-Caveat Lector- http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/jul2002-daily/03-07-2002/oped/o1.htm
US unilateralism comes centre-stage Shireen M Mazari The writer is Director General of the Institute of Strategic Studies, Islamabad [EMAIL PROTECTED] The US veto of the UN SC resolution to extend UN peacekeeping in Bosnia revealed only too clearly the new US approach to international affairs. The veto was the typical reaction of a super power that knows it is in a power league (as opposed to a moral league!) by itself and cannot tolerate the rest of the world operationalising something that it disapproves of. Yet that is exactly what the international community has done in giving birth to the International Criminal Court beginning July 1, 2002. This is a court that the US does not approve of since it feels its citizens, especially soldiers, cannot be internationally accountable - even when it has begun an international war on terrorism. Of course, given the scant regard for international norms that the US has shown, especially post-9/11, it is understandable why the US would not want to get involved in the International Criminal Court (ICC). After all, its soldiers have been killing Afghan civilians and allied forces indiscriminately with not so much as a regret - all in the name of collateral damage. Even earlier, US and British warplanes have been bombing Iraqi territory and population at will, and now the US has every intent of launching a military strike against Iraq once more. Also, the US has failed to observe any international norms regarding the prisoners at Guantanamo bay, and gradually the international community is trying to take action against this abuse of prevailing international law - 24 Kuwaiti families are trying to sue the US government for denying its citizens at Guantanamo Bay the basic rights under international law which even the Nazis were provided at Nuremberg and which Milosevic is being given presently at The Hague. However, to simply spite the international community's operationalisation of the ICC and veto the resolution on UN peacekeepers in Bosnia reflects the worst aspects of US unilateralism. After all, if the US feels its soldiers cannot be subject to international norms, other states will also adopt a similar posture and one can visualise the end of notions such as multilateral peacekeeping. This is the unfortunate reality today in global politics. The US, post 9/11, has evolved a unilateralist approach to global politics (and economics as the steel issue showed) even as it seeks international support for its policies. Nor is this unilateralism isolationist in character. Instead, it is extensively interventionist and premised on the dangerous doctrine of preemption. So now the US can, on its own assessment, go and attack any country any time and anywhere as part of the new preemption doctrine which Bush spoke of at the US Military Academy at West Point (New York state). Based on a US defined "axis of evil", this new policy sees no role for consultation with allies and so on - it simply rationalises US military aggression under the guise of preemption against a perceived threat. >From now on, any state which differs with the US on crucial security issues may become a victim of US military preemption - with no verification or substantive evidence required. "Pieces of information" will be adequate - or perhaps just the whims of the US President. And no international framework will be in place to take stock of the realities on the ground and assess the validity of such a threat in the first place. So a new, free-for-all will be the hallmark of global politics with the strong doing what they please and the weak having no recourse to any international institutional safeguards. No wonder the US feels threatened by the ICC. So the tone has been set for a militaristic unilateralism on the part of the US. And what is kosher for the US will soon become kosher for its ambitious allies across the globe. Already one can see that in the growing militarism of Israel and India. Israel refused to allow a UN SC-mandated inquiry into the Jenin massacre! And India continues to use the same unilateralism in its military aggression against the Kashmiris in Occupied Kashmir. And the US allows this to happen. In fact, Israel has adopted the preemption doctrine even more extensively than the US itself presently. Hence, we are seeing Israeli forces simply destroy Palestinian buildings with people in them on the pretext that these people are "terrorists". And not a word of condemnation from the US. Even the Europeans, who do not go along with Mr Bush on all aspects of the new US unilateralism, seem to have been browbeaten into an uneasy silence. Of course, the Bush statement on the Middle East reflects an acceptance and encouragement of Israeli military aggression against the Palestinians. Even more dangerous has been the call by the US for the removal of Arafat. This shows a new dimension of the interventionist unilateralism and - as is already being demonstrated - can hardly be a recipe for peace and stability. First it was Gaddafi, then Saddam and now the US wants to remove Arafat. One really wonders which leader will be targeted next by the US - and how long the international community will allow the US this leeway? Ironically, while Bush was calling on the Palestinian people "to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror", he seemed to have had a convenient amnesia about the terrorist credentials of successive Israeli leaders, especially Sharon who is guilty of the massacre of the Palestinian refugees in the Sabra and Shatilla camps in Lebanon in 1982. But then Sharon was also part of the Jewish underground organisation Haganah (along with ex-premier Begin) which carried out terrorist attacks in Palestine before the creation of the Zionist state and were responsible for the blast at the king David Hotel which killed many British soldiers who were housed there. But the US chooses to forget all this because of the compulsions of US unilateralism! Nor has this unilateralism been a result of 9/11. 9/11 has aggravated it and allowed the US to become more overt in its expression but the seeds were there much before. After all, the CTBT was killed by the US Senate much before 9/11 as was the Kyoto Protocol. And Bush had made it clear, on coming to power, that he was going to take the US out of the ABM Treaty. But post 9/11, the US has adopted a dangerous aggressiveness to this unilateralism. Nor is the new US unilateralism limited to external policies. There is a domestic dimension also, in that racial groups are being profiled and targeted on the basis of ethnicity and religion. And the US civil rights groups are by and large maintaining either a total silence or a muted response. The result is that Muslims, especially Arabs and Pakistanis are being targeted for abuse and even murder - and children are not exempt either. Detention of these people without provision of the basics of legal counsel and so on is becoming part of the US domestic practice. Returning detainees have their own tales of horror while many who remain behind live in fear. The irony is that all these policies will not make the Americans feel any safer since fear is being instilled in their psyches. They do not have to travel to be fearful - even in their own cities they are told they are not safe from the "terrorist" threat. This psyche may allow US unilateralism and militarism to gain domestic support but the cost to the American nation in the long term will be extensive. After all living in fear indefinitely hardly creates a healthy society. And the diversity and freedom that were the enviable hallmarks of American society and culture will become hostage to this new militaristic unilateralism. At the end of the day, the independence and freedom of the American people cannot be divorced from that of peoples around the world. Unilateralism of the powerful in an era of global interdependence will be destructive for all of us. This is what Americans, who still retain their ability to question their leaders, need to contemplate as they approach another 4th of July - their Independence Day. <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
