self-defense," he said.
"You cannot develop a right of self-
defense when you started the fight.
It's as simple as that."
In a column I described that state-
ment as an example of legal "reason-
ing" distorted by ideology. I said that
Mr. Sofaer, a learned former judge,
really knew better. Mr. Sofaer then
reasserted his position in a letter to
the editor.
"I have described Nicaragua as
guilty of aggression against its neigh-
bors," he wrote. "No objective per-
son believes otherwise." To support
that proposition the letter cited
charges that Nicaragua has armed
the left-wing forces fighting against
the Government of El Salvador.
When a lawyer says in a brief that
"no objective person believes other-
wise," an experienced judge is likely
to smile. For that kind of language
often covers up a lack of evidence to
support a claim.
The Reagan Administration has re-
pettedly described Nicaragua as a
supplier of arms to the Salvadoran
repels. But it has produced no con-
vincing evidence of any significant
arms flow since early 1981. A former
C.I.A. sialist on the subject. David
ac pecel, said in 1984 that there
had been "no verified report of
movie from Nicaragua to El Salva-
snce
Gor
Lion' has solid evi-
dence, the place to produce it would
have been the World Court. When
Nicaragua sued there in an attempt to
stop American support of the contras,
the U.S. said that support was a legiti-
mate response to Nicaraguan aggres-
sion in El Salvador.
But then the United States walked
out of the case - and out of the World
Court's jurisdiction. Why did it, if the
facts were so obvious?
Even if there were good evidence of
Nicaraguan aid to the Salvadoran
rebels, it would not follow that the
United States could justify its support
of the contras' war on Nicaragua as
an act of self-defense under interna-
tional law. That is so for several rea-
sons.
The United Nations Charter basi-
cally outlaws the use of force by na-
tions. It makes an exception for the
inherent right of self-defense against
armed attack, but only on condition
that the nation attacked ask the U.N.
Security Council to act.
The United States never went to the
Security Council to complain of Nica-
raguan "armed attack" or "aggres-
sion" in El Salvador. Rather, Nicara-
gua went to the Security Council in
1984 to complain about the mining of
its harbors, and the Council voted 13
to 1 to condemn the mining - the
negative vote being a U.S. veto.
International law, in allowing self-
defense, requires that it be propor.
tionate to the attack. If what the
United States has done in Nicaragua
were a response, it would be gro-
tesquely disproportionate: the crea-
tion of a contra army, 10,000 to 20,000
strong, that carries out terrorist at-
tacks with the aim of overthrowing
the Nicaraguan Government.
What Mr. Sofaer wants us to be-
lieve is that the United States has a
legal right to do what it wants to Nica-
ragua, without producing evidence in
court or following the rules, but that
Nicaragua has no right under interna-
tional law to defend itself against a
large army attacking from privileged
sanctuaries. That is supposed to be
law.
The real point is evident. The Rea-
gan Administration wants to use
force whenever it pleases, and it looks
to its lawyers to provide a cover. In
fact, Mr. Sofaer candidly told the
American* Society. of r International
Law that we withdrew from the
World Court so we could decide on our
own when to use force in "self-de-
fense." Thus do Mr. Sofaer and his
colleagues mock the ideal of law that
the United States has for so long
sought to promote in international
life. 0
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/02/28: CIA-RDP90-00965R000503820019-7