1. The US should not have violated the provisions of teh Viennna Convention - it remains bound by its traty obligations.
2. The United Charter has been violated by the US in its circumvention of the Security Council to start the war on the pretext of the pursuit of WMDs.
When one carefully reads Hans Blix's book, "Disarming Iraq" one is obliged to ask - if the UN Chief weapons inspector was never convinced of this need for a hasty rush to war - what was/is the real reason behind this horrible war?
I am a lawyer by profession, and a world citizen at heart.
I have written a book. I have established a web site. Both focus on global issues - the book focuses on law around the world - the web site on issues of global justice. I thought a bit, reminisced, then decided to share my thoughts.
Citizens of the world concerned about world events might be consumed by anger when responding to certain atrocities. One is understandably made angry at the thought of Osama bin Laden and the horrors unleashed in New York on September, 11; or, one might be equally angry when recalling the other September, 11 - 1973.Both were calculated acts of terrorist violence.
If desired international standards are to be upheld in the world with crediblity, such standards cannot be selectively applied.
The world, I have decided, has good and bad, yin and yang, pain and pleasure, joy yet sorrow all at once in the one world we share. Some, not all, want to share with others. Others want corporate globalisation at the price for their greatest share. Some genuinely seek harmony in the global village; some instigate wars. These dialectical tensions between love and hate, generosity and greed arouse and motivate the world. Peace protesters versus warmongers - then assess the 'good' or 'bad' of their circumstances and decide on strategies - how many battalions does our side command?
(continued)
Humanity's on-going struggles confirm that neither absolute good nor bad reign supreme. The world is a mixture of the bitter with the sweet. A bitter and bad idea in our time is that of "pax Americana" proclaimed via 'the Project for a New American Century'(PNAC) requiring war for America to achieve world domination. The recent duplicities and dishonesty in pursuit of the war in Iraq are a part of this project, and demonstrate just how determined the powerful can be, in disregard of international law. It is easy for those who have not experienced the horrors of war to advance policies for war with cruel and indecent haste. Having embraced the truism that love tempers hate, it is difficult for me to accept that a country with an admirable constitution designed for the eternal preservation of great freedoms finds it necessary to support military terror (hatred), while shackling other peoples' freedom to live in peace with prosperity. The global economic system, if we are honest, scientific and empirical, continues to impoverish the majority of humankind (more hatred and greed). Augusto Pinochet's military coup speaks to the former, and the consequences of consistently failed IMF ( International Monetary Fund) policies indubitably speak to the latter.
In the fullness of time democratic voices will inevitably speak out for peace and demand justice in the world. People always do.That has been the history of the world - oppression - challenge - change. The people's choir continually raising voices as they sing out their concerns about human needs. Seeking Utopia? - no! needing survival, for there is enough in our world to provide for all; that is the challenge. Putting man on the moon was one great challenge met. Putting food in man's mouth, shelter over his head, education in his brain, clothing on his back, justice in his societies are other achievable challenges to be met. Not all sing from the same song sheet of desire for peace and justice in the world. Powerful and discordant voices are heard, crooning for increased military expenditures, as they sing the lyrics of WMDs. The yin of oppression pours acid on yang's healing processes, repression is in harmony with terror, and so the world responsively sings mournful songs.
WMDs ( Words of Mass Deception) deceive the people that hatred is love, and proclaim that war is peace - "I reminded them and their families that the war in Iraq is really about peace" (the exact words of President George W. Bush spoken in April, 2003, when he visited wounded soldiers in Iraq). Many in the world believe that the war was/is really about oil and money. My web site www.globaljusticeonline.com addresses such issues. We might sensibly ask - does the sale of greater numbers of arms in the world then equate to investments for peace? Saddam Hussein was sold arms in great quantities by the very nations that ended up bombing the Iraqi people. Clearly, based on George W. Bush's assertion, significant investment for peace had been made in Iraq. On the rationale of "...really about peace" let's then sell lots more arms for peace. While at the global arms bazaar, let's also have all sorts of war. We need to add to the war on drugs a war on crime - a war on terror- and while at it, why not add a war on peace? However, with that mindset one must never declare a war on war - for that would be deemed self-defeatingly insane and unacceptable to those who manufacture and sell the arms in the world. Listening to the leading supporters of the destructive and lunatic policies, I believe that when official doublethink meets doublespeak - I am left little choice but with incredulity to laugh. When others see the consequences of many hypocritical or cruel world policies they probably do the opposite and cry. Laughter, I believe, is the better of the two options, and is good medicinal therapy for much that might otherwise make us melancholy. Laughter - peace - great choices! And, this thought brings me to my book.
"Learn the law" is my cathartic global and humourous analysis of my profession - the law. The book is at once a teacher, and a release valve; it analyses the international legal issues concerning the war in Iraq, and expresses genuine concerns. It states what the law is and simultaneously explains what law does in the world. It traces from whence law came into the world. There is wit and humour in the book, coupled with the good sense of using tones of parody and paradox to help readers discover for themselves without the pedantry of the writer telling intelligent people what to think. This approach explains the book's subtitle - ' a retarded text for advanced readers'.
There you have it - my reminiscences - and my pot of global law as stew for thought, and all the global issues as spice to maintain flavour.
