[no subject]
Between The Lines: A weekly column featuring progressive viewpoints on national and international issues under-reported in mainstream media U.S. First Strike Military Doctrine Draws Criticism That Washington Believes Itself Exempt from International Law * Interview with Matthew Rothschild, editor of The Progressive magazine Interview by Scott Harris Speaking at commencement exercises at the West Point Military Academy on June 1, President Bush dismissed the Cold War doctrine of containment and deterrence as irrelevant and instead called for the U.S. to adopt a new first-strike military policy. Many observers regarded this pronouncement as part of a White House strategy to prepare the American public for a future U.S. war against Iraq, which is widely expected to be launched in the coming months. These changes are necessary, White House and Pentagon officials say, to destroy weapons of mass destruction held by nations which may in the future transfer them to terrorist groups. This newly announced doctrine of pre-emptive armed intervention combined with Washington's unilateral abandonment of a number of important global treaties and conventions, has many diplomats from around the world persuaded that the U.S. has taken on the role of an arrogant empire to whom international law no longer applies. In recent years, the U.S. has rejected or abrogated agreements that include the Kyoto convention on climate change, the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty and the establishment of an International Criminal Court. Between The Lines' Scott Harris spoke with Matthew Rothschild, editor of the Progressive Magazine, who assesses the Bush administration's first strike military doctrine and how the rest of the world now perceives the U.S. in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks. Matthew Rothschild: I think we are entering a whole new and very dangerous period where the United States views itself as unrestrained and unconstrained by international treaties, by constitutional law and by any other government around the world that could act as a counterbalance. So now, you have the Bush administration talking about this doctrine of pre-emption whereby it arrogates unto itself the power and the authority to go attack any country, anywhere in the world that may be acquiring weapons of mass destruction. That country may not necessarily be threatening the United States with an attack, but the Bush administration thinks it can go attack it anyway. This is the arrogance that Western diplomats -- and I've got to believe that millions upon millions, even billions of people around the world -- view properly as U.S. arrogance. What scares me the most is not even the illegality of the doctrine, though that I find appalling. The thing scares me most is the number of human beings that are likely to be killed, innocent human beings destroyed by a U.S. pre-emptive attack that may very well include the use of nuclear weapons. Really for the first time since Ronald Reagan's first term, the United States is contemplating the use of nuclear weapons first. Not in a big massive assault on the Soviet Union as was the case during the Reagan years and also the Cold War, but now against a Third World country or against terrorists. But most likely, against Iraq. And what is the logic of it? Iraq does not have nuclear weapons of mass destruction that can reach the United States certainly by intercontinental ballistic missiles. Iraq was not involved in the acts of Sept. 11. For the United States to threaten to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein or to act in some so-called pre-emptive effort -- either with the CIA or with the full force of the Pentagon -- that is going to end up killing tens of thousands, maybe more Iraqis on top of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that were killed by the U.S. during the Persian Gulf War and the sanctions that followed. I am really kind of appalled at the arrogance of empire, of the hubris of the Bush administration. It makes me uncomfortable, the hubris of those of us here in the empire who can contemplate or even discuss which country we should or should not attack next. No other country in the world has that disgusting luxury. No other people in the world can sit down and say, well, maybe our country should attack this other country tomorrow and not feel any risk of punishment or corresponding damage. Between The Lines: There are many in the executive branch, in Congress and certainly the public at large that feel that this kind of aggressive stand on the part of our country and our military is necessary to prevent a repeat of the Sept. 11 attacks and make sure that weapons of mass destruction don't wind up in the hands of terrorists. How do you respond to that argument, which is pretty much the whole rationale for this doctrine? Matthew Rothschild: If the U.S. government knew that Mohammed Atta and Osama bin Laden were planning an
[no subject]
