Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Blog

  • Reflections on the Connections between the War in Iraq and Hawaii: the Stryker Brigade and the Watada Case

    Two great volcanoes comprise most of the Big Island of Hawai’i. Mauna Loa, measured by volume, is the largest mountain in the world, and Mauna Kea, if measured from the sea floor, would rank as the tallest. Both peaks are considered sacred, the realm of the gods (wao akua), not just for Hawai’ians, but throughout all of Polynesia.

    In October of 2002, the first of a series of protests against the imminent U.S. attack against Iraq took place at the Mo‘oheau Bandstand on the Hilo Bayfront. As I drove down to Hilo, I was struck by the majestic and stunning presence of Mauna Kea rising 13,792 ft. above Hilo—so unusually clear on a rare cloudless morning. It was a day that was startling in its beauty even for Hawai‘i, and as I listened to the various speakers call our attention to the horrors of what seemed about to take place in Iraq, my gaze often drifted to the tranquil bay and the waves softly rolling down on the sands below. The contrast couldn’t have been sharper between the peaceful setting of Hilo Bay and the looming war in Iraq. If it weren’t for the voices of the Hawai’ian rights activists—reminding us of the illegal overthrow of the Hawai’ian nation—I might have thought only of the profound difference between these beautiful islands and the war-torn country of Iraq. In fact, what was taking place a world away in Iraq was really not that far away at all and is, indeed, deeply connected to what happened and was still taking place in Hawai‘i. I was reminded of the “infinite extent of our relations” as Thoreau once put it, and from this perspective, the connections between the war in Iraq, the overthrow of the Hawai’ian nation, and the continuing controversy surrounding the military’s presence in Hawai‘i become more and more clear.

    The Stryker in Hawai’i Hawai’i senior Senator Daniel Inouye apparently doesn’t see these connections as is evident in a recent editorial in the Honolulu Advertiser in support of the Army’s plan to transform the 2nd Brigade in Hawai’i into a Stryker Combat Brigade.[1] The Army’s plan would involve basing about 300 Stryker vehicles at Schofield Barracks on Oahu and also expanding the Army’s Pohakuloa Training Area on the Big Island which the brigade will use for training. The Army’s project to bring a Stryker brigade to Hawai’i has met strong resistance for the last several years from native Hawai’ian groups as well as environmental and peace activists. In October of 2006 a federal appellate court, in response to a lawsuit filed by the nonprofit environmental group Earthjustice acting on behalf of three native Hawai’ian groups, found that the Army had violated environmental laws in not adequately considering alternatives to locating the brigade in Hawai’i.[2] The decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco reversed an April 2005 decision by U.S. District Judge David Ezra allowing the Army to proceed with its plans to bring the Stryker brigade to Hawai’i. The Army must now complete a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement assessing the feasability of alternative locations for the brigade. The appellate court decision ultimately sent the case back to Honolulu and U.S. District Judge Ezra in order to determine what an injunction must cover. On the eve of Judge Ezra’s decision Senator Inouye’s editorial appeared in which he argued that for the safety of our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan “we must allow the training to resume while the Army completes the supplemental environmental study.” Not surprisingly, Judge Ezra’s decision allows for the Army’s plans to go forward while the SEIS is conducted.[3] Live fire training of the Stryker brigade is expected to commence at Pohakuloa on the Big Island in February.

    The Pohakuloa Training Area is already the largest live-fire military training area in the Pacific. It consists of approximately 109,000 acres of land that have been used for the last 60 years as a live-fire area and bombing range for an assortment of military weapons. The Strykers will come to the Big Island on the new Hawai’ian Superferry, offloading at Kawaiihae Harbor and then traveling up to Pohakuloa via a newly constructed military road. It is partly for the construction of this access road, and also to increase the training area for the Strykers, that the military’s plans include the expansion of the Pohakuloa Training Area by approximately 23,000 acres of land recently purchased from the Parker Ranch.

    Pohakuloa sits between Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea. Even the Army acknowledges, in its Environmental Impact Statement, that “the entirety of Mauna Kea, whose southwestern slopes form part of PTA’s base, is considered holy.” Mauna Kea (The White Mountain) is associated with Poli‘ahu, the snow goddess of the summit, while Mauna Loa (The Long Mountain), last erupting as recently as 1984, is associated with Pele, the goddess of volcanic fires. The area between the two sacred mountains, considered to be a site of conflict between Poli‘ahu and Pele, is called “Pohakuloa” (The Veil that Covers the Spiritual Realm). Within the Pohakuloa Training Area there are seven stone shrines and a reported 291 archeological sites.

    By the Army’s own admission in the EIS, Pohakuloa is “spiritually and historically one of the most important places in Hawai’ian tradition and history…It is difficult to describe the emotional and spiritual link that exists between Native Hawai’ians and the natural setting. Hawai’ians generally believe that all things in nature have mana, or a certain spiritual power and life force. A custodial responsibility to preserve the natural setting is passed from generation to generation, and personal strength and spiritual well being are derived from this relationship. Because of this belief, Mauna Kea may be the most powerful and sacred natural formation in all Hawai‘i.” [4] The EIS acknowledges that there will be “significant unavoidable adverse biological impacts” upon the environment at Pohakuloa. The PTA is said, by former area commander Lt. Col. Dennis Owen, to have “the highest concentration of endangered species of any Army installation in the world.” The negative impacts will come from fires that result from live-fire training, as well as from off-road maneuvers by the Stryker vehicles that will adversely affect sensitive species and habitat. The Army also acknowledges significant negative impacts on air quality (caused by wind erosion by the off-road maneuvers of the Strykers), soil loss and soil contamination from training activities, lead and asbestos contamination caused by the construction and demolition of buildings, and destructive impacts on such cultural, historic, and archeological resources such as the Ke‘amuku Village and sacred sites such as the Pu‘ukohola Heiau.

    The Army also proposes an increase in live-fire training. This poses a significant risk, according to the EIS, to workers and army personnel from unexploded ordnance. Environmentalists have drawn attention to the danger from unexploded ordnance that litters many former military sites in Hawai‘i, as well as the military’s poor record of cleaning up these sites. The EIS states that “only simulated biological agents” will be used and that hazardous materials do not pose a significant impact. There is also some concern about the potential toxic contamination from depleted uranium since the primary armament on Stryker vehicles is the Stryker Mobile Gun System which uses ammunition made from depleted uranium. The Army has claimed that depleted uranium weapons will not be used in training at Pohakuloa, but this has hardly eased the concerns of local residents.

    While the military promises to do what it can to limit the adverse impacts from the training at Pohakuloa, it states that there is a practical limit to mitigation measures. The bottom line is that these adverse impacts and potential dangers are considered acceptable by the military.

    The issue that always looms large in the background of this controversy is the very presence of the U.S. military in Hawai‘i. For Hawai’ian sovereignty activists, the proposed expansion of the Pohakuloa Training Area is only the latest issue in a long history of U.S. military acquisitions of Hawai’ian lands—going back most notably to the 1875 “Treaty of Reciprocity” that ceded control of Pearl Harbor to the U.S. Navy. The military now controls 5 percent of land in Hawai‘i, 22 percent of O‘ahu (85,000 acres), and 4 percent of the Big Island (110,000 acres). Moreover, the proposed 23,000 acre expansion of the Pohakuloa Training Area is only about a quarter of the projected acquisition for the further development of the PTA.[5]

    It’s a sad irony that this latest land acquisition is almost the size of Kaho‘olawe (28,766 acres), the “Target Isle” used for bombing practice for nearly 50 years after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The Navy finally officially ceded control of Kaho‘olawe on November 11, 2003, after over two decades of protests by peace and Hawai’ian sovereignty activists. That campaign cost the lives of two Hawai’ian leaders, George Helm and Kimo Mitchell, who were lost at sea in 1977 in an effort to reach the island to protest the Navy’s occupation and bombing of the island. Their deaths became an emotional turning point in the struggle for Hawai’ian rights. Now, just as the Navy finally cedes control of Kaho‘olawe, the Army takes control of a similar-sized piece of land on the sacred slopes of Mauna Kea. It would be the largest military acquisition in Hawai‘i since WWII.

