By
What Authority?
The American Empire and the Future of Peace
By
Chaiwat
Satha-Anan
Director of Peace Information Center,
Foundation for Democracy and Development Studies
Faculty of Political Science, Thammasat
University
TFF
associate
March 24, 2003
The war against Iraq has already begun after passing
the deadline given by the President of the American
empire. Some three hundred thousand men and women, using
the most advanced weapons in the history of war, are
attacking Iraq, another country, aiming to change its
political leaders and regime. In the past few nights,
thousands of missiles set Baghdad alighted, sending
"shock and awe" to the regime waiting to be "decapitated"
by the sword of the empire. At the time of this writing,
the US-led ground forces continue their activities, some
at a distance of more than a hundred kilometers from
Ancient Baghdad. According to figures given by both
sides, the number of lives lost from the attack have been
strikingly low as a result of the advanced technology of
killings used. It goes without saying, however, to assume
that as war continues, number of civilian casualties will
rise. Saddam Hussein crimes for this "punishment" include
being a violator of international order, alleged
possessor of weapons of mass destruction, liar to the
world about the secrets of these weapons, and being a
cruel tyrant who puts his own people to immense
sufferings.
The issues that occupy the minds of many include not
who will "win" this war, since this is almost a
certainty, but how long will this war last? In what ways
are this war fought? What latest technology are used and
with what devastating results? Others worry about the
effects of this war on "us", especially "our economy ".
Policy makers are wondering how their countries should
behave under the circumstances? Those with a little
longer perspective, or perhaps left with no other
choices, begin to ask questions about the reconstruction
of Iraq and their roles in it.
This article seeks to explore into the future(s) of
peace after this war ends by first understanding the
changing nature of the US and the long-term consequences
of Bush's war against Iraq. Then conditions necessary for
the future of peace at this moment in history will be
advanced.
The American
Empire
The attack on Iraq in 1991 led by President Bush- the
father, was important because it represented the US as
the only power capable of managing international justice,
not as a function of its own national motives but in the
name of global right. Now in March, 2003, President Bush-
the son, argues that in addition to assure the country's
national security, the war to disarm and dethrone Saddam
Hussein is necessary at this moment precisely to "enforce
the just demands of the world" in pursuit of "the
security of the world". Writing in December 2002, Brian
Urquhart , former under-secretary of the United Nations,
pointed out that even if the war against Iraq is
successful, its immediate political consequences could
still be disastrous. Among other things, it might
distract the international effort in a war against
terrorism at a dangerous moment. In the confusion of
battlefield, chemical and biological weapons, believed to
exist, may easily fall into the hands of terrorists. It
might well destabilize weaker governments especially in
the Middle East, and create dissension between the people
and their governments, which would in turn strengthen
extremists' politics. It would certainly provide a new
generation of recruits for some terrorist
organizations.
These latter points are shared by the German Foreign
Minister, Joschka Fischer. In Berlin on February 22,
2003, he raised the question if military attack on Iraq
would strengthen or undermine international terrorism?
That the threat of terrorism will be strengthened as a
result of this war is confirmed by none other than
President Bush in his ultimatum given before the world on
March 18, where he acknowledged that in connection to
this war, such a threat to America and the world, is
possible, though not inevitable. Yet, he was certain that
these "enemies…would fail." Morale boosting at a
time of war aside, it is important to understand how it
is possible for the US President to make such a claim
with that kind of certainty.
During the last century and especially after the end
of cold war, the US has been increasingly expected to
assume the central role in the emerging new world order
by serving international organizations, including the UN,
international monetary and humanitarian organizations, in
pursuit of public good. The US was called in to intervene
militarily in regional conflicts from Haiti to the
Persian Gulf, from Somalia to Bosnia. In other words, the
American "empire", as the embodiment of universal values
in pursuit of global right, has come into existence by
the world context that has continuously called it into
services through time. Under the present circumstances,
where the exercise of its almost limitless power has been
made possible by technological supremacy, combined with a
close to religious self understanding that it is in
possession of "ideas that conquered the world", namely: a
particular kind of peace, democracy and
Freedom-especially free market, the US has developed and
committed to a sense of mission to advance human liberty
which, according to Bush- the son, "is felt in every life
and every land". It therefore went into this war against
Iraq believing that the times of containment and
deterrence were over and the only option left is to
quickly "decapitate the regime" without listening to
dissenting voices, not in the UN nor elsewhere in the
world.
If this is indeed the case, the continuing perception
of the US as the most powerful country on earth, in terms
of its military might and economic supremacy pursuing
"national interest", may be conceptually inadequate.
Perhaps, an alternative would be to conceptualize the US
in the process of metamorphosis from a country into an
empire. In Empire (Harvard University Press, 2001),
Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri explained that this
concept is characterized by a lack of boundaries which
posits a regime that effectively encompasses the spatial
totality. The empire rules over the entire "civilized"
world without temporal limit as a result of its sacred
understanding as having reached its "end point". Its
rules operate and penetrate all dimensions of the social
world through economic and cultural practices so
extensive that there are those under its rule who yearn
to be its subjects. Empire also claims to dedicate itself
to a perpetual and universal peace outside of history. In
contrast to a country, it has a sense of mission which is
beyond national interest, but carried out, in many
instances almost religiously, in the name of universal
values aiming to benefit all human beings in the
world.
