- As a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer and
as a registered member of the Republican party who voted for George Bush
in the last presidential election, I have to admit to a certain trepidation
and uncertainty when I was asked by Labour MPs to participate in the massive
anti-war rally in London on September 28.
-
- In my way of thinking, mass demonstrations, regardless
of the righteousness of the cause, were the theatre of the political left,
and not something with which I should be associated. I was proven wrong
on all counts. The outpouring of democratic will that occurred on that
day came not only from the left, but from across the breadth of mainstream
British society. It sent a message to a Blair government that had grown
increasingly isolated from public opinion: UK support for an American
unilateral war on Iraq would not be tolerated. That message met a response
a few days later from the Labour party at its annual conference in Blackpool.
Democracy in action is a wonderful thing.
-
- Across the Atlantic, in the United States, a debate is
about to begin in the US Congress over the granting of sweeping war powers
that would enable President Bush to wage war against Iraq, even if such
action were unilateral and lacking in authority from the United Nations.
-
- To many Americans, myself included, the granting of such
powers represents a breach of constitutional responsibility on the part
of Congress, which alone under the constitution of the United States is
authorised to declare war. There is at least one US senator - Robert Byrd
of West Virginia - who recognises this, and has indicated his willingness
to launch a filibuster of the debate. Senator Byrd is famous for carrying
a copy of the US constitution in his breast pocket, and pulling it out
on the floor of the Senate to remind fellow senators what American democracy
is founded on. One man fighting in defence of the basic foundation of
American society. Where are the large-scale US demonstrations in support
of this struggle? Where are the voices of outrage over what amounts to
a frontal assault on the constitution of the United States? Democracy
silenced is awful.
-
- The constitution has always guided me in my actions as
an American citizen. It establishes the US as a nation of laws, and sets
high standards for the ideals we Americans strive to achieve as a nation.
As an officer of Marines, I took an oath to defend the US constitution
against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It is an oath I take very seriously
and I am willing to give my life in defence of this document - something
I demonstrated during my time in uniform, including service in Operation
Desert Storm.
-
- I am no pacifist, but I am opposed to President Bush's
rush towards war with Iraq this time around. As signatories to the UN
charter, Americans have agreed to abide by a body of international law
that explicitly governs the conditions under which nations may go to war.
All require authority of the security council, either through an invocation
of article 51 (self defence), or a resolution passed under chapter seven
of the charter (collective security).
-
- President Bush's case for war simply has not been demonstrated
to meet any of these criteria. The president repeatedly announced that
Iraq has failed to comply with its obligation to disarm, and as such poses
a threat to international peace and security. The president declared that
Iraq must allow weapons inspectors to return to Iraq, without conditions,
with unfettered access to all sites. Iraq's failure to allow inspectors
to return to work since their withdrawal in December 1998 has prompted
fear in many circles (recently demonstrated by the UK government's dossier
on Iraqi weapons programs) that Iraq has taken advantage of the intervening
time to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction programs dismantled
under UN supervision. With no inspectors in Iraq, it was impossible to
know for certain what the regime of Saddam Hussein was up to; and, given
Iraq's past record of deceit over these weapons, the US and others were
justified in presuming ill intent.
-
- But now Iraq has agreed to allow the inspectors to return,
unconditionally, and to be held accountable to the rule of law as set
forth in existing security council resolutions governing Iraq's disarmament.
The opportunity finally exists to bring clarity to years of speculation
about the potential threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction,
as well as an opportunity to resolve this ongoing crisis of international
law peacefully.
-
- B ut President Bush refuses to take "yes" for
an answer. The Bush administration's actions lay bare the mythology that
this war is being fought over any threat posed by Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction. It has made it clear that its objective is the elimination
of Saddam Hussein. And this is where I have a fundamental problem. The
UN charter prohibits regime removal. The US constitution states that international
agreements entered into by the United States carry the force of law. The
US has signed the UN charter. Regime removal is not only a violation of
international law, it is unconstitutional.
-
- There is a way to deal with the need to change a regime
deemed to be a risk to international peace and security, and that is through
the UN. If President Bush truly wanted to seek regime removal in Baghdad,
then he would push for an indictment of Saddam Hussein and his senior
leadership in the international court for crimes against humanity, something
that should not prove hard to do, given the record of the Butcher of Baghdad
(and something other members of the UN would clearly support as an alternative
to war). But seeking judgment through the international court requires
a recognition by the US of the primacy of international law, something
the Bush administration has been loath to do.
-
- The fact of the matter is this crisis between Iraq and
the US goes beyond even the issue of regime removal. It represents the
first case study of the implementation of a new US national security strategy,
published last month, which sets forth a doctrine of unilateralism that
capitalises on American military and economic might to maintain the US
as the sole superpower, to impose our will on the rest of the world, even
through pre-emptive military action. This strategy is a rejection of multilateralism,
a turning away from the concepts of international law.
-
- This new Bush doctrine of American unilateralism reeks
of imperial power, the very power against which Ameri cans fought a revolution
more than 200 years ago. The streets of Washington DC are empty of demonstrators
protesting at this frontal assault on American democracy. Will the streets
of London be filled again with protesters against this assault on the
rule of international law? I certainly hope so, because the people of
Britain could lead by example, sending a clear signal to fellow practitioners
of democracy in America that when it comes to determining what actions
a government takes in the name of the people, the will of the people cannot,
and will not, be ignored.
-
-
-
- Scott Ritter was a UN weapons inspector in Iraq in 1991-98
and chief of the concealment investigations team. His interview with William
Rivers Pitt forms the core of War on Iraq (Profile Books)
-
- WSRitter@aol.com http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,805841,00.html
|