Peter EspeutHOW ONE behaves in crisis tells much about character flaws (because the West Indies cricket team tends to capitulate under stress we are held to be substantially inferior). The events of September 11, 2001, put the government and people of the USA under individual and collective stress, and their character flaws and imperial ambitions are exposed for the world to see.
During the Cold War, the USA demonised the Soviet Union as an evil power with imperial ambitions of global domination, forcing their will upon others by military might. It armed itself, creating "Fortress USA" and established military bases around the world to defend its interests. It fomented discontent among Soviet allies, selling armaments (including weapons of mass destruction) to their enemies. The Soviet Union accused the USA of imperial ambitions of global economic domination, backed by its military-industrial complex. Although the Soviet Union has fallen apart, the USA seems to be living up to their accusations.
After World War I, the League of Nations formed to prevent a repetition; it failed within twenty years because of one rogue nation backed by two others! After World War II the United Nations formed for the same reason. A delicate balance was created between big and small powers, and between big powers. The big five each has a Security Council veto to prevent decisions against their interests; no country has a veto in the General Assembly where weaker nations predominate. A body of International Law emerged to govern relations between states, and various international treaties were negotiated to regulate conduct within states. Since 1945, there have been local wars, but the world has been spared widespread armed conflict. When it has been necessary to use military force to deal with a threat to world peace, it has always been done under the auspices of the United Nations.
Until now!
The USA has contributed troops to most UN peacekeeping operations, but it has consistently refused to put them under the command of generals from other nations. Over the years, the USA has been less than comfortable with the UN system; when it cannot get what it wants, it takes up its marbles and goes home. It withdrew from UNESCO some years ago. It has declined to subject itself and its citizens to the International Criminal Court. It has not acceded to many international treaties and conventions including the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Kyoto Protocol. It has simply not paid its annual UN dues to put pressure on the UN to bow to its wishes.
After 9-11, the battle cry of President Bush was "He who is not with us is against us", a serious claim, for it elevates the judgement of the USA to the standard by the which the rest of the world is judged. No freedom of conscience here! If we do not vote in the UN General Assembly to support the actions of the USA, we will feel the consequences!
The US media have clearly taken this to heart. They have abandoned their mission to be objective (were they ever objective?) and clearly operate as agents of the US war machine, part of what is now called "psychological operations" (PsychOps). They uncritically support the US logic that not finding weapons of mass destruction is proof that Iraq has them. They willingly spread the propaganda the US government wants the world (and the Iraqis) to hear: "Operation Iraq Freedom" is not the conquering of Iraq but liberation of the Iraqi people. Iraqi troops are surrendering by the thousands - whole divisions at a time! Saddam is dead! Any US plane or helicopter downed is an accident. They glorify the new US military toys and their superiority to kill and destroy. I wonder if their reputation will ever recover?
Of course, it was the US that developed weapons of mass destruction (e.g. biological warfare) and sold them to Iraq in the 1980s. The morality of that is astounding! The Geneva Convention (the rules of warfare) state that war must be between armies, not civilians. Why has the USA developed chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction, which cannot tell the difference between soldier and civilian? Which is the only country to drop a nuclear weapon, and on civilians? And did it twice!
If war is ever to be justified, it must be as self-defence. You cannot claim self-defence if you only believe the other will attack you one day. Robin Cook, the British Foreign Minister who resigned last week, put it well in his statement to Parliament: "Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create? Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam's ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN inspectors?" There must be another agenda.
We here in Jamaica are familiar with the equation of pre-emptive strike with self-defence; gunmen from the armies of our political camps use it all the time to attack strongholds of the other. I am surprised that Prime Minister Patterson criticised the war. The rule is "Do unto others before they do unto you". If this doctrine is followed, it will allow anyone to attack anybody on the flimsiest suspicion! It makes national and international law meaningless.
The advancing US troops plant the US flag in conquered Iraqi territory; their commanders quickly order them removed. "Remember, we are liberating, not conquering". Then the US enjoins Iraq to obey the Geneva Convention with respect to the treatment of prisoners of war, after the US showed the world how it treated its Afghan prisoners. Where is the moral high ground here? Does "Shock and Awe" bombing of Baghdad show care for the liberation of Iraqi civilians?
The USA has used its pique at 9-11 as an excuse to invade Iraq, to weaken the United Nations and NATO, and to establish itself as the New Ruler of the World. The world we live in is changing rapidly. What will it look like a decade from now?
Peter Espeut is a sociologist and is Executive Director of an environment and development NGO.