President Bush ' s decision to go to war against Iraq
has generated so much outrage in the Muslim world. After
the first day of attack against Iraq, the headline in the
popular Malay-language Utusan Malaysia reads: "America
fights Islam". Pakistan's Nawa-I-Waqt, the second-largest
Urdu daily, said, " America has sown the seed of discord
among the Islamic Ummah (community of believers)". An
Imam at Jakarta's Al-Azhar mosque told his congregation
this Friday that "a superpower (the US) is attacking a
weak country. These people will not stop waging war
against Islam." An Imam at a local mosque in Bangkok,
which I attended, offered his du'a (supplication) after
the Friday prayer for the victory of the Iraqi mujahideen
(fighters in the cause of religion). Despite vehement
denial by US officials, most recently by the US secretary
of Defense, that this is not a war against any people or
religion, it could very well be seen as dangerously
giving substance to the prevailing myth in the Muslim
world that this is a war against Islam. In this sense,
these headlines and remarks reflect a common perception
among Muslims that "we" are abused by the mighty empire
engaging in a profoundly unjust and unauthorized war.
President Bush, however, points out in his March 18
speech, that the US and its allies "are authorized to use
force" in attacking Iraq under UN Security Resolutions
678 and 687 issued in the early 1990s. That the US chose
to enforce it is "not a question of authority" but "a
question of will."
It is important to note, however, that the question
"by what authority?", asked by many, goes beyond the
legality of UN resolutions because the question itself is
religious. According to The Bible, when Jesus was walking
in the temple in Jerusalem, the chief priests and the
scribes and the elders came to him with the question:
"What authority have you for acting like this?" Jesus
replied with a question: "John's baptism, what was its
origin, heavenly or human?"(Mark XI: 27-30; Luke XX: 2;
Matthew XXI: 23)
This war has been opposed even before it started by so
many, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, as evident from all
kinds of peace protests around the world because it is
overwhelmingly believed to be unjust. It is unjust
because of at least two conditions: it fails to convince
people that it is necessary; and the US empire decided to
drag the world to war by itself without the UN Security
Council. A question of legitimacy posed in religious
terms might be: by what authority have the empire in
seeking to reinvent the nations of the world in its own
image?
Functioning as an empire, believing in its unmatched
might and "eternal" value of freedom, and seeking to
reinvent the nations of the world in its own image, the
US is charting a new course in world affairs because it
has produced a de-civilizing process of the international
system. First, this war has seriously weakened the UN
system so much so that there are people in the streets
who begin to question the benefit of its continued
existence. Second, it has upset an accepted international
norm of positioning the use of force as the last resort.
Third, when President Bush-the son, said on March 18 that
the US was acting now because "the risks of inaction
would be far greater" since "the power of Iraq to inflict
harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times
over" in one or five years, it was setting a precedent,
not only that "might is right" but also that "might used
as pre-emptive measures is right."
There were 111 armed-conflicts in 74 locations around
the world from 1989-2000. Some analysts suggest that from
1989-1997, Asia-Pacific could be seen as the area with
"the largest number of major armed conflicts than any
other region". Since an empire also rules by setting
rules in cultural practices, imagine now the world where
the UN has little or no role left in coping with deadly
conflicts; where conflicting countries are relying more
on violence and war since "the last resort" can be
reached quickly; and where the speculations of the
other's motivation is sufficient to justify "our side's
use of force" in cases plagued with histories of
long-standing conflicts.
What then could be the future of peace?
The Future of
Peace
There are two conditions conducive to the future(s) of
peace in this world at this moment in history: avoiding
despair and refusing hatred. Working towards the first
condition, the legitimacy of the UN needs to be
strengthened while providing space for peaceful protests
against the war. The world still needs space for states
to engage in dialogues and setting rules that would
constitute a civilizing process of international order
not unlike the historical establishment of the universal
declaration of human rights. Choosing sides for
governments cannot but take the problem of UN's
legitimacy into serious considerations. Common people,
regardless of their religious beliefs, also need to
engage in politics by ways of voicing their
disagreements. Giving space for dissension in their own
societies would render them out of despair. When facing
an emerging empire, both of these spaces are crucial to
bring the world out of the state of despair characterized
by a sense of powerlessness, which breeds violence in all
shapes and forms including terrorism.
Deceptions and demonization of the others are war's
close siblings. Both effectively generate hatred of the
others. In refusing hatred, I can't help but think of a
little known American woman, Rachel Corrie.
Rachel is a 23-year old woman from the town of Olympia
in Washington. Her parents, Craig and Cindy, wrote later
that Rachel was raised to appreciate the beauty of global
community and that she was filled with love and a sense
of duty to her everyone wherever he/she lives. As a
member of the Grassroots International Presence for the
Protection of Palestine, she went to Southern Gaza to do
her work of protecting others with nonviolence. On March
16, 2003, she tried to prevent the Israeli army from
destroying the homes of Palestinians in Rafah refugee
camp by laying down in front of the vehicle to block its
path. She was killed when one of the bulldozers piled
sand on her body. Cindy and Craig Corrie wrote that they
were proud their daughter was able to live her
convictions of giving her life trying to protect those
who are unable to protect themselves.
On March 17, the refugee camp in Southern Gaza saw an
American flag. Often burned as a sign of protest, this
time some 1,000 Palestinians marched through the refugee
camp, holding a stretcher draped with an American flag as
a sign of mourning. A Palestinian farmer said: "We fly a
US flag today to show our support to all American peace
lovers, those like Rachel." That day, the line dividing
people into piles to be convenient objects of hatred was
gone. Rachel Corrie has done a great deal to fight hatred
with her courage. She paid for it with her own life. Her
story needs to be told and retold of an American, and
there are others, who give their lives for peace without
harming nor hating others.
Between the conducts of taking lives by an empire and
giving life by this young woman, which of these two
Americans' actions could better bring the world and
American society a sustainable security and long-lasting
peace?
©
TFF & the author 2003
Tell a friend about this article
Send to:
From:
Message and your name
|