I thank CNN for opening my eyes last night to what I have alienated myself from for most of my entire life -- the horrors of modern genocide -- with or without all the legal knittpicking over the definition and/or meaning of the word: for example, does it really matter whether the aim is to exterminate a race of people -- and/or a religion of people? Does it really matter -- ethically, morally, legally, and United Nations-action-wise -- whether we are talking about a hundred people, a thousand people, or a hundred thousand people? Once the direction of the pathological killing is made clear to The United Nations, it is imperative that the United Nations swing into action -- immediately.
The Kurd genocide in Iraq, the Muslim genocide in Bosnia, Rwanda, Darfur...these are all United Nations and international disgraces. They are all examples of 'multi-lateral, United Nations inefficacy and impotency'. Or worse than that, they may all be examples of 'leadership and international apathy' -- high level leaders simply not caring enough unless or until economic interests are significantly affected, and/or there is a large enough cry of political outrage.
One can easily see where the pathology, inefficicy, and impotency of international multilateralism leads quickly or slowly to the compensatory impulses, decisions, and action of -- national unilateralism, particularly it would seem, in recent history, leading up to the last war in Iraq through the decision of American unilateralism. The 'coalition of the willing'.
Thus, we have two opposite forms of international executive pathology: 1. 'pathological unilateralism'; and 2. 'pathological multilateralism'.
In the first case -- pathological unilateralism -- we have a problem of too much 'heavy-handed, one-sided action originating from one place, one source' -- such as the Republican dominated, White House -- leading to a loss in democratic values and the principle of national and international reciprocity. This problem is well-stated in the article below, taken off the internet...
........................................................................
For Bush - and Obama - a gut check.
George Bush says the failure to find WMD in Iraq is his biggest regret. He should regret trusting his gut over the intelligence.
Scott Ritter guardian.co.uk, Tuesday December 2 2008 21.30 GMT Article history: George Bush's candid interview with ABC News' Charles Gibson has one moment of awful truth – when the president, asked if he'd have gone to war had he known there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, stated: "That's a do-over that I can't do." If only he could.
More than 4,207 US service members, 314 coalition troops (including 176 British fatalities) and tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of Iraqis might be alive, including, of course, Saddam Hussein, the former ruler of Iraq whom Bush promised to disarm together with America's "friends of freedom". Saddam, Bush proclaimed in the weeks leading up to his decision to invade, and subsequently occupy, Iraq, was "a dangerous, dangerous man with dangerous, dangerous weapons." The Iraqi dictator was "a danger to America and our friends and allies, and that is why the world has said 'disarm'".
Bush, in his revealing interview, claimed he wished "that the intelligence had been different", but that was never really the point. Bush, like so many others, had made up his mind regarding Saddam independent of the facts of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Try as he might to spread responsibility for his actions by pointing out that "a lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein," the fact is WMD was simply an excuse used by the president to fulfil his self-proclaimed destiny as a war-time president who would avenge his father's inability (or, more accurately, sage unwillingness) to finish the job back in 1991, in the aftermath of the first Gulf war.
As pre-war British government discussions with Bush administration officials reveal, there was never a solid case to be made on Iraq's possession of WMD in the months leading up to the decision to invade, simply a sophomoric cause-effect relationship linking regime change (the preferred policy) and WMD (the excuse) "in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD" (quoting Blair).
The intelligence on Iraq's WMD was whatever the president and his cronies (including his erstwhile ally at 10 Downing Street) wanted it to be. Over seven years of UN-mandated weapons inspection activity, conducted from 1991 until 1998, had produced a well-defined (and documented) record of disarmament which, while not providing absolute verification of the disposition of every aspect of Saddam's WMD programmes, did allow any observer interested in the facts to ascertain that Iraq was fundamentally disarmed from a qualitative perspective. This, coupled with the presence of the world's most technologically advanced and intrusive arms control regime monitoring the totality of Iraq's industrial infrastructure, provided a high degree of confidence that Saddam had neither retained nor reconstituted his WMD programme.
There was a gap in inspection coverage of Iraq from December 1998 until November 2002, brought on by the removal of weapons inspectors at the behest of the United States (during the administration of Bill Clinton). However, no verifiable intelligence emerged during this time to credibly suggest that Iraq had sought to reconstitute its WMD programme. Instead, the Bush administration developed arguments that spoke of a "re-examination" of the "facts" from the perspective of a "post-9/11 world".
But the diversionary tactic of bait and switch, where the so-called global war on terror was used to justify an attack on Iraq, did not in any meaningful way alter the reality that Iraq had been disarmed. The Pentagon tried to provide glossy satellite images and hyped-up speculation about what Saddam was up to in September 2002 (and the British followed suit, publishing their since-discredited "dossier"), but by that November UN weapons inspectors were back in Iraq, and by January 2003 had discredited the entire intelligence case the Pentagon (and the British) had so clumsily cobbled together.