The Rush to War by RICHARD FALK The American Constitution at the very beginning of the Republic sought above all to guard the country against reckless, ill-considered recourse to war. It required a declaration of war by the legislative branch, and gave Congress the power over appropriations even during wartime. Such caution existed before the great effort of the twentieth century to erect stronger barriers to war by way of international law and public morality, and to make this resistance to war the central feature of the United Nations charter. Consistent with this undertaking, German and Japanese leaders who engaged in aggressive war were punished after World War II as war criminals. The most prominent Americans at the time declared their support for such a framework of restraint as applicable in the future to all states, not just to the losers in a war. We all realize that the effort to avoid war has been far from successful, but it remains a goal widely shared by the peoples of the world and still endorsed by every government on the planet. And yet, here we are, poised on the slippery precipice of a pre-emptive war, without even the benefit of meaningful public debate. The constitutional crisis is so deep that it is not even noticed. The unilateralism of the Bush White House is an affront to the rest of the world, which is unanimously opposed to such an action. The Democratic Party, even in its role as loyal opposition, should be doing its utmost to raise the difficult questions. Instead, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, under the chairmanship of Democratic Senator Biden, organized two days of hearings, notable for the absence of critical voices. Such hearings are worse than nothing, creating a forum for advocates of war, fostering the illusion that no sensible dissent exists and thus serving mainly to raise the war fever a degree or two. How different might the impact of such hearings be if respected and informed critics of a pre- emptive war, such as Hans von Sponeck and Denis Halliday, both former UN coordinators of humanitarian assistance to Iraq who resigned in protest a few years back, were given the opportunity to appear before the senators. The media, too, have failed miserably in presenting to the American people the downside of war with Iraq. And the citizenry has been content to follow the White House on the warpath without demanding to know why the lives of young Americans should be put at risk, much less why the United States should go to war against a distant foreign country that has never attacked us and whose people have endured the most punishing sanctions in all of history for more than a decade. This is not just a procedural demand that we respect the Constitution as we decide upon recourse to war--the most serious decision any society can make, not only for itself but for its adversary. It is also, in this instance, a substantive matter of the greatest weight. The United States is without doubt the world leader at this point, and its behavior with respect to war and law is likely to cast a long shadow across the future. To go legitimately to war in the world that currently exists can be based on three types of considerations: international law (self-defense as set forth in Article 51 backed by a UN mandate, as in the Gulf War), international morality (humanitarian intervention to prevent genocide or ethnic cleansing) and necessity (the survival and fundamental interests of a state are genuinely threatened and not really covered by international law, as arguably was the case in the war in Afghanistan). With respect to Iraq, there is no pretense that international law supports such a war and little claim that the brutality of the Iraqi regime creates a foundation for humanitarian intervention. The Administration's argument for war rests on the necessity argument, the alleged risk posed by Iraqi acquisition of weapons of mass destruction, and the prospect that such weapons would be made available to Al Qaeda for future use against the United States. Such a risk, to the scant extent that it exists, can be addressed much more successfully by relying on deterrence and containment (which worked against the far more menacing Soviet Union for decades) than by aggressive warmaking. All the evidence going back to the Iran/Iraq War and the Gulf War shows that Saddam Hussein responds to pressure and threat and is not inclined to risk self- destruction. Indeed, if America attacks and if Iraq truly possesses weapons of mass destruction, the feared risks are likely to materialize as Iraq and Saddam confront defeat and humiliation, and have little left to lose. A real public debate is needed not only to revitalize representative democracy but to head off an unnecessary war likely to bring widespread death and destruction as well as heighten regional dangers of economic and political instability, encourage future
[no subject]
president's rhetoric and actions have shifted almost 180 degrees from the modesty and frequent consultations he promised as a candidate. Bush assembled a foreign policy team notable for its experience, but also for its dominance by strong-willed individuals who believe the United States must set the agenda if other countries don't have the will or ability to confront the dangers the world faces. In the second presidential debate during the 2000 election, Bush said he would pursue a foreign policy that focused on maintaining respective relations with important allies. The United States must be proud and confident of our values, but humble in how we treat nations that are figuring out how to chart their own course, he said, adding, It's important to be friends with people when you don't need each other so that when you do there's a strong bond of friendship. At West Point in June, Bush offered a dramatically different vision. He claimed the right to preemptively attack any nation that the United States deems a threat while at the same time suggesting the creation of an international system without great power rivalry -- but dominated by the might of the United States. America has, and intends to keep, military strengths beyond challenge, thereby making the destabilizing arms races of other eras pointless, and limiting rivalries to trade and other pursuits of peace, Bush said. In the West Point speech, Bush argued that the twin doctrines that had governed U.S. foreign policy since the end of World War II -- containment of the Soviet Union and deterrence of potential threats through nuclear weapons -- were no longer viable in an era when stateless terrorists, or a dictator such as Iraqi