The US, UN & Iraq III

Scrat -- Are you against international law in general or in particular?

The only international law that I have ever seen is might makes right and survival of the fittest. All else has just been rhetoric. Will that ever change? ??

No. There is a significant body of international law which the US pushed for and signed on and now finds inconvenient (except when it's convenient). The survival of the fittest law still exists, I understand, in Brooklyn, in Borneo, on Parris Island, and a few other undesirable areas of the world, but they're not places to be proud of.

Tartarin -- Neither.

Tartarin
Damn, what will it take to push you over the border you are close to?

Tartarin - What specific international laws are you claiming the US ignores, and how (specific examples, please)?

I'm going to move in next door.

The United States does not stand in the way of the creation of an EU military force any more than Tony Blair's government has inhibited the creation of an EU Foreign policy. For both issues the limiting factors are internal contradictions among the continental European governments themselves.

Unwilling or unable to dismantle government controls over labor markets which inhibit investment and economic innovation, and equally unable to adapt social welfare systems that face imminent collapse due to their declining birthrates, the governments of old Europe have been similarly unable to even live up to their commitments for NATO military spending for decades. They are hardly in a position to create any meaningful military force.

The Franco-German dominance of EU political affairs was doomed to collapse in the face of the different world views of the new Central European members whose economies and political self-confidence have grown very rapidly in the last several years. this is what prevents the formation of an EU foreign policy in the mold of the Franco-german enthusiasts.

It's kind of laughable that the EU is considering the establishment of a unified military. For what purpose, and what cost? They can't even agree on economic issues. What makes them think they will have agreement on military ones? c.i.

It was to move forward from international anarchy that a system of international law was developed. That process was engendered in large part by the United States. Wilso, League of Nations, Roosevelt United Nations. It has also been wrecked by the United States by Mr Bush who wants to return to might is right because there is no military opposition to the US.

Indeedy-do, Steve . . . Dieu et mon droit should be George II's slogan . . .

Honi soit qui mal y pense

I think ill of this, and feel no shame . . .

The"system of international law" to which Steve refers is well over seven hundred years old. It has been evolving ever since. It consists only of those principles and rules to which sovereign nations generally agree. Special rules agreed to by some nations (such as the ICC for example) do not apply to other nations which do not accept them. (That is unless the signatory nations in question have the will and ability to enforce their writ.) The UN Charter, to which I assume Steve refers, in no way limits the right of a nation to use force in the defense of its own security or ital interests. In general the United States has been as or more scrupulous in coordinating its actions with the United Nations than has, for example France - which routinely dispatches its military forces to Francophone countries in Africa to protect its commercial interests, without any reference to the Security Council.

In a new report on juvenile offender executions in the United States, Indecent and Internationally Illegal: The Death Penalty Against Child Offenders, the organization highlights numerous parallel arguments between Atkins v. Virginia, the recent US Supreme Court decision that abolished the death sentence for the mentally retarded, and the present legal situation for juvenile offenders. "The execution of juvenile offenders is illogical, immoral, illegal under international law..."
http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/2002/usa09252002_2.html

...the Geneva Convention of 27 July 1929 relative to the treatment of prisoners of war, as amended in 1949, undoubtedly does apply to the Guantanamo detainees. The Convention, ratified by the US, applies "to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognised by one of them." The term "war" has been explicitly replaced by the phrase "armed conflict" and this more general expression clearly applies to the US action in Afghanistan.
http://mondediplo.com/2002/04/08breach

He said that UN Resolution 1441 "clearly did not authorise the use of military force. It expressly said that if Saddam Hussein remained in material breach of prior Security Council resolutions, and 1441, there would be serious consequences.
"Those consequences were not spelt out.
http://www.suntimes.co.za/2003/03/30/insight/in05.asp

U.N. Convention on Genocide?
http://www.serendipity.li/more/genocide.html

In all of these cases, the US has exempted itself from previously endorsed conventions. The US breaks laws, abrogates treaties, and continues to paper over these breaks (internally) with PR. Don't agree with that? Ask yourself whether you are a person who succumbs to the blandishments of your politicians, or whether you believe we should keep our promises, observe the laws we impose on others. If you're one of those "might makes right" people, you're probably someone who's confident of his own protections (still living with mommy, maybe, or equivalent) and would be most uncomfortable if you discovered that laws are applied unevenly, and that (for example) everyone in your community was protected by law except you.

