This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only.
The military confrontation between India and Pakistan, two nuclear-armed neighbors, has the world in a state of jitters. With each country mobilizing its forces–together totaling about a million troops along their 1800 mile border–there is a high probability that the current face-off may lead to the outbreak of yet another war between these two countries. Although such a war–if it eventuates–is likely to involve a conventional exchange of weapons as happened in the 1947, 1965, and 1972 wars, there is reason to fear that it could escalate into a nuclear war. If such a catastrophe were to occur, American intelligence estimates that about 12 million people would be killed and 7 million would be injured.
What has been the response of the international community to this crisis? President Bush has urged President Musharraf of Pakistan and Prime Minister Vajpayee of India to exercise restraint and stop cross-border attacks. President Jacques Chirac, President Vladimir Putin and other European officials have echoed similar sentiments.
In the meantime, Mr. Vajpayee accuses Pakistan of waging a 20-year campaign of terrorism to dislodge India from the predominantly Muslim state of Kashmir. He also rejects Pakistan’s repeated requests for dialogue or negotiation. And the U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan reiterates his requests to General Musharraf to crack down on Islamic militants penetrating the Line of Control separating the Pakistani sector of Kashmir from the Indian sector.
Forty-three years ago the U.N. put forth a potentially reasonable solution to the conflict by conducting a plebiscite on the status of Kashmir–whether it should remain part of India, or become part of Pakistan. These two options could be supplemented by (1)outright independence for Kashmir; or (2) shared sovereignty between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. Thus far India has dismissed the idea of holding such a plebiscite.
Clearly missing from all responses so far to the looming nuclear crisis is an argument for using international law to resolve the India-Pakistan conflict over Kashmir. This striking omission underscores, on the one hand, the widespread commitment to power politics and the use of war as a means of resolving international disputes and, on the other hand, a fundamental distrust of international law to resolve international conflicts.
As it happens, both India and Pakistan are parties to the 1899 Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. The United States is also a party to this 1899 Convention. Article 8 is the brainchild of the United States. It establishes a procedure for special mediation. The states in conflict would each choose a power to which they would respectively entrust the mission of entering into direct communication with the power chosen by the other side for the purpose of preventing the rupture of pacific relations. For the period of this mandate, which could not exceed thirty days, unless otherwise agreed, the states in conflict would cease all direct communication on the subject of the dispute, leaving it exclusively to the mediating powers. In case of a definite rupture of pacific relations, the mediating powers were charged with the joint task of taking advantage of any opportunity for peace.
The threat of nuclear war between India and Pakistan directly affects the vital national security interests of the United States: The nuclear fallout would poison America and its people as well as the peoples of other countries. So the U.S. government, joined by others, must formally and publicly invoke Hague Article 8 against both India and Pakistan, and demand the required 30-day cooling-off period so that this special mediation procedure could take place.
The U.S. government joined by others must also invoke the requirement of Article 33(1) of the United Nations Charter providing that the two parties to the dispute over Kashmir "shall first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice." U.N. Charter Article 33 expressly by name requires the pursuit of the "mediation" procedure set forth in Hague Article 8, including the mandatory 30-day cooling off period.
Time is of the essence when it comes to invoking Hague Article 8 and averting a nuclear war!
Williams M. Evan, Professor Emeritus of Sociology and Management at the University of Pennsylvania, is the author of several books, the most recent of which (with Mark Manion) is Minding the Machines: Preventing Technological Disasters, published by Prentice Hall.
Francis A. Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois, is author of Foundations of World Order, Duke University Press, and The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, Clarity Press. He can be reached at: FBOYLE@LAW.UIUC.EDU
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only.
I can pinpoint the nadir of rock music’s first half-century: That wire service picture of Bono standing with U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, the two of them wearing local African costumes somewhere in Africa. Bono’s idiocy is here complete, since the most benighted tourist with a skin full of rum would know better than to allow this shot to circulate. But tourists are, for the most part, innocent of much beyond blind pursuit of pleasure. With his African junket alongside O’Neill, Bono practices actual evil. The trip’s purpose is to endorse the power of rich nations to control the fate of poor ones, so long as the occasional bone is thrown.
