Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiMy Audacious Hope: President Obama Will Respect the UN Charter
Speaking of the audacity of hope, here is my hope for the Obama Administration. I'd like to see if we could get through four years of the Obama Administration without invading, bombing, or threatening to invade or bomb any other countries in violation of the UN Charter. Is that too audacious a hope?
My audacious hope is that during the Obama Administration, we'll never have to chant or sing "No Blood for Oil," as CodePink did Monday in the "protest cage" at the DNC in Denver:
Democrats often fault the Bush Administration for rupturing our relations with allies with its invasion of Iraq. The criticism is correct, but it finesses a key point. Why did the U.S. invasion of Iraq rupture relations with allies? Because the Bush Administration thumbed its nose at international law and the UN Charter.
We need a very vigorous and sustained public education campaign in the United States for the UN Charter, and particularly for its prohibition on the use of military force against other UN member states. The principal justification for the creation of the United Nations at the end of the Second World War was precisely to create such a binding prohibition on the signatory countries.
There are only two exceptions to the prohibition: immediate self-defense against actual armed attack, and military actions authorized by the UN Security Council. Since the US invasion of Iraq was not in immediate self-defense against armed attack, and was not authorized by the UN Security Council, it was illegal, as former UN Secretary General Annan affirmed.
If we had a culture of intolerance in the United States for violations of the UN Charter by our leaders - like the attitude we have towards driving while intoxicated - the US invasion of Iraq could never have taken place, and all those lives would have been spared. The U.S. invasion of Iraq was only possible because we have a cavalier attitude towards international law, at least as it might apply to the United States. That's not for us, that's for the little people.
We need more Members of Congress like Dennis Kucinich, who, in his powerful speech to the DNC, included violations of international law in his litany of charges against the Bush Administration:
My guess is that Dennis' will be the only speech at the DNC that takes note of the fact that international law also applies to the United States. Let's get busy turning that around.
17 Comments so far
Show AllVery difficult to read these American political opinions for the most part! All this griping here as usual with your flights into the never-land of Peter Pan politics and all here who would like to be children consumers in this liberal so-called progressive blog.
So many hoping for the choices that are not supported by the political machine. Yes look in the mirror people, except for a few who see the historic human choice in this bigoted land!
Mr. ex-prisoner of war, showed us his desire to pick someone extremely intelligent if he dies, we see his choices clearly. I hear the dream-merchants here in the face of the this rising debacle, who want nothing but purity of thought and an end to the political meanderings of this so-called democracy that is so immature.
The reality of this world pits the American dream now become the the western worlds dream and the world's nightmare, represented by both political parties and supported by your 401ks. Lets stop the nonsense people out there. There is only one choice in this election, to take a chance on a little change represented by a black man who will try within his limited power to change the way business is done and someone who will continue business as usual! Obama can only do so much he is part of the machine and the machine chose him, Nader or anyone else can do nothing! Kucinich is a good man and so are the others but we all must support Obama he knows that ans so muct you all!
This a a one party system if you want more choice try changing it to a parliamentary system. Good luck! That will happen after we are under thirty feet of water. In this system, the way it is; this is reality not a Disney Land show, never mind, perhaps it is? You have a single possibility of a little change rather than no change at all!
Wake up children! There is only one choice, like it or not the other option is no change at all in this warming hell of climate change your choice is to try to stop the oncoming end of the human race or allow it to continue like the snowball that is gone! You political purists out there are superciliously silly.
One thing is abundantly clear and for Obama as well, the American military adventure in the world must come to an end. The money that has been spent on this war alone, never mind the defense budget that drains millions for military supremacy that is an idea unbridled in this or any congress before it. The USA is the reason for any arms race or the self-protection that nations resort to for protecttion from the USA and George's preemptive war strategy.
As in physics, in the field of human affairs the laws of Action and Reaction applies. The force of USA would have to be counterweighed by an equal reaction until an equilibrium is reached. The American people as such can do nothing about it. The only relevant and effective force has to come from outside the USA. There must be wars and people must continue to die until........
wsws.org
Do you really think voting out of some sort of frustrated angst is going to solve anything? I think I'll vote for who I believe can do the job thank you very much. Why do these third party toting left-wingers, wait until the eve of an election to chide and complain about the system. Why do they wait until the two parties have wreaked havoc upon the public opinion to say, "you're just a part of the problem." The third party advocates have to stop blaming dumb Americans.
