|
WE
CAN
STOP THIS WAR BEFORE IT BEGINS
By
David
Krieger
President, The
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
TFF
associate
November 12, 2002
Statement at the European Parliament, October 22,
2002
Thank you for inviting me to speak today. I have come
here to urge you all, individually and collectively, to
do everything in your power to oppose a US war against
Iraq a war that can have no good end. I believe that we
have within our reach the ability to stop this war before
it begins.
If we succeed, we will save the lives of innocent
Iraqis who have suffered enough, and also the lives of
young American soldiers, who enlisted in the military
with the primary purpose of obtaining the resources to go
to college. We will also prevent the creation of
thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of new terrorists,
whose activities will undoubtedly affect Europe as well
as the United States.
America Does Not Speak with One Voice
The Bush administration would have the world believe
that America speaks with one voice on the issue of war
against Iraq. John Negroponte, the US Ambassador to the
UN, recently said, referring to the Joint Congressional
Resolution authorizing the president to use force, "This
resolution tells the world that the United States speaks
with one determined voice."
Nothing could be further from the truth. Large and
growing numbers of Americans are saying "Not in our
name." They are saying it in full-page ads in major
newspapers and they are saying it in the
streets.
They are making their voices heard and their presence
felt. It is reminiscent of the period of the Vietnam War.
The difference is that this war has not yet begun in
earnest, which is not to say that the sanctions and the
bombing in the no-fly zones have not already taken a
large toll of victims.
Only a few months ago, most Americans were not paying
serious attention to the possibility of war. Now they
are, and they are showing up in protest marches by the
thousands. The number will swell to hundreds of
thousands, even millions, if the bombs begin to fall on
Baghdad.
One recent ad in USA Today concludes: "Let us not
allow the watching world today to despair of our silence
and our failure to act. Instead, let the world hear our
pledge: we will resist the machinery of war and
repression and rally others to do everything possible to
stop it."
Let me give you the example of the member of Congress
from my district, Lois Capps. Just one month ago she was
undecided on this issue, perhaps because the Democratic
leadership in the Congress has been so timid with a few
notable exceptions such as Senator Robert Byrd. Many of
Cappsí constituents spoke to her in opposition to
the war. When it came time for the vote on the war
resolution, she was one of 133 members of the House of
Representatives who voted No, along with 23
Senators.
She stated: "I have not yet seen or heard any
convincing evidence that Saddam Hussein is an immediate
threat to our national security. Military action should
always be a last resort, and we should work in concert
with our allies and the U.N. to exhaust every possible
diplomatic and economic solution to this problem. At this
time I do not believe that the case has been made that
force is the only option left to us."
I am here to ask your support in rallying the European
Parliament to stand together with the growing number of
Americans who are saying an increasingly clear and
powerful No to this war -- Not In Our Names.
Children of Iraq
The Bush administration is attempting to paint the
face of Saddam on the people of Iraq. The children of
Iraq deserve more from us. We must not accept the
simplistic and militaristic solutions of the Bush
administration -- Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle and
others -- who have their own agendas for war, including
oil, dominance and revenge.
If you visit the web site of the Nuclear Age Peace
Foundation, you will find photographs of the children of
Iraq, children who will become the collateral damage of
this war just as they have been the collateral damage of
US-led sanctions that have taken some one million lives.
You will also find at this web site letters from Iraqi
students to American students. These children do not
deserve to be painted with the face of Saddam.
Preemptive War
Mr. Bush has put forward a doctrine of preemptive war.
It is actually not a new doctrine, but it is dangerous
and aggressive unilateralism at its most
extreme.
Preemptive war was once called "aggressive war," and
was described as a "Crime against peace" in the Nuremberg
Trials of Nazi war criminals. Such war violates Article 6
of the Nuremberg Charter. It includes "planning,
preparation, initiation or waging a war of
aggression."
At stake is the entire post World War II international
order, including the United Nations system
itself.
A Defining Moment for the International
System
The Bush administration has already cajoled the US
Congress to authorize preemptive war. This authorization
is false because it is illegal. Congress cannot give the
president the power to commit illegal acts, and war
against Iraq cannot be legal unless it is properly
authorized by the United Nations after all peaceful means
have failed. We are far from that point.
There are only two circumstances in which force is
authorized under the United Nations Charter. First, there
is self-defense, but this only comes into effect when a
country is under attack or an attack is imminent, and
then only until the United Nations Security Council
becomes seized of the matter. In the case of Iraq, there
is not a current or imminent attack and the United
Nations Security Council is already seized of the
matter.
The second circumstance in which force is authorized
under the UN Charter is when the Security Council
determines that all peaceful means of resolving a
conflict have failed. The Security Council has not made
this determination in the case of Iraq, despite the Bush
administrationís efforts to push it in this
direction.
