*** From [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tomasz Iwanowski)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/TGAM/20020921/COSIMP21/Columnists/columnists/columnistsNational_temp/1/6/14/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRINT EDITION
Washington's new (old) 'war party'
By JEFFREY SIMPSON
Saturday, September 21, 2002 - Page A19
The U.S. ambassador to Germany put the matter squarely: Germany's opposition to
military
action against Iraq "makes the job more difficult" for German-American relations.
That's the discrete official position. William Safire, New York Times columnist, ardent
conservative and friend of all right-wingers in Israel, warned Germany this week:
Oppose
military action and the U.S. might review its military commitment to Europe.
Opposition to
striking Iraq constitutes "anti-Americanism" that should not go unpunished.
So, there you have it. Do not support a core U.S. policy and get set for charges of
"anti-Americanism" and "more difficult relations." U.S. allies are on notice: Dissent
will
bring consequences. As George W. Bush put it in launching his "war" on terror: You're
with
us or against us.
That was fine for terrorism. But now that philosophy has extended to Iraq, whose links
with
al-Qaeda are so unproved that even Mr. Bush doesn't hang his case on them.
The philosophy will apparently extend further. In this unilateralist, muscular phase of
U.S. foreign policy, where pre-emptive strikes against unfriendly regimes have become
official operating doctrine, American allies had better prepare themselves for a "with
us
or against us" approach on all international security issues.
Yesterday, the Bush administration released its national security strategy to
Congress. The
document describes a "distinctly American internationalism" based on uncontested
military
superiority, unilateralism instead of treaty-making, and striking pre-emptively against
hostile regimes or those that sponsor terror. Those who believe Iraq is a special case
in
U.S. foreign policy should read the document to have their illusions shattered.
The thinking behind this new U.S. policy used to be consigned to the right wing of the
Reagan administration. It figured a little in the administration of Mr. Bush's father.
What
used to be a marginal doctrine has become the official one. On Iraq, the new thinking
is
partially driven by those who believe that the first Bush administration erred in not
driving on to Baghdad during the Persian Gulf war.
Those who espouse this doctrine are the "war party" in Washington. They include the
Secretary of Defence, the Vice-President and many second-tier officials in the
departments
of Defence and State.
They want "regime change" in Iraq, and that means a military invasion, later or sooner.
They want, and will soon receive, a congressional resolution authorizing force against
Iraq. For them, the United Nations is an obstacle to be overcome rather than an
instrument
to be used, apart from temporary camouflage.
They do not believe in weapons inspection; indeed, they fear it, because if the UN
inspectors are successful, it would weaken the case for war. Happily for them, Saddam
Hussein is so misguided that he will impose conditions before or during the inspections
that will provide the rationale for the "war party" to invade.
"Regime change" is a new phrase for an old American idea of intervening in the affairs
of
other countries to change governments or defend existing ones. A partial list over the
past
century of such U.S. interventions, for good or ill, would include Cuba twice
("Remember
the Maine" and the Bay of Pigs), the Philippines (Spanish-American War), Mexico
(invasion),
Nicaragua, El Salvador, Panama, Grenada, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Korea, Japan,
Germany, Italy, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Vietnam.
Most of these American interventions occurred when the country did not enjoy
uncontested
superpower status. That status, underpinned by American exceptionalism and
millennialism,
is now buttressed by a sense of post-Sept. 11 domestic vulnerability and
post-Afghanistan
military might. These factors, in turn, have encouraged the aggressive, unilateralist
posture of the "war party."
So dominant is the United States that, with the exception of Germany (whose government
is
fighting for re-election), countries that might otherwise oppose the Washington "war
party"
are either muting their criticism or co-operating. They fear future American
unhappiness or
are resigned to their own political weakness or military helplessness.
Whatever doubts these countries harbour about the desire of the "war party" to attack
Iraq
are squelched. Britain signs up for combat. France is more co-operative than usual.
Russia
and Turkey are bought off. China remains silent. Canada does the minimum and ducks.
Saudi
Arabia makes supportive gestures. Australia offers help.
Nobody dares mention in the debate about Iraq's biological and chemical weapons that
the
U.S. refused to approve or implement the 2001 UN protocol on developing, producing or
stockpiling biological or toxin weapons; the land-mines treaty; the nuclear
non-proliferation treay; the nuclear test-ban treaty.
None of these can be squared with the new U.S. doctrine of military hegemony and
unilateral
military intervention in countries defined as hostile by the United States, the
"distinctly
American internationalism."
The United States' real or imagined enemies are served notice by this new doctrine, the
first test case of which will be Iraq. But Washington's friends, too, need to
reconsider
their traditional approaches to the U.S., because the new doctrine challenges many of
their
old assumptions about how to deal with that country.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
=====
RZADY MASOWEGO MORDERCY MUSZA SIE SKONCZYC!
========================
KIERES MUSI ODEJSC!
========================
Wspmoz RUCH NA RZECZ JEDNOMANDATOWYCH OKREGOW WYBORCZYCH,JOW
========================
Co robisz? - boje sie.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
===============================================================
Lista 'Forum Zagraniczne' Administrator: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archiwum: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