Do taste a chapter of the book's simple humour - read and enjoy.
X
________________
NOTABLE
October 25, 1983 - the day when a contingent of United States troops, with a façade contingent of troops from Caribbean states supportive of the action, invaded Grenada.
Viewed historically, this was one in a line of interventions in the affairs of the Americas by the United States since 1823 when the Monroe Doctrine was pronounced. President Monroe declared that European intervention in Latin America would be treated as a hostile act towards the United States, and thus established the U.S. claim to "rights" over Latin America.
It is arguable that the invasion of Grenada was illegal and that the political policy, which the invasion represented, was opportunistic, unprincipled, and set a dangerous precedent. This opinion can be maintained from two aspects, the legal and the political.
The Legal Aspect
(ii)There would have to be accord with Article 51 of the UN Charter;
(iii) There was no unanimous agreement among member states of the O.E.C.S., as legally required, to permit collective action;
(iv) Article 33 of the UN Charter provides for the seeking of peaceful settlement of disputes.
(v) Article 2(4) of the UN Charter is designed to prohibit unilateral and/or regional determinations of a 'just' war, as sole authority for non-offensive use of force rests in the Security Council, and as this authority to invade was not obtained, the invasion under international law was illegal.
As regards the issues of international law, much duplicity and distortion was used to manufacture a climate of consensus among Caribbean populations to ensure a measure of popular support for the invasion.
The Political Aspect
(ii) Years before the invasion, Maurice Bishop, the murdered leader of Grenada, had said that the United States was planning an invasion of Grenada. Leaders in the Anglophone Caribbean then humoured the thought, as Latin America was the accustomed ground for such action, not the Caribbean islands. Bishop's death was the catalyst for the invasion, which was hailed as having 'liberated' Grenada. The true cause of Bishop's death was never officially and forensically verified as his body was said never to have been found.
(iii) If invasion on humanitarian grounds are to be the order of the day, then the requirement of Security Council approval, would repeatedly be avoided, where customary practice of powerful nations would override treaty obligation in international law.
(iv) Unless the UN voting record is going to be relied on only when it suits one's case, as with the condemnation of the Russian invasion in Afghanistan, then the views of the world community in their UN votes have got to be taken seriously. Many U.S. allies, including 11 members of the UN Security Council and 108 members of the UN General Assembly, deplored the invasion.
(v) Violation of international law by the U.S. on this occasion, points to two conclusions - that international law is to be relied on only when it assists one's geo-political interests, and that force is to be resorted to as the first answer to settle political problems.
The appealing argument that there was no practical alternative in Grenada is deceptive. It is evident that the initiative to direct events from a pro-interventionist stance propelled what was eventually a fait accompli, because: -
There was an alleged threat to U.S. property and nationals from "chaotic conditions" caused by the killing of Maurice Bishop and members of his government. There was then said to be the a resulting threat to U.S. citizens, especially to helpless, frightened students at the U.S. off-shore medical school. This is not a unique pretext in the United States' history. Inconsistencies exist in these claims. For example, the day before the invasion, the principal of the U.S. St. George's medical school had stated on U.S. television that there was no threat to the students. What of the later statement which read, "The College students and teachers - 350 of whom are from the New York metropolitan area - were endangered more by the invasion than they had been by the island's revolutionary government." (New York Daily News, October 26, 1983, quoting Dr. Charles Modica, Dean of St. George's School of Medicine in Grenada).
This leaves one wondering about the American government's subsequent "expressions of convenience": but in whose interest? If the invasion was to save the students, then why not proceed to act within the ambit of this declared reason for incursion? Or was there a clear aim at every stage to direct the political process in Grenada, so far as the United States defined who were acceptable leaders? Use of diplomatic pressure and resort to the O.A.S. and United Nations Security Council would have been the acceptable and correct alternative.
Restoring the "rule of law"? Advancing international illegally through military action? Delivering the Grenadian people out of bondage?
Important and demanding questions of geo-political significance emerge from the Grenada invasion; we will here be considering what has happened in the world in the aftermath of the invasion of Grenada. My view? Of course nations will talk about the rule of law when it suits them, e.g., when the Russians went into in Afghanistan or the Argentinians invaded the Falklands. For those who are blinkered by forensic thoughts and colonial mentalities, the raison d'etre and realpolitik played in global politics will not easily, or maybe ever, be understood by most people. We, the people, can but try to understand what is done in our name.
So, what does Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1991, or Serbians expelling ethnic Albanians from Kosovo in 1999, or the bombing of Iraq in 2003 have to do with the implementation of international justice, and reliance on the Charter of the United Nations, and Grenada as a historical reference point?