Where is the legislation for a federally funded public access TV channel for public debates for all candidates? Where is the legislation for a CSPAN like channel, that by law, has to show every candidate who passes a threshold and makes the appropriate gestures. There has to be rules, they have to be strict, and yes they will eventually exclude a number of people - but at least they will be fair. Where are these ideas third party advocates?
It just boggles my mind these last minute complaints about the system. Where are your leaders? Giving Barnes and Noble book signings? Where is your American ingenuity? Or are you in this for the quick fix of conscience? To be able to say, "yes it burns the hell out of me how wicked and vile this country has become, so I'll just vote third party and least I'm less wicked than everyone else."
To me you sound like a bunch of whiners! Get some lawyers and get busy. Get some real creative people involved and make the system work for you.
A vote for Obama is a vote for Hillary, Kucinich, Al Gore... a vote for Obama is a vote for John Edwards, women of character such as Claire McCaskill, Susan Eisenhower, granddaughter of the former five-star general and two-term Republican president and Kathleen Sibelius, governor of Kansas. A vote for Obama is a vote for Bill Richardson and statesmen such as Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and Ted Kennedy.
To downplay or dismiss the unity the Democratic party is currently showing is to diminish the sincerity with which these politicians currently regard the severity and consequences of a Third Bush term. There's nothing like a true villain to stir up alliances. And the true villain in 2008 is the idea of a Republican third term. To simply say Democrats are in this for power is only half true.
Meanwhile a vote for McCain is a vote for Rummsfield, Ashcroft, Limbaugh and politicians like Guiliani and Charlie Christ - jaded elitists who literally, wage war for profit. These people are professional tycoons whose enterprises are founded upon merciless death, public manipulation, vote fraud, torture and the undermining of human rights.
I believe many Americans are jaded by the Bush-isms, the arrogance and the relentless denial of the facts. I believe Americans have forgotten the qualities and benefits of a true president who is a listener, who is open to make changes for the public good, and who holds vision and instincts that come from real life experience.
In the same way real change comes from the bottom up - it also comes from the inside out. The Democratic party - remember - is made of people after all - imperfect human beings striving for whatever their idea is a more perfect union. Let us see as Kucinich does - by example - as one who has moved the anti-war agenda from the inside out. Perhaps, in this time of serious consequences, it is time for those with such strong convictions, to see the potential in changing from the inside out.
What, I ask, is more important, to be right or to accept responsibility for one's vote? Who is more likely to listen to the voices of the American people? What candidate has been tested more, in terms of fire and criticism? What candidate has had to do more just to barely eek out one of the hugest political machines on the planet?
I don't even know if McCain in office will be so bad, with the Democrats most likely to win by convincing margins seats in the House and Senate...
But what I do know is that "being right" on a sinking ship, about why it's sinking, does absolutely nothing to help save the people on board.
I'm strongly supporting Obama and trying to turn out voters on his behalf even though I am deeply disappointed by his embrace of the counterproductive, expensive (in lives and dollars) and long-running Afghan war. If Obama isn't the progressive candidate of our dreams, he's clearly superior to McCain in every respect. And the only real choice we have is between the two of them. It's not an exaggeration to say that another 4 years of Republican policies will bring irreparable harm to a nation--and a world--already on their knees. We must nudge Obama towards more progressive positions and elect good congressional candidates, but we cannot afford to hand the election to McCain.
Alex
Ah, here we are: we CommonDreams' posters (a.k.a., we, the people) ... hidden.
Out of sight, out of mind, CD ownership? For shame, for shame!
Interestingly enough, CommonDreams posters are, for the most part, TO THE LEFT of CommonDreams ownership. For example, no doubt those *own* CommonDreams will endorse Barack Obama for president, as they did Kerry in 2004 and Gore in 2000 -- but, lo and behold, notice how many CD posters, in fact, DON'T support Barack Obama and the DLC-controlled Democratic Party but, instead, support Nader or McKinney or some other genuinely progressive candidate.
You know, the voice of the people can be *such* a bother sometimes, can't it? Especially to those at the top.
In any event, Donna Volatile wrote a very interesting article that recently appeared at counterpunch.org entitled "The Obama Construct."
After pointing out that Barack Obama is a.) willing to keep a "residual force" in Iraq for an indefinite period of time; b.) wants to escalate the war in Afghanistan, and
c.) is willing to invade both Pakistan and Iran, Ms. Volatile writes:
"McCain is a war mongering bully who is in your face, Obama, on the other hand, is a smooth talker, whose own Foreign policy positions aren't too far removed from McCain's and one has to wonder which is worse, or indeed if there really is any difference at all. (The idea of voting for the lesser of two evils, McCain being the more evil, according to Obama supporters, seems ludicrous given that both of these candidates will ultimately do the bidding of their masters and the master plan is the same for both parties. This should be quite apparent by now and if it isn't, well, by all means vote for Obama and reap your just rewards...Do you really think 'Obomba's' idea of war will be kinder and gentler than McCain's?...)