No, George, France is no worse than we are. Old stuff. You'd profit from a refresher course in America's actions in Central and South America in the '80's and then onward through Bush 1... And as we now know, the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with our own security, even as our ability to hunt down Al Qaeda has been compromised by setting up other priorities.

George

I really don't think that you should subscribe to a refresher course of American actions in the 80's - it's really easy to forget with all the actual trouble in the world.

The French think, they got a kind of legitimation from their "Francophone Commanwealth", the same do the Portuguese with their ""Lusophone Commonwealth" and this all, because the British started such. :wink:

Walter,

I agree with your observations with respect to the "Francophone Commonwealth" , which of course is the political debris of a French African empire that was established in the late 19th century by military conquest. It does not seem to me that this should confer any more legitimacy upon French interventions in Africa than it does on (say) U.S. interventions in Central America. The United States was a rather late entrant to the imperial game of that era and played it with far less force (relatively) than did the European powers. Moreover we tended to get out sooner and exercise less direct political control. Qualitatively, however, there is little difference, and it is unfair to now say that France (say) has rights in her former empire that we do not in ours.

Tartarin,

'...., even as our ability to hunt down Al Qaeda has been compromised by setting up other priorities.'

I would dare to say that the information that the FBI recieves from Iraqi sources will soon offset any delay in pursuit of Al Qaeda.

I say this because it is generally true that re-alignment occurs after a major power struggle such as this one. I assume in this re-alignment some informed Iraqi officials will be cooperating with the US.

rjw, We're all waiting for that to happen. Sooner than later, we all hope. c.i.

http://www.atimes.com

OPINION
The making of America's Iraqi quagmire
By Ehsan Ahrari

The contours of the American occupation of post-Saddam Hussein Iraq are already formulating. The initial indications are unsettling. A major question is, if the American invasion was aimed at liberating the Iraqis and letting them have a free choice about their next government, then why is Washington imposing Donald Rumsfeld's choice, Ahmad Chalabi, as their next ruler? Another related question is, if the Iraqis should be allowed select their own form of government, why is secularism being thrust on them? These questions might be a bit harsh for those in Washington who are being swept away with a palpable hubris of victory over the fifth-rate armed forces of Iraq. That hubris may also be driving the United States in the direction of a quagmire.

The notion of "quagmire" is generally related to the US involvement in Vietnam. However, a cursory look at the history of America's involvement in foreign wars underscores that no two such events are exactly alike. So, any comparison with the quagmire of Vietnam should be offered with a qualification. The greatest difference between the Vietnamese debacle and the Iraqi adventure is that, in the case of the former, quagmire became the major obstacle in the way of military victory. In the case of the latter campaign, quagmire is likely to develop after the military victory. The end result of the next quagmire is likely to be similar to the one related to Vietnam: the US will not come out any time soon, or without further loss of life of US troops and damage to its prestige. The signs are in the making.

First, the Iraqis have already become resentful of a clear-cut American preference for safeguarding the oil fields while allowing the systematic looting of Iraq, including its hospitals and museum - though it was swept under the rug by the daily Central Command information campaign. The occupying force wanted to ensure that the Iraqi oilfields were safeguarded, so its capability to pay for the reconstruction had to remain intact. Now lucrative contracts for the reconstruction of that country are being awarded to American companies - such as Halliburton and Bechtel - with unambiguous connections to such Republican luminaries as Vice President Dick Cheney and George Schulz. The former was the CEO of Halliburton before joining the Bush-Cheney ticket in the last presidential election, and the later - secretary of state during the Ronald Reagan presidency - was the CEO of Bechtel, and still sits on its board of directors.