UN member states' regional security agreements are subsumed in international law under the UN Charter, and more specifically bear reference to Article 2 (4). In the instances of Grenada, Iraq and the Kosovo crisis, Article 2 (4) could not be circumvented. Alternative reliance on regional treaties, as just discussed in the Grenada invasion, is not lawful under international law. The paramouncy of the UN Charter requires consistency with the purposes of the United Nations, and it is required that nations refrain from the threat or use of force against territorial integrity or the political independence of any state. These legal stipulations do not permit derogation on the regional level for political expedience. Iraq invaded Kuwait; the nations of the world had recourse to the United Nations; the Security Council passed resolutions; and, with justified legal military action force was used to expel Iraqi troops from Kuwait. That is the correct procedure under the Charter. There is a global system where the Security Council's authorisation under Chapter VII of the UN Charter provides a lawful basis in international law for the use of armed force. Thus, to use force, other than in self-defence against armed attack, and, to place reliance on unjustified force not authorised by the Security Council, must be viewed as illegal and in violation of the UN Charter. So, are professed humanitarian concerns which lead to interventions without UN sanction, a viable alternative to systematic compliance and respect for international law? Let's consider.
There were victims suffering in the Kosovo crisis for years, before the bombing campaign by NATO forces commenced. By contrast, major powers in the world watched calmly as victims of slaughter perished in their hundreds of thousands in Rwanda. However, the NATO "natives" of Europe viewed the plight of their own victims as a matter worthy of decisive, even if illegal, attention. In 1999 the stage is set in Yugoslavia for war. The world has been informed that the rights of the ethnic Albanians are being violated. Direct defence of those rights then is the professed "justifiable cause" for intervention in Yugoslavia. An imaginary scene might assist in informing others not privy to such high-powered intelligence decision, so we move to a briefing room in Brussels.
A General in NATO discerns at the outset that deployment of ground troops is tactically necessary for effective defense of the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo.
"Oh no!" exclaims a President at the table.
"But," said the General, "we must have force on the ground to prevent massive expulsion of the Albanians from Kosovo. Intelligence surveillance confirms that the Serbs will intensify 'ethnic cleansing' if we rely solely on aerial bombardment."
"We can't have body bags," said the President.
"Very well", agreed the General in military deference to political expedience.
"Shall we pommel them?" inquired another NATO official, a querulous _expression etched deep into his intensely thoughtful brow.
A Joint Staff member, sitting opposite, responded immediately, "War from the air is the safest strategy."
"Aerial bombardment", said the entire meeting, as a chorus singing in unison, save one.
A discordant voice, sounding as a cymbal, disrupted the symphony of approval. "But, there will be body bags and escalation of expulsions of the Kosovar Albanians."
"Don't confuse issues", chided the President, "their body bags are not ours."
"Start the bombing", urged the Generals. Bombs away!
When really intelligent citizens of the world consider professed justifications for war, the collective quotient of the "intelligence community" begs questioning. Why? Well, the Caribbean was told that communist Cuba was a large part of the problem in Grenada. President Reagan readily advanced the invasion agenda during those days of the cold war, and the great conquest of the tiny Caribbean island was proclaimed a decisive blow against Fidel Castro. After the invasion, many years later, Castro visited Grenada on an official invitation from Grenada's Prime Minister, and was given a hero's welcome by the Grenadian people. The headline on the front page of the Monday, August 3, 1998 edition of the New York Times read, "Guns bellow on Grenada, giving warm welcome to Castro." Grenada seemed to be a small war, but it really was a commencement of constructive co-operation between the U.S. and Cuba. Cuba had given needed and significant assistance to the Grenadian people, including building an international airport. The Cubans started the construction, and the Americans finished building the airport after the American invasion. Now that's real constructive co-operation.
Consistent reliance in the world community on intelligence ought not to be doubted for a moment. With similar complex analytical capability, a target was carefully selected for direct bombing in Belgrade, during the bombing of Yugoslavia. The detailed preparation involved the Joint Staff, the C.I.A. and the entire U.S. European Command.
The target having been approved at the highest levels, on the 7th May 1999, NATO forces succeeded in bombing, with astounding technological accuracy, the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade.
Without either unwarranted cynicism, or any measure of naïveté, lunacy and callous illegality occasioned at times, needs to be identified as precisely what it is. Lest we forget, the legitimate expulsion of troops from Kuwait is not quite the equivalent of the bombing of Serbians or Iraqi civilians. Considering the relatively few Iraqi soldiers who died, and the likewise relatively minimal loss of allied forces lives in Gulf War I, there is a startling contrast to be made with the increased infant mortality rates and civilian deaths during the years after Iraqi troops were expelled from Kuwait. The ones standing in approval of such policies, no doubt, measure success in terms of maintaining sanctions and bombing civilians, while the stunted growth of Iraqi children is somehow equated to justice exacted over the years against the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein. The logic, intelligence, power and sophistication of implementation must be given its fair share of respect, for millions in tax revenue has been expended in pursuit of such policies. After detailed analysis the decision was made to ignore suffering Iraqi children.
Ironies abound, and in the Yugoslav crisis, among others, there was indeed an inversion of legal issues, when on the 29th April, 1999, the then Yugoslavia placed the United States in the dock at the International Court of Justice. The application filed against the United States is important and revealing as it laid claims which charged, in part:
"The Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia requests the International Court of Justice to adjudge and declare:
I am fairly sure that, whether in Grenada, the
other Caribbean nations, or elsewhere in the world, people do want improvements in the material conditions of their lives, with measures of social justice, ethnic harmony and compliance with international law. If the nations of the world can secure these advances, then political stability would seem the logical concomitant, hopefully to be accompanied by fair and of balanced economic development.
