Haditha Ethics - From Iraq to Iran?
The Spokesman, 91
Haditha
Ethics – from Iraq to Iran?
For
his religion, it was fit
To
match his learning and his wit:
’Twas
Presbyterian true blue;
For
he was of that stubborn crew
Of
errant Saints, whom all men grant
To
be the true Church Militant;
Such
as do build their faith upon
The
holy text of pike and gun;
Decide
all controversies by
Infallible
artillery;
And
prove their doctrine orthodox
By
apostolic blows and knocks;
Samuel
Butler from Hudibras
The
slaughter in Haditha, in which American marines ran amok after the death of
a
colleague in a roadside bombing, has engendered a flurry of allegations,
denials
and
apologias. General Peter Chiarelli, the commander of the Multinational Corps
in
Iraq, has announced a crash programme of ethical training for allied forces on
battlefield
conduct. The General has not yet resolved the problem of ethical
instruction
for commanders-in-chief or their acolytes.
While
the press has wondered about how many other Hadithas have afflicted Iraq,
many
curious citizens have been wondering whether the military ethics of Haditha
are
about to be re-tested on a wider scale, in an even more pointless war in Iran.
‘We
are committed to keeping the world’s most dangerous weapons out of the hands
of
the
world’s most dangerous people.’ President
Bush is evidently fond of this motto, because in March 2006, it has once
again
appeared prominently: this time in the National Security Strategy of the
United States
of America. It is not, as you might think, an engagement by the Americans to
renounce
their titanic nuclear stockpile. It is, instead, a commitment to sustaining
their
monopoly, and closing off any possibility to challenge that monopoly.
‘Our
strategy focuses on controlling fissile material with two priority objectives:
first,
to
keep States from acquiring the capability to produce fissile material suitable
for
making
nuclear weapons; and second, to deter, interdict or prevent any transfer of
that
material
from States that have this capability to rogue States or to terrorists.’
It
is in this context that the United States initiated, in April 2004, Security
Council
Resolution
1540, ‘requiring Nations to criminalise WMD proliferation and institute effective export and financial controls’. This motion, to the extent that it
will be enforced,
would quietly annul the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which
represented a
voluntary commitment by Member-states to forswear nuclear
armaments.
It
is not necessary here to reiterate the all-important distinction between a
voluntary
Non-Proliferation Treaty, and a chapter 7 counter-proliferation law. But
laws
require agencies for enforcement. These could not be legally established by
the
Security Council, but would require a decision by the UN General Assembly.
The
National Security Strategy of the United States does not wish to elucidate the
finer
points of this problem, and it prefers instead to talk about working ‘with
the
international
community’.
But
what is this international community? Certainly it is not the General
Assembly of the
United Nations, which is clearly not wanted on this voyage.
Sometimes it
is a very small community indeed, consisting of George Bush and
a handful of
acolytes led by Tony Blair. Interestingly, Mr. Blair is now being
nominated
by the Murdoch press to take over the entire responsibility for
running the United
Nations as its new Secretary General. In this way, the neocons
would wish to kill
two birds with one deft blow from a single stone. They
will thus guarantee
total subordination to the precepts of American security
strategy, and, in
short order, the abolition of the United Nations as any kind of
effective agency.
The
international community embarked upon its war with Iraq with a motley
crew of
belligerents. Year by year, one by one, these crusaders have fallen by the
wayside. Since they
have never been mobilised through the machinery of the
United Nations,
they have been conveniently beyond its influence. But it has been
quite inconvenient
that the consequence of this ad hoc machinery has been a
distinctly ad hoc
financial settlement, which has made it quite difficult to fund the
American projects
for which it has been established. ‘The
administration has worked with the international community in confronting
nuclear proliferation.
We
may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran.’
Another
inestimable advantage of a community without boundaries or agreed
membership is that
it becomes much easier to change its objectives, and refine its
targeting.
Yesterday, bits of it had no greater challenge than North Korea. A little
earlier, the most
dreadful enemy was Saddam Hussein. Today the United States
‘has
joined with our EU partners and Russia to pressure Iran to meet its
international
obligations,
and provide objective guarantees that its nuclear programme is only for
peaceful
purposes. This diplomatic effort must succeed if confrontation is to be
avoided.’
This
international community numbers three important partners, each of which
might doubtless be
able to recruit assistance from various satellites. But the
partners do not
agree on parts of the American prospectus.
‘The
Iranian regime sponsors terrorism; threatens Israel; seeks to thwart Middle
East peace; disrupts democracy in Iraq; and denies the aspirations of its
people for freedom. The nuclear issue and our other concerns can ultimately be
resolved only if the Iranian regime makes the strategic decision to change
these policies, open up its political system and afford freedom to its people.
This is the ultimate goal of US policy.'
In
a word, the United States can only rid itself of non-existent Iranian bombs,
and
non-existent
Iranian threats, if its (captive?) international community buys into the
need for regime
change. But one more regime change like the one in Iraq, and the
Middle East will be
swallowed up in flames from the Mediterranean seaboard
across to the Gulf.
This must be increasingly apparent even to the international
pseudo-community.
****
But,
fortunately, there is another international community.
The
largest group of countries associated with the United Nations, the Non-
Aligned Movement, made a statement on the nuclear questions surrounding the
Islamic Republic of
Iran on 30th May 2006. The Foreign Ministers, meeting at
Putrajaya in
Malaysia, issued a nine-point statement, which unambiguously
defended Iran’s
right to develop, produce and use nuclear energy for peaceful
purposes,
unanimously agreed upon Israel to accede to the Non-Proliferation
Treaty, and
supported the call for a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the whole area
of the Middle East.