"Obama supporters will tell you 'but he's honest and so sincere', and 'he's run a clean campaign' or 'he's one of us' (that one always gets me) but they remain blinded to what is obvious to many on the radical left and many on the traditional conservative/libertarian right: Obama is a player and he is playing the game of the global elitists.
"Since he has all but secured his party's nomination, he's becoming more militaristic by the minute, in both tone and by his stance on several key Foreign policy issues.
"Obama and his VP Choice, Senator Biden, however, are not the crux of the problem but rather the mainstream voters are the problem as they continue to enable the corrupt two party system by consistently supporting the candidates being foisted upon them by controllers who select them in the first place and who are reinforced by the mainstream media machine in the second. These are not choices, these are lack of choices and if voters continue to participate in this sham, then they truly get what they deserve!
"With Obama supporters, the phrase 'blinded by the light' takes on a whole new meaning. What part don't you get?! (This is the party threatening to place demonstrators at the DNC in recently erected detention camps and the party whose House majority leader, Nancy Pelosi, ridicules the anti-war movement and the homeless: 'If they were poor and they were sleeping on my sidewalk, they'd be arrested for loitering but because they have 'Impeach Bush' across their chest, it's the First Amendment.' Funny how both parties get upset over that whole free speech thing...)
"What is most stunning about delusional Obama supporters is, when confronted by the aforementioned facts about Obama, they counter with this inane idea that Obama is only 'saying' these things, he doesn't really mean them, it's only to get elected and once he gets elected the true altruistic essence of the man will save us all from tyranny! (Can we say reality check?!)
"Their indefensible support of this double talker is beyond comprehension. ...
If you want to help put a stop to the rigged election game, if you really want to make a difference and you want your voice of disapproval to be heard, then do VOTE! Vote for ANYBODY but the two buffoons, who have been pre-selected for you by the global elitist machine. Send a message, loud and clear: We refuse your choices.
"Vote Nader, vote McKinney, vote Ron Paul, vote Bob Barr, write in a vote, do whatever but don't support the corrupt system. Commit to a protest vote. Vote your conscience, do not vote under the 'lesser of two-evils' threat because then YOU are part of the problem, not part of the possible solution. (We've been on this trip too many times before ... From 'hope and help is on the way' Kerry to Obama's constant harping on 'Change We Can Believe In', you have been sold a bill of goods from first to last. For all of Obama's talk of change, his words and actions show quite clearly, he means more of the same...)
"For those die hard Obama supporters who refuse to see the hand writing on the wall... YOU are the problem... For those die-hard Hillary Clinton supporters, promising to vote for McCain because your war-monger wasn't the chosen one, seek psychiatric help immediately.
"And one more thing ... Evil is evil, bad is bad, wrong is wrong regardless of sex, race, creed or color.
"And another thing ... If you vote for Obama, you are neither liberal nor are you progressive, so let's get that straight. If you vote for Obama, you are a neoliberal, so get use to it.
"Stop making excuses, there are none and time is running out as an even larger war may be in the making.
"Get those blinders off!
"This is your wake up call!"
(Words in parenthesis Ms. Volatile's)
Click here for the entire article -- http://www.counterpunch.org/volatile08282008.html
Good points, Earthian, and regarding Obama on the Semon on the Mount, I couldn't load the .gov webpage, it was taking ... forever, so did a Web search and one of the first links is to a YouTube video (roughly 2 minutes long). There are plenty of other links when searching using his name and "Semon on the Mount". What do his words amount to? Anti-Christ; surely not The Anti-Christ, but similar enough.
As for the article, the hope's already defeated, for Obama pledges to escalate U.S. and NATO warring, destruction, and, implicitly, killing of Afghans, in Afghanistan. The UN did not authorize this war of aggression, and even if the UNSC has been going along with this after the fact, this does not make the war one that's not of aggression; it remains criminal and only for natural resources, certainly oil, and perhaps natural gas and mining resources or minerals, given Afghanistan is considerably rich in mineral resources. In any case, it's for natural resources, corporatism, racket, etc.
What he says about what he plans for Iraq is what he says; I doubt it'll amount to real good. They're not giving up the project for conquest of the Middle East and Central Asia, as well as countries of the Caucasus. NOPE, they're not giving this up; may give it different "faces", appearances, but won't give it up.