    For Hawai’ian sovereignty activists, Hawai‘i is an occupied country, and the lands in question are “stolen lands.” Though most Americans are either blissfully unaware or couldn’t care less, the sovereignty activists appear to have international law on their side. For its part, the United States government has already admitted to the illegal overthrow of the Hawai’ian nation, by issuing a formal apology by joint resolution of Congress in November of 1993 in acknowledgment of the 100th anniversary of the coup that dethroned Queen Lili’uokalani. Although the United States was the first nation to formally recognize the sovereignty of the Hawai’ian nation in 1842, it was the U.S. Navy that provided the force that enabled American business interests to dethrone the Queen in January of 1893. In recent years, experts in international law have called into question the legitimacy of “statehood” and American military occupation of Hawai’ian lands by pointing out that there is no known record of the Hawai’ian Kingdom ever relinquishing its sovereignty.

    Lessons from the war in Iraq Since that cloudless Hilo day in October of 2002, the war in Iraq has unfolded in its all-too-easily predictable catastrophe. As the violence spirals out of control and any remaining vestige of a fraudulent justification of the invasion evaporate—that Iraq is better off from having been ‘liberated’ from a despotic dictator or that the world is safer from the threat of global terrorism—the American people have slowly come to the realization that it was all a terrible mistake. It reminds me of a story I read in the paper a number of years ago when I was living in San Francisco about a jumper who had somehow managed to survive his plunge from the Golden Gate. As I remember it the hapless one said his first thought after his ill-conceived leap was “Oops, that was a mistake.” That’s about where we are today as a nation after failing to heed the warnings of so many experts and hundreds of thousands of protestors around the world and instead following the Fox News and New York Times propaganda that cheered on the Bush Administration’s leap into the abyss that is now the war in Iraq. All the head-scratching about what to do now, including the proposals of the Iraq Study Group, are nothing but the desparate flailings of one grasping at thin air after the ground has fallen away. The Bush Administration, of course, can only ‘stay the course’ and thus, with their sights now firmly set on ‘surging’ in Iraq and even more insanely on expanding the war into Iran, seems hell-bent on plunging the nation only further into the abyss.We’ve come to our “Oops” moment as a nation but we are still far from realizing just how devastating a mistake it was to launch this war.

    Senator Inouye’s editorial in support of the Stryker brigade in Hawai’i illustrates this point. The Senator writes: “Our country is at war. With the pace of operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan, our Army is stretched thin. We simply cannot afford to stand down any of our forces right now.” After reminding us that he voted against the Iraq war, the Senator concludes that the “issue on the Stryker brigade should not be a referendum on the Iraq war.” Perhaps it’s the other way around, however, and that the Iraq war should be a referendum on the Stryker brigade.

    Our country is at war—but it is a war that was completely unnecessary. The United States has the most powerful military force in the world, spending more on the military than all the other nations of the world combined; and yet the United States has demonstrated a propensity to use that great military force irresponsibly and that is one of the underlying causes and certainly not the solution to the problem of terrorism. We cannot defeat the problem of terrorism by participating in terrorism and that is certainly what we are doing when we engage in unnecessary wars of aggression. Perhaps the lesson that should be drawn from the war in Iraq is that it is time to stand down all of our forces right now. The best hope for a peaceful world is for the United States to pull out of Iraq, stand down its military force, and recommit itself to the rule of law among nations.

    The United States needs to overcome its addiction to war and a good place to start would be to pull out of Iraq and to shut down the Army’s plan to base a Stryker brigade in Hawai’i. As Kyle Kajihiro, program director of the American Friends Service Committee, puts it: “The Stryker Brigade in Hawai‘i is an illegal and catastrophic project meant for use in an illegal and catastrophic war. The bitter history of the U.S. military in Hawai‘i has demonstrated that if the military gets an inch, it will take a mile, or in this case, 25,000 acres of land. We refuse to allow our sacred ‘aina to be used to perpetuate wars of aggression against other countries and peoples, or to let politicians send our loved ones to kill or be killed in such immoral and illegal wars.”[6]

    Perhaps a concern for the safety of our troops is not the primary reason behind Inouye’s support for the Stryker brigade. Obviously any training that needs to be done before the troops are withdrawn can be done at existing facilities elsewhere. Kajihiro continues: “The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said that the Army failed to answer the question ‘Why Hawai‘i?’ and ordered the Army to complete a supplemental environmental impact statement (EIS) that considered alternatives. But it is unlikely that another EIS will be able to honestly answer such a question that is essentially political. Stryker Brigades are in Hawai‘i and Alaska because of the power of Hawai‘i’s and Alaska’s Senators to secure ‘military pork’. Politicians cannot claim to be against the war while promoting the military expansion that drives wars.”[7]

    Perhaps the war in Iraq should be a referendum on the Stryker brigade in Hawai’i for there is a deep connection after all between the war in Iraq and the U.S. military’s presence in Hawai’i—the war in Iraq is really only the latest symptom of the same problem that led to the overthrow of the Nation of Hawai’i in 1893. Time and again U.S. military power has been used not really for the defense of ‘freedom’ but for the expansion of corporate global interests.

    War, if ever justified, should be an absolutely last resort. All peaceful means of resolving a conflict should be exhausted before resorting to war. There is every indication that the Bush Administration, acting to extend those corporate global interests, did everything they could to avoid any peaceful solution and manufacture a reason for war.

    Perhaps the problem is that it is far too easy for the United States with its overpowering military force to go to war. There obviously needs to be some greater force of restraint that would make it much harder for the nation to engage in war. Part of the problem is that too few Americans really feel the cost of war. I imagine that if professional sports were banned while the nation was at war, our leaders would make every effort to find a peaceful solution. It might seem a ridiculous suggestion to make, but obviously if it is important enough to go to war then sacrificing professional sports should be no big deal. Conversely, if it is not worth sacrificing professional sports, then it is obviously not worth going to war. Can one imagine just how long the Vietnam War would have lasted if there could be no World Series while the nation is at war? Would the nation so easily have accepted the fraudulant arguments for war and leapt off the cliff into the hell that is Iraq if there could be no Super Bowls while the nation is at war?

    The Watada Case Unfortunately, as Americans love their bread and circuses so much, the only hope for any restraint on the reckless militarism of the United States might be in the example set by the rare courage of the soldier from Hawai’i, Lt. Ehren Watada, who faces court martial for refusing deployment to Iraq. The military judge presiding over the court martial has, however, denied the attempt by Lt. Watada’s defense to ‘put the war on trial.’ The ruling by military circuit judge Lt. Col. John M. Head on January 16 denied the defense motion for a hearing on the “Nuremburg defense” thus preventing Watada’s defense from presenting evidence on the legality of the war. The highest ranking soldier to refuse deployment to Iraq, Lt. Watada has argued in his defense that according to the Nuremberg Principles and U.S. military regulations he was under oath to follow only “lawful orders” and that the war on Iraq is illegal under international treaties and under Article Six of the U.S. Constitution. Lt. Watada’s trial at Fort Lewis, Washington is set to begin on February 5. [8]

    The ruling by Judge Head conflicts with the statement by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, the chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunal, that the United States must be bound by the same rule of law used to prosecute the Germans: “If certain acts in violation of treaties are crimes they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us.”[9] The Nuremberg trials established that soldiers are not immune from prosecution for war crimes just because they were following orders. The judgement at Nuremberg means that the common view held by Judge Head and apparently many Americans that “soldiers like Lt. Watada can’t pick and choose when to fight” is just flat out wrong. In denying the “Nuremberg defense” the military is simply setting aside the judgement at Nuremberg and ignoring Justice Jackson’s explicit statement.

    Lt. Watada’s refusal to deploy to Iraq should call to mind Thoreau’s startling words about the three ways one can serve one’s country:

    “The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, &c. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw of a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens. Others, —as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and officer-holders; —serve the state chiefly with their heads; and as they rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the Devil, without intending it, as God. A very few, as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men, serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it.” (Henry David Thoreau, “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience”, 1848.)

    Thoreau is clearly right that it is plainly wrong to think that the highest service one can give to one’s country is to serve blindly with one’s body, even if it means giving one’s life. To serve without conscience, as a mere weapon of war, is really to forsake what is highest and most human within us. To force our soldiers to surrender their conscience is not only to ignore the judgement at Nuremberg, it is also treating our soldiers like horses and dogs. Sending our troops into an unnecessary and immoral war is in fact treating them far worse than horses and dogs.

    The nation would be stronger not weaker if it recognized Lt. Watada’s right to refuse deployment to an illegal war. If Lt. Watada’s action is recognized as right, the nation would be far less prone to engage in unnecessary and immoral wars. In refusing deployment to Iraq Lt. Watada is serving the country with his conscience, and in so doing, is giving the highest service. If Lt. Watada goes to prison, as seems now very likely, he will be a powerful symbol of the injustice of the nation and its shame in ignoring the judgement at Nuremberg and refusing to remember Justice Jackson’s counsel.

    1. U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye, “Don’t fence them in,” Commentary, The Honolulu Advertiser, Sunday, December 17, 2006. 2. “Stryker base here is found illegal,” The Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Friday, October 6, 2006. 3. “Judge Allows Stryker training to resume,” The Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Saturday, December 30, 2006. 4. Army Transformation Environmental Impact Statement, Section 8:11 Cultural Resources, p.4. 5. See Haunani-Kay Trask, “Stealing Hawai‘i: The war machine at work,” The Honolulu Weekly, July 17, 2002. 6. Kyle Kajihiro, “Aloha ‘Aina Statement on Proposed Stryker Training,” DMZ-Hawai‘i, December 18, 2006. 7. See also Jeffrey St. Clair, “The General, GM, and the Stryker,” Counterpunch, April 22/23, 2006. 8. David Krieger, “The Iraq War Goes on Trial,” Peace Journalism, January 17, 2007. 9. Robert Jackson, Minutes of Conference Session of July 23, 1945, International Conference on Military Trials : London, 1945.

     

    Timothy J. Freeman teaches philosophy at the University of Hawai’i at Hilo. He can be reached at freeman@hawaii.edu

  • The Nuclear Threat

    The essay “A World Free of Nuclear Weapons,” published in this newspaper on Jan. 4, was signed by a bipartisan group of four influential Americans — George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn — not known for utopian thinking, and having unique experience in shaping the policies of previous administrations. It raises an issue of crucial importance for world affairs: the need for the abolition of nuclear weapons.

    As someone who signed the first treaties on real reductions in nuclear weapons, I feel it is my duty to support their call for urgent action.

    The road to this goal began in November 1985 when Ronald Reagan and I met in Geneva. We declared that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” This was said at a time when many people in the military and among the political establishment regarded a war involving weapons of mass destruction as conceivable and even acceptable, and were developing various scenarios of nuclear escalation.

    It took political will to transcend the old thinking and attain a new vision. For if a nuclear war is inconceivable, then military doctrines, armed forces development plans and negotiating positions at arms-control talks must change accordingly. This began to happen, particularly after Reagan and I agreed in Reykjavik in October 1986 on the need ultimately to eliminate nuclear weapons. Concurrently, major positive changes were occurring in world affairs: A number of international conflicts were defused and democratic processes in many parts of the world gained momentum, leading to the end of the Cold War.

    As U.S.-Soviet arms negotiations got off the ground, a breakthrough was achieved — the treaty on the elimination of medium- and shorter-range missiles, followed by agreement on 50% reduction in strategic offensive weapons. If the negotiations had continued in the same vein and at the same pace, the world would have been rid of the greater part of the arsenals of deadly weapons. But this did not happen, and hopes for a new, more democratic world order were not fulfilled. In fact, we have seen a failure of political leadership, which proved incapable of seizing the opportunities opened by the end of the Cold War. This glaring failure has allowed nuclear weapons and their proliferation to pose a continuing, growing threat to mankind.

    The ABM Treaty has been abrogated; the requirements for effective verification and irreversibility of nuclear-arms reductions have been weakened; the treaty on comprehensive cessation of nuclear-weapons tests has not been ratified by all nuclear powers. The goal of the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons has been essentially forgotten. What is more, the military doctrines of major powers, first the U.S. and then, to some extent, Russia, have re-emphasized nuclear weapons as an acceptable means of war fighting, to be used in a first or even in a “pre-emptive” strike.

    All this is a blatant violation of the nuclear powers’ commitments under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Its Article V is clear and unambiguous: Nations that are capable of making nuclear weapons shall forgo that possibility in exchange for the promise by the members of the nuclear club to reduce and eventually abolish their nuclear arsenals. If this reciprocity is not observed, then the entire structure of the treaty will collapse.

    The Non-Proliferation Treaty is already under considerable stress. The emergence of India and Pakistan as nuclear-weapon states, the North Korean nuclear program and the issue of Iran are just the harbingers of even more dangerous problems that we will have to face unless we overcome the present situation. A new threat, nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists, is a challenge to our ability to work together internationally and to our technological ingenuity. But we should not delude ourselves: In the final analysis, this problem can only be solved through the abolition of nuclear weapons. So long as they continue to exist, the danger will be with us, like the famous “rifle on the wall” that will fire sooner or later.

    Last November the Forum of Nobel Peace Laureates, meeting in Rome, issued a special statement on this issue. The late Nobel laureate and world-renowned scientist, Joseph Rotblat, initiated a global awareness campaign on the nuclear danger, in which I participated. Ted Turner’s Nuclear Threat Initiative provides important support for specific measures to reduce weapons of mass destruction. With all of them we are united by a common understanding of the need to save the Non-Proliferation Treaty and of the primary responsibility of the members of the nuclear club.

    We must put the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons back on the agenda, not in a distant future but as soon as possible. It links the moral imperative — the rejection of such weapons from an ethical standpoint — with the imperative of assuring security. It is becoming clearer that nuclear weapons are no longer a means of achieving security; in fact, with every passing year they make our security more precarious.

    The irony — and a reproach to the current generation of world leaders — is that two decades after the end of the Cold War the world is still burdened with vast arsenals of nuclear weapons of which even a fraction would be enough to destroy civilization. As in the 1980s, we face the problem of political will — the responsibility of the leaders of major powers for bridging the gap between the rhetoric of peace and security and the real threat looming over the world. While agreeing with the Jan. 4 article that the U.S. should take the initiative and play an active role on this issue, I believe there is also a need for major efforts on the part of Russian and European leaders and for a responsible position and full involvement of all states that have nuclear weapons.

    I am calling for a dialogue to be launched within the framework of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, involving both nuclear-weapon states and non-nuclear-weapon states, to cover the full range of issues related to the elimination of those weapons. The goal is to develop a common concept for moving toward a world free of nuclear weapons.

    The key to success is reciprocity of obligations and actions. The members of the nuclear club should formally reiterate their commitment to reducing and ultimately eliminating nuclear weapons. As a token of their serious intent, they should without delay take two crucial steps: ratify the comprehensive test ban treaty and make changes in their military doctrines, removing nuclear weapons from the Cold War-era high alert status. At the same time, the states that have nuclear-power programs would pledge to terminate all elements of those programs that could have military use.

    The participants in the dialogue should report its progress and the results achieved to the United Nations Security Council, which must be given a key coordinating role in this process.

    Over the past 15 years, the goal of the elimination of nuclear weapons has been so much on the back burner that it will take a true political breakthrough and a major intellectual effort to achieve success in this endeavor. It will be a challenge to the current generation of leaders, a test of their maturity and ability to act that they must not fail. It is our duty to help them to meet this challenge.

    Originally published in the Wall Street Journal.

     

    Mr. Gorbachev was the leader of the Soviet Union from 1985 to 1991.

  • Citizens’ Tribunal Finds Watada Acted Legally

    Citizens’ Tribunal Finds Watada Acted Legally

    A Citizens’ Hearing on the Legality of US Actions in Iraq was held in Tacoma, Washington on January 20-21, 2007. The Citizens’ Hearing was organized in response to US Army Lieutenant Ehren Watada’s refusal to deploy to Iraq on grounds that the war is illegal, and in the belief that when government fails to act responsibly and legally it is the duty of citizens in a democracy to act.

