Bu-lat-lat (boo-lat-lat) verb: to search, probe, investigate, inquire; to unearth facts
Volume 2, Number 28 August 18 - 24, 2002 Quezon City, Philippines
Logic Of Empire
Back to Alternative Reader Index
is something almost comical about the prospect of George Bush waging war on
another nation because that nation has defied international law. Since Mr Bush
came to office, the United States government has torn up more international
treaties and disregarded more UN conventions than the rest of the world has done
in twenty years.
has scuppered the biological weapons convention, while experimenting, illegally,
with biological weapons of its own. It has refused to grant chemical weapons
inspectors full access to its laboratories, and destroyed attempts to launch
chemical inspections in Iraq. It has ripped up the anti-ballistic missile
treaty, and appears to be ready to violate the nuclear test ban treaty. It has
permitted CIA hit squads to recommence covert operations of the kind which
included, in the past, the assassination of foreign heads of state. It has
sabotaged the small arms treaty, undermined the international criminal court,
refused to sign the climate change protocol and, last month, sought to
immobilise the international convention on torture, so that it could keep
foreign observers out of its prison camp in Guantanamo Bay. Even its
preparedness to go to war with Iraq without a mandate from the UN Security
Council is a defiance of international law far graver than Saddam Hussein's
non-compliance with UN weapons inspectors.
the US government's declaration of impending war has, in truth, nothing to do
with weapons inspections. On Saturday, John Bolton, the US official charged,
hilariously, with "arms control", told the Today programme that
"our policy ... insists on regime change in Baghdad and that policy will
not be altered, whether inspectors go in or not." The US government's
justification for whupping Saddam has now changed twice. At first, Iraq was
named as a potential target because it was "assisting Al-Qaeda". This
turned out to be untrue. Then the US government claimed that Iraq had to be
attacked because it could be developing weapons of mass destruction, and was
refusing to allow the weapons inspectors to find out if this were so. Now, as
the promised evidence has failed to materialise, the weapons issue has been
dropped. The new reason for war is Saddam Hussein's very existence. This, at
least, has the advantage of being verifiable. It should surely be obvious by now
that the decision to wage war on Iraq came first, and the justification later.
than the age-old issue of oil supply, this is a war without strategic purpose.
The US government is not afraid of Saddam Hussein, however hard it tries to
scare its own people. There is no evidence that Iraq is sponsoring terrorism
against America. Saddam is well aware that if he attacks another nation with
weapons of mass destruction, he can expect to be nuked. He presents no more of a
threat to the world than he has done for the past ten years.
the US government has several pressing domestic reasons for going to war. The
first is that attacking Iraq gives the impression that the flagging "war on
terror" is going somewhere. The second is that the people of all
super-dominant nations love war. As Bush found in Afghanistan, whacking
foreigners wins votes. Allied to this concern is the need to distract attention
from the financial scandals in which both the president and vice-president are
enmeshed. Already, in this respect, the impending war seems to be working rather
United States also possesses a vast military-industrial complex, which is in
constant need of conflict in order to justify its staggeringly expensive
existence. Perhaps more importantly than any of these factors, the hawks who
control the White House perceive that perpetual war results in the perpetual
demand for their services. And there is scarcely a better formula for perpetual
war, with both terrorists and other Arab nations, than the invasion of Iraq. The
hawks know that they will win, whoever loses.
other words, if the US was not preparing to attack Iraq, it would be preparing
to attack another nation. The US will go to war with that country because it
needs a country with which to go to war.
Blair also has several pressing reasons for supporting an invasion. By appeasing
George Bush, he placates Britain's right-wing press. Standing on Bush's
shoulders, he can assert a claim to global leadership more credible than that of
other European leaders, while defending Britain's anomalous position as a
permanent member of the Security Council. Within Europe, his relationship with
the president grants him the eminent role of broker and interpreter of power.
invoking the "special relationship", Blair also avoids the greatest
challenge a prime minister has faced since the Second World War. This challenge
is to recognise and act upon the conclusion of any objective analysis of global
power: namely that the greatest threat to world peace is not Saddam Hussein, but
George Bush. The nation which in the past has been our firmest friend is
becoming, instead, our foremost enemy.
the US government discovers that it can threaten and attack other nations with
impunity, it will surely soon begin to threaten countries which have numbered
among our allies. As its insatiable demand for resources prompts ever bolder
colonial adventures, it will come to interfere directly with the strategic
interests of other quasi-imperial states. As it refuses to take responsibility
for the consequences of the use of those resources, it threatens the rest of the
world with environmental disaster. It has become openly contemptuous of other
governments, and prepared to dispose of any treaty or agreement which impedes
its strategic objectives. It is starting to construct a new generation of
nuclear weapons, and appears to be ready to use them pre-emptively. It could be
about to ignite an inferno in the Middle East, into which the rest of the world
would be sucked.
United States, in other words, behaves like any other imperial power. Imperial
powers expand their empires until they meet with overwhelming resistance.
abandon the special relationship would be to accept that this is happening. To
accept that the US presents a danger to the rest of the world would be to
acknowledge the need to resist it. Resisting the United States would be the most
daring reversal of policy a British government has undertaken for over 60 years.
can resist the US by neither military nor economic means, but we can resist it
diplomatically. The only safe and sensible response to American power is a
policy of non-cooperation. Britain and the rest of Europe should impede, at the
diplomatic level, all US attempts to act unilaterally. We should launch
independent efforts to resolve the Iraq crisis and the conflict between Israel
and Palestine. And we should cross our fingers and hope that a combination of
economic mismanagement, gangster capitalism and excessive military spending will
reduce America's power to the extent that it ceases to use the rest of the world
as its doormat. Only when the US can accept its role as a nation whose interests
must be balanced with those of all other nations can we resume a friendship
which was once, if briefly, founded upon the principles of justice.
We want to know what you think of this article.