He hasn't said a word about Haiti and this is another war of aggression that has to be corrected asap.
He's not going to do anything good, and just listening to his speeches over radio tells me not to expect good of him. Bilderbergers' friend Hillary Clinton's cheerleading now also adds to not trusting either of them, and the tonality of their voices, vocals, strike me of arrogance, disguised lies, etc.
Hope, for me, is replaced with, "expect more racket criminality". There's no point in hoping for things that realistically won't be obtained. The People do not govern; the hidden ruling elites do. They are the ones the Clintons, Bushes, ... work for, and also will Obama; most very probably. When we unrealistically hope for things for which there's virtually no potential at all, then we waste our time and emotional energy, and neglect to be as active as we should be; or very much risk living in this manner anyway. If Obama is elected and doesn't comply with the demands of the hidden ruling elites; heh, they have many assassins to send in.
Why should any politician respect the UN Charter??? For about 40 years, sucessive US administrations have looked the other way when Israel violated numerous UN Security Council Resolutions. The US uses and supports the UN when it is convenient. Example: UN Sec Council Res 1701. Of course, Shrub Bush does not think that Hezbollah has the right to negotiate 1701. Why, then, do the Israelis have the right to negotiate 242 and 338???
Why, then, do the Israelis have the right to negotiate 242 and 338???
____________________________________________________
Negotiate?
Why bother to "negotiate" when one can simply ignore with impunity?
"I'd like to see if we could get through four years of the Obama Administration without invading, bombing, or threatening to invade or bomb any other countries in violation of the UN Charter. Is that too audacious a hope?"
Too late, (supports bombing and special ops) in Pakistan, (threatened force) in Iran, (supports deploying "peacekeepers") in Georgia. Also he has no plan to actually leave Iraq and wants to expand the Afghan war. Take your "hope" to the morgue.
But what bothers me is the argument that the UN is a fair decider of legal wars vs. illegal wars. So Bush only violated the UN by invading Iraq? The occupation is allowed by the UN. Afghanistan is allowed by the UN. The UN did not punish Israel for attacking Lebanon or for having WMD's. Saddam's invasion of Kuwait is brutally condemned and millions are murdered as a result. For our invasion: no punishment at all. The UN is controlled by wealthy countries, but primarily by us. The first step towards improving it would be the abolition of the security council.
You hit the nail on the head with the 5 permanent veto members of the Security Council. That is an injustice of itself.
For all this blather about "American Interests", the United States has NO LEGITIMATE INTERESTS outside it's own borders. To think otherwise, is to engage in American Exceptionalism. Yes, the US needs resources from other countries as they've depleted their own, but come on, just buy the shit you need at fair market prices. But alas, the US is so damn greedy, that they won't. They'll consistently scold other about "Market Forces" or "fair market value", but when it comes to themselves, they can't behave reasonably or fairly. Look at the whole US/Canada softwood lumber dispute.
But sir, if that were true and the US had no legitimate interests outside our own borders, wouldn't that hold true for all other countries. And if that is so, when those other countries pursue their own countries interests outside their own borders to our detriment, should we meekly accept their encroachment? Should we play by the rules if no one else will? Thats why I would suggest that yes, we do have legitimate interestsd outside our own borders.
That said, you have an extremely valid point about the US/Canada softwood lumber dispute. Plywood too. Canada has been shabbily treated by the folks in Congress that were bought by US lumber interests. And there are many other examples as well. Fair Trade, not Free Trade is what we need.
But Obama has already rejected this idea decisively in a call for international anarchy and lawless militarism:
" . . . all of us recognize and reserve the right of the United States to exercise its military power in the national interest and for our national security"
http://www.renewamerica.us/archives/media/debates/04_10_12irndebate.htm
He even rejected, explicitly, the Sermon on the Mount:
". . . the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application?"
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/
True but the only alternative to America's imperfect version of materialistic free market democracy means educating the whole planet so that a paradigm shift occurs in human consciousness. This will not happen in my lifetime, but I am contributing in any way I can. Peace.
. all of us recognize and reserve the right of the United States to exercise its military power in the national interest and for our national security"
Funny how the USA's areas of "national interest" covers every square inch of the planet....
when the Nazis tried to take over the world, we fought a war over it....
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
Funny how the USA's areas of "national interest" ... are always selfdestructive.
This is starting to smell like the Boyars and merchants want the destruction of the American government and the culture that go with it.