|
CounterPunch
October
30, 2002
We Can Stop
This War Before It Begins
by
DAVID KRIEGER
Statement at the European Parliament,
October 22, 2002
Thank you for inviting me to speak today. I have
come here to urge you all, individually and collectively, to
do everything in your power to oppose a US war against Iraq
a war that can have no good end. I believe that we have within
our reach the ability to stop this war before it begins.
If we succeed, we will save the lives
of innocent Iraqis who have suffered enough, and also the lives
of young American soldiers, who enlisted in the military with
the primary purpose of obtaining the resources to go to college.
We will also prevent the creation of thousands, perhaps tens
of thousands, of new terrorists, whose activities will undoubtedly
affect Europe as well as the United States.
America Does
Not Speak with One Voice
The Bush administration would have the
world believe that America speaks with one voice on the issue
of war against Iraq. John Negroponte, the US Ambassador to the
UN, recently said, referring to the Joint Congressional Resolution
authorizing the president to use force, "This resolution
tells the world that the United States speaks with one determined
voice."
 Nothing could be further from the truth. Large
and growing numbers of Americans are saying "Not in our
name." They are saying it in full-page ads in major newspapers
and they are saying it in the streets.
They are making their voices heard and
their presence felt. It is reminiscent of the period of the
Vietnam War. The difference is that this war has not yet begun
in earnest, which is not to say that the sanctions and the bombing
in the no-fly zones have not already taken a large toll of
victims.
Only a few months ago, most Americans
were not paying serious attention to the possibility of war.
Now they are, and they are showing up in protest marches by
the thousands. The number will swell to hundreds of thousands,
even millions, if the bombs begin to fall on Baghdad.
One recent ad in USA Today concludes:
"Let us not allow the watching world today to despair of
our silence and our failure to act. Instead, let the world hear
our pledge: we will resist the machinery of war and repression
and rally others to do everything possible to stop it."
Let me give you the example of the member
of Congress from my district, Lois Capps. Just one month ago
she was undecided on this issue, perhaps because the Democratic
leadership in the Congress has been so timid with a few notable
exceptions such as Senator Robert Byrd. Many of Capps' constituents
spoke to her in opposition to the war. When it came time for
the vote on the war resolution, she was one of 133 members of
the House of Representatives who voted No, along with 23 Senators.
She stated: "I have not yet seen
or heard any convincing evidence that Saddam Hussein is an immediate
threat to our national security. Military action should always
be a last resort, and we should work in concert with our allies
and the U.N. to exhaust every possible diplomatic and economic
solution to this problem. At this time I do not believe that
the case has been made that force is the only option left to
us."
I am here to ask your support in rallying
the European Parliament to stand together with the growing number
of Americans who are saying an increasingly clear and powerful
No to this war -- Not In Our Names.
Children of
Iraq
The Bush administration is attempting
to paint the face of Saddam on the people of Iraq. The children
of Iraq deserve more from us. We must not accept the simplistic
and militaristic solutions of the Bush administration -- Cheney,
Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle and others -- who have their own
agendas for war, including oil, dominance and revenge.
If you visit the web site of the Nuclear
Age Peace Foundation, you will find photographs of the children
of Iraq, children who will become the collateral damage of this
war just as they have been the collateral damage of US-led
sanctions that have taken some one million lives. You will also
find at this web site letters from Iraqi students to American
students. These children do not deserve to be painted with the
face of Saddam.
Preemptive
War
Mr. Bush has put forward a doctrine of
preemptive war. It is actually not a new doctrine, but it is
dangerous and aggressive unilateralism at its most extreme.
Preemptive war was once called "aggressive
war," and was described as a "Crime against peace"
in the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi war criminals. Such war violates
Article 6 of the Nuremberg Charter. It includes "planning,
preparation, initiation or waging a war of aggression."
At stake is the entire post World War
II international order, including the United Nations system
itself.
A Defining
Moment for the International System
The Bush administration has already cajoled
the US Congress to authorize preemptive war. This authorization
is false because it is illegal. Congress cannot give the president
the power to commit illegal acts, and war against Iraq cannot
be legal unless it is properly authorized by the United Nations
after all peaceful means have failed. We are far from that point.
There are only two circumstances in which
force is authorized under the United Nations Charter. First,
there is self-defense, but this only comes into effect when
a country is under attack or an attack is imminent, and then
only until the United Nations Security Council becomes seized
of the matter. In the case of Iraq, there is not a current or
imminent attack and the United Nations Security Council is
already seized of the matter.
The second circumstance in which force
is authorized under the UN Charter is when the Security Council
determines that all peaceful means of resolving a conflict have
failed. The Security Council has not made this determination
in the case of Iraq, despite the Bush administration's efforts
to push it in this direction.
Mr. Bush also places the UN in jeopardy
by his threats to act unilaterally if he decides it is necessary.
One former US diplomat recently referred to the Bush administration
as "hectoring radical unilateralists." He means by
this that the approach of the administration is that of a bully.
We must stand up to this bully in the name of peace, justice
and international law.
Senator Robert Byrd, a wise octogenarian
and a hero on this issue in the US Senate, said: "S.J.
Resolution 46 would give the president blanket authority to
launch a unilateral, pre-emptive attack on a sovereign nation
that is perceived to be a threat to the United States.... This
is an unprecedented and unfounded interpretation of the president's
authority under the Constitution of the United States, not to
mention the fact that it stands the Charter of the United Nations
on its head."
