Peter Espeut THERE IS an old saying that "Might is Right". One definition of the Golden Rule is that "it's them with the gold that makes the rules". I am reminded of these bromides every time I listen to news of events in the Middle East.
The United Nations was created after World War II to ensure that such a war would never happen again. After World War I the League of Nations was formed for the same purpose, but it failed to prevent World War II. The hugely powerful German military/industrial complex and a national arrogance fed by an efficient propaganda machine (which took advantage of the humiliation of the German people in the aftermath of the First World War) led Hitler and other German leaders to believe that they could rule the world - that might was right! So they ended up declaring war on practically everybody, breaking various bilateral and international treaties in the process. It was Mussolini of Italy, one of the Axis, who put it so well when challenged by the Pope: "How many troops does the Pope have?" In other words, "the only people I have to pay attention to are those with military might". Thankfully the rest of the world - including Jamaica - ganged up on Germany and Italy and the other Axis powers and put an end to that sort of megalomania.
RUTHLESS
One thing the Cold War did was to create the impression (some would say illusion) of a balance of power (a balance of terror), where neither the US nor the USSR could step too far out of line. The propaganda of both sides was similar: the other side was totally ruthless and bent on world domination. Each side saw themselves as profoundly democratic, having the best interests of their citizens and the world at heart. The UN was part of that balance of power, setting up the rules of engagement and providing a forum for dialogue, resolution and redress. Having a "UN Mandate" to send troops meant legitimacy. Better still to have those troops march under the UN flag.
When the Soviet Union imploded under the weight of an unworkable system, only one superpower remained, and "The West" announced that the "good guys" had won. The balance disappeared, but then since the "good guys" had won, a counterbalance was not needed, since the USA would use its huge economic and military might only for good, right?
Not exactly! During the Cold war the USA and the USSR used their huge economic and military might to further their own interests, and after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the USA continued in that vein. They have taken sides with Israel against Palestinian independence and ultimately against most of the Arab world, and when it suited them the USA supported despots and dictators like Batista, Noriega, Somoza, Pinochet, the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein and the Taliban, as well as Osama bin Laden and Apartheid South Africa. Their support and their investments have come back to haunt them.
Along came 9-11, the second anniversary of which is tomorrow. That sort of violence is never justified; the sheer scale of it was horrific - like a blockbuster movie - and it hurt the national pride of the only remaining superpower, exposing the worst side of the US national psyche. Feeling their invincibility challenged and thirsting for vengeance, and will not be denied. Without any balance to their military power and without the authorisation of the United Nations, the United States of America since 9-11 has invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. They have not yet salvaged their national pride, for they have not yet been able to capture either of their erstwhile allies, Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein. More invasions may be expected.
ROGUE STATE
But the USA by acting unilaterally has made itself a rogue state according to the rules of the UN, and has threatened its very existence. It has individually threatened UN member states with dire consequences should they support a condemnatory resolution in the UN General Assembly, effectively making them Vassal States. It would seem that the worst accusations of the Soviet Union have come to pass.
What is even worse, the pretext on which they went to war with Iraq - the spectre of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein aimed at the USA and the UK - has proven to be unfounded, and probably an intentional exaggeration. This fundamentally calls into question the legitimacy of the whole campaign to bring down Saddam Hussein. But yet there is still on offer a huge reward for Saddam Hussein - dead or alive! An evil despot he may be, who has presided over genocide against the Kurds and Shia Muslims, but in the light of current evidence, is this bounty now justified?
I would like to know whether the Geneva Convention supports some of the military operations of this war and its aftermath.
Picture: Saddam Hussein is suspected of being in a restaurant, and so it is bombed, killing all the civilians inside; he left a few minutes before, say his handlers.
WAR CRIMES
Picture: the hideout of Saddam's two sons is betrayed, and they are still inside; and so you bomb the private home, killing them and members of their families and retinue. All is not fair in love and war! There are rules. Is it legitimate to bomb civilian targets like this under the Geneva Convention? If not, then war crimes have been committed, and who will stand trial for them? Why not capture the Husseins and put them on trial for war crimes! In this the Americans behave just like Jamaican police (used to?) act, "clearing up" a case rather than having to bother about bringing evidence to trial.
Showing some understanding of the reasons for 9-11 the Americans have launched the "Road Map" for peace in the Middle East, intended at creating a viable Palestinian State. Yet, supposedly in response to suicide bombings, almost every day the Israelis fire missiles at homes and cars to assassinate Palestinian militants. Is this legitimate under International Law? Are war crimes being committed? Not a squeak from the international community. With the USA behind you, might is right!
The only remaining superpower is withdrawing from environmental treaties and choosing to ignore WTO rules. The stability of the whole world order is threatened. I don't know if the UN will survive if it is forced to become a client of the USA. Maybe a new international alliance will emerge from the ashes of the UN where some will again gang up to challenge the new global emperor whose standard is again the eagle.
Peter Espeut is a sociologist and is executive director of an environment and development NGO.
