Judging by the recent uprisings the Iraqi people sure don't feel liberated and the freedom that George Bush and Paul Bremer are spreading is for US corporations, not the people of Iraq.
So what is the US doing in Iraq? Sure there's the oil and Project for a New American Century's neat little plan to take over the world, but what about the now-official reason, to spread democracy. What has the US really done to spread democracy? While Bremer sits in his office issuing edicts that begin with, "I, Paul Bremer," and previously nationally owned assets are turned over to American interests at fire-sale prices, are there any real attempts being made to better the lot in life of the Iraqi people?
The talk is of bringing them democracy, but democracy is not something that you can force on people. Any attempt to do so necessarily rings hollow because using force is not part of the democratic process. The Bush administration's attempts to retain control of the political process in Iraq even while claiming to be bringing democracy make the situation laughable.
What right does the US have to decide what form the Iraqi government should take? What right do they have to issue edicts that change the very formation of the country? Paul Bremer has privatised national agencies, something that is illegal under international and US military law. He has shut down press outlets that are critical of US policies, bringing condemnation from Reporters Without Borders and other international agencies. Peaceful demonstrations are met with violence and insurgents are branded as terrorists. The fact that the insurgents are trying to regain control of their own country and is immaterial. They will be given only as much control and democracy as the US is comfortable with.
The US does not have a record of being comfortable with democracy. The early 1970's over-throw of the Allende government in Chile is the previous high-water mark for the USA's complete disrespect for democracy and the sovereignty of other countries. Nixon and Kissinger did all they could to keep Allende from coming to power, tried to destroy the Chilean economy, and finally backed a coup that installed Pinochet as Chile's leader. Pinochet instituted a reign of terror on Chile for seventeen years, largely because of continued backing from the USA.
Ronald Reagan followed the same path in the Iran/Contra Affair of the 1980s. He sent the CIA into Nicaragua to destabilise the elected government of Nicaragua. He made sure that the Contras had weapons and the means to commit murder. The Contras terrorized the Nicaraguan people, disappearing many and killing even more. Reagan funded the operation with arms sales to Iran and drug money. Breaking domestic and international law to overthrow a democratically elected government is a recurring theme in the foreign policy of the US. It is necessary if they are to force smaller, poorer countries to do their bidding.
George W. Bush has shown the same disrespect for international law in Iraq and Afghanistan. Reports of war crimes are commonplace even while democratic institutions such as freedom of the press and local elections are suppressed. It's a well-worn pattern by now, and not surprising given the past experience of key members of the Bush administration. A country is invaded, a hand-picked government is installed to do the bidding of the US, and any attempt to form a government the present US administration does not see as friendly is opposed.
It is a pattern that seems, under the tutelage of Project for a New American Century, to be expanding. Jean Bertrand Aristide was removed from power in Haiti a few weeks ago. He insists that US troops kidnapped him and took him to Africa. Aristide was an elected leader and, even with election irregularities, the recognised and official leader of Haiti. He was a socialist though, one put back in power by the Clinton administration after a previous attempted coup. He was not a friend of the Bush administration, so he was removed as soon as it became convenient.
That's the neo-conservative/neo-liberal view of the world. The result of the doctrine of being with or against the Bush regime. Those with the audacity to question the USA's self-described right to run the world will be put in their place or destroyed. They can accede to wishes of the US or vanish. International law and world opinion do not matter. US domestic and military law do not matter. Agreements and treaties do not matter. International organisations do not matter. Democracy, human rights, and freedom do not matter.
All that does matter is that the US establish and retain military and economic dominance. They do not have a right to do that. They most certainly do not have a right to do that if they intend on inflicting American-style capitalism on the world.
We are allowing it, though. In 1992 Ramsey Clark and others released the report to the Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal. George H. Bush, J. Danforth Quayle, James Baker, Richard Cheney, William Webster, Colin Powell, Norman Schwarzkopf were accused and found guilty of war crimes for their part in the Gulf War during the elder Bush?s one-term presidency. Nothing was done.
George W. Bush has been tried and convicted in absentia of war crimes committed in Afghanistan, by the International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan, yet nothing has been done. Bush the younger is also facing trial by an international tribunal for his crimes in Iraq, and will very likely be implicated in many transgressions of international law including conventions against torture, yet there are no signs that anything will be done. While these tribunals do not have the force of international law, the evidence presented is valid and the laws transgressed are clear.
Vietnam and Cambodia would like Henry Kissinger tried for crimes he committed during Vietnam. Kissinger is also heavily implicated in Pinochet's reign of terror in Chile. Not only is nothing being done, but Bush tried to hire Kissinger to head the current investigation into the September 11 attacks. The only thing that prevented that was Kissinger's reluctance to reveal who his clients are.
