The Malta
Last
Sunday’s editorial in this newspaper boldly proclaimed that ‘The world needs
Bush’. The logic behind this bold assertion is that “he and he alone stood
steadfast when the world was still reeling in the wake of 11 September” and that
“he alone had the guts to lead the wounded nation to war and he alone realised that words, resolutions and conferences amount to
little when the free world is facing a huge threat”.
I have not met with such bold defence of Bush’s infamous unilateralism and dangerous policy of pre-emption even in the most conservative US publications. It is strange that one discovers such views inMalta
Opinion outside the US, including those countries forming part of the ‘coalition of the willing’ in Iraq such as Britain and Australia, shows that Bush would stand no chance of re-election if the electorate of such countries were given a chance to express a view on the choice of the next US president. The editor of The Malta Independent on Sunday is therefore strongly at odds with the widely held opinion outside the US on the merits of George W. Bush to be re-tasked to lead the US for another four year term. Even inside the US, while Bush commands a slim lead in opinion polls over Kerry (so slim that much depends on the performance of the contestants in the three direct debates, the first of which would have already taken place by the time this contribution is published) when it comes to rating performance over the last four years Bush rarely goes past the 50 per cent mark. Basically, the US electorate seems to think that Bush has not performed well but it is dangerous to change the Commander-in-Chief in the middle of a war as it would sound like an admittance of a premature defeat.
One can understand why Bush tries to avoid the domestic issues of healthcare, employment and law and order in the campaign and depicts himself as a “war President”, justifying the war on Iraq as a war on terror even though not the tiniest scrap of evidence was produced that the Iraq regime had anything to do with international terrorist events of the last 10 years, 9/11 included.
In a month’s time the US electorate will have to make a fundamental choice not just for the US but for the whole world. It is an undisputed reality that the outcome of the US election will have an influence on territories much farther than the US shores and it is almost unfair that the citizens of the world outside the US have no say in decisions which affect them directly.
The US is the world’s only superpower. It is important for the world, for peace and prosperity, that such a uniquely powerful position in terms of material power is counter-balanced by a spread of moral power. Such checks and balances are normally performed through UN mechanisms where the use of military power it conditioned by moral endorsements or restrictions of the paramount supra-national organisation on the planet.
The US had successfully made use of the UN checks and balances in the past when events forced it to use military power to defend itself and world order. In 1990 the Gulf War was conducted by George Bush Sr under the aegis of UN endorsement, and the US shared the burden and the responsibility with the largest world coalition ever put together.
Even George W. Bush had no problem getting UN endorsement for the war on Afghanistan following 9/11. The coalition was not as wide as that of the Gulf War only because the US thought it unnecessary to spend time forming the coalition before attacking Afghanistan some six weeks after 9/11.
For some reason, which is not yet well understood, George W. Bush decided to go it alone on Iraq in 2003. The US adopted the policy of pre-emption and decided that UN approval is not necessary in the pursuit of such policy. It lost focus on the war in Afghanistan where the true perpetrators of the 9/11 atrocities are still holed up orchestrating the spread of terrorist recruiting grounds to new places like Iraq where the US has made itself extremely and unjustly unpopular. TheUS Iraq
No matter how distasteful theIraq
For those who argue that the existence or otherwise of WMDs in Iraq could not be proven without invasion and that it is always easy to be wise after the event, I suggest they read a book titled Disarming Iraq – the search for weapons of mass destruction by Hans Blix, former Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and at the time of the 2003 Iraq invasion Chairman of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) tasked with completing the filed inspections for WMD in Iraq.
Certainly no-one can contradict the assertions by Blix that given time and the real threat by the UN security council to authorise the US invasion, the Iraqi regime was opening up to fill the gaps which could have enabled the IAEA and UNMOVIC to certify Iraq free from WMDs. Maybe Bush was so pre-determined to enforce regime change in Iraq that he was afraid UN inspections would remove the main platform justifying the invasion. But the editor of The Malta Independent on Sunday must be the only person in the world who has credited Bush with finding the WMD. He argues that the WMD is “the blackness of terrorism which leads suicide bombers to blow up civilians…”
This logic escapes me. There were no such terrorists in Iraq before the invasion. Nobody was blowing up innocent people The regime was distasteful and needed change but such change ought not be done by foreign invasion but by helping the Iraqis to bring about regime change themselves, just as the people ofEastern
Europe brought
about their own change when Communism had eroded itself from the core.
It is the US invasion of Iraq and the inability of the invading forces to give post-war protection and security that has rendered Iraq the powder keg it is today, where it has become the best training ground for tomorrow’s terrorists.
No-one knows if John Kerry can deliver an orderly exit of the coalition from Iraq. Certainly a cut and run policy is dangerous and counter-productive and Kerry is not suggesting it. But certainly Kerry would have better credentials than Bush to seek and obtain UN coverage for the coalition presence in Iraq and consequently a widening of the representation and resources of the coalition to defeat the black forces that have been unleashed by the unauthorised invasion of Iraq.
The choice facing the US electorate next month is whether they believe the US should continue the dangerous policy of unilaterism, a policy which in the short term might appeal to the national pride so much as to render a mere UN mention to lead to a cheer of deprecation at the Republican National Convention, or to come back to legalism and accept that their undisputed fire-power has to be used within the norm of international regulations.