    Lt. Watada faces a court martial on February 5, 2007 at Fort Lewis, Washington for failing to deploy with his Stryker Brigade to Iraq and for “conduct unbecoming of an officer.” The military judge has refused to allow Lt. Watada to raise a Nuremberg defense, the basis of which is his contention that the war in Iraq is illegal and therefore orders to deploy to the war are illegal.

    The Citizens’ Hearing Panel, which I chaired, was composed of twelve citizens, who heard testimony on the issue of the illegality of the war – testimony that would have been introduced at Lt. Watada’s court martial if the military judge had allowed it. A majority of the Panel consisted of US military veterans going back to World War II, as well as a military family member, a Gold Star family member, a government leader, a religious leader, a union member and a high school student.

    The Panel heard testimony on four principal issues: whether the war in Iraq was an illegal war of aggression and thus a crime against peace; whether a systematic pattern of war crimes have been committed by US forces in Iraq; whether crimes against humanity have been committed; and whether a US military officer has a duty to refuse illegal orders. Testimony was presented by Iraq War veterans, experts in international law and diplomats.

    The testimony of the experts in international law was clear that the war in Iraq was initiated illegally. The US invasion of Iraq did not comply with the United Nations Charter, in that it was not authorized by the UN Security Council, nor was it required for immediate self-defense. It was a war of aggression, violating international law and the United States Constitution. Article 6, Section 2 of the Constitution makes the United Nations Charter, a treaty duly signed and ratified by the US government, a part of the “supreme Law of the Land.”

    The most powerful testimony presented came from five Iraq War veterans. They described a military training process in which the dehumanization of Iraqis was pervasive, creating an unhealthy environment conducive to the commission of war crimes. The veterans described the constant reference to Iraqis, at all levels of the chain of command, as hajis, ragheads and worse. Some described orders to shoot and kill children.

    One veteran described an instance in which he witnessed a frightened mother and daughter being shot in the back as they ran away from US troops. There was also testimony on the beating and killing of prisoners. The soldiers testified that the atmosphere of targeting civilians did not come simply from the individual soldiers, but from far higher in the command structure.

    The consistent testimony of the Iraq War veterans was that the lives of Iraqis were devalued and that war crimes were systematically committed as a result of the rules of engagement in Iraq. The Panel also received testimony on the systematic torture of Iraqi prisoners and on the use of heavy US weaponry in a manner that failed to discriminate between soldiers and civilians. Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations Denis Halliday described the “shock and awe” initiation of the war as “a terrorist act.”

    Colonel Ann Wright, a former army officer and diplomat, testified that the United States had not met its obligations as an occupying power, and that grave breeches of the Geneva Conventions were occurring regularly in the treatment and torture of prisoners. Colonel Wright and other expert witnesses urged that US leaders be held accountable for their criminal actions.

    There was also testimony on crimes against humanity. Prominent in this testimony was discussion of the systematic destruction of Iraq’s infrastructure, including water facilities, sewage treatment facilities and electric power facilities. One expert, Antonia Juhasz, a Visiting Scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, testified that all the US orders to change Iraq’s laws to provide economic advantage to the US, particularly in relation to Iraq’s oil, were in violation of international law. Thus, all contracts created in this way must be rescinded and the profits returned to the Iraqi people.

    On the critical question regarding Lt. Watada’s refusal of orders, there was strong testimony that soldiers and officers are only required to obey lawful orders. In accord with the Nuremberg Charter and Principles, the US Constitution and US Army Field Manual 27-10, an officer has a duty to act lawfully by refusing to follow illegal orders. Insofar as the war in Iraq is an illegal aggressive war in which war crimes and crimes against humanity are being systematically committed, Lt. Watada acted lawfully in refusing orders to deploy to Iraq. Professor Richard Falk testified that the military judge’s order preventing Watada from presenting evidence on the illegality of the war was “criminally disallowing him from obeying the law.”

    The full report of the Panel of the Citizens’ Hearing will be released soon; some of the testimony is now available on the website www.wartribunal.org. The preliminary, but unanimous, finding of the Panel is that the US has committed crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity in Iraq. Further, Lt. Watada acted legally and honorably in refusing orders to deploy to Iraq, and his actions are in accord with the oath he took to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. He was the panel chair and a member of the Jury of Conscience of the World Tribunal on Iraq held in Istanbul in July 2005.

  • A Very Costly I Told You So

    All was in vain. The rhetoric and deceptions by the officials supporting our self-anointed “War President” prevailed, and America launched an attack on a country that was not an enemy or a real threat to the US.

    I wrote several articles denouncing the tricks and lies supporting the war—from the former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, from the then National Security Council Advisor Condolezza Rice and, of course, from Vice President Dick Cheney—who were all hovering like hawks over the war drums being beaten by President Bush.

    We, who were in opposition, risked our reputation, friends and even our means of living. It was easier to follow the big river of chorus praising the “march for democracy.” We were branded weird, unpatriotic, even traitors.

    In one of my articles titled “Lying to Provoke a War, Not a New Issue in Washington,” published on the NAPF website on June 9, 2003 and reproduced on many other websites, I finished my comments with the following lines:

    “The Iraq war is not over yet. American soldiers continue dying nearly every week in the occupied Arab nation. Thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children have died. So much for the ‘sparing the innocent’ stated by President Bush. The business of oil and the big contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq conceded to the inner club of companies linked to top officials of this administration cover the air with a smell of suspicion.

    The possibility of an investigation by the Senate to determine if the American people and the world were deceived in what George W. Bush pompously called ‘the first war of the 21st century’ could lead to an impeachment and political disgrace.”

    Three years later the situation has changed. The majority of the US public condemns the actions of Mr. Bush and his failed and devious policies. When I wrote that article, two months earlier President Bush had declared “Major combat has ended.” In those days no more than 70 US fatalities were added to the count since the beginning of the war. Now, more than 3,000 American soldiers have died in Iraq and tens of thousands of Iraqis have been seriously injured by bombings, “friendly fire” mistakes, etc.

    Making things worse, George Bush is now ordering more troops to Iraq without a real plan to solve the big mess he has created in that volatile part of the world.

    If this situation were not so tragic and absurd, we could say this is just a chapter of the Human Comedy written by Honore de Balzac in 1842.

    Let’s hope that a better nation, better informed and with true morals demands justice and holds responsible those that have been lying and deceiving not just the US but the whole world.

     

    Ruben Arvizu is Director for Latin America of Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and International President of Freedom From War.

  • Opening Remarks Delivered at the Citizens’ Hearing on the Legality of US Actions in Iraq: The Case of Lt. Ehren Watada

    Opening Remarks Delivered at the Citizens’ Hearing on the Legality of US Actions in Iraq: The Case of Lt. Ehren Watada

    This Citizens’ Hearing was convened to examine the legality of US actions in Iraq. We were prompted and inspired in this effort by the actions of Lt. Ehren Watada, who refused orders to deploy to Iraq on the grounds that the war is illegal, a “crime against peace” as defined in the Nuremberg Principles.

    Lt. Watada has stated, “The war in Iraq is in fact illegal. It is my obligation and my duty to refuse any orders to participate in this war. An order to take part in an illegal war is unlawful in itself. So my obligation is not to follow the order to go to Iraq.”

    We believe that Lt. Watada’s contentions about the illegality of the war deserve a full and fair hearing. Unfortunately, this has been made impossible at his court martial, since the military judge has already ruled that the issue of the legality of the war may not be raised in the defense of Lt. Watada. This ruling cuts out the heart of Lt. Watada’s defense, and denies him the opportunity to make his case before the military court.

    In addition to challenging the legality of the war, Lt. Watada has challenged the manner in which the war and occupation have been conducted. He has stated, “This administration used us for rampant violations of time-tested laws banning torture and degradation of prisoners of war. Though the American soldier wants to do right, the illegitimacy of the occupation itself, the policies of this administration and the rules of engagement of desperate field commanders will ultimately force them to be party to war crimes.”