There
are one hundred and sixteen members of the Non-Aligned Movement,
which implies that,
whatever manoeuvres may take place on the Security Council
of the United
Nations, threats against Iran could very likely all be overruled when
the one hundred and
sixteen stepped forward in the General Assembly, if matters
came to a head.
Here, we quote the Non-Aligned Movement resolution in full.
Statement
on the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Nuclear Issue
1.
The Ministers reiterated their principled positions on nuclear
disarmament and
non-proliferation
reflected in the Final Document of the Ministerial Meeting of
the Coordinating
Bureau of the Non-Aligned Movement, held in Putrajaya,
Malaysia, from 27th
to 30th May 2006. They considered the developments
regarding the
implementation of the NPT safeguards agreement in the Islamic
Republic
of Iran.
2.
The Ministers reaffirmed the basic and inalienable right of all States,
to develop
research,
production and use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes, without
any discrimination
and in conformity with their respective legal obligations.
Therefore,
nothing should be interpreted in a way as inhibiting or restricting this
right of States to
develop atomic energy for peaceful purposes. They
furthermore
reaffirmed that States’ choices and decisions in the field of peaceful
uses of nuclear
technology and its fuel cycle policies must be respected.
3.
The Ministers recognised the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
as
the sole competent
authority for verification of the respective safeguards
obligations of
Member States and stressed that there should be no undue
pressure or
interference in the Agency’s activities, especially its verification
process,
which would jeopardise the efficiency and credibility of the Agency.
4.
The Ministers welcomed the cooperation extended by the Islamic Republic
of
Iran
to the IAEA including those voluntary confidence-building measures
undertaken, with a
view to resolve the remaining issues. They noted the
assessment of the
IAEA Director-General that all nuclear material declared by
Iran had been
accounted for. They noted, at the same time, that the process for
drawing a
conclusion with regard to the absence of undeclared material and
activities in Iran
is an ongoing and time-consuming process. In this regard, the
Ministers encouraged
Iran to urgently continue to cooperate actively and fully
with the IAEA
within the Agency’s mandate to resolve outstanding issues in
order to promote
confidence and a peaceful resolution of the issue.
5.
The Ministers emphasised the fundamental distinction between the legal
obligations of
States to their respective safeguards agreements and any confidence
building measures
voluntarily undertaken to resolve difficult issues, and believed
that such voluntary
undertakings are not legal safeguards obligations.
6.
The Ministers considered the establishment of nuclear-weapons-free
zones
(NWFZs) as a
positive step towards attaining the objective of global nuclear
disarmament and
reiterated the support for the establishment in the Middle East
of a
nuclear-weapons-free zone, in accordance with relevant General Assembly
and Security
Council resolutions. Pending the establishment of such a zone,
they demanded Israel
to accede to the NPT without delay and place promptly
all its nuclear
facilities under comprehensive IAEA safeguards.
7.
The Ministers reaffirmed the inviolability of peaceful nuclear
activities and that
any attack or
threat of attack against peaceful nuclear facilities – operational or
under construction
– poses a great danger to human beings and the
environment, and
constitutes a grave violation of international law, principles
and purposes of the
Charter of the United Nations and regulations of the IAEA.
They recognised
the need for a comprehensive multilaterally negotiated
instrument,
prohibiting attacks, or threat of attacks on nuclear facilities devoted
to
peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
8.
The Ministers strongly believed that all issues on safeguards and
verification,
including those of
Iran, should be resolved within the IAEA framework, and be
based on technical
and legal grounds. They further emphasised that the Agency
should continue its
work to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue within its mandate
under
the Statute of the IAEA.
9.
The Ministers also strongly believed that diplomacy and dialogue
through
peaceful means must
continue to find a long-term solution to the Iranian nuclear
issue. They expressed
their conviction that the only way to resolve the issue is to
resume negotiations
without any preconditions and to enhance cooperation with
the involvement of
all necessary parties to promote international confidence with
the view to
facilitating Agency’s work on resolving the outstanding issues.
Putrajaya,
Malaysia , 30th May 2006
Doubtless
this decision would not be without influence immediately afterwards
when the United
States announced its decision, after long years of total ostracism,
to seek talks with
Iran on its nuclear programme.
President
Bush and Condoleezza Rice, announcing the bid for such talks,
proclaimed at the
same time their insistence on a number of ‘concessions’ by the
Republic of Iran.
Ms. Rice claimed that there was now ‘a substantial agreement’
about the choice
faced by Iran. ‘It is time to know whether Iran is serious about
negotiation or
not’, she said. However the message from the Non-Aligned
Movement conveys a
real, not imaginary, ‘substantial agreement’ between the
overwhelming
majority of the members of the United Nations. But this is not the
one that Ms. Rice
wished to hear.
On
the same day, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency,
Mohamed El Baradei,
issued a statement to the effect that ‘Iran does not represent
an “immediate”
nuclear threat’. Mr. El Baradei also said that he believed the
Iranian authorities
were ‘willing to negotiate’.
In
the post-Cold War age of Full Spectrum Dominance, in which there is
allegedly only one
superpower, it has hitherto seemed far too rude for those
outside the charmed
circle of public power to remember the days when great
American
leaders were once described as ‘paper tigers’. But, for all their
ferocious
near-monopoly of
unspeakable weapons of mass destruction, doesn’t the noise of
George Bush, to say
nothing of that of his henchman in Downing Street, sound
distinctly thin,
more like a rustle than a roar?
|