I and others did our very best to highlight the factual vacuum in which Bush and Blair operated while making their case for war, but to no avail. The decision to invade had been made months before the UN weapons inspectors returned to Iraq. Their work, and the intelligence they provided, was not only ignored, but indeed was never relevant to the larger issue, centred as it was on regime change, not disarmament.
The most important aspect of Bush's interview rests not in what he admits, but rather in what he avoids, when he stated that the failure to find WMD in Iraq was "the biggest regret of all the presidency." He doesn't regret the decision that led America to war, or the processes that facilitated the falsification of a case for war. He doesn't regret the violation of international law, the deaths of so many innocents, the physical destruction of Iraq or America's loss of its moral high ground. He merely regrets the fact that his "gut feel" on Saddam's WMD arsenal was wrong.
In this, truth be told, Bush is no different from the majority of society in both America and Great Britain. It is easy to moralise today, armed with the certainty of 20/20 hindsight, that the invasion of Iraq was wrong, the case for war a fabrication. But how many people will admit that Iraq was better off under Saddam than it is today, ruined by conflict generated by the destruction of Iraqi society prompted by the toppling of the Iraqi dictator? How many people will decry the kangaroo court and the lynch mob that convicted and executed Saddam as a travesty of both law and justice? Unless one is willing to repudiate all aspects of the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq, inclusive of the termination of Saddam's regime, then any indignation shown over the so-called intelligence failure represents nothing more than hypocrisy.
American policy in Iraq must not be viewed in isolation, but rather as part of a larger problem set, one that Barack Obama will have to deal with if he is to avoid repeating Bush's mistakes. America, and indeed the world, may very well have serious issues with the governments of nations such as Syria, North Korea and Iran. However, the solutions to these problems rest not in the form of unilateral policies formulated and implemented from Washington DC. That is how we got into Iraq to begin with. Rather, Obama must put action to his promise to embrace multilateral solutions to the problems of the future.
This means foregoing ideologically (or politically) driven pressure to act void of international consensus driven by a collective appreciation of international law (ie, no regime change, unless the world properly mandates it). It means trusting in the integrity and ability of organisations such as the UN Special Commission (the UN weapons inspectors), even if their product contradicts US intelligence sources. It also means trusting such organisations enough to share such intelligence so that it might be thoroughly investigated. And, if and when a rogue regime is overthrown and its leaders brought to justice, it means supporting an international court of law in which to try them for any of their alleged crimes.
The latter is of particular importance, especially when it comes to Obama, given his proclivity for announcing his intention to "hunt down and kill Osama bin Laden". Such bravado could become his undoing, just as gunning for Saddam was the undoing of Bush. America seemed content to let the perpetrators of the Srebrenica atrocities, who murdered some 8,000 Bosnian men and boys, be apprehended in accordance with accepted international practice, and be tried in an international court. Yet somehow the murderer of 3,000 Americans deserves special, unilateral American justice. There is an inherent inconsistency here.
In order for a multilateral solution to be genuine, it must be the product of a multilateral consensus driven by accepted ideals and principles, and not simply a unilateral dictate imposed on others by the strong. Let there be no doubt, the Iraq war was a product of American bullying, not just of Iraq, but the entire world. The current conflict in Afghanistan, threatening as it is to spill over into neighbouring Pakistan, is no different.
The unilateral desire of the US to exact revenge disguised as justice for the crimes committed on 9/11 has overshadowed the mission of creating a stable and moderate government in post-Taliban Afghanistan, to the detriment of both missions and the people of the region. Obama's singular focus on bringing bin Laden to heel will simply perpetuate this failure.
Obama would do well to embrace those international multilateral institutions, such as the UN and the International Court of Justice in the Hague, which his predecessor eschewed. Subordinating the American desire for revenge in the interest of regional and international stability would represent the living manifestation of the multilateralism Obama has stated he wants to pursue. Leadership is the product of much more than simple rhetoric, and simply saying something "is" does not make it so. Putting action to words is the challenge, and the mark, of any true leader. I am hopeful Barack Obama can be the genuine leader he aspires to be. America, and the world, will much better for it.
...........................................................................
Yesterday, I would have agreed with the author above, Scott Ritter, 100%. Today, I do so still -- but with a strong caveat emptor and warning against the dangers of multilateral inefficiency and impotency. If we are to protect the world against the horrors of future Holocausts, Kurd slaughters, Rwandan slaughters, Bosnian slaughters, Darfur slaughters, we, in effect, need a strong international govervment with a strong international army/police force that doesn't waffle around the international parliamentary table of international justice, human rights, and national humanistic-existential responsibilities.
