US soldiers in action in Iraq recently. - Reuters File Photo
FROM WHAT I can gather, the US has for some years had a policy of reserving the right to attack any other nation it deems in its own judgment to be a threat to its security, whether or not it has been attacked first by that nation, in order to ensure its own security. This I gather was a secret policy contained in a document called the "Defense Planning Guidance" (DPG) which was leaked intentionally or otherwise by the Pentagon in 1992 to The New York Times and subsequently admitted to by the US Government.
In order to appraise myself of the full policy and its applicability to other nations, I attended the seminar on the Iraq war at the University of the West Indies on April 1, as it seemed to provide an opportunity to ask appropriate questions concerning the policy and elicit information from Mr Richard Smythe, Deputy Chief of Mission, US Embassy in Jamaica.
The questions I asked were:
1) Does the US concede that other nations are entitled to the same assumed right?
2) If so does it apply to all other nations?
3) If only some other nations what are the criteria?
4) Which other nations fit the criteria?
5) What effect is this policy expected to have on international law, relations generally and the UN in particular?
My questions were brushed aside by the diplomat who tried to relate them only to Iraq. The Chairman quickly moved on to other questions promising to return to mine. For reasons best known to himself, he continued to collect questions, very few of which were answered, before time ran out.
US POLICY PAPER
After the seminar I asked the diplomat to refer me to the appropriate US policy paper but he said he did not think that one existed. I asked him if his Public Affairs Department could help and he said he did not think so. He was ever so right. After a week of research, they have not come up with anything.
Am I to conclude that the US administration has not thought out the matter fully or that such a document is classified?
This policy as much as anything is upsetting the people of the world. It has been referred to by many as a return to the law of the jungle. To take it seriously would be to undermine the Charter of the UN and to sweep aside the foundation of international law which prohibits such attacks and interference in the affairs of other nations without the sanction of the UN.
It is vital that the UN Security Council have the matter clarified and settled as an early step in normalising relations, bringing the member nations together in concord and restoring an atmosphere of peace.
Before the commencement of World War II there were some who would have liked to take pre-emptive measures to counter the growing threat of Hitler's militarism and demands but no nation was in favour of a pre-emptive strike as this would have deprived them of their moral authority at the League of Nations.
During the Cold War the US and USSR might have annihilated each other and indeed the world if one or other had been mad enough to go first to launch a nuclear war.
SOLE SUPERPOWER
Now that the US remains the sole superpower it feels strong enough to flout all accepted norms and impose its will as it sees fit from a US standpoint. Don't be misguided into thinking that the "allies and friends" or anyone else counts for much. They are there partly to share the costs of the war and the aftermath.
This war was undertaken for a series of declared reasons. First it was to prevent Saddam from arming terrorists against the US. Next it was to get Saddam to comply with UN mandates to disarm. Now it is to rescue the Iraqis from a cruel regime by toppling it. Probably most people outside the US believe the real reasons to be all or some of the following:
First, to control Iraqi oil. Second, to keep up the post 9/11 ratings of President Bush and boost his chances of re-election. Third, to take US popular attention away from a sagging economy. Fourth, to dominate the Middle East and remodel it on American lines. Fifth, to demonstrate US military power to the rest of the world, try out new technology and prepare the planet for complete US domination and Sixth, to please Bush Senior and deliver the "kick in the pants" he said he would like to give Saddam in 1991.
The UN Security Council should demand a full expose of the US policy on pre-emptive strikes and its intended effects on international law, the Council and world peace. Without this, it is difficult to see how the sharply opposing camps into which the members have been divided, can sit together, re-establish trust and work together for the restoration of Iraq and the maintenance of world peace.