President Saddam Hussein possessing weapons of mass destruction, could attack without warning. Administration officials have insisted that preemptive action could include a range of actions short of military conflict. But analysts and foreign officials fear Bush's doctrine runs the risk of undermining international rules and practices for resolving conflicts, making the world a much harsher place. This administration has too many ideologues and too many people that come with baggage. They come with an ideology that is confrontational, that is 100 percent sure of its righteousness, said Maher, the Egyptian foreign minister. The country is so sure of its power and concentrated on itself that concentration does not allow it to perceive its own interests. Stability in the world. Rules that everybody abides by. That is in the interests of the U.S. Administration officials said such concerns are misplaced. The United States is an overwhelming presence right now, there's no doubt about that. Everybody will tell you that, one senior official said. I sometimes think that there's an unwarranted fear that the United States will use that power in the way that other overwhelming powers did. The sheer size of the U.S. military -- and the technical expertise demonstrated in Afghanistan -- leaves the United States without peer. The value of Bush's proposed 15 percent increase in military spending -- $48 billion -- is larger than the defense budget of any nation besides Russia, and the overall U.S. military budget of nearly $400 billion is larger than the next 25 nations combined. Jessica T. Mathews, president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, described Bush's vision of an international system run according to U.S. interests and values as the new Rome. But, she said, My reading of history is it doesn't work. . . . . History shows that being the most powerful nation means that others gang up on you. 'Lost in the Rhetoric' The United States succeeded in the post-World War II era because it demonstrated a commitment to the collective public good, such as the Marshall Plan that rebuilt Europe, that at the same time defused the threat other nations might have felt from U.S. power. Administration officials say they are following in that tradition. But Mathews said the balancing act is largely missing from the Bush agenda, pointing to the president's decision to skip this week's United Nations summit on sustainable development in South Africa. Nearly 100 world leaders are attending the gathering, including every other head of the Group of Seven industrialized nations. His absence sends exactly the message they want to send -- and it is an extremely unfortunate one, Mathews said. She described the message as we don't put this anywhere near the top of our list of international priorities, and we think little of these international gatherings. A senior administration official countered that Bush, who will visit Africa next year, has had a more active policy in Africa than any other president, especially for an administration that was supposedly distracted by terrorism. Powell will join the 10-day summit on its last day. Chris Patten, the EU external affairs
[no subject]
and their donkeys on the road leading to Nablus. HUNGER AND MALNUTRITION As a direct result of the closure there are families in Iraq who have no food or money and are surviving on olive oil. I sat with the mothers of two families, Iman and Miriam. Iman has a husband who suffers from a mental illness (dissociation) that is treated through medication. However since the closure he has not been able to recieve his medication. Since the invasion the medication is not even available in Nablus, only in Israel. As a result he has been mentally unstable and unable to provide for the family. The husband of Miriam also suffers from a mental illness. Until the seige, the family of her husband had been providing for her. Now, the family of her husband has little money for themsleves and so Miriam's children go without food and sleep much of the day to try to escape their hunger. Many families in Iraq Bureen are getting by just on bread and olive oil and are suffering from malnutrution. The Palestine Bureau of Statistics recently relased a survey on nutrition and found that 63.8% of those surveyed faced difficulties on food supply since the outbreak of the Al-Aqsa Intifada. 45.5% are suffering from chronic malnutrition. 36.9% are suffering from mild chronic malnutrition. WATER UNDER SIEGE Iraq Bureen is one of many villages suffering from a severe water shortage as a result of closing the Palestinian territories. There is no water source in Iraq Bureen so the village depends on water tankers to come and fill people's wells. Normally water tankers come every week during the summer months. Under the closure they cannot reach the villages. This forces people to break closure, bring donkeys down to a river and collect what little water they are able to with plastic containers. POWER SHORTAGE Iraq Boreen is one of over 130 West Bank villages that has electricity supplied for only a fraction of the day. Electricity in IB is generated by a motor powered by benzine. Normally the motor runs for seven hours. Under the seige there is often only enough diesel fuel to run for three hours a day. -- Closure is in direct violation of internationl humanitarian law. Under the conditions incurred by the closure, people of Iraq Bureen and throughout the occupied territories are suffering from a lack of access to food, fuel and water and access to basic health care. Breaking the closure puts people at risk for being detained and arrested as well being shot at and killed. The people here are in a state of emergency. We must do everything we can to end this seige and the Israeli occupation of Palestine.