Otherwise what is the difference between theIraq Kuwait US Iraq Kuwait Iraq
Frankly, the world would be a better place without Bush and I pray that Kerry will have the capacity, wisdom and ability to overcome terrorism not only by fighting its symptoms head-on without any concessions, but equally to devote maximum energies to address the roots of terrorism by installing hope of a fairer world order.
I have not met with such bold defence of Bush’s infamous unilateralism and dangerous policy of pre-emption even in the most conservative US publications. It is strange that one discovers such views in
Opinion outside the US, including those countries forming part of the ‘coalition of the willing’ in Iraq such as Britain and Australia, shows that Bush would stand no chance of re-election if the electorate of such countries were given a chance to express a view on the choice of the next US president. The editor of The Malta Independent on Sunday is therefore strongly at odds with the widely held opinion outside the US on the merits of George W. Bush to be re-tasked to lead the US for another four year term. Even inside the US, while Bush commands a slim lead in opinion polls over Kerry (so slim that much depends on the performance of the contestants in the three direct debates, the first of which would have already taken place by the time this contribution is published) when it comes to rating performance over the last four years Bush rarely goes past the 50 per cent mark. Basically, the US electorate seems to think that Bush has not performed well but it is dangerous to change the Commander-in-Chief in the middle of a war as it would sound like an admittance of a premature defeat.
One can understand why Bush tries to avoid the domestic issues of healthcare, employment and law and order in the campaign and depicts himself as a “war President”, justifying the war on Iraq as a war on terror even though not the tiniest scrap of evidence was produced that the Iraq regime had anything to do with international terrorist events of the last 10 years, 9/11 included.
In a month’s time the US electorate will have to make a fundamental choice not just for the US but for the whole world. It is an undisputed reality that the outcome of the US election will have an influence on territories much farther than the US shores and it is almost unfair that the citizens of the world outside the US have no say in decisions which affect them directly.
The US is the world’s only superpower. It is important for the world, for peace and prosperity, that such a uniquely powerful position in terms of material power is counter-balanced by a spread of moral power. Such checks and balances are normally performed through UN mechanisms where the use of military power it conditioned by moral endorsements or restrictions of the paramount supra-national organisation on the planet.
The US had successfully made use of the UN checks and balances in the past when events forced it to use military power to defend itself and world order. In 1990 the Gulf War was conducted by George Bush Sr under the aegis of UN endorsement, and the US shared the burden and the responsibility with the largest world coalition ever put together.
Even George W. Bush had no problem getting UN endorsement for the war on Afghanistan following 9/11. The coalition was not as wide as that of the Gulf War only because the US thought it unnecessary to spend time forming the coalition before attacking Afghanistan some six weeks after 9/11.
For some reason, which is not yet well understood, George W. Bush decided to go it alone on Iraq in 2003. The US adopted the policy of pre-emption and decided that UN approval is not necessary in the pursuit of such policy. It lost focus on the war in Afghanistan where the true perpetrators of the 9/11 atrocities are still holed up orchestrating the spread of terrorist recruiting grounds to new places like Iraq where the US has made itself extremely and unjustly unpopular. The
No matter how distasteful the
For those who argue that the existence or otherwise of WMDs in Iraq could not be proven without invasion and that it is always easy to be wise after the event, I suggest they read a book titled Disarming Iraq – the search for weapons of mass destruction by Hans Blix, former Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and at the time of the 2003 Iraq invasion Chairman of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) tasked with completing the filed inspections for WMD in Iraq.
Certainly no-one can contradict the assertions by Blix that given time and the real threat by the UN security council to authorise the US invasion, the Iraqi regime was opening up to fill the gaps which could have enabled the IAEA and UNMOVIC to certify Iraq free from WMDs. Maybe Bush was so pre-determined to enforce regime change in Iraq that he was afraid UN inspections would remove the main platform justifying the invasion. But the editor of The Malta Independent on Sunday must be the only person in the world who has credited Bush with finding the WMD. He argues that the WMD is “the blackness of terrorism which leads suicide bombers to blow up civilians…”
This logic escapes me. There were no such terrorists in Iraq before the invasion. Nobody was blowing up innocent people The regime was distasteful and needed change but such change ought not be done by foreign invasion but by helping the Iraqis to bring about regime change themselves, just as the people of
It is the US invasion of Iraq and the inability of the invading forces to give post-war protection and security that has rendered Iraq the powder keg it is today, where it has become the best training ground for tomorrow’s terrorists.
No-one knows if John Kerry can deliver an orderly exit of the coalition from Iraq. Certainly a cut and run policy is dangerous and counter-productive and Kerry is not suggesting it. But certainly Kerry would have better credentials than Bush to seek and obtain UN coverage for the coalition presence in Iraq and consequently a widening of the representation and resources of the coalition to defeat the black forces that have been unleashed by the unauthorised invasion of Iraq.
The choice facing the US electorate next month is whether they believe the US should continue the dangerous policy of unilaterism, a policy which in the short term might appeal to the national pride so much as to render a mere UN mention to lead to a cheer of deprecation at the Republican National Convention, or to come back to legalism and accept that their undisputed fire-power has to be used within the norm of international regulations.
Otherwise what is the difference between the
Frankly, the world would be a better place without Bush and I pray that Kerry will have the capacity, wisdom and ability to overcome terrorism not only by fighting its symptoms head-on without any concessions, but equally to devote maximum energies to address the roots of terrorism by installing hope of a fairer world order.
No comments:
Post a Comment