- Reuters
A United States soldier watches as a statue of Iraq's President Saddam Hussein falls in central Baghdad, April 9, 2003.
H.K. Billy Burke, Contributor
IT WAS with great interest that I read the 'Letter of the Day' of November 26 by Mr. Gregory McKnight and Mr. Lance Robinson's critique of it on December 5, 2003.
I consider the former one of the finest short contributions I have seen on United States foreign policy and its effects on the world. Mr. Robinson's defence of that policy invites comment.
Taking his criticisms in the order in which they are presented let us first deal with the reasons for the invasion of Iraq. I do not think anyone doubts that there were reasons other than weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Some were reasonable - some might have been despicable. Ousting Saddam might have been a good one had the world, through the United Nations, sanctioned it; but without that sanction and in the face of the UN majority desire to continue inspections and try to avoid hostilities it was illegal and therefore despicable. To many people the strongest and perhaps most despicable reason of all, although denied by the administration, was to get control of Iraqi oil. In any event the U.S. was unable to convince the UN Security Council that WMD in the hands of the Iraqi government constituted an imminent threat to the U.S., justifying an attack which is the basis put forward to the UN for the invasion.
With a transgression like this, is it too much to ask that detractors of the past should just bury the hatchet. For it could happen again unless serious consequences follow.
ON PRE-EMPTIVE MILITARISM
How else could the U.S. have been expected to react to the 9/11 attack but to formulate the doctrine of pre-emptive strikes against its perceived enemies wherever they are to be found, asks Mr. Robinson.
Well, the first thing it could have done was to go to the world body, the UN, and ask them if the doctrine could be accommodated in the charter, considering that they are members and bound by its rules. If that is the game the U.S. wants to play it cannot complain if others also play it, including its terrorist enemies. This is the surest way to worldwide anarchy that has been mooted since World War I. Pre-emptive strikes are a form of terrorism. The UN should step on it quickly.
There can be little doubt that terrorist activity has been stepped up considerably in the past decade and in particular since 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. It might be difficult to prove a connection to these or to the Israel/Palestine conflict, but as many predicted this result the suggestion should be taken seriously. The U.S. should do a spot of introspection and soul-searching to determine if they are part of the cause or cure.
The dichotomy between Christianity [mother of Western values] and Islam is indeed a long-standing one. At times the two faiths and the civilizations they inspire have been in conflict [witness the Crusades] - at others they have dwelt in harmony and tolerance. Usually, it is political or economic forces that affect this, at other times it is fanaticism on one side or the other linked with those forces. We are undoubtedly going through such a phase now but it is high-handed for one side to try and impose its will on the other. One of the basic aims of the UN is to keep the peace, which it should be able to do far more effectively than a bigoted, cowboy president.
UN AS A TALK SHOP
Yes, unfortunately, the UN is to a large extent a talk shop. The U.S., one of its chief founding fathers, apparently never intended it to be anything else but a tool of theirs. By retaining the veto for the permanent members of the Security Council the UN was severely emasculated. By not having a standing army or even a permanent corps of peacekeepers it has been a hard struggle for its mandates to be effected, especially when the U.S. withheld its dues.
For all this the UN has far more moral authority than the U.S. administration and we never hear the same sort of criticisms levelled at its decisions as those in which the U.S. is currently embroiled. The U.S. has shown it serious disrespect and it is good to see that France, Germany and others are giving it due regard.
Without this talk shop, it is easy to see how roughshod the U.S. would be riding in relations with the rest of the world. No wonder the U.S. regards them with contempt. There can be little doubt that this is one of the reasons why the European Union now feels it necessary to establish its own defences. With special friends like this, who needs enemies?
The U.S. undoubtedly looks on with alarm at the enlargement of the EU and its potential for financial growth and military strength, for it is one of the stated tenets of American defence policy that no other country should be allowed to rival U.S. military power in the future.
The arming of the EU is a backward step in the process of world unification, but some of the blame for this return to a balance of power must be borne by the U.S. for its failure to foster world unity through the UN, the only legitimate world peacekeeping body, or even on its own if it had the moral fibre and leadership qualities that would be called for if it were to merit such a responsibility.