The junket also enhances the image of one of the rottenest characters in the Bush regime. Next time he goes to Jamaica, Bono might take a jaunt around Jamaica to see firsthand the depredations of Alcoa’s bauxite mining O’Neill ran Alcoa for 12 years. Before that he ran International Paper, devastating much of the Black Belt of the southern United States. That is, O’Neill played a major role in defiling the places where both the blues and reggae were born.
Bono portrays himself as the latest in a line of rock daredevils trying to change the world. In reality, everything Bono does-starting with his support of the Irish and English governments– attempts to *stabilize* the world, freezing the globe’s poor into subservience. All the rockers who changed-and are changing-the world go about it differently. Instead of spending their time pretending not to suck up to power at its most loathsome, they make music that delves into their own lives and the lives of the people they love. Those who truly work for a different kind of world use their talent and fame to tell the stories that aren’t being told anywhere else. They make records like Alejandro Escovedo’s By the Hand of the Father (Texas Music Group).
The album, based on a stage play Escovedo cowrote, offers beautiful, haunting music, using strings as well as guitars to offset rock riffs. Although a couple of the songs (“The Ballad of the Sun and the Moon,” “With These Hands”) appear on earlier Escovedo albums, much of the best music is either score, with cello as the lead instrument, or versions of specific Mexican idioms. (“Mexicano Americano” raves on regardless.)
The first time I ever heard Alejandro, he sang Woody Guthrie’s “Deportees,” the great ballad of the migrant farmworker. By the Hand of the Father sometimes feels like a first-hand expansion of that story, but a lot of it is tied up in issues as quotidian as homesickness, the hope of romance and the agony when life ruins it. That is, it is the life of the migrant made nearly universal-so universal that the detailed differences glare unmistakably from the tapestry.
Escovedo never stops noticing how poor these people-his people-are. That fact carries the weight of all his tales. But he puts his finger on the issue just once: “You see the wicked prowl across the border / They say death’s the only peace the poor understand.”
This is not anybody trying to “speak truth to power.” It’s a recognition that the powerful know the truth and that part of the truth is that nobody knows much at all about the poor as human individuals, and that if you’re poor enough, making a living from one day to the next may come to constitute a legitimate triumph. Those two bare lines contain all the things you never learn sitting in conference rooms and traveling from town to town with a potentate’s entourage.
Alejandro Escovedo speaks the power OF truth. Rock music cannot tell all of it, but for millions, all of it cannot be told any longer without rock, and the music that came after it, and the music that came before it. It certainly cannot be told while standing in the shadows, smirking an implicit endorsement of the way things are.
(expanded to 15 because everybody imitating it is only doing ten and anyhow, there’s a lot of great stuff out there right now):
1. The Eminem Show, Eminem (Universal) [Not just Detroit chauvinism; the boy *does* get it about bass lines, he's smart and funny and who says you have to hate everyone he hates, such as himself.]
2. Human Being Lawnmower: The Baddest & Maddest of the MC5 (Total Energy) [I keep thinking there must be some exaggeration here, but these live tracks, outtakes, exhortations, do add up to a great document. Not to be missed: John Sinclair's liner notes in which he declares that Rob Tyner had more political influence on him than he did on Rob and that this stuff has nothing to do with punk.]
3. 1000 Kisses, Patty Griffin (ATO)
4. By the Hand of the Father, Alejandro Escovedo (Texas Music Group)
5. “This Land is Nobody’s Land,” John Lee Hooker (from Real Folk Blues/More Real Folk Blues, Chess/MCA)
6. Mundo, Ruben Blades (Columbia advance)
7. You’re Gonna Need That Pure Religion,
Rev. Pearly Brown (Arhoolie)
11. Try Again, Mike Ireland and Holler (Ashmont)
12. Milky White Way: The Legendary Recordings 1947-1952, The Trumpeteers (P-Vine)
13. Talk About It, Nicole C. Mullen (Word/Epic)
14. The Beat of Love, Trilok Gurtu (Blue Thumb)
15. 2 Johnsons are Better Than One, Syl & Jimmy Johnson
Dave Marsh’s Previous DeskScan Top 10 Lists: