The resurgence of U.S. unilateralism is rapidly becoming the most pressing
problem in international affairs today, as underscored by Friday's major
air strikes (involving strikes by 20 planes) against Iraq.
While the United States has always been unilateralist, the skillful
combination of horse-trading and coercion that went into the building of
the Gulf War coalition, along with several token nods toward
multilateralism afterwards, had helped to erase the international
community's memory of previous incidents, like the invasion of Panama, the
proxy wars in central America, and even, to some extent, the Vietnam war.
The murmurs started again, however, after the December 1998 Desert Fox
bombing of Iraq, done in explicit defiance of the Security Council,
building toward a crescendo with the blatantly illegal NATO war against
Serbia. Now it is once again becoming permissible to tell the truth, to say
that it is the United States, not Iraq much less North Korea, that is the
world's biggest rogue state.
One index of the United States' imperial arrogance is the change in its
rhetoric over the past decade. Starting with the superficially plausible
explanation that the Gulf War was necessary because aggression and
occupation cannot be allowed (an assertion that required a detailed
knowledge of the situation's specifics to refute), it then progressed to
the notion, evident in the August 1998 bombing of Sudan's biggest
pharmaceutical plant and in Desert Fox, that the United States is justified
in bombing countries if they have, or potentially might produce, so-called
"weapons of mass destruction" the same United States being, of course, the
largest stockpiler, seller, and user of such weapons.
This clearly absurd justification has now been superseded, in this year's
raids against Iraq, by the idea that aggression is justified to destroy
purely defensive systems (in this case air defense) that might deter
American warplanes and spy planes carrying out clearly aggressive and
illegal overflights. Brazenly dismissing the traditional idea of the
military's purpose, to protect the populace from external aggression, this
argument could be made only by a government supremely confident that no one
who matters in the world will dare to point out that the American emperor
has no clothes. It is also parallels the progression of Vietnam rhetoric,
which started with the supposed need to defend democracy (as represented by
dictators like Diem) in southeast Asia and ended with the idea that Vietnam
must be destroyed to preserve American "credibility," a consideration whose
moral bankruptcy is obvious.
The feebleness of Bush Administration propaganda, while clearly indicative
of complacence and arrogance, should not, however, be taken as a sign of
stupidity or cowboy-ism, as it often has by the world press.
Their plans in the Middle East are, in fact, diabolically clever, and have
already met with significant, though not complete, success. Smart
sanctions, the new plan for Iraq, are not intended to address civilian
needs in Iraq, and are only minimally intended to keep Iraq from rearming.
Their primary purpose is to further militarize and extend U.S. control of
the region, in part by attempting, in a small way, to rebuild the Gulf War
Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was a perfect opportunity for the United States
to increase its control in multiple ways get the Arab states on its side,
subordinate OPEC, institute a permanent land-based military presence with
the excuse of the need to contain Iraq, and so isolate the Palestinians
that they saw little choice but to enter into a "peace process" that was
really an orderly, phased capitulation to Israel.
Ten years later, OPEC has reasserted itself, the Palestinian struggle has
had a resurgence, helping to forge unity among Arab states, and the world
is tired of killing Iraqi children. The U.S. response has been twofold. One
side is the good-cop approach of smart sanctions, sold as allowing Iraqis
to get consumer goods, but involving extensive land monitoring on all of
Iraq's borders, with presumably heavy U.S. military participation. The
bad-cop approach is support for a coup in Iraq, which is militarily and
geopolitically untenable but offers a useful threat to make the relevant
actors get on board with smart sanctions.
The renewed hypertrophy of the U.S. Military budget, the attempt to revive
a nuclear first strike capability through the National Missile Defense
program, the recrudescence of Vietnam-era counterinsurgency as in Plan
Colombia (which ought perhaps now to be called Plan South America), and the
increased military control of the Middle East all point to the same
thing the United States is by far the most serious military threat to the
world. The damage Iraq could do if free is nothing compared to the damage
the United States is doing and will do if this unilateral reign of terror
is not ended.
In the 1980's, millions of Americans came together in the nuclear freeze
movement, out of a shared perception that the threat of nuclear
annihilation required immediate, concerted action. Right now, it is clear
the U.S. unilateralism is the same kind of threat, not just to the rest of
the world, but to us at home as well -- terrorizing the world is not
exactly the best way to ensure your own security. We need the same kind of
movement to combat it.
Rahul Mahajan is an antiwar activist, and serves on the Coordinating
Committee of the National Network to End the War Against Iraq and the Board
of Directors of Peace Action. He can be reached at email@example.com