Until the international community stands up and unequivocally states that breaches of international laws will not be tolerated, that individuals who do transgress those laws will be brought to trial and, if convicted, punished, then the transgressions will continue. If the members of the US government are allowed to break the law with impunity, then it is very difficult to bring others to trial. It also makes any significant advances toward solving the problems of the world impossible because so many of those problems are the result of myopic US foreign policy that takes into account neither international law nor the people in the nations being destroyed in the name of US capitalism.
In 2002 George W. Bush refused to ratify the International Criminal Court treaty. He has insisted that no US citizen can be tried or held for war crimes or crimes against humanity. He has tried to bully other nations into signing agreements saying that they will not arrest American citizens for war crimes. He has stated that any attempt to do so will be met with actions up to and including military action. So what is he afraid of? Apparently that his friends, family and himself might end up in prison for the things they have done.
The international community needs to stand up to Mr. Bush and the USA. It is time to say that enough is enough, war crimes will not be permitted, that it is time for USA to bring its occupying troops home, and for the accused to stand trial. Removing the defacto immunity from prosecution that the US enjoys would send a message to entire world that no person or country is immune to international law.
Recommended Links:
http://afghan-tribunal.3005.net/english/http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/05/icc0506-ltr.htm
http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrim2.htm
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=20&ItemID=4176
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1189396,00.html
---
Reverend Blair was raised in Saskatchewan and currently lives in Winnipeg, Manitoba. He comes from a long line of social activists and cried on Tommy Douglas before his first birthday. His column appears biweekly on Vive le Canada.
Note: http://afghan-tribunal....
http://www.hrw.org/pres...
http://deoxy.org/wc/war...
http://www.zmag.org/con...
http://www.guardian.co....
Stumble It!
---
Dave Ruston
Today infront of a wall of military and David Pratt's arrogant face illuminated like an apparition, Paul Martin spoke as though Canada would be taking the initiative to fight against human rights violations. The only misguided thing about that is that I had the distinct impression he meant it would be "with" the US not against them. It's repugnant, how the US's human rights violations, their who needs international crimal courts?, and their manipulation of disadvantaged countries, (like our own), is never questioned.
I don't think there will ever be a more important election to keep the Liberals and the Cons from winning. Each one of us has to do double duty to make sure they do not get in.
What about the summary executions, disappearances and mass graves caused, backed, and paid for by the US? Does pointing at someone else's crimes absolve you of yours? The biggest reason our country is secure is that we don't go around blowing people up. Your policies of greed lead to mass death. PNAC has stated their goals openly, so it doesn't quite fit the definition of a clandestine conspiracy. Do you understand anything about the purposes and goals of the UN? Do you understand international law and why it exists?
The only reason the US is as safe as it is, is because they have Canada as a northern neighbour. However, the more abuse they dish out around the globe the more they will drive us all to befriend the so called "terrorists".
And if Anon thinks we're interested in their holy war then they never saw the poll the Globe and Mail did around Easter time. They asked if we believed in God. 39%said yes, 51% said no, and 11% were unsure. We're not the religious extremists their government and its biggest supporters are. THANK GOD!
Why on earth are american journalists wearing Canadian maple leafs on their clothing? Is it because we live next door or because we are the safety zone? We don't have the biggest gun, because we don't need it, we are not going around creating problems and them showing everyone our might by solving the problems, we created.
Anon it must be terrifying to live in a state where the admin is taking over the world by corporate and military might and the little people are starving and doing without healthcare etc., they are exporting a form of democracy and you are paying for it, while they are taking away the rights at home; how do you rationalize all that?
---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?
perhaps you should take up smoking weed and give up the tobacco and speed. The only radicals that are setting up shop here are the ones your country is paying to do so. Yes we are on to your sneaky little tricks. Your country has murdered, raped and pillaged other countries around the world for at least a hundred years, the only difference now is the vast increase in the amount of damage that's done. You are in favor of democracy as long as the vote is for what ever you want done. If it doesn't go your way then an overthrow is organized.
As for the United Nations, of course it is corrupt, your country is a member isn't it?
Send me an e-mail.
-I see there are new challengers to the title of most opinionated big-mouth. Gotta love it!
I was getting worried about you, where have you been?
Glad to have you back!
1947 Greece
1953 Iran
1954 Guatemala
1961 The Bay of Pigs, Ecuador, Zaire
1964 Brazil
1965 Indonesia, Zaire
1968 Bolivia
1975 Angola
1980 El Salvador
Pretty ugly record.
---
If there was ever a time for Canadians to become pushy - now is the time - for time is running out on this nation called Canada.