Tuesday, September 28, 2004

 

Bush's UN Address

I thought I'd post a link to an article I recently read along with a quick analysis, just to keep this blog alive while I continue working on my intro section (as well as an analysis of proposed tax system "solutions").

The article is a fact-checking analysis of Bush's UN speech and can be found at: http://www.antiwar.com/orig/zunes.php?articleid=3665

Basically, the author does a good job of identifying three major flaws in the President's rhetoric. First, Bush makes several misleading statements that distort the facts regarding the past and present situations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most notably, the President's account of the state of Afghan politics and the composition of the various forces fighting in Iraq is inaccurate and/or misleading. Also, the President implies that Saddam Hussein failed to satisfy the requirements of UN resolutions prior to the invasion, which is simply untrue.

Second, Bush mischaracterizes the US's actions as they relate to UN policy and directives. The UN did not, as the President implies, authorize or state a desire for military enforcement of the security council resolutions. And, even if it did, the US is not authorized to enforce UN policies against the UN's wishes. In this sense, the American invasion of Iraq is analogous to violent, unauthorized vigilante justice.

Third, Bush presents a one-sided view of America as a world-wide protector of liberty (as democracy) and enemy of oppression that is, quite simply, inconsistent with both the historical and present state of American foreign policy. The United States has a checkered history of supporting tyrannical leaders who favor US economic and military policies. US-imposed democracies are arguably far less successful and free than those nations that adopt democracy of their own accord.

Anyway, the UN's unenthusiastic response highlights an important failure of the American public: as a people, we generally have a very narrow view of world events. Americans tend to accept the critical and mistaken assumption of American Benevolence as gospel truth from the outset. Democracy is accepted as the solution to all problems, regardless of the underlying economic and cultural concerns. Liberty, to the American public, is merely an abstraction that may be imposed on other nations by force. But, an international audience such as the UN is capable of seeing through this tribalist propaganda and recognizing Bush's rhetoric for the hollow, inconsistent and thoroughly deceptive bullshit that it is.

Comments:
"Most notably, the President's account of the state of Afghan politics and the composition of the various forces fighting in Iraq is inaccurate and/or misleading. Also, the President implies that Saddam Hussein failed to satisfy the requirements of UN resolutions prior to the invasion, which is simply untrue." I disagree, Hussein thumbed his nose at the UN and its resolutions for a decade. It was the threat of war that got UN inspectors in the country.

"And, even if it did, the US is not authorized to enforce UN policies against the UN's wishes. In this sense, the American invasion of Iraq is analogous to violent, unauthorized vigilante justice." The President was clear that he would enter Iraq with or without UN support. The goal of the US was not to enforce UN resolution. Iraqs refusal to comply with the resolutions was just further evidence that it was a rouge state. Invaded and atttacked Iran, Invated and attacked Quait, waged a war of genocide against the Kurds. It is a pattern of dangerous and unacceptable behavior.

"Thirdly, this idea that if the United States withdrew, these terrorists would suddenly leave Iraq and start attacking the United States and other countries is specious. This is simply a retread of the rationalization used during the Vietnam War that "if we don't fight them over there, we'll have to fight them here." USS Cole, Embassy bombing, Lockerby, Spanish Train, ect...

"It appears that the Bush administration, like preceding Republican and Democratic administrations, is only concerned with UN resolutions regarding non-proliferation if the target of the resolution is a government they don't like." POTUS is supposed to defend and protect the interest of the US, just the US.
 
Thanks for the comments. Here is my reply:

"I disagree, Hussein thumbed his nose at the UN and its resolutions for a decade. It was the threat of war that got UN inspectors in the country."

Perhaps you are right, but the key is that the threat did in fact coerce compliance. Hussein complied, albeit after he surely had no other option. But, we attacked AFTER he complied. Bush's decision to attack even after Hussein caved in to the UN resolutions will compromise the effectiveness of our foreign policy. Future nations, faced with a decision to follow UN instructions or face US invasion, will see the Iraq war as setting a precedent that the US will attack who they want when they want, regardless of their foe's willingness to conform to international law. Thus, countries in violation of UN resolutions will have no incentive to comply - doing so will clearly not protect them from the might of the US military.

"The President was clear that he would enter Iraq with or without UN support. The goal of the US was not to enforce UN resolution."

If the President was so clear on this point, why has he consistently referred to the UN resolutions as a justification for the war? Bush can't have it both ways. Either he was acting in pursuance of a UN resolution against the will of the UN, and thus in violation of international law, or he was acting to pursue the US's lone interests by invading Iraq and, again, doing so in violation of international law. One cannot justify one's solitary actions by purporting to uphold the wishes of another, especially where said other has clearly stated opposition to your actions.

"Iraqs refusal to comply with the resolutions was just further evidence that it was a rouge state. Invaded and atttacked Iran, Invated and attacked Quait, waged a war of genocide against the Kurds. It is a pattern of dangerous and unacceptable behavior."

Do we really want to discuss the various nations who have recently engaged in "dangerous and unacceptable behavior?" Because, according to world opinion, the US tops that list. Why? Because we placed totalitarian despots in Iran, various South American nations, the Phillipines, etc. And, we made Hussein the military monster that he was. In fact, it was the Republicans who got us into that mess. So, when you use his war against Iran as evidence of his rogue nature, don't forget to mention his backers and sponsors in that awful endeavor... the United States of America.

"'This is simply a retread of the rationalization used during the Vietnam War that "if we don't fight them over there, we'll have to fight them here."' USS Cole, Embassy bombing, Lockerby, Spanish Train, ect..."

USS Cole: 0 Iraqi involvement.
Embassy bombings: 0 Iraqi involvement.
Lockerby: 0 Iraqi involvement.
Spanish train: 0 Iraqi involvement, and came AFTER the war.

Based on the CIA and US military's OWN ESTIMATE, the percentage of resistance fighters in Iraq that are foreign is - AT MOST - 5%. The sheer number of Iraqis resisting the US occupation confirms the accuracy of one of the anti-war side's most cynical predictions: that waging war in Iraq would create sufficient resentment among the Iraqi people that a huge new batch of potential terrorists would emerge in a nation that, prior to the war, posed ZERO terrorist threat to the US.

" POTUS is supposed to defend and protect the interest of the US, just the US."

As I said above, if this is the case, then the President cannot justify his actions by referring to UN resolutions.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?