    It is Lt. Watada’s deeply held conviction that as an officer in the United States Army, who has sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States, he cannot follow orders to participate in the Iraq War, nor lead the men and women assigned to his command to do what he believes is illegal. “How,” he has asked, “could I order other men to die for something I believe is wrong?”

    The implications of Lt. Watada being correct in his assessment of the war are extremely significant. Such a finding would mean that all officers and soldiers have an obligation under the Nuremberg Charter and Principles, the United States Constitution and US military regulations to refuse orders to participate in this war. Further, this finding would have repercussions that could implicate individuals at the highest levels of the US government in the same crimes tried at Nuremberg after World War II: crimes against the peace; war crimes and crimes against humanity.

    The fourth of the Nuremberg Principles says that superior orders are not a defense to the commission of an illegal act. This is echoed in US Army Field Manual 27-10. The military court, however, intends to focus only on whether or not the order was obeyed, rather than upon the legality of the order. By narrowing the scope of the inquiry, the military tramples upon international law and the Nuremberg Principle of individual accountability.

    In a second ruling, on issues of permissible speech, the military judge found that Lt. Watada’s criticism of the war was not shielded by his First Amendment right to free speech. This means, in essence, that though officers in the Armed Forces may be asked to give their lives for their country, the truth of their assertions regarding the illegality of US actions is not even a matter to be considered in charges of “conduct unbecoming of an officer.”

    The combination of the military judge’s rulings in the Watada case makes it virtually impossible for Lt Watada to obtain legal relief in a military court. These rulings also make a mockery of the Nuremberg Charter and the Nuremberg Principles established by the United Nations International Law Commission following the Nuremberg Tribunals. The military judge’s ruling would certainly be repugnant to US Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, who was the chief prosecutor for the United States at the Nuremberg Tribunal. Jackson believed strongly that history would judge the United States by how it applied the Nuremberg standards to its own leaders in the future.

    “We must never forget,” Jackson said, “that the record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well.”

    What makes this Citizens’ Hearing critically important is that it provides a forum for testimony relevant to Lt. Watada’s refusal to deploy and his statements on the illegality of the Iraq War. It is our intention, as citizens of a democracy, to give a full and fair hearing to Lt. Watada’s claims about the illegality of the war. We cannot rectify the denial of Lt. Watada’s rights in the military courts, but we can examine the truth of his claims in a public hearing.

    I would like to explain what this Hearing is and is not. I will start with what it is not.

    • First, and most obviously, this is not a court of law, and no one is on trial here.
    • Second, we are not engaged in a mock trial of any person.
    • Third, we make no claim to impartiality, only to truth.
    • Fourth, this is not an official hearing or commission of the United States government. No government agency has convened or authorized this Hearing.

    The authority for this Hearing stems from the power vested in citizens in a democracy to become informed, speak out and play a role in the process of determining national policy. This is a Citizens’ Hearing; one organized and composed of citizens – those in whom the foundational power of the state vests in a democracy. The impetus for the Citizens’ Hearing evolved from three principal concerns.

    First, that Lt. Watada will not receive a full and fair trial at his court martial, inasmuch as Lt. Watada will not be able to raise a Nuremberg-based defense to his contention regarding the illegality of the war and his speech will not be protected by First Amendment rights.

    Second, that the war in Iraq may be illegal, and this issue deserves close scrutiny, expert testimony and the full engagement of the public.

    Third, that it is both a right and responsibility of citizens in a democracy to oversee the actions of their government, and this holds particularly true with regard to government conduct on issues of war and peace.

    This Citizens’ Hearing will be conducted in the manner of a hearing held before a committee of the Congress. It will be a hearing that seeks to elicit evidence, reach conclusions, and make these conclusions known to a broader public. Over the next two days the Panel of this Citizens’ Hearing will receive testimony related to the legality of US actions in Iraq. Specifically, this Hearing will focus on the following questions:

    1. Is the war in Iraq an illegal war of aggression, causing the invasion of Iraq by the United States and the “coalition of the willing” to constitute a crime against peace?
    2. Have US actions in the hostilities in Iraq been such as to constitute a pattern of war crimes?
    3. Does the ongoing occupation of Iraq constitute a crime against humanity?
    4. Does a member of the United States Armed Forces have a duty under the Nuremberg Principles, the US Constitution and US military regulations to refuse to follow an order to participate in an illegal war?

    This Hearing will seek to answer these questions based upon the testimony provided by eyewitness and expert witnesses. At the end of the Hearing, the Panel will prepare and release a Final Statement containing its findings. The Final Statement will be sent to every member of the United States Congress. We hope that the findings will also be widely distributed by the media throughout the country, and will cause our fellow citizens to give greater consideration to the challenge that Lt. Watada’s refusal to deploy to Iraq on grounds of illegality presents to each of us as Americans.

    We act here at this Citizens’ Hearing in the belief that the testimony and Final Statement that will be produced will provide important information and conclusions relevant not only to the court martial of Lt. Watada, but additionally to all members of the Armed Forces and to every American citizen. If the war and occupation are found to be illegal and in violation of the United States Constitution, then each of us as a citizen bears some portion of responsibility. If this is, in fact, the finding and citizens choose to accept this responsibility, then the leaders who initiated and directed this war, far more than a lone Lieutenant, should be held to account for their actions under international law and the United States Constitution.

    I declare this Citizens’ Hearing open. We on the Panel pledge to seek the truth and to act with justice.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. He was the panel chair and a member of the Jury of Conscience of the World Tribunal on Iraq held in Istanbul in July 2005.
  • It’s Time For a Plan to Abolish Nuclear Weapons

    It’s Time For a Plan to Abolish Nuclear Weapons

    In early January 2007, a surprising commentary appeared in the Wall Street Journal pleading for US leadership to move toward a world free of nuclear weapons. The surprise emanated from the identity of the writers: four prominent former high-level US foreign and defense policy officials, a bipartisan group with impeccable hawkish credentials – George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn.

    In their welcome if belated statement of concern about nuclear dangers, they harkened back to the 1986 summit at Reykjavik, where Presidents Reagan and Gorbachev came close to an agreement to rid the world of nuclear weapons. “Reassertion of the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons,” they wrote, “and practical measures toward achieving that goal would be, and would be perceived as, a bold initiative consistent with America’s moral heritage. The effort could have a profoundly positive impact on the security of future generations.”

    The four men who signed this commentary might have harkened back even further. In the 1960s, John F. Kennedy likened nuclear weapons to a nuclear sword of Damocles, “hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by accident, or miscalculation, or by madness.” Kennedy concluded, as have the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki who experienced the devastatingly destructive nuclear attacks at the end of World War II, that nuclear weapons “must be abolished before they abolish us.”

    It should be of deep concern to all Americans that more than a decade and a half after the end of the Cold War, the danger of the spread and use of nuclear weapons has not substantially diminished and has quite possibly increased. Moreover, it has become increasingly apparent that nuclear weapons may give far more leverage to relatively weak actors, such as terrorist groups, than they do to even the most powerful nations.

    In one of his last speeches at the conclusion of his ten-year tenure as Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan pointedly directed his remarks to the extreme dangers humanity faces due to the failure to eliminate nuclear weapons. He argued, “The one area where there is a total lack of any common strategy is the one that may well present the greatest danger of all: the area of nuclear weapons,” and he cited many reasons necessitating a concerted effort to both prevent proliferation and achieve nuclear disarmament.

    The lynchpin of Annan’s proposal, however, was the specific need for the nuclear weapons states to take action on their nuclear disarmament commitments. “I call on all the States with nuclear weapons,” he said, “to develop concrete plans -– with specific timetables -– for implementing their disarmament commitments. And I urge them to make a joint declaration of intent to achieve the progressive elimination of all nuclear weapons, under strict and effective international control.”

    There can be no doubt that a plan to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons is critically needed and should animate a national, indeed a global, dialogue. Nuclear weapons endanger our nation and the world. These weapons are capable of destroying cities and countries, including our own, and could put an end to civilization. They are tools of our own making that place a dark cloud over the human future. The continued reliance upon these weapons by the United States and other nuclear weapons states is a provocation to other countries to do the same and could lead to a breakdown of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and other efforts to halt the spread of nuclear weapons.

    Terrorists cannot be deterred by nuclear weapons because they cannot be located, and if terrorists gain possession of nuclear weapons they cannot be prevented from using them by threat of retaliation. The security of even a military superpower such as the United States could be dramatically undercut by a single terrorist group with just one nuclear weapon. Such is the leverage of nuclear weapons: they favor the weak over the strong.

    A consensus is finally building behind the conviction that the abolition of nuclear weapons is necessary and that US leadership is urgently needed to achieve this goal. Now we need increased momentum to achieve an action plan so that over the next decade nuclear weapons can be eliminated globally in a process that is transparent, verifiable and irreversible. To succeed in reaching this goal will require a new way of thinking that involves increased reliance on international cooperation and diplomacy to achieve security, and adherence by all nations, even the most powerful, to a strengthened body of international law.

    We are facing a challenge that will determine our common future. As Kofi Annan pleaded to the young people at Princeton who he was addressing in his speech, “Help us to seize control of the rogue aircraft on which humanity has embarked, and bring it to a safe landing before it is too late.”

    David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He is a leader in the global effort for a world free of nuclear weapons.

  • A New Chance for Peace?

    I am concerned that public discussion of my book “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid” has been diverted from the book’s basic proposals: that peace talks be resumed after six years of delay and that the tragic persecution of Palestinians be ended. Although most critics have not seriously disputed or even mentioned the facts and suggestions about these two issues, an apparently concerted campaign has been focused on the book’s title, combined with allegations that I am anti-Israel. This is not good for any of us who are committed to Israel’s status as a peaceful nation living in harmony with its neighbors.

    It is encouraging that President Bush has announced that peace in the Holy Land will be a high priority for his administration during the next two years. On her current trip to the region, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has called for an early U.S.-Israeli-Palestinian meeting. She has recommended the 2002 offer of the 23 Arab nations as a foundation for peace: full recognition of Israel based on a return to its internationally recognized borders. This offer is compatible with official U.S. policy, previous agreements approved by Israeli governments in 1978 and 1993, and the “road map” for peace developed by the “quartet” (the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations).

    The clear fact is that Israel will never find peace until it is willing to withdraw from its neighboring occupied territories and permit the Palestinians to exercise their basic human and political rights. With land swaps, this “green line” can be modified through negotiations to let a substantial number of Israeli settlers remain in their subsidized homes east of the internationally recognized border. The premise of exchanging Arab territory for peace has been acceptable for several decades to a majority of Israelis but not to a minority of the more conservative leaders, who are unfortunately supported by most of the vocal American Jewish community.

    These same premises, of course, will have to be accepted by any government that represents the Palestinians. A March 2006 poll by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah found 73 percent approval among citizens in the occupied territories, and Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh has expressed support for talks between President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and pledged to end Hamas’s rejectionist position if a negotiated agreement is approved by the Palestinian people.

    Abbas is wise in repeating to Secretary Rice that he rejects any “interim” boundaries for the Palestinian state. The step-by-step road-map formula promulgated almost three years ago for reaching a final agreement has proved to be a non-starter — and an excuse for not making any progress. I know from experience that it is often more difficult to negotiate an interim agreement, with all its future uncertainties, than to address the panoply of crucial issues that will have to be resolved to reach the goal of peace.

    Given these recent developments and with the Democratic Party poised to play a more important role in governing, this is a good time to clarify our party’s overall policy in the broader Middle East. Numerous options are available as Congress attempts to correlate its suggestions with White House policy, and there is little doubt that the basic proposals of the Iraq Study Group provide a good foundation on which Democrats might reach something of a consensus (recognizing that individual lawmakers could still make their own proposals on details). This party policy would provide a reasonable answer to the allegation that Democrats have no alternatives of their own to address the Iraq quagmire.

    A key factor in an Iraq policy would be strong demands on Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government to cooperate in ending sectarian violence, prodded by a clear notice of plans for troop withdrawals. A commitment to regional cooperation, including opportunities for Iran and Syria to participate, would be beneficial in assuring doubtful Iraqis that America will no longer be the dominant outside power shaping their military, political and economic future.

    Although Israel’s prime minister has criticized these facets of the Iraq Study Group’s report, the most difficult recommendation for many Democrats could be the call for substantive peace talks on the Palestinian issue. The situation in the occupied territories will be a crucial factor, and it would be helpful for both the House and Senate to send a responsible delegation to the West Bank and Gaza to observe the situation personally, to meet with key leaders and to ascertain the prospects if peace talks can be launched.

    I am convinced that, with bipartisan support, this is a good opportunity for progress.

    Published by The Washington Post.

     

    Jimmy Carter was the 39th US President and is a Nobel Peace Prize laureate. His most recent book is Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.

  • Doomsday Clock Reset for an Alarming World

    Be afraid. Be more afraid.

    For the first time in five years, the elite board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is moving the minute hand on their Doomsday Clock closer to the fatal hour of midnight.

    The clock – a symbol of the perils facing the human race – is expected to shift two minutes, from the current seven minutes to midnight to five, a figure the Bulletin would not confirm before its news conference today.

    “This is a sober and highly alarming judgment by a group of people who are knowledgeable and experienced,” said Nobel laureate John Polanyi, a faculty member in the University of Toronto’s chemistry department.

    “The most immediate hazard we face is also the most easily addressed, namely the thousands of nuclear-armed weapons aimed at Russia and the United States, and left pointlessly in a state of high alert. The fact that they are is an appalling failure to step back from the brink.”

    The clock, which hangs in the University of Chicago, was first set 60 years ago to focus on the danger of nuclear weapons. But for the first time it will take into account the perils posed by global warming, which has sparked renewed interest in building nuclear power plants.

    The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists was founded by former Manhattan Project scientists who turned against nuclear weapons after developing the first atomic bomb.

    “The major new step reflects growing concerns about a ‘Second Nuclear Age’ marked by grave threats, including: nuclear ambitions in Iran and North Korea, unsecured nuclear materials in Russia and elsewhere, the continuing launch-ready status of 2,000 of the 25,000 nuclear weapons held by the U.S. and Russia, escalating terrorism and new pressure from climate change for expanded civilian nuclear power that could increase proliferation risks,” said a statement released before a news conference today.

    The clock was first set in 1947 at seven minutes to midnight, and plunged to an all-time low of two minutes in 1953, when the United States and Soviet Union both tested hydrogen bombs. Since then India, Pakistan, North Korea and, it is believed, Israel have developed nuclear weapons and Iran is enriching uranium that could potentially be used to fuel an atomic bomb.

    The clock was set furthest from midnight – 17 minutes – in 1991, when Washington and Moscow signed the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.

    But it has crept steadily nearer since then as global military spending increased, India and Pakistan tested nuclear weapons, the U.S. withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty to pave the way for its missile defence program, and reports spread of terrorists seeking nuclear weapons.

    American non-proliferation expert Joseph Cirincione said today’s movement of the Doomsday Clock’s hand was a “measurable indicator of how bad things are. If some of the world’s smartest scientists are saying we are now closer to doomsday, it should focus attention on both the problems, and the urgency of finding solutions.”

    And, he said, U.S. President George W. Bush’s administration has made the dangers faced by the planet worse.

    “They came in determined to make a radical change and they made it. It was a complete disaster. Every member of what they call the ‘axis of evil’ is a greater threat now than it was before they came to power. They thought they could use the blunt instrument of military might to overthrow evil regimes. But instead of intimidating countries, they made things worse.”

    And global warming is also worse, said Cirincione, a senior vice-president at the Washington-based Center for American Progress.

    “We lost six years when we could have been taking steps to fix the problem.”

    Last week, the once-hawkish former U.S. secretary of state Henry Kissinger, and three other American former officials, declared that reliance on nuclear arms was “becoming increasingly hazardous and decreasingly effective,” and called for Washington to lead in creating “a world without nuclear weapons.”