Having thus expressed my concerns, I knowingly smile at the way in which big powers work. Theirs is the power to manipulate the media, control events and in effect assert "might is right" through political machinations and connivance. Years after the invasion of Grenada, I spoke to the person who was Attorney General at the time of the invasion. I have continued to observe, over the years, with interest, as efforts were made to vindicate the Grenada invasion, and subsequent illegal incursions, where political ends were triumphantly claimed as justification for perfidious means.
If one did not make light of some of the global lunacy masquerading as intelligent policies, one would otherwise cry rivers for humanity. Of course, the citizens of the world will learn much from these "rationally" executed policies. Viewed in one sense, we might conclude that the answer to thoroughly reprehensible conduct in the world is not to have recourse to illegal conduct of one's own and likewise mimic reprehensible conduct. However, Generals and truly serious, responsible and intelligent persons ought to have a say: smart bombs don't kill innocent people, or do they now?
All that glorious bombing in the former Yugoslavia. When one intentionally sets off explosives that kill civilians - sounds like "terrorism" to me; but, it probably depends on who is doing the bombing.
All the bombing in the former Yugoslavia was probably about asserting NATO's power in Europe and the world. The message? Fall in line, or else! That's what needs to be done if one is a serious world power. Speaking about bombing, then not following the threat with actual bombs will not convince anyone that one is deadly serious about blowing up the place. At the end of it all, Milosevic (former President of Yugoslavia, and President of the former Yugoslavia), was put on trial in an international war crimes tribunal. He was being tried for atrocities largely committed after the war started, not for events arising before the war started. How could it be otherwise, the crimes relate to a war crimes tribunal, so you have the war first, then the crimes in the war after - and, screw what happened before, or led to the war. The question is, who was funding the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) in attacking the Serbs before the war started? Why? Was war being provoked? Were Milosevic's actions retaliation to quite substantial atrocities inflicted on the Serbs? Screw all that - Milosevic is now locked away and Yugoslavia is history, and who really cares - the end game came out O.K. - but for whom? Screw Notable's questions as well.
I have been closely observing wars and invasions from the one in Grenada onwards as I said earlier. Let's be sensible about wars and invasions. These won't produce immediate good results, and we have to wait for the peace dividends we desire. We must give war a chance. Not giving the world's wants (needs?) a chance is also invaluable in stirring strife, and generating cause for more wars and invasions. Support the Duvaliers in Haiti with their thieving and corruption for forty years or so, then invade to save the country for democracy. Do not have any game plan for viable reconstruction and development in Haiti, just have a good little invasion for democracy, then get out. Just get out - invasion over. In Iraq - well, that's different - Iraq has oil, so it's worth invading for democratic liberation then staying for a while. Wait - in the Haiti situation over the next hundred years or so, maybe two hundred years - some drugs being traded, corruption rife, civil society in tatters - but at least there was the good little invasion and an honourable quick withdrawal, and maybe cause given to have a few more good little invasions after a hundred years or so. The guy you put in power doesn't really jive with the U.S. - so maybe another invasion, let's see- but, not right now. That's how the world functions and is run - no wonder there are so many problems. The bad guys are kept in power, and the inept are installed, to be ignored by the powerful. A government of the bad guys, for the later installation of the inept, and of the powerful's choosing. Democracy is a great thing when you can choose who you want in power (oops! didn't have your "election" - "selection?" in mind, President Bush). What a world we live in.
In the 1960s, President Kennedy spoke of "peace and prosperity" in the world, and there was a feeling, a vision for America, and for the world, that a new day of peace with prosperity would be dawning. By the mid 1960s and into the 1970s, the great American dream had translated into nightmares for some when B-52s indiscriminately and massively bombed Cambodia, with devastating effects for civilians. There was use of chemical weapons and defoliants by the U.S. Kissinger was a key culpable player as Secretary of State, and Nixon bore primary responsibility as President of the United States of America. Would there be any serious accountability for the unauthorised bombings, killing of civilians, harm done to enemy civilians and U.S. service persons? Hell, no! Kissinger and Nixon simply inherited a war, and they took it to higher heights of horror and destruction. Some are "war criminals" ("Got you Slobodan"), and others were of course just doing their loyal duty for love of country. When we consider, Vietnam was supposed to be about defeating the communists and making the world a safe and prosperous place. Irony of ironies, it was no less a person than Nixon who opened up relations with China, the world's most populous communist nation. So, if I have got it right, Vietnam was a big threat for reason of the "domino effect" of spreading communism, and in then there are great trade deals going with the greatest number of communists located in any one spot on the planet. Yet, there still in 2003 can't be free trade with relatively tiny communist Cuba. Makes sense. Create the enemies you need, and make money with those you can't defeat. One must also have tricks up the sleeve to promote a mood for war. In 1898, the USS Maine was in Havana harbour, showing U.S. presence for protection of U.S. interests. The vessel exploded, and the newspapers orchestrated blame for the explosion on Spain, so there was a war, as the people were ready for revenge. There is a similar situation under President Johnson, and the "unprovoked attack" on the USS Maddox and such "unprovoked attacks" could not be tolerated (even when the Maddox was a spy ship assisting Laos and South Vietnam). Events were reported in the press, the people believed what they read, and so the public mood was right and receptive for war, and we had this jolly good war in Vietnam, and some good old boys made some good dollars. That is actually how wars are pursued (provoked?), which causes horrors and hardships in the world, and what the powerful do with people's hearts, minds and lives (their kids tend not to be foot soldiers on the front lines).
