From: wolda002@umn.edu
Date: Tue Aug 12 2008 - 20:35:03 EDT
Tuesday 12 August 2008
by: Robert Parry, Consortium News
It's touching how American neoconservatives, who have no regard for
international law when they want to invade some troublesome country, have
developed a sudden reverence for national sovereignty.
Neocons Now Love International Law
Apparently, context is everything. So, the United States attacking
Grenada or Nicaragua or Panama or Iraq or Serbia is justified even if the
reasons sometimes don't hold water or don't hold up before the United
Nations, The Hague or other institutions of international law.
However, when Russia attacks Georgia in a border dispute over Georgia's
determination to throttle secession movements in two semi-autonomous
regions, everyone must agree that Georgia's sovereignty is sacrosanct and
Russia must be condemned.
U.S. newspapers, such as the New York Times, see nothing risible about
publishing a statement from President George W. Bush declaring that
"Georgia is a sovereign nation and its territorial integrity must be
respected."
No one points out that Bush should have zero standing enunciating such
a principle. Iraq also was a sovereign nation, but Bush invaded it under
false pretenses, demolished its army, overthrew its government and then
conducted a lengthy military occupation resulting in hundreds of thousands
of deaths.
The invasion of Iraq also wasn't a spur of the moment decision. In the
months after the 9/11 attacks, Bush proclaimed an exceptional right of the
United States to invade any country that might become a threat to American
security or to U.S. global dominance. [For details, see
Consortiumnews.com's "Bush's Grim Vision" or see our book, Neck Deep]
When asked questions about international law, Bush would joke:
"International law? I better call my lawyer."
The neocons' contempt for international law goes back even further - to
the 1980s and the illegal contra war against Nicaragua and the invasion of
Panama. Only in the last few days have the neocons discovered an
appreciation for multilateral institutions and the principles of
non-intervention.
Despite this history, leading U.S. newspapers don't see hypocrisy.
Instead, they have thrown open their pages to prominent neocons and other
advocates of U.S.-led invasions so these thinkers now can denounce Russia
while not mentioning any contradictions.
On Monday, the Washington Post's neoconservative editorial writers
published their own editorial excoriating Russia, along with two op-eds,
one by neocon theorist Robert Kagan and another co-authored by Bill
Clinton's ambassador to the United Nations, Richard Holbrooke.
All three - the Post editorial board, Kagan and Holbrooke - were
gung-ho for invading Iraq, but now find the idea of Russia attacking the
sovereign nation of Georgia inexcusable, even if Georgia's leaders in
Tblisi may have provoked the conflict with an offensive against separatists
in South Ossetia along the Russian border.
"Whatever mistakes Tblisi has made, they cannot justify Russia's
actions," Holbrooke and his co-author Ronald D. Asmus wrote. "Moscow has
invaded a neighbor, an illegal act of aggression that violates the U.N.
Charter and fundamental principles of cooperation and security in Europe."
And to top matters off, the authors accused Russia of breaking an even
older international covenant: "Beginning a well-planned war... as the
Olympics were opening violates the ancient tradition of a truce to conflict
during the Games."
The New York Times ran an op-ed by neocon columnist William Kristol,
who also condemned Russia's aggression without indicating any remorse for
his own enthusiasm for U.S. invasions of countries that Washington didn't
like.
Wearing Blinders
While major U.S. news outlets may be comfortable wearing blinders that
let them see only wrongdoing by others, the rest of the world views the
outrage from Bush and the neocons over Russia as a stunning double
standard.
This larger problem is that the Bush administration - along with its
neocon allies and many establishment Democrats - have lost any credibility
with the world community when it comes to invoking international law.
Bush has applied these legal principles a la carte for years (for
instance, ignoring the Geneva Conventions when he chooses), and many
longer-serving U.S. officials have viewed events through the lens of
American exceptionalism for decades.
For instance, even as the Reagan administration condemned terrorism in
the 1980s, it secretly armed the Nicaraguan contras who engaged in acts of
terrorism inside Nicaragua. In 1990, when President George H.W. Bush
denounced Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, everyone conveniently forgot that he
had invaded Panama in 1989.
It has been as if the rules moved on separate tracks, one set for the
United States and one set for everyone else - and it was impolite to
notice.
Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, however, it has become harder to
ignore Washington's double standards. Also, after the five-plus-year fiasco
in Iraq, the Bush administration must confront both the limitations on its
own imperial reach and the fact that it has done grave damage to the
protocols of international behavior.
As Russia is now demonstrating in its conflict with Georgia, other big
powers may want to play by the same do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do rules laid down
by the United States.
It is a case of Washington, Bush and the neocons reaping what they have
sown.
--------
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the
Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, "Neck Deep: The Disastrous
Presidency of George W. Bush," was written with two of his sons, Sam and
Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books,
"Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq"
and "Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth'" are also
available there.
--
Million.
Mpls MN
***HeGeRey ZBeLet LBe GhiDN'u Kt'ReKeBi AsBei***
AWET N'HAFASH!!!
----[This List to be used for Eritrea Related News Only]----