RONEN: the point that I was trying to make (for racko)is that a non action is just as strong as an action.
Huh? What do you mean by that?
RONEN: while there are European union members soldiers in Iraq (and rightfully so ) the occupation of Iraq is the European foreign policy and this will remain the case until-
A. The U.K and Spain is out of the union.
B. The last British and Spanish soldier leaves Iraq.
This is a completely different kind of problem.
British and spanish troops are part of an invasion army (insofar similar to the israeli case) against the wishes of the population.
The primary point about the legality (or, failing that, about the justifiability
) is if the invasion was either covered by international law (it wasn´t - no direct threat, no authorization by the UNSC
) or was at least immediately necessary on moral grounds (difficult to see when all the other cruel regimes still remain safe and un-invaded).
There is no binding european military policy at this time, so neither Spain nor Britain will have to fear official repercussions within the union - if there will be consequences, they´ll be delivered through
a) the electorate (as observed in Spain) and/or
b) the international institutions charged with upholding the rule of international law (the UN and the ICC, for instance).
That both the USA and Israel are happily violating international law without remorse up to now may not be a viable strategy for the long run...
Using the excuse of "Iraq having violated UNSC
resolutions" for the invasion has further strengthened the case for the rule of international law, even if the exact opposite had been intended. Irony of ironies...