Thomas Hobbes had it right -- and I will give an updated paraphrase here of what he was saying -- when he in effect said that the government and its police force has to be stronger than the strongest criminal element, the strongest terrorist organizations, within its jurisdiction. Otherwise, anarchy and criminal-terrorist elements will rule.
If a particular country -- like Pakistan -- needs help from the United Nations and its united international police force/army to bring law and order back into the mountains of Pakistan, then so be it. Pakistan makes a phone call to The United Nations -- and the request/agenda is sitting in front of an emergency United Nations task force and decisionary board within the shortest amount of time possible -- as in the next closest thing to 'immediately'.
International issues of the momentous urgency and potential negative consequences of a Nazi Germany, a Kurdish, Bosnian, Rwandian, and/or Darfurian slaughter-house -- or strong terrorist organizations coming out of the mountains of Pakistan to wreak havoc on the rest of the world -- cannot be waffled on.
There has to be strong, united committment in the United Nations executive decisionary board towards world peace, justice, and the maintenance of international law and order and human rights. This international committment cannot be compromised by attending United Nations countries with narcissistic (self-serving) political and economic agendas -- like as I understand it from last night's CNN special, 'Scream Bloody Murder' -- China more or less vetoing the United Nations by itself from doing anything about Darfur because of China's economic ties to the government of Sudan which was/is victimizing Darfur -- these types of countries need to be voted out of any sitting of The United Nations by the rest of the attending countries due to the 'pathological bias and interference of political and/or economic conflict of interest factors preventing that particular country from upholding its United Nations ethical and legal responsibilites towards peace, justice, law and order, and the adherence of international human rights principles in every part of the world, regardless of country'.
............................................................................
Darfur genocide continues: ICC prosecutor
1 day ago (December 4th, 2008?)
UNITED NATIONS (AFP) — Sudan's government is still supporting genocide in Darfur, including through rape and holding up humanitarian aid, the International Criminal Court prosecutor said Wednesday.
"Genocide continues," Luis Moreno-Ocampo told the UN Security Council, accusing Sudan of refusing to cooperate with the court.
"Rapes in and around the (refugee) camps continue. Humanitarian assistance is still hindered. More than 5,000 displaced persons die each month," he said.
Moreno-Ocampo urged the 15 Security Council member nations to be prepared for the possibility of an ICC-issued warrant for the arrest of Sudan's President Omar al-Beshir.
In July Moreno-Ocampo asked the ICC for an arrest warrant for Beshir on 10 counts of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
A panel of judges is reviewing the evidence to determine whether there are reasonable grounds to try Beshir. It would be the court's first indictment of a sitting head of state.
"The judges will rule shortly on this application," Moreno-Ocampo said. "It is time to be prepared for their ruling."
Moreno-Ocampo later told reporters that it is "crucial that the Security Council is prepared to ensure the implementation" of the ICC's decision.
A decision on the warrant could be made next month, he said.
Moreno-Ocampo claims that Beshir has personally instructed his forces to wipe out three ethnic groups in the western Darfur region, where conflict has been raging since 2003 when ethnic minority rebels took up arms against the Arab-dominated regime.
UN officials estimate that up to 300,000 people have died in the Sudan conflict and 2.7 million have been forced to flee their homes. Khartoum claims only 10,000 have died.
Some nations friendly to Sudan, including China, believe that a warrant for Beshir's arrest would only make things worse.
The African Union (AU) and the Organization of the Islamic Conference have called for a one-year suspension of the process, citing article 16 of the ICC's founding Rome statutes.
In such a case the Security Council would need to pass a resolution postponing all ICC investigations of Beshir for 12 months.
Western nations oppose such a move, and to date no country has formally called for the council to invoke article 16.
In his statement, Moreno-Ocampo also lashed Khartoum for failing to hand over two Sudanese charged with crimes against humanity in Darfur.
In May 2007, the court issued arrest warrants for Sudan's minister of humanitarian affairs Ahmed Haroun, and pro-government Janjaweed militia leader Ali Kosheib.
"Rumors of an investigation of Ali Kosheib have not materialized to this day," Moreno-Ocampo said.
Council member diplomats called on Sudan to hand over the accused, with France's UN Ambassador Jean-Maurice Ripert saying Sudan was under "obligation to cooperate" with the ICC.
"The dispute by the government of Sudan contesting both the authority of the Security Council and the court's competence is unacceptable," Ripert said.
Hosted by Copyright © 2008 AFP. All rights reserved. More »
.............................................................................
