Mutual aid is as much a law of animal life as mutual struggle.
Pter Alekseevich Kropotkin,
"Mutual Aid" (1902)

What we all learned in mid-October was that President Bush has come up with the very best way to combat terrorism. It's called pre-emption. According to the document: "The United States will not hesitate to strike pre-emptively against its enemies, even if it faces international opposition, and will never again allow its military supremacy to be threatened. As a matter of common sense and self-defense, America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed. In the new world we have entered, the only path to peace and security is the path of action." He was right. It's just no one told him what kind of action was needed. I could give him some hints. They come from a variety of reports.

According to a report in the New York Times on Oct. 9, donations of condoms from rich nations to poor ones have declined. The world's poorest countries need between 8 billion and 10 billion condoms a year to stem the spread of AIDS. Fourteen thousand people are infected by the AIDS virus every day in the world's poorest countries. The decline in donations from donor countries was led by the United States. In 1990 it gave the third world 800 million condoms. In 2000 it gave away only 360 million. Mr. Bush could have announced when he spoke at the United Nations that in order to combat terrorism we were going to deprive the terrorists of one of their chief weapons-the belief that the United States doesn't care about the rest of the world. He could have announced that we were going to assemble an international coalition to make sure that the world's poorest countries get the eight billion to 10 billion condoms it is believed they need to stem the spread of the AIDS virus. He didn't. That would have offended his right-wing constituency and not offending them is far more important than saving lives.

In 2001 the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria was formed. At its inception United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan said he hoped Western donations would be $7 billion to $10 billion a year. Its executive director said that since its formation the fund has received requests from poor countries totaling about $8 billion but has received only $2.1 billion in pledges. In his speech at the United Nations Mr. Bush could have announced his intention to assemble an international coalition to insure that the organization receive the $8 billion needed each year to help the fund achieve its goals. He didn't. Instead his first pledge was $200 million.

In March of 2001 the World Health Organization reported that more than a billion people have no access to clean water and 3.4 million people die every year from diseases which could be remedied by better supplies and sanitation. According to the organization, low-cost initiatives to purify water and improve personal hygiene could halve the number of people suffering from poor water and sanitation by 2015. In his speech at the United Nations Mr. Bush could have said that the deaths of 3.4 million people each year were unacceptable. He could have said that waiting until 2015 to halve the number of people who have potable water was unacceptable. He could have announced that he was assembling an international coalition led by the United States to make sure that that goal was achieved by 2005. He didn't. It never occurred to him.

On Oct. 15, the United Nations said progress toward reducing world hunger had stalled. The U.N.'s Rome-based Food and Agriculture Organization issued a report entitled The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2002. It says more than nine million people die each year from hunger. Six million of them are children under the age of five. Mr. Bush addressed the United Nations a few days earlier. The report would have been available to him had he asked. He could have announced that he was assembling an international coalition to fight hunger and to make sure that the number of people dying from starvation around the world would be reduced by half within five years. He didn't.

Instead of saying those things he said: "While the U.S. will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone." He was not referring to the herculean task of providing water, food, condoms and sanitation to Third World countries. He did not say that he would call upon the American people to make whatever sacrifices might be needed to accomplish those goals because that way, and that way alone, we could show the world that we were a compassionate people and that way, and not by force, could we defang the terrorists.

Instead he said that if the international coalition did not support us he would act alone to impose his view of how the world should be, by armed force if necessary.

According to a fact sheet from the United States Mission to the United Nations, on Oct. 11 Mr. Bush said: "Ultimately, one of the best weapons, one of the truest weapons that we have against terrorism is to show the world the true strength of character and kindness of the American people." Those comments, coupled with his planned attack on Iraq, demonstrate that what he lacks in compassion he makes up for with a keen sense of humor. The people who get killed in his unilateral war will probably not quite get it. Neither will many of the rest of us.

Christopher Brauchli is a Boulder lawyer and and writes a weekly column for the Knight Ridder news service. He can be reached at brauchli1@attbi.com

###