Hypocrisy
The Bush administration is more inclined
to practice hypocrisy than democracy. The administration's hypocrisy
takes many forms. The most pronounced forms are Nuclear hypocrisy,
Compliance hypocrisy and Criminal Justice hypocrisy. In each
of these areas the Bush administration practices a clear double
standard.
Nuclear Hypocrisy
Joseph S. McGinnis, Acting Head of the
US delegation to the First Committee of the UN, recently stated
when introducing a resolution (L.54) on Compliance with Arms
Limitation and Disarmament Agreements:
"The US believes that every country
in the world should be a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons
Convention. We also believe that every country that has signed
and ratified these agreements should comply fully with their
provisions, and that States Parties must hold each other accountable
and take appropriate steps to deter violations."
The US has been in standing violation
of its Article VI obligations for nuclear disarmament since
the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) entered into force in 1970.
The Bush administration has shown no
inclination to comply with obligations of the 1995 and 2000
NPT Review Conferences. It has failed to submit the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty to the Senate for ratification, pulled out of
the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and entered into a fraudulent
Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty (SORT) that will reduce
some of the currently actively deployed strategic nuclear weapons
but will not make these cuts irreversible. Rather, this treaty
will allow for the deactivated weapons to be placed in storage,
where they will actually be more likely to be available to terrorists.
The Bush Nuclear Posture Review calls
for retaining nuclear weapons in perpetuity, calls for contingency
plans to use nuclear weapons against at least seven countries,
indicates a willingness to use nuclear weapons against chemical
or biological weapons attacks, and outlines plans for more
useable nuclear weapons such as bunker busters.
Further, the Bush administration has
formed alliances with Pakistan and India, although both have
developed nuclear arsenals. The administration has never even
raised the issue of Israel having developed a nuclear arsenal,
despite long-standing calls for a Middle East Nuclear Weapons
Free Zone, including in Security Council Resolution 687, the
resolution that laid down the terms of Iraqi disarmament.
Regarding biological weapons, the Bush
administration sabotaged six years of negotiations to add an
inspection and verification protocol to the Biological Weapons
Convention. The Bush administration also forced the resignation
and replacement of Jose Bustani, the head of the Organization
for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). They disliked
Bustani because he had encouraged Iraq to sign the Chemical
Weapons Convention and become part of its inspection regime,
a step that would have made military action against Iraq even
less justifiable.
Compliance
Hypocrisy
The Bush administration is ready to go
to war with Iraq to achieve compliance with UN Security Council
resolutions. Yet, there are many other violations of Security
Council resolutions by other nations, including US allies Israel
and Turkey, for which the US shows little or no concern.
Additionally, the Bush administration
has indicated a willingness to engage in diplomatic efforts
to seek a peaceful solution to the recent revelation by North
Korea that it is developing nuclear weapons.
Criminal Justice
Hypocrisy
Bush has withdrawn the US signature from
the International Criminal Court and has sworn that US leaders
will never be subject to the Court's jurisdiction, yet he has
threatened to bring Iraqi leaders to an International Tribunal
should they use weapons of mass destruction if attacked by the
US.
Conclusions
-- The international community must stand
firm in rejecting a US initiated preemptive war against Iraq.
-- The states of the European Union can
help lead the way in preventing the Bush administration from
standing the international system on its head with its plans
for preemptive war. They can also engage in the hard work of
negotiations and diplomacy to find a peaceful solution to the
current compliance issues with Iraq and with other countries
currently out of compliance with Security Council Resolutions
and other multinational treaties such as the NPT.
-- Double standards in the international
system must be ended, and a single standard must be applied
to all, even the sole remaining superpower.
David Krieger
is president of the Nuclear
Age Peace Foundation. His latest book is Choose
Hope, Your Role in Waging Peace in the Nuclear Age. He
can be contacted at dkrieger@napf.org.
Yesterday's
Features
Steven Higgs
"They
Beat the Hell Out of Me"
Cops Target Green Politician
Carol Norris
Advertising Deregulated:
The Inalienable Right to Mislead Millions
Sam Bahour and Michael
Dahan
Roadmap
to Nowhere
Pierre Tristam
In Defense of Not Voting
Sunil Sharma
Mourn Wellstone, Don't Mythologize Him
Ida Audeh
Picking
Olives and Removing Roadblocks:
an Interview with Ghassan Adoni
Anthony Gancarski
From Russia with Gas
The Calmatives Before the Storm
New
Print Edition of CounterPunch Available Exclusively
to Subscribers:
- The Shafts of Death: Bush, Coal Mines, and Death
in the Tunnels;
- Speak Memory!: Carter and the Draft;
- Daniel Pipes' World: Smearing Pro-Arab Academics;
- Ashcroft's Gays: the War on Free Speech;
- Saddam's Amnesty: Could It Happen Here?
- Criminalizing Dissent: a history and preview;
- Iraq 1987: When the Going Was Good;
- Egypt in Turmoil: an Anthropologist's Account;
- Green and Grounded: Profiled at the Gate.
Remember, the CounterPunch website is
supported exclusively by subscribers to our newsletter. Our worldwide
web audience is soaring , with about seven million hits a month
now. This is inspiring, but the work involved also compels us
to remind you more urgently than ever to subscribe and/or make
a (tax deductible) donation if you can afford it. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe
Now!
Or Call Toll Free 1 800 840 3683
home / subscribe
/ about us
/ books
/ archives
/ search
/ links
/
|