WRONG

Will fear and loathing of the Bush administration — endemic in the region for the past three years — finally turn to cheers and love-ins? Has Bush's shoot-first diplomacy finally won the day? Against all odds, can democracy be delivered at the point of a gun? Not if you ask Philippe Sands. "Bush and (British Prime Minister) Tony Blair don't have much sense of history, and they believe the thump of a big boot will start a ripple of democracy," Sands said in an interview in Toronto last week. "But even if that were true, international law is the glue that holds everything together. If they destroy the foundations of law, they won't succeed in building a democratic region." Sands, a British lawyer and author, is on a one-man mission to return the United States to the fold of international law, while making sure the world doesn't forget what can happen when it strays: a war in Iraq carried out in defiance of the law and against the wishes of most of America's traditional allies. A slight, bespectacled man who volleys between London and dozens of legally challenged countries, Sands has the informality of one more at home in T-shirts than wigs and gowns. But he is Britain's go-to counsel on the environment and international human rights; a respected U.K. legal review rated him the country's "leading (advocate) in public international law." He has worked on high-profile cases ranging from war crimes to battles over genetically modified food, all the while heading the University of London's Centre for International Courts and Tribunals. Sands' main passion is international order, which he believes is the one force that keeps us from chaos. He has just published a new book in England, Lawless World: America and the Making and Breaking of Global Rules, and was here last week teaching a one-week course at the University of Toronto. He is unmoved by recent news polls that show that a majority of Americans believe Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein and that the chance for democracy in that beleaguered country has increased since the invasion. Above all, he remains convinced that the war in Iraq was illegal and cannot be justified even on humanitarian grounds, regardless of any eventual happy outcome. In Sands' view, the U.S. and Britain are creating a more dangerous world by undercutting the framework of international laws they helped to put in place half a century ago. "Iraq was one of the worst examples of ignoring international law," he says. "There was no systematic and fundamental slaughter going on in March 2003, when the invasion took place, so it can't be seen as a humanitarian intervention. It clearly has no legal justification." The invasion and subsequent abuses of terrorism suspects by American forces at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, says Sands, are serious examples of a "shocking transformation of two countries' traditional commitment to the rule of law." In Iraq, Sands points out, "when slaughter (the gassing of Kurds, which killed thousands, and the bloody war with Iran) did take place in the 1980s, intervention might have been justified, but Saddam Hussein was our friend. We turned a blind eye to his actions, and we supported him. That's why he was never indicted for the war with Iran. The world may be a better place without Saddam, but that doesn't alter the illegality of going to war." The U.S.'s ongoing war against terrorism has struck some of the most serious blows against the rule of law, says Sands. Among the worst is the detention of suspects without trial or formal charges, including foreign nationals such as Canadian teenager Omar Khadr, confined at Guantanamo Bay since he was captured in Afghanistan at 14. Calling Guantanamo a "legal black hole" into which some 650 detainees have been dropped, Sands says the U.S. has only invalid legal arguments for a "startling proposition" that prisoners can be treated any way Washington wishes, and for declaring them unlawful combatants and placing them outside the territory of the U.S. In the U.K., Sands is counsel for a group of foreign men detained in London's Belmarsh Prison on suspicion of links with terrorist groups, a case known as "Britain's Guantanamo." And, he says, Blair appears to support the Bush administration's practice of "rendition," or sending terror suspects abroad for interrogation in countries that employ torture — as was done to Canadian Maher Arar, who was abused during a year of imprisonment in Syria. The idea that countries can make their own rules "threatens dire consequences for the protection of human rights around the world," he says. "What is called an `à la carte' approach to the law will not work. That means deciding that some international rules are good and others are bad, obeying some and rejecting others. The U.S. is not against all the rules, such as those which promote its economic interests. But it has to understand that economic and social rules must be treated in a holistic way, and they are all integrated." Sands, who works at London's prestigious Matrix Chambers with Blair's wife, Cherie Booth, is most indignant at what he sees as a betrayal of Britain's history as the country that created the Magna Carta, the original charter of human rights in the English-speaking world, and helped to lay the foundations of modern international law. He is known as a fierce critic of his government's endorsement of America's disregard for international rules. "I believe that Blair has provided legitimacy to actions which are plainly contrary to international law," he says. "On Guantanamo there was no criticism of acts that were absolutely illegal. And on Iraq, Blair overrode Foreign Office legal advisors, and numerous other lawyers, to determine that the U.K. could use force. It was obviously meant to support the United States." Reports of torture at the U.S. detention facility of Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq are "only the tip of the iceberg," Sands adds. "I wouldn't be surprised if in the coming months more stories emerge that indicate the extent of British and American efforts to circumvent their own domestic laws and international obligations." The New York Times last week reported that at least 26 prisoners have died in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002, in what U.S. military officials call "acts of criminal homicide." Almost all of the deaths occurred outside of Abu Ghraib, countering suggestions that American violence against detainees was confined to a few people at the prison. The world is not a safer place because of such draconian actions, Sands says. Although he himself was uncomfortably close to the attack on New York's World Trade Center while speaking at a nearby downtown university, he says that America's trauma after Sept. 11 has given the Bush administration an excuse to escalate an existing campaign against any international rules it opposes. "When that appalling event happened, it was a terrible tragedy. But other countries have also had to cope with war and terrorism. America has reacted in a very extreme way that will, in fact, be detrimental to its own interests." Far from encouraging democracy, Sands says, Bush's war on terrorism has encouraged lawless behaviour in countries that keep a close eye on American violations of human rights. "I work for about 20 countries around the world and I can't count the number of times I'm told that, `If America can do this, why can't we?' Not only has it undermined American moral authority and effectiveness, but it also served to provide arguments for others who don't have the same commitment to rule of law to engage in unacceptable activities." But Sands, whose wife is American, says that simply denigrating the U.S., as some critics have done, is no solution. "Here is a great country which created a new international order after the horrors of the Nazi era. With Britain, Canada and other countries, it put in place the charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the convention against genocide." Although Europe is an increasingly powerful voice for human rights, says Sands, "America cannot be replaced as a leader in the field. Without the U.S. on board, the whole international law project will suffer." But his message — "a plea," as he calls it — for Washington to return to its post-World War II roots has fallen on deaf ears. Bush, he believes, signalled his intention to continue obeying laws selectively when he recently named John Bolton the new U.S. ambassador to the UN. "This is a man who can say with a straight face, `Treaties aren't binding,'" says Sands. "Once you get into that mindset, anything is possible. You can torture detainees who just happen to be Muslim, if you wish, because you're doing it for the `greater good.'" Bolton, a former foreign policy advisor and senior State Department official, is noted for his view that treaties are merely "political" and should be considered arbitrary. Bolton also infamously proclaimed, "There is no United Nations. When the U.S. leads, the United Nations will follow. When it suits our interest to do so, we will do so. When it does not suit our interest, we will not." Just last week, Bush followed up the Bolton appointment with the nomination of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz — one of the architects of the Iraq war and a man with no experience in economics — to head the World Bank, a major international institution. Nevertheless, says Sands, "I have to be optimistic that the U.S. will recognize that it needs rules. The Bush administration came into office determined to remake the global order, but I think they now see that they have had to pay a very high price. "Building a few shopping malls in Baghdad isn't building democracy. We have to be in for the long haul, and that means strengthening, not weakening the laws. The issues of the Middle East are sorted out through treaties and agreements. At the end of the day, those are the instruments you need." original source: http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1111186211068&call_pageid=970599109774&col=Columnist972859094293