Another issue that should be up in front of the United Nations at the time of this writing is the issue of 'piracy on the high seas'. If the pirates are coming from the southern part of Somalia -- or wherever they are coming from -- the United Nations needs to address this significant world threat to law and order on the high seas -- and do something about it. Namely, like sending a United Nations led, international police force to the home base of the pirates, and putting a stop to this problem before it gets worse. The more the pirates show that they can get away with what they are doing, the more they will continue to do it.
In order for there to be strong international law and order, there needs to be a strong United Nations led, international show of police strength and force.
Within the limits of the working mandate of the United Nations and its strong ethical and legal force towards international peace, law and order, justice, and human rights -- with a strong respect for the absolute minimization of 'collateral damage' (meaning the killing and maiming of innocent citizens caught in the cross-fire of United Nations forces and criminal international elements -- I like the principle of the first Bush senior-led American force into Iraq: 'shock and awe'. You go in with maximum force; not minimum force. You show the international criminal element you are chasing that you are absolutely deadly serious about what you are doing, and that they can't 'play' with combined force of the United Nations. The United Nations needs to be an international government body that is both respected and feared; not ridiculed and laughed at.
This strong show of international strength should be visiting the mountains of Pakistan -- with the consent of the government of Pakistan, of course, if they are unable to take care of their own Pakistan-based terrorists -- and right now, the United Nations should be visiting Sudan/Darfur as well as Southern Somalia if that is where these 'high seas pirates' are originating from.
One international criminal element at a time -- and the United Nations doesn't 'take its collective eye off the ball' until the problem it went to some part of the world to 'fix' -- is 'fixed'.
The motto of 'The Canadian Royal Canadian Mounted Police' used to be -- I haven't heard it stated lately -- that they used to 'always get their man'.
And so it should be with The United Nations.
Strong international law and order -- in this century of increasing globalization -- and global crime -- demands stong international leadership from the top of The United Nations -- and amongst all contributing countries. There is no room for a 'weak, waffling' United Nations -- there is no room for a United Nations that is corrupted by particular 'national conflicts of interest'.
Either there is a strong international committment to international law and order -- or there isn't.
And if there isn't, then you might as well throw The United Nations in the garbage.
Because that is where a 'weak, waffling, narcissistically biased, United Nations' belongs if it doesn't have the strong leadership and the strong decision-making capabilities that international law and order, justice, and human rights demands.
When the leadership in the United Nations is not respected, then this encourages individual countries -- especially ones that are thinking unilaterally anyway (like the United States) -- to take international law into their own hands. This risks alienating the international community as a whole, America's allies in particular, increasing anti-American hostilities amongst those countries that don't like America anyway, heightening the potential/probability of international anarchy, and exasperating already existing terrorist group activity -- creating a 'Wild West' scenario.
None of this is telepathic anymore; rather, it is recent history. Add to this America's planning to put missiles in Eastern Europe -- how did America like it in the Cuban missile crisis when Russia planned to put missiles in Cuba? -- and you have a combined international diplomacy situation that has made America look more and more like a bull in a china shop than an international 'peace, freedom, democracy, human rights, and justice maker'.
All of this is to say that 'two wrongs do not make a right'. The United Nations needs to greatly improve its strength of leadership. Timing is everything -- knowing when to restrain overly-impulsive ('trigger-happy') nationally biased pro-war action on the one hand that does not have enough clear empirical evidence to justify it, but on the othe hand, acting very quickly and effectively in the face of the imminent possbility of a human slaughter (genocide) taking place.
It hardly needs to be stated that the Kurdish slaughter in Iraq, the Muslim slaughter in Bosnia, the slaughter of the Tutsis in Rwanda, and what is still happening in Darfur are blatant messages to us all how passively complacent and non-moving we all can be -- worst of all The United Nations -- in the face of unspeakable human rights horrors in 'not our' country.
Combined with this, America needs to get back to thinking multlateraly with its allies and in the context of a strong United Nations; not creating its own brand of international 'Wild West' show in the name of justice -- read 'revenge' -- for 9/11.
Pathological unilateralism on the one hand(lack of social and/or environmental sensitivity, lack of ethics, lack of democracy, lack of shared human rights and responsibilities) and pathological multilateralism on the other hand(indecision, non-unity, paralysis by individual and/or group analysis) can be equally bad in the consequences they reap.
Wise, prudent action generally runs somewhere through the middle of these two polar pathologies -- and in effect, splits the difference between these two twin polarities.
Accolades to Christiane Amanpour for putting the CNN special on genocide together.
-- DGBN, Dec. 5th, 2008.
-- Democracy Goes Beyond Narcissism
-- Dialectical Gap-Bridging Negotiations...
Are still in process...
............................................................................