Mr. Bush also places the UN in jeopardy by his threats
to act unilaterally if he decides it is necessary. One
former US diplomat recently referred to the Bush
administration as "hectoring radical unilateralists." He
means by this that the approach of the administration is
that of a bully. We must stand up to this bully in the
name of peace, justice and international law.
Senator Robert Byrd, a wise octogenarian and a hero on
this issue in the US Senate, said: "S.J. Resolution 46
would give the president blanket authority to launch a
unilateral, pre-emptive attack on a sovereign nation that
is perceived to be a threat to the United States.... This
is an unprecedented and unfounded interpretation of the
president's authority under the Constitution of the
United States, not to mention the fact that it stands the
Charter of the United Nations on its head."
Hypocrisy
The Bush administration is more inclined to practice
hypocrisy than democracy. The administration's hypocrisy
takes many forms. The most pronounced forms are Nuclear
hypocrisy, Compliance hypocrisy and Criminal Justice
hypocrisy. In each of these areas the Bush administration
practices a clear double standard.
Nuclear Hypocrisy
Joseph S. McGinnis, Acting Head of the US delegation
to the First Committee of the UN, recently stated when
introducing a resolution (L.54) on Compliance with Arms
Limitation and Disarmament Agreements:
"The US believes that every country in the world
should be a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention and the
Chemical Weapons Convention. We also believe that every
country that has signed and ratified these agreements
should comply fully with their provisions, and that
States Parties must hold each other accountable and take
appropriate steps to deter violations."
The US has been in standing violation of its Article
VI obligations for nuclear disarmament since the
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) entered into force in
1970.
The Bush administration has shown no inclination to
comply with obligations of the 1995 and 2000 NPT Review
Conferences. It has failed to submit the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty to the Senate for ratification, pulled
out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and entered into
a fraudulent Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty (SORT)
that will reduce some of the currently actively deployed
strategic nuclear weapons but will not make these cuts
irreversible. Rather, this treaty will allow for the
deactivated weapons to be placed in storage, where they
will actually be more likely to be available to
terrorists.
The Bush Nuclear Posture Review calls for retaining
nuclear weapons in perpetuity, calls for contingency
plans to use nuclear weapons against at least seven
countries, indicates a willingness to use nuclear weapons
against chemical or biological weapons attacks, and
outlines plans for more useable nuclear weapons such as
bunker busters.
Further, the Bush administration has formed alliances
with Pakistan and India, although both have developed
nuclear arsenals. The administration has never even
raised the issue of Israel having developed a nuclear
arsenal, despite long-standing calls for a Middle East
Nuclear Weapons Free Zone, including in Security Council
Resolution 687, the resolution that laid down the terms
of Iraqi disarmament.
Regarding biological weapons, the Bush administration
sabotaged six years of negotiations to add an inspection
and verification protocol to the Biological Weapons
Convention. The Bush administration also forced the
resignation and replacement of Jose Bustani, the head of
the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
(OPCW). They disliked Bustani because he had encouraged
Iraq to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention and become
part of its inspection regime, a step that would have
made military action against Iraq even less
justifiable.
Compliance Hypocrisy
The Bush administration is ready to go to war with
Iraq to achieve compliance with UN Security Council
resolutions. Yet, there are many other violations of
Security Council resolutions by other nations, including
US allies Israel and Turkey, for which the US shows
little or no concern.
Additionally, the Bush administration has indicated a
willingness to engage in diplomatic efforts to seek a
peaceful solution to the recent revelation by North Korea
that it is developing nuclear weapons.
Criminal Justice Hypocrisy
Bush has withdrawn the US signature from the
International Criminal Court and has sworn that US
leaders will never be subject to the Courtís
jurisdiction, yet he has threatened to bring Iraqi
leaders to an International Tribunal should they use
weapons of mass destruction if attacked by the
US.
Conclusions
-- The international community must stand firm in
rejecting a US initiated preemptive war against
Iraq.
-- The states of the European Union can help lead the
way in preventing the Bush administration from standing
the international system on its head with its plans for
preemptive war. They can also engage in the hard work of
negotiations and diplomacy to find a peaceful solution to
the current compliance issues with Iraq and with other
countries currently out of compliance with Security
Council Resolutions and other multinational treaties such
as the NPT.
-- Double standards in the international system must
be ended, and a single standard must be applied to all,
even the sole remaining superpower.
David Krieger is president of the Nuclear
Age Peace Foundation. His latest book is Choose Hope,
Your Role in Waging Peace in the Nuclear Age.
©
TFF & the author 2002
Tell a friend about this article
Send to:
From:
Message and your name
|