Afghanistan?
Osama bin Laden and his group succeeded in the airplane bombings of the World Trade Towers. Obviously, if Osama himself had enjoyed personal success on the mission, he would be dead and not a problem for any American today. Members of Al Qaeda on board the planes, arrogated his pleasure of departure to eternal paradise to themselves. It was a horrible and quite tragic event that took place on September 11, 2001. The world felt, and still feels, great concern about unrelenting terrorist attacks around the world. Notable confirms that there was genuine outpouring of condolences to the American people for this great tragedy. In considering the events, we can start by asking - where was Osama prior to 9/11?
In 1979, the U.S.S.R. ('Russia' for short) invaded Afghanistan. Why? - need for an oil pipeline, support of a puppet communist regime, pursuit of strategic interests - who really knows?
The C.I.A. had trained and supported bin Laden and the Mujahadin. That support ultimately led to the defeat of the Russians and to their expulsion from Afghanistan. Then the fundamentalists under the Taliban established a strict Moslem state based on their interpretation of the Koran. Former C.I.A. ally Osama bin Laden waned in his friendship. Osama was no longer a useful ally. Now with a significant external terrorist threat, in this there is reason to wage war and sell to the electorate the arguments for increased military investments relative to other public needs, yet the world does turn in mysterious ways, for as late as May 2001, $43m was given to the Taliban by Secretary of State Colin Powell, ostensibly for the assistance of hungry farmers in Afghanistan after the destruction of their opium crops. Definitely by 9/11, Osama was not the best of friends with the U.S. This reversal brings to mind the 1989 invasion of Panama, where Manuel Noriega had been a drug trafficking partner of the C.I.A. Then buddies fell out, America illegally invaded Panama, kidnapped Noriega, and imprisoned him in the U.S. Some way to treat a friend and business partner. Osama and his group, Al Qaeda, did his own small scale invasion, sent the bombers to America, and their bombing was ferociously successful. The world can be a bloody and cruel place at times.
Now, after 9/11, did America carpet bomb Afghanistan because it wanted revenge? Revenge against whom? Let's consider. The bombing of Afghanistan didn't kill bin Laden, it didn't and couldn't realistically have ended Al Qaeda in that way. However, it did carpet bomb a country already devastated by the earlier Russian invasion. So, was it the Afghan people who had bombed the World Trade Centre, and who were deserving of being bombed? There must be some logic to this somewhere. Did America bomb Afghanistan because it wanted an oil pipeline; did it bomb to dislodge one regime and install its own pliable puppet regime under Hamid Karzai; or, did it bomb simply to flex muscle, demonstrate to the world its real power, and advance strategic interests? Bombing a barren and already devastated country with such relentless determination brings into question the sanity of those who were pursuing some 2,000 terrorists hold up in remote mountain hideouts by the means of scattering bombs all over that country. It would seem logical that the terrorists would not have waited around for the bombs to fall on them, and they would sensibly have run to safety across the border with Pakistan. So what was all the bombing really about? 'Military intelligence' may be the misnomer which explains the need for such displays of truly awesome power. The processes, if one considers the historical record, are much the same, the Maddox, the Maine, the "war on terror", and as long as there is a perceived enemy, the people can focus and support the war effort. Let's do it, bomb the bastards. Trouble is the bastards who are on the receiving end of the bombs may not necessarily be the ones who really need to be taken out, for peace and safety in the world. The world can be a bloody, deceptive, and cruel place at times.
Well, now, the 'cold war' is over, and the world marches on to other kinds of war. We have heard about the 'war on drugs', which is old hat, and the kids need new and exciting stuff to do. Boom! Man, have we got a new one; wait 'til you hear this. It is the 'war on terror.' We can dance the dance on the 9/11 tragedy, gear up with some serious military expenditures, farm out some really big contracts for the boys, and we can boogie to the 9/11 tune for quite a while to come. Pardon me, as I do believe that governments lie to the people, and pursue objectives (hidden agendas) that are masked behind one-sided media-hyped noble causes. When Lockheed Martin takes out a full-page advertisement in the New York Times, after 9/11, saying we must 'pay any price to assure the survival and the success of liberty', there is a certain irony in the choice of using Kennedy's words. Who will pay this price? Must be the people's tax dollars to Lockheed Martin, the leading manufacturer in the United States of America of national missile-defence systems and nuclear delivery systems, and conventional weaponry. We are some considerable way down the road where weapons manufacturers dictate foreign policy, and sensible people should not allow themselves to be so unquestioningly manipulated, but ought to think of the implications of a world functioning in this way.