    The group, which included former defence secretary William Perry, said “North Korea’s recent nuclear test and Iran’s refusal to stop its program to enrich uranium – potentially to weapons grade – highlight the fact that the world is now on the precipice of a new and dangerous nuclear era.”

    Ernie Regehr, a policy adviser for Waterloo-based Project Ploughshares, agreed that the trends “are all in a dangerous direction, and the notion of a nuclear renaissance, the spread of nuclear power, is making (them) more so.”

    Even a modest movement to revive nuclear power, he added, was perilous.

    At the same time, Regehr said, not only the United States but Britain and France are helping to stoke the fires of nuclear proliferation by refusing to give up their deadly arsenals, or even signalling that they will update them.

    “Britain could have pointed the world in the direction it needs to go, because it is a secure country that doesn’t need nuclear weapons. …

    “Yet, in defiance of all that, it has indicated an interest in modernizing the arsenal, which is a heavy blow to non-proliferation.

    Published on Wednesday, January 17, 2007 by the Toronto Star

  • President Bush’s Iraq Policy Renewed

    The hope that President Bush might move toward an American withdrawal from Iraq was decisively rejected in his important speech of January 10. This was the first response by the American president to the November electoral mandate that was, above all, an unmistakable rejection of the Iraq policy by the voting public. It was also the first formal response to the report of the high-profile Iraq Study Group headed by former Secretary of State, James Baker, and Democratic Congressional leader, Lee Hamilton, that had recommended a gradual American withdrawal, a robust regional diplomatic strategy designed to encourage help in stabilizing Iraq, and a renewed sense of urgency about seeking a solution for the Palestine-Israel conflict.

    In all respects, rather than heeding these demands of his Iraq critics, or at least meeting them halfway, Bush proposed a set of initiatives that moved precisely in the opposite direction. Instead of withdrawal, Bush decreed a clear escalation of the American combat role, deploying an additional 21,500 American troops to be used in Baghdad and Anbar province, the two areas of most intense resistance to the American occupation of the country. Instead of initiating a regional diplomatic effort that invited the participation of Iran and Syria, the president clearly signaled his intention to confront these countries in a more hostile manner that is almost certain to further heighten regional tensions. This unfortunate prospect was given immediate tangible expression the day after the speech by a provocative American military raid on an Iranian diplomatic mission in the northern city of Arbil, situated in the Kurdish region. And to complete the discouraging picture, not a word was uttered about an increased effort to achieve peace between Israel and Palestine.

    How should we interpret this defiant posture? Already this reaffirmation of the old Iraq policy by Bush has antagonized the Democratic opposition now in control of Congress, and has even disappointed and puzzled most Republicans. This Bush ‘stay the course’ stubbornness almost requires Congress to confront the president on Iraq. If Congress acts it would likely be seen as a challenge to Bush’s authority as commander-in-chief of the armed forces under wartime conditions, and could produce a paralyzing constitutional crisis, which might damage the political prospects of the Republican Party for years.

    Part of the explanation of the approach adopted Bush involves a recognition of the extent to which the White House continues to be steered by neoconservative hard liners when it comes to foreign policy. Well ahead of the speech it was widely publicized that these new tactics of escalated deployment in Baghdad had been mainly crafted by Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute, a hawkish signatory of the pre-9/11 neoconservative blueprint for American foreign policy published under the auspices of the Project for a New American Century. By relying on Kagan and AEI the Bush presidency reaffirmed its ideological identity, while at the same time repudiating the more pragmatic and realistic option offered by the Baker-Hamilton recommendations. If Bush had gone along with Baker-Hamilton, his leadership would almost certainly have received a dramatic spike of popular support from an American public clamoring for relief from a costly and failing war policy. To have so adjusted would have been applauded throughout the world as a brave effort to acknowledge failure and move in a more hopeful direction. But to do so would have meant renouncing the neoconservative agenda of exporting democracy to the Middle East and of refusing to engage diplomatically with ‘the bad guys’ in control of Iran and Syria. At this point, the Bush presidency remains locked in what increasingly appears to be a death embrace with the neoconservative ideologues. It was they who had advocated regime change in Iraq by military intervention ever since Bush was elected in 2000, if not earlier. It probably should come as no surprise that Bush has so clearly cast his lot with this band of neoconservative extremists, but it is still a disappointment that will make Iraq something worse than the tragedy it has already become.

    Most of Bush’s argument on behalf of the approach he adopted was an elaboration of a single thought: “Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.” To avert failure Bush proposed new tactics involving a dramatic upgrading of the American combat presence in Baghdad, including a new willingness to clear and hold neighborhoods presently controlled by both Sunni and Shi’ia militias, including those of Muqtadar al-Sadr. Bush insisted that the success of such tactics depended on the willingness of the Iraqi government of Nuri al-Maliki to be fully committed to achieving such goals of pacification. Such dependence is almost a guaranty of the failure Bush is preoccupied with avoiding!

    The available evidence clearly establishes that the goal of the Maliki leadership is to consolidate Shi’ia dominance, not to share power with its Sunni adversaries as is implicit in the Bush political strategy. Actually, Maliki had been actively pushing for an adjustment of the American role in Iraq that is diametrically opposed to both the Bush decisions and the Baker-Hamilton recommendations. Maliki was seeking the removal of the American military presence from Baghdad, with its combat mission being redefined as exclusively devoted to engaging and defeating the Sunni elements of the overall insurgency, which would leave the Shi’ia in uncontested control of Iraq. Of course, this makes political sense. Maliki owes his position of leadership to the support of the thirty members of the Iraqi parliament that belong to Muqtador al-Sadr’s political party. For Maliki to act against his own strongest constituency, except verbally to appease the American occupiers, would almost certainly lead to the immediate collapse of his government. In effect, then, Bush’s announced plan of stepped up joint pacification efforts in the Iraqi capital seems doomed before being attempted. More than this, to override Baghdad’s policy on internal security in this way is to make a mockery of the purported transfer of sovereignty to an elected Iraqi government, and to add credibility to the opponents of the Maliki regime who regard it as a puppet government.

    The incoherence of what Bush proposes for a revised Iraq policy is pervasive. On the one side, as mentioned, Bush indicates that failure in Iraq spells disaster for the United States, but arguably in most respects ‘failure’ already exists. On the other side, Bush pins his vain hopes for success on cooperation with the Iraqi government on an approach that contradicts its own power base, and is almost certainly a non-starter. How can a radical Shi’ite leadership suddenly turn around and cooperate in the violent destruction of the most militant Shi’ia political formation with which it has been so closely allied. Think back only a few weeks to the execution of Saddam Hussein, whose hanging was presided over by Shi’ia extremists who were shrieking ‘Muqtador! Muqtador!’ even while the noose was tightened around the deposed dicatator’s neck. This grisley microcosm of the political realities in Iraq should by itself have shown how futile it is to enlist the Maliki government in an effort to crush the Shi’ia militia presence in Baghdad. Maliki is himself a Shi’ia militant, not a captive to forces that he wishes, but is presently unable, to control.

    In the end, what may be most scary, is the double likelihood of continued frustration of the American effort in Iraq combined with growing tensions in the region. In such a setting one cannot ignore the Israeli resolve to confront Iran by military means, possibly on its own, but preferably, more indirectly, by exerting pressure on the United States to do so. There have even been several media reports that Israel has prepared an attack scenario that features the use of bunker buster nuclear bombs against Iranian targets associated with their nuclear program. Such war plans, even if only hypothetical, involve the first time since Hiroshima and Nagasaki that a government seems to be seriously contemplating the use of nuclear weapons as an instrument of its foreign policy. If anything is likely to hasten the collapse of the nonproliferation regime, already tottering, it is such a reckless wielding of nuclear weapons for purposes other than self-defense and deterrence.

