putnik1915
Sat, 13 Apr 2002 08:04:44 -0700
HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK --------------------------- Rick,
I was reading the
article,
"Why Bin Laden Is So Hard to Catch"
By Nicholas Berry The Moscow Times In which was contained the
following paragraph:
"This situation presents General Tommy Franks, chief of
Central Command,
with two major problems. To rebuff the image of an occupying force, Franks has wisely ordered that no permanent military bases be established. Housing, logistics, and weapons and troop deployments are all temporary and integrated with Afghan allies." By logical extension, one
would have to conclude that HATO is "an occupying force" in Kosovo, else how
would one justify such "permanent military bases" as Camp Landsteal? Add
to that the fact that US has extorted one of their world known "99 year
leases" to the Camp (Gitmo anyone?).
Just how incredibly blind and
insensible the average American is that they don't see the depredations of
their fabled land and must ask, "Why do they hate us?!" Could it possibly
be that the natives have had enough of their imperial overlord?
Cossack
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Rozoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 10:56
Subject: The Not-So-New Imperialism
[WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK] > --------------------------- > > Spiked (UK) > Article11 April 2002 > > The not-so-new imperialism > by David Chandler > Robert Cooper, policy adviser to UK prime minister > Tony Blair, has caused something of a storm with his > call for a 'new kind of imperialism'. > In the Foreign Policy Centre pamphlet Reordering the > World, Cooper argues for 'a new age of empire' - in > which Western powers won't have to follow > international law in their dealings with other states, > will be able to use military force without consulting > the United Nations, and will be free to impose > protectorates in problematic areas. > According to Labour MP Tam Dalyell, Cooper's comments > go against the Labour Party's long history of > anti-colonialism - while fellow Labour MP Alan Simpson > accuses Cooper of offering an intellectual > justification for Britain and America's bypassing of > the UN. These MPs can't have been paying much > attention to international affairs over the past few > years - because, in fact, Cooper does not argue for > anything new or exceptional. > Some Labour MPs seem to have short memories. A number > of Britain's colonial wars have been fought while > Labour governments were in power: the war with India > and the Palestine conflict in the late 1940s, the > Northern Ireland 'Troubles' that started in 1969. > Long before the terrorist attacks of 11 September, the > UK Labour government was at the forefront of > downgrading the role of the UN and creating new powers > for ad hoc 'coalitions of the willing' to wage war > without the sanction of international law. Indeed, > Labour has shown scant need for anything as concrete > as intellectual justification for bypassing the UN, > instead relying on moral support for its new > interventionism. > The House of Commons' Foreign Affairs Committee > concluded that the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia was > justified 'on moral grounds', rather than legal > grounds. Lord George Robertson, former Labour defence > secretary and now NATO secretary-general, argues that > Western leaders have the job of 'balancing.law, > morality and the use of force'. Of course, once the > law is secondary to what NATO leaders Blair and Bush > consider to be morally necessary, there can be no > legal limits to intervention across the globe - so > long as the cause is right. Robertson explains that > 'the only morality is to do what one has to do, when > one has to do it'. In this context, the question of > whether and when to intervene is purely a matter for > powerful leaders' consciences. > Claims that Cooper is a 'maniac' only show how out of > touch his critics are. The new age of imperialism is > already well established. Two years ago, the UK > government's Joint Consultative Committee called for > the UN to restore the Trusteeship Council for managing > the growing number of international protectorates. And > Tony Blair recently helped former Liberal Democrat > leader Lord Paddy Ashdown get the job of high > representative (or colonial administrator) in Bosnia. > Lord Ashdown now has the power to pass laws by decree > and to dismiss Bosnia's elected presidents, prime > ministers and parliamentarians if he considers them to > be obstructive. The power that had always eluded > Ashdown in the UK, by way of the ballot box, has now > been granted him by the self-selected Peace > Implementation Council - which has 'voluntarily' taken > upon itself the duty of running Bosnia for the > indefinite future. > Those who kicked up a stink about Cooper's 'new > imperialism' statement seem to have been more offended > by his choice of words than by their political > content. > Cooper is not alone in calling for an end to the UN > framework of international law and respect for state > sovereignty. Liberal advocates of ethical human rights > policies, like Geoffrey Robertson QC, have long argued > that respect for state sovereignty is the UN's > 'systemic defect'. > And Cooper's critics largely do not oppose his view > that Western powers should have the right to intervene > militarily in troublesome states. His calls for > pre-emptive military actions are mild compared to > those of Bernard Kouchner, the founder of Nobel Peace > Prize-winning NGO Médecins Sans Frontières, later > appointed by the UN as governor of Kosovo, who argues > that Western powers should have the right to intervene > 'to stop wars before they start and stop murderers > before they kill'. Cooper's views of 'voluntary' > colonial rule under a new imperial bureaucracy are > wishy-washy compared to liberal commentator Michael > Ignatieff's demand for greater 'imperial ruthlessness' > in Iraq, Somalia and Bosnia. > Cooper's mistake was to pose these policies in the > old-fashioned language of realpolitik and power, > rather than relying on the moral rhetoric of the day. > Many who agree with his conclusions find his > straight-talking presentation of US and European > superiority over the non-Western world distasteful. > His aside that the new imperialism should be > 'compatible with human rights and cosmopolitan values' > only demonstrates his failure to grasp the new > etiquette of what he terms 'postmodern imperialism'. > If Cooper had stressed the 'universally empowering' > nature of his project in contrast to the oppressive > legalities of state sovereignty, he would have had > fewer problems. If he had argued that military action > to prevent human rights abuses should be decided by > 'international civil society', nobody would have > batted an eyelid. If he had said that what look like > colonial administrations overriding popular democracy > are in fact necessary for 'empowering local voices', > he would probably have the support of even his most > vocal critics. > David Chandler is author of From Kosovo to Kabul: > Human Rights and International Intervention, published > by Pluto Press (buy this book from Amazon (UK) or > Amazon (USA)). Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]. > > http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006D88A.htm > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax > http://taxes.yahoo.com/ > > --------------------------- > ANTI-NATO INFORMATION LIST > > > --------------------------- ANTI-NATO INFORMATION LIST ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.a9617B Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================ |