THE First World War started when Germanyinvaded Belgium. The Second World War started when Germany invadedPoland. Small nations were vulnerable because they were small. If, bysome miracle, Belgium in 1914 and Poland in 1939 had possessed atomicbombs, it is probable that Germany would have invaded elsewhere.
Small nations with puny defensive capacities aremore vulnerable than small nations with greater defensive capacities.To sustain a defensive capacity with modern weaponry is now beyondthe means of small nations unless special circumstances prevail suchas oil or a big power ally.
The United Nations held out the promise of globalcollective protection under international law. It wasn't able torealise this aspiration because of the Cold War. With the end of theCold War, the world expected the United Nations to achieve this noblegoal.
That dream, too, was thwarted. The one remainingmilitary superpower put itself above international law; refused tojoin the International Criminal Court that was to be responsible forindicting alleged war criminals, unless its citizens were exemptedfrom the court's provisions. It refused to sign internationalprotocols against chemical and biological warfare. It repudiated theKyoto Agreement on global pollution, with its president bluntlyasserting that US economic interests come first.
John Bolton, high-ranking boss man in the StateDepartment, speaks of US power as being unchallengeable and that itshould be deployed to reshape the world, presumably in accordancewith US interests. Charles Krauthammer, the intellectual guru of theAmerican Right, talks about the "uniquely benign imperium" of theUnited States. (Benign! Tell that to the thousands of civilianskilled in Afghanistan.)
"Imperium", to save you looking it up, as I had todo, means supreme power as derived from the supreme powers exercisedby Roman God/Emperors. And so Bush plays Caligula on the world stagewith Blair strewing his path with rose petals while growling at thosewho won't Hail the Emperor and abase themselves before Him, as hedoes.
And this is the new world order? Why, it's as oldas the Tiber. Another attempt at world domination whereininternational law is made redundant and the United Nations reduced toa rubber stamp for whatever Washington wants to do.
Of course, it won't stop with Iraq. There are Iranand North Korea and a host of others ready for the broth pot. China?The coterie of right-wing Republicans around Bush talk openly of notaccepting that China's nuclear arsenal gives it a deterrence such asexisted with the Soviets, mutually assured destruction, otherwiseknown as MAD. They have also declared that they will take action toprevent China from ever getting that far. How they propose to do thatis yet unclear; but those that the gods would destroy they first makemad.
Listen instead to Abraham Lincoln: "This country,with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Wheneverthey shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercisetheir constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionaryright to dismember or overthrow it." That's an assertion of apeople's right to determine their own destiny through the ballot box,where that is available, or by revolution, where it is not.
Peace in the world has always been dependent onrespect for the right of self-determination for all nations. Withoutthat, wars are inevitable. It is inconceivable that Abraham Lincolncould even contemplate intervention in the internal affairs ofanother country to effect a "regime change".
The principle applies even when you bitterlyoppose a regime. The United States detested the Soviet regime,calling it an evil empire, but it never tried to invade that empireto effect a regime change. The Soviet Union was militarily tooformidable.
The Bush administration is now claiming the rightto intervene in the internal affairs of other countries because ithas the might - not the right - to do so. This is evil and obscene,and the British Prime Minister is right in the thick of it.
Flatten Iraq, for it was flattened before and hasnot recovered. Then what? How does Israel handle a million newzealots to the terrorist cause? What if US friendly regimes in theregion are toppled in the aftermath? Do we fight them as well? Whatif Britain is pushed to the top of the league, alongside the US, as aterrorist target? Is that the "blood price" we have to pay for thespecial relationship?
Mon 16 Sep 2002
This article:
http://thescotsman.co.uk/opinion.cfm?id=1029612002