    Although American military resources are spread thin, such an expansion of the war zone has some attractive features from the perspective of the neoconservative planners who continue to hold sway in Washington. In one respect, Rumsfeld’s ghost may be a player in this new phase of Middle Eastern diplomacy. The most notorious of the so-called ‘Rumsfeld rules’ fits the present situation—‘if a problem seems insoluble, make it bigger.’ Extending the war zone to Iran and Syria would make the challenge bigger, and divert attention from a deteriorating situation in Iraq. What is more, with Israel strongly behind such an expansion, the Democrats in America might find themselves badly divided and politically confused. And from the perspective of neoconservative priorities, Iraq was always regarded as a prelude to the main goal, which was to achieve regime change in Tehran and Damascus. This kind of objective seems less outlandish as a result of the apocalyptic language used by Mahmoud Ahmedinejad with respect to Israel. As new setbacks in Iraq capture media headlines, the Bush leadership would have to choose between a final admission of humiliating defeat, which it has repeatedly defined as an unacceptable American disaster, or embarking on a regional war, which will end up being a much worse American disaster, but probably not immediately. It may gain the Bush time he desperately needs to end his term in office, and manage to slink back to civilian life on his Crawford ranch before the sky falls.

    We can only hope that prudence intrudes to stop this gathering momentum that is propelling the region toward a calamitous culmination of the neoconservative crusade. It is not a time for American friends in the region and Europe to be silent. It is a great opportunity for Ankara to show that it is an independent actor in the Middle East that has a strategic stake in the conflict, but that also has a constructive view of peace and security for the region.

     

     

    Richard Falk is professor emeritus of international law and practice at Princeton University, and visiting distinguished professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

  • Enough Time Has Been Wasted, Mr. President. Enough!

    Last night in his address to the nation, the President called for a “surge” of 20,000 additional U.S. troops to help secure Baghdad against the violence that has consumed it. Unfortunately, such a plan is not the outline of a brave new course, as we were told, but a tragic commitment to a failed policy; not a bold new strategy, but a rededication to a course that has proven to be a colossal blunder on every count. The President never spoke truer words than when he said, “the situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people.” But he once again failed to offer a realistic way forward, instead giving us more of his stale and tired “stay the course” prescriptions.

    He espoused a strategy of “clear, hold, and build” — a doctrine of counterinsurgency that one of our top commanders, General David Petraeus, helped to formulate. Clear, hold, and build involves bringing to bear a large number of troops in an area, clearing it of insurgents, and holding it secure for long enough for reconstruction to take place. But what the President did not say last night is that, according to General Petraeus and his own military experts, this strategy of “clear, hold, build” requires a huge number of troops — a minimum of 20 combat troops for every 1,000 civilians in the area. Applying this doctrine to Baghdad’s six million people means that at least 120,000 troops will be needed to secure Baghdad alone. Right now, we have about 70,000 combat troops stationed throughout Iraq; even if they all were concentrated in the city of Baghdad, along with the 20,000 new troops the President is calling for, we would still fall well short of what is needed.

    But let us assume that the brave men and women of the U.S. military are able to carry out this Herculean task, and secure Baghdad against the forces that are spiraling it into violence; what is to keep those forces from regrouping in another town, another province, even another country, strengthening, festering, and waiting until the American soldiers leave to launch their bloody attacks again?

    It brings to mind the ancient figure of Sisyphus, who was doomed to push a boulder up a mountainside for all eternity, only to have it roll back down as soon as he reached the top. As soon as he would accomplish his task it would begin again, endlessly. I fear that we are condemning our soldiers to a similar fate, hunting down insurgents in one city or province only to watch them pop up in another. For how long will U.S. troops be asked to shoulder this burden?

    Over 3,000 American soldiers have now been killed in Iraq, and over 22,000 have been wounded. Staggering. And President Bush now proposes to send 20,000 more Americans into the line of fire, beyond the 70,000 already there. The cost of this war of choice to American taxpayers is now estimated to be over $400 billion, and the number continues to rise. One wonders how much progress we could have made in improving education, or resolving our health care crisis, or strengthening our borders, or reducing our national debt, or any number of pressing issues, with that amount of money. And the President proposes sending more money down that drain.

    On every count, an escalation of 20,000 troops is a misguided, costly, unwise course of action. This is not a solution. This is not a march toward “victory.” The President’s own military advisors have indicated that we do not have enough troops for this strategy to be successful. It will put more Americans in harm’s way than there already are. It will cost more in U.S. taxpayer money. It will further stretch an army that many commanders have already said is at its breaking point. It is a dangerous idea.

    Why, then, is the President advocating it? This decision has the cynical smell of politics to me. Suggesting that an additional 20,000 troops will alter the balance of this war is a way for the President to look forceful, to appear to be taking bold action. But it is only the appearance of bold action, not the reality — much like the image of a cocky President in a flight suit declaring “mission accomplished” from the deck of a battleship. This is not a new course, but a continuation of the tragically costly course we have been on for almost five years now. It is simply a policy that buys the President more time: more time to equivocate, more time to continue to resist any suggestion that he was wrong to enter us into this war in this place, in this time, in this manner. And importantly, calling for more troops gives the President more time to hand the Iraq situation off to his successor in the White House. The President apparently believes that he can wait this out, that he can continue to make small adjustments to a misguided policy while he maintains the same trajectory — until he leaves office and it becomes someone else’s problem.

    But if you are driving in the wrong direction, anyone knows you will not get to your destination by going south when you should be going north. You turn around. You get better directions. This President is asking us to step on the gas in Iraq — full throttle, while he has not even clearly articulated where we are going. What is our goal? What is our end game? How much progress will we need to see from the Iraqi government before our men and women come home? How long will American troops be stationed in Iraq to be maimed and killed in sectarian bloodshed?

    The ultimate solution to the situation in Iraq is political, and will have to come from the Iraqis themselves. The Iraqi government will have to address the causes of the insurgency, by creating a sustainable power-sharing agreement between Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds — and it is far from clear that the government has the power or the willingness to do that at this point. But as long as American troops are there to bear the brunt of the blame and the fire, the Iraqi government will not shoulder the responsibility itself. And Iraq’s neighbors — especially Iran and Syria — won’t commit to helping to stabilize the country as long as they see America bogged down, and losing credibility and strength. Keeping the U.S. army tied up in a bloody, endless battle in Iraq plays perfectly into Iran’s hands, and it has little incentive to cease its assistance to the insurgency as long as America is there. America’s presence in Iraq is inhibiting a lasting solution, not contributing to one. The President has, once again, gotten it backwards.

    What I had hoped to hear from the President last night were specific benchmarks of progress that he expects from the Iraqi government, and a plan for the withdrawal of American troops conditioned on those benchmarks. Instead, we were given a vague admonition that “the responsibility for security will rest with the Iraqi government by November” — with no suggestion of what that responsibility will mean, or how to measure the government’s capacity to handle it. The President is asking us, once again, to trust him while he keeps our troops mired in Iraq. But that trust was long ago squandered.

    I weep for the waste that we have already seen. Lives, treasure, time, goodwill, credibility, opportunity. Wasted. Wasted. And this President is calling for us to waste more.

    I say, enough. If he will not provide leadership and statesmanship, if he does not have the strength of vision to recognize a failed policy and chart a new course, then leadership will have to come from somewhere else. Enough waste. Enough lives lost on this President’s misguided venture in Iraq. Enough time and energy spent on a civil war far from our shores, while the problems Americans face are ignored, while we wallow in debt and mortgage our children’s future to foreigners. Enough. It is time to truly change course, and start talking about how we rebalance our foreign policy and bring our sons and daughters home.

    There are a lot of people making political calculations about the war in Iraq, turning this debate into an exercise of political grandstanding and point-scoring. But this is not a political game. This is life and death. This is asking thousands more Americans to make the ultimate sacrifice for a war that we now know beyond a shadow of a doubt was a mistake. There were those of us who cautioned against the hasty rush to war in Iraq. And unfortunately, our cries, like Cassandra’s, went unheeded. And like Cassandra, our warnings and our fears proved prophetic.

    But we are not doomed to repeat our mistakes. We must learn from the past. We must understand that more money and more troops are not the answer. The clock is running on our misadventure in Iraq.

    Enough time has been wasted, Mr. President. Enough!