The point is that the real objectives for why individuals, corporations and/or nations act in the ways they do, take a back seat to the media hype about defending the country, liberating, promoting democracy, and acting in the national interest. The people (some of them) believe the government's posturing and it does prove too tedious for the people to consider the real and hidden agendas behind the headlines. After all, he is the President, so he must know what's best for the country. There is a telling legal historical reference point when Hitler sought temporary special powers, which the German people gave him, albeit same was banned under German law. Hitler said he needed the powers temporarily to deal with the "terrorists." Nowadays, things have to be done that way because it is in America's interest, and of course the people (some of them) accept that the President is acting honourably in the nation's best interest. But - is he? The kinds of programmes advanced in the calculus of U.S. foreign policy, viewed in the most benign way (now that there is but one superpower), should be intent on stopping the spread of war, reducing international tensions by reference to international treaties, minimising causes of aggression, hunger and deprivations in America and in the world, and be acting in support of the American way of life, and a safe and economically viable U.S. The promises of U.S. foreign policy in the 1960s, at least the rhetoric of it anyway, had that kind of sound to it - peace and prosperity for all. Just consider the words of President J.F. Kennedy in a letter to President Diem of South Vietnam, December 14, 1961: -
"The United States, like the Republic of Vietnam, remains devoted to the cause of peace and our primary purpose is to help your people maintain their independence. If the Communist authorities in North Vietnam will stop their campaign to destroy the Republic of Vietnam, the measures we are taking to assist your defence efforts will no longer be necessary. We shall seek to persuade the Communists to give up their attempts of force and subversion. In any case, we are confident that the Vietnamese people will preserve their independence and gain the peace and prosperity for which they have fought so hard and so long."
These words, written in the matrix of real pursuits of power, led to events during the Kissinger and Nixon era, which sort of put the dampener of power politics on those high ideals. The scars left on the delicate flesh of humanity; from the use of napalm and Agent Orange remain to this day. More wounds have since been opened with "Gulf War Syndrome". Sorry, it's 2003 - "Gulf War Syndrome" - more wounds inflicted on real human beings.
The trouble is that on closer, detailed and careful scrutiny, exacerbation and not minimisation of the world's problems, is the undeniable outgrowth of much of American foreign policy. The U.S. takes an untenable, unilateralist stand in the world, acts as the world's top dog and policeman, and as it deems best in its national interest. Many times the U.S. acts with neither genuine human rights concerns nor legality. Since we are speaking of events going back to Kennedy, then of the Nixon/Kissinger era, we can consider the bombings of Cambodia for a start. Then, as we go on year after tough year, we find the U.S. professing its own domestic security needs in defence of the foreign policy initiatives pursued. In many of these pursuits, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Chile, support for the brutal military in Indonesia, and so on down the line, the raison d' être is devoid of either morality or legality. In the long run, - a safe and economically viable world seems anathema to the American foreign policy goals actually pursued. Sustenance of the American way of life, and a safe and economically viable U.S., somehow has to find a modus vivendi for ensuring sustenance of the global way of life, if America is to exist in a safe and economically sustainable world. I can see that you doubt that which I have written. You ask - where is your proof, the evidence?
There is an International Criminal Court (ICC) established in 1998 to punish human rights abuses. The ICC is the world's first permanent criminal court, for global enforcement against human rights abuses. Yet in 1998, America never ratified the treaty which established the ICC. Instead, by early June 2003, the U.S. had negotiated with 37 nations, agreements that barred those governments from surrendering U.S. nationals to the international war crimes court. This is the example set by a country professing concerns about human rights abuses in the world. The point is one of manifest hypocrisy of advancing ideals in a global agenda, while opting out of principled participation. The gospel? - do as I say, not as I do - Amen! Other examples exist of U.S. failure to ratify important multilateral treaties. It would be a good idea for the U.S. to ratify the Mine Ban Treaty (Ottawa Treaty), as thousands of people around the world are maimed and injured, while great expanses of land are rendered unusable by reason of the use of landmines. Is it really such a bad idea to declare that weapons are illegal if such weapons, when used, do not have the technological capacity in application for distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants? What a deliberately wicked world it is at times. Then there is the environment. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is an important global advance for environmental regulation of humankind's common heritage of the seas and oceans. In fairness, the U.S. had been central and instrumental in developing the Treaty at various stages. The present trouble is that the U.S. refuses to ratify this environmentally vital treaty which more than 130 nations since 1982 have ratified. Need I go on to the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change)? - sorry, you are already convinced of the point I am making. The U.S. professes its desire for partners in the world on various issues (e.g. actions against terrorism), but when put to the test of effective, comprehensive and fair global action, America, on many issues of significant global importance (global warming, banning of land mines, the law of the sea, and other important issues), displays itself an opponent to fair multilateral partnership. Therein lies a source of many tensions in international relations, from a nation having 5% of the world's population, using 25% of the world's resources and causing 25% of global greenhouse gases. Sorry to repeat myself, but - sustenance of the American way of life, and a safe and economically viable U.S. somehow has to find a modus vivendi for ensuring sustenance of the global way of life, if America is to exist in a safe and economically sustainable world.
And so it is 2003 and the bombs are again dropping on Iraq - Gulf War II.
Articles 2 (3) and 2 (4) of the United Nations Charter read: -
"(3) All member states shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered."
"(4) All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations."
Sounds simple, reasonable and clear enough. Let me add that there are two, and only two, exceptions to the Charter's Article 2 (4) prohibition against the use of unilateralist force, "... if an armed attack occurs..." (or is imminent) as contemplated by Article 51 of the UN Charter is one. Authorisation by the UN Security Council is the other.
