Sunday, March 26, 2006

Rogue States and Phony Debates

Katrina Vanden Heuvel, the editorial honcho at The Nation, makes a plea in today’s Washington Post for Americans to “stop equating our opponents with famous dictators, their chief executioners, police apparatus or ideologies. … Present differences deserve to be described in contemporary terms.”

I agree. In terms of U.S. foreign policy, there’s nothing from the first half of the 20th century that compares to how the rest of the world has rolled over and let the U.S. government get away with a long rap sheet of international crimes over the past 15 years. This phenomenon is definitely unique to the late 20th century-early 21st century era. The whole world is currently feeling the effects of the world’s-only-superpower syndrome combined with a case of the world’s-most-powerful-rogue state syndrome.

Notwithstanding the U.S. Defense Department’s claims that the Russian government provided information to Saddam’s Hussein regime on U.S. troop movements and plans during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, what steps have the world’s other state powers taken to end the U.S. government’s invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan?

During the U.S. government’s wars of aggression of the early 21st century, Britain is working as a junior partner in the invasion and occupation of Iraq, while Germany, Canada and France have operated in a less overt manner to support the U.S. war machine’s efforts.

As Vanden Heuvel astutely points out, what is occurring today with U.S. foreign policy is unique and should be described in contemporary terms. At the same time, though, the world should judge U.S. foreign policy with an eye on how nation-states responded to similar unbridled aggression in previous eras.

Scott Horton has a brief yet powerful post on the AntiWar.com blog. He writes under the heading “How Best to Leave Iraq?”:

“I am so tired of this phony debate. The employees of the U.S. government don’t have the right to kill one more person, commit one more kidnapping or act of torture against the people of Iraq—or to spend one more taxed dollar doing so either. No right. Is that not simple enough?”

Noam Chomsky had this to say about outlaw states during a Washington Post.com chat on Friday:

State College, Pa.: Noam - I heard you talking about international law on alternative radio and (I think) expounding the idea that the Bush administration’s flavor of preemptive war is illegal. I agree that the Bush administration’s actions are illegal. Would you comment on how much we should submit to international law in that area?

Noam Chomsky: That depends on whether we want to be what’s called an “outlaw state,” which dismisses international law and norms and treaty obligations, or a law-abiding member of the international community. Public opinion studies strongly indicate that the general public wants the latter. State policy, to an extreme extent under Bush II, adopts the former conception, quite explicitly, in words and in practice. I think this country and the world would be far better off if the US is not an outlaw state.

Comments (14)

Printer Friendly Format | Tell-a-Friend

Next: The Athlete as Role Model: Remembering Baseball Maverick Curt Flood -->

<-- Previous: V for Vendetta

Support Press Action