Second, the Bush administration continues to disallow a primary role for the United Nations either in Iraq's reconstruction or in putting together a corps of leadership for the interim government that is a representative of the major ethnic and religious factions of that country. Secretary of State Colin Powell's favorite line is that countries that spilled blood of their soldiers to win "freedom" for Iraq must have a dominant voice in shaping its government and deciding what companies should be playing a visible role in its reconstruction.

Excuse us, Mr Powell, but who has asked the United States and Britain to spill the blood of their sons and daughters for the liberation of Iraq? If these countries were to go into Iraq with explicit UN approval, the invasion of Iraq would not have been labeled as such by the international community. Then, the representatives of the international community - under the auspices of the world body - would also be playing a visible role in engaging a broad spectrum of the Iraqis to govern themselves. The Bush administration is missing a very important point that the only way the next government of Iraq will not get embroiled in serious doubts about its legitimacy is if the UN - not just the US-British nexus - starts to have a major say in its formulation.

Third, the palpable US preference for secularism will also emerge as a source of major conflict between the occupiers and the Iraqis who are committed to the proposition of a powerful presence of Islam in their next system of governance. Right now, the tactic from the US side is to have Ahmad Chalabi remain assertive about promoting secularism as a bargain for gaining power. But by becoming the head of such a government, can Chalabi rid himself of being depicted as a puppet of the Americans? Will not a secular form of government for Iraq - where the Shi'ite majority was systematically suppressed and eliminated from the power structure during the Saddam regime of Sunni rule - be perceived by that group as another "conspiracy" related to not empowering them, even though Chalabi, a Shi'ite, is spouting the mantra of secularism? Is anyone in Washington paying any attention to how much resentment such perceptions will create toward the US? From all the evidence I have seen in and around Washington, it is safe to say that, indeed, not much attention is being paid to these issues.

The trouble with Chalabi's emergence as a possible head of the interim Iraqi government is that Rumsfeld's, not Powell's, preference has gotten the nod of President George W Bush. One has to wonder why a prestigious secretary of state is systematically playing second banana to the secretary of defense, whose frequent dabbling in foreign affairs hits the international headlines when he insults America's major allies who happen to disagree with its involvement in Iraq. One also has to wonder why America's foreign policy in the post-Saddam Hussein Iraq is not being determined on the basis of hard-nosed analyses of what is good for Iraq and the region, and more important, what is in the best interest of the US? Instead, ideologically-driven neo-conservatives have consistently been visible in making heady foreign policy choices.

Fourth, the Bush administration seems to be systematically excluding any consultation with a number of major Arab states, largely because they did not support its invasion of Iraq. That is also a troubling development. Even a US preference for a politically pluralistic Iraq has to have some notion of acceptability from its neighbors.

As an occupying force in Iraq, the US is on shaky grounds. The imminent priority ought to be to remain focused on the wishes of the Iraqi majority, not to impose handpicked rulers over them who have spent almost all of their formative years in the West, and not to impose secularism.

Secularism has been a much-maligned and least-comprehended phenomenon in the Muslim world. To assume that it should be good for Iraq because it works in the US might turn out to be a recipe for a disaster. If secularism were to become a major player in Iraq, it should come from within and through a process of public debates, phenomena that may become familiar to the Iraqis only with the passage of time.

The chief trouble with a quagmire is that it is not perceived as such while it is in the making. Besides, the notion of occupation of a Muslim land is totally alien to the US. It should be treated gingerly and handled with a clear head, certainly not with the hubris of conquest, which is invariably intoxicating. The US, above all, needs a very clear analysis about what it is getting into by remaining an occupying force in Iraq.

Ehsan Ahrari, PhD, is an Alexandria, Virginia, US-based independent strategic analyst.