The Secretary of State of the United States of America, Colin Powell, read a document to the UN Security Council, as was provided by the British government. Powell was presenting reasons, necessary proofs, and justifications, for the commencement of war with Iraq. It turned out that the information provided by the British was plagiarised from a student's thesis, then doctored to amplify points in support of the case for war. The British have referred to that process as the document being "sexed up." The British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, strongly denied that his government had deliberately misled anyone. He said in the House of Commons that the allegations of high-level interference were, "completely and totally untrue." Sure, Tony, Notable believes you. Want to brief me to argue the case more convincingly for you? Take solace and consider this, Tony. Margaret Thatcher, former British Prime Minister, had presided over a government which had continued selling arms to Iraq after Gulf War I had started (see: Matrix Churchill case/inquiry). Sons and daughters engaging the enemy and weapons are being sold to destroy one's own. Your government is guilty, Tony - confess. Nevertheless, I will accept the retainer to do the plea in mitigation. "Members of the House, nothing done by my client can equate to the treacherous act of knowingly and deceptively selling arms to an enemy when at war against the evil enemy. The Tories would have you believe that it is the Labour government at fault in Gulf War II. But, please, consider that for every accusatory finger pointing in my client's direction, there are missiles of condemnatory proof firing back from Saddam Hussein which blast and condemn the Tories as contemptible hypocrites. Nothing done by my client or his Labour government can equate to the actions on the other side, done by a party merely posturing and seeking self-righteously to condemn. Nothing! Do you hear me? Nothing!" I just put in the exclamation marks to show that I was pleading your case passionately, and I guarantee that I will charge you reasonable fees. I have a heavy case load later on in the year, so you have to decide quickly. Don't worry Tony, a million or so people marching on the streets of London, or even more millions marching in opposition around the world is no match for Notable's oratorical skills - I will win them over for you, mate. So, you really don't want me as your lawyer, then to hell with you and see what I have to say hereafter.
No more articulate a voice could be heard by the British people and the world community than that of Tony Blair's making spurious rationalisations for a war with Iraq. His voice, I am suggesting, was louder than that of the millions of protesters in the streets, and Washington heard and heeded his rallying call for war, above the tumultuous demands of voices protesting for peace.
The truth is that the United States of America had supported Saddam Hussein, as leader of Iraq, for several years. The C.I.A. helped install Saddam Hussein. During the 8-year war with Iran, it turned a blind eye to Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses, and even let the Kurds be attacked at the end of Gulf War I by permitting Saddam Hussein's helicopters to fly in suppressing the Kurds after it (the U.S.) had urged the Kurds to revolt. The United Kingdom, Russia, Germany and France sold Saddam arms. These nations had varying interests in Iraq, and voiced their differences internationally prior to the war's commencement. France was particularly strident, within the UN Security Council, about its opposition to the war. The United States kept insisting that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). A concerted effort at bombing Iraq ensued for that reason. At the end of the war, WMDs had to be found - but where (Iraq is a big country) and by whom? UN weapons inspectors had been pulled out of Iraq to let the sacred mission of bombing Iraq begin. After the war, the U.S. enforced the holy seal of sanctions against return of the UN inspectors. The reasonable inquiry might be - since the UN inspectors were central to the process of diligently and honestly searching for WMDs before the war - why not let them conclude that honest and diligent search, after the war, to the satisfaction of the international community? However, in the real world of power politics, these are minor irritants on issues of consistency, credibility, and honesty. The words in Article 2 (3) of the United Nations Charter, "2(3) All member states shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered" are fine ideals and principles.
Now President Bush, you have a few questions to answer - and my services are available if you need counsel. Let me put it this way - you do need counsel. What says you? (trying to do one of your Bushisms here in this little turn of phrase - to be like down to earth - you understand). I liked the one you did in Reynoldsburg, Ohio on October 4, 2000 when you said, "I think if you know what you believe, it makes it a lot easier to answer questions. I can't answer your question."
It was really kind of you sending me that one on my birthday. I am fascinated how you do it so effortlessly; you say all these inane things and you many times don't mean to be funny. I try so hard to get the humour thing right, and just hope most times that it comes out right - but you do it so naturally. For all the nice things I have said about you President Bush, do you think you can retain me as your lawyer? So, you really don't think I can cut it; but, thanks anyway for answering my question.
Power has its own way of ignoring, or circumventing principal legal provisions, and international law (unlike domestic law) has difficulty in punishing an errant state violator. Sadly, none of the reasons given by the U.S. or Britain for the immediate need for a war with Iraq provided legal justification for the war. Tell them Notable said so. I also suggest that if the U.S. finds need for a war with Iran, then the excuse can be given that Saddam hid all his WMDs in Iran. Simply put, the U.S. unilateralist approach in the multilateralist structure of the UN did not permit the type of pre-emptive action taken by the U.S. and supported by Britain. If such processes were to become the norm for international relations, then a country such as Israel, (violation of Resolution 242, illegal occupation of Palestinian lands and settlements built thereon, possession of WMDs, use of chemical weapons against Palestinians, invasion of Lebanon and slaughtering civilians), would be in line for an attack and unilateralist bombardment due to violations of UN resolutions. The Bush administration had failed to provide evidence that Iraq presented any imminent threat of attack against the United States of America; it did not have Security Council approval for war; and then the U.S. violated international law with its pre-emptive strike. British intelligence was helping the war mission when it "sexed up" the student's thesis that it gave to the U.S. Secretary of State, Colin Powell to help make the case for war. If you comprehended the war process with the U.S.S. Maine and the Maddox, then Blair's little gambit, should not be too hard to grasp as following a general historical pattern.
The true reason for the Iraq war seemed to have been that Saddam Hussein was intent on designating oil sales in the Euro, and thus sidelining the U.S. dollar. Iraq has the second largest supplies of oil in the world. It appears no mere coincidence that the oil-rich Kurdish north of Iraq had been made a no-fly zone by the U.S. and Britain, prior to the war. If one were then to suggest that the war in Iraq was really about money and oil, no sensible person could take Notable's observations seriously. After all, the excuses for war posited in the UN, and now taken by me to be an elaborate jingoistic farce, are written about on the pages of a book that makes no pretext at the book's commitment to farcical commentary. My book finds good company with all the posturing in the UN Security Council. At least I can say that I have made a few sensible associations between money, oil, war and power. My assessment is one of systemic compromises, brutality, greed and the unprincipled pursuit of power - otherwise farce really would rule supreme if one did not honestly consider such real motivating factors. One would be accepting that for 8 years arms were being sold to this "monster", but the British and American governments really didn't know what he was doing. The press just suddenly realises that Saddam is a monster? The press proceeds to tell the public just how bad a monster he was, as if the facts were not known for the past 20 years or so. I do have sufficient clarity of vision to see and say that I saw the Emperor who first tried to fool the people, and what was seen as he paraded in public was the Emperor's naked aggression.
America is a latter day imperial power. Old
Europe for centuries has been versed in the processes of imperialism and, centuries ago, penetrated dominated regions of the world with language and European cultural values bestowed on the colonised elites. The missionaries helped the mercenaries over these long periods of colonisation. During this process many Europeans developed an interactive understanding of those who they had dominated. Some learned the languages; some settled in the foreign communities and intermarried; some understood the art, the culture and studied the peoples of the lands being exploited. America does not have this long history of overseas engagements, and in consequence, does not have the depth of understanding which the Europeans developed during their long periods of world domination. Some good ol' boys riding out of Texas on imperial ventures, by comparison to Old Europe, appear parochial and inept. The European leaders are quietly arrogant in their disbelief at American ineptitude in these kinds of ventures. There is definitely a U.S. lack of deep historical grasp (some may say any historical grasp) of the world's processes. To my mind, (myself anti-imperialist - in the sense that I choose to be my own master and not another country's slave), Americans are amateurs with a lot to learn. Many Americans are, in truth, open, unpretentious (by contrast with many Europeans), easy to converse and interact with, and good and decent people in a one to one encounter; but the knowledge and depth of understanding the world is simply not there. A part of the problem is that far too many ordinary American citizens do not really understand what the powerful in their country and their leadership is really up to. They have bought into and believe the simplistic media hype on issues of the day. There is in many quarters a deep naivety and lack of understanding about the world and its processes. The collective European political consciousness, by broad contrast, holds very few self-delusionary or poorly informed attitudes about power's pursuits.
Grenada was a mini reference point for U.S. interventions in the current era. Start small, fire a few rounds, then build up the ante to Panama and so on - and then Iraq. Which country next? When the U.S. invaded Grenada under the Reagan administration there were no Security Council sanctions, and contrived reasons for invasion were employed. Is Iraq really any different, except for the really high stakes of oil? The idea that a superpower (imperial and sometimes decidedly imperialistic) can have its way, regardless of the democratic expressions of other nations freely voting in the United Nations, places 'democracy' as a convenient buzzword, dispensable when not to one's liking. Approval for individual 'democratic' nations is however to be consistently asserted. Really? Pinochet in Chile was democratically elected, but he was not America's man, so he was toppled. Chavez in Venezuela was democratically elected, but there is oil out there, and his politics isn't right - so let's see if we can topple him. That's the world in which we live. Genuine respect and regard for international 'democratic' _expression, and such expressions being tolerated in a multilateral organisation like the UN is also to be avoided if majority opinion and votes do not accord with U.S. policies and the democratic wishes of the U.N. majority. Paradoxically, it was the U.S. that was the initiator in requiring all UN member nations to sign to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In 2003, motives of hegemony and global dominance override democratic ideals.
Ideas of dominance, and the assertion of power in the world are not new. The Roman Empire was preoccupied with domination and world power. The Spanish Inquisition concerned the dominance of religious ideas. Nazism sought domination for the so-called "Aryan race." "Pax Americana" now seeks economic dominance over the world.
Born in the mid-twentieth century, living now in the twenty-first century, I wonder about the pretexts of 'Western civilisation's mission.' While the primitives throw spears and wield machetes in the process of killing disliked others, the truly 'civilised' ones rain technologically advanced bombs down on their friends in civilian populations, bombing cities to 'liberate' the people for the greater glory of democracy.