Archive 1986 – 2017

The Bush administration’s apparent resolve to wage war against Iraq, tempered for the moment by conservative critics, violates the spirit and letter of the US Constitution, as well as disregards the prohibitions on the use of force that are set forth in the UN Charter and accepted as binding rules of international law. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter states: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” Nothing in Iraq’s current behavior would justify a preemptive attack against Iraq based upon self-defense as set forth in Article 51 of the Charter. Even Henry Kissinger has stated, “The notion of justified pre-emption runs counter to modern international law, which sanctions the use of force in self-defense only against actual not...

Af Birgitte Rahbekkultursociolog og forfatter til bogen “En stat for enhver pris” 27 august 2002 Det er nu næsten to år siden det palæstinensiske oprør intifadaen brød ud, og i mellemtiden er omkring 650 palæstinensere og 170 israelere blevet dræbt. Det har fået mange – heriblandt en del israelere – til at spekulere på om der mon skulle findes andre løsninger på det største problem i Mellemøsten. Men i næsten et år fortalte Bill Clinton og de israelske ledere til de efterplaprende medier at palæstinenserne sidste år havde sagt nej til fred da de i Camp David afviste Ehud Baraks generøse tilbud. I dag ved vi – både fra en amerikansk deltager i topmødet og fra israeleren Ron Pundak, en af de såkaldte arkitekter bag Osloaftalen – at der aldrig kom til at foreligge noget konkret skriftligt tilbud, end mindre et generøst! Det palæstinenserne fik stillet i udsigt var en...

Af Birgitte Rahbekkultursociolog og forfatter til bogen “En stat for enhver pris” 27 august 2002 Store begivenheder kræver ikoner. Camp David forhandlingernes ikon blev en stump TV-film med Barak, Clinton og Arafat vej på ind ad døren til forhandlinger en smuk julidag år 2000. Clinton er den venlige vært, og de to mellemøstlige herrer pjatter om hvem der er mest høflig, et after-you-Sir-ritual mellem den stive Barak og den mere slebne Arafat spilles igen og igen. Så gode venner var de vist, siger billedet, men hvorfor gik det så alligevel galt? Det gjorde det fordi Arafat ikke ville tage imod Baraks generøse tilbud om at få næsten hele Vestbredden og dele af Østjerusalem tilbage. Forklaringen kom et par måneder senere, den 28. september, da den anden intifada brød ud og bekræftede manges antagelse om at palæstinenserne i virkeligheden ikke ønsker fred. Denne fremstilling vil formentlig forekomme mange læsere bekendt, for...

The American Constitution at the very beginning of the republic sought above all to guard the country against reckless, ill-considered recourse to war. It required a Declaration of War by the legislative branch, and gave Congress the power over appropriations even during wartime. Such caution existed before the great effort of the 20th century to erect greater barriers to war by way of international law and public morality, and to make this resistance to war the central feature of the United Nations Charter. Consistently with this undertaking German and Japanese leaders who engaged in aggressive war were punished after World War II as war criminals. The most prominent Americans at the time declared their support for such a framework of restraint as applicable in the future to all states, not just to the losers in a war. We all realize that this struggle to avoid war has been far from...

Beyond the Sanctions What accounts for the obsessiveness of American policy toward Iraq over the course of more than a decade? Is it another Vietnam in the sense that the US Government cannot bring itself to acknowledge the failure of its approach to regime change in Baghdad since the end of the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein having withstood comprehensive sanctions, a variety of covert assaults, and repeated American harassment from the air without flinching? Is it the pique at the White House and Pentagon associated with the electoral removal from the scene of Bush, Sr. contrasting with the persistence of Saddam Hussein, posing a filial challenge to Bush, Jr.? Is it the long deferred payback to Israel for staying on the sidelines during the Gulf War, despite the Scud missiles being fired from Iraq? Is it a matter of securing US control of the oil reserves being linked to periodic...

LONDON – The trillion dollar lawsuit filed in America against Saudi citizens by relatives of the September 11th attack is but the latest manifestation of a sharply deteriorating relationship with America’s 35 year old Middle East ally, a downward path that at best will end in tears for an already weakening dollar and, at worst, a re-alignment of the major Arab regimes, once friendly to Washington, to something more akin to an adversary position. The timing of the lawsuit could not have been worse coming as it does only days after a high-level Pentagon discussion paper was leaked that accused Saudi Arabia of being “the kernel of evil” and counselled the Administration to countenance the seizing of Saudi financial assets. Although the White House later sought to distance itself from the paper it was not until after Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld, questioned by the press, refused to take the opportunity...

Two weeks in Iraq are not sufficient to acquire the knowledge necessary to produce an extensive and detailed analysis of the conditions prevailing in this part of the Middle East. It is, however, long enough to be able to verify the picture so powerfully presented by the individuals and organisations involved who fight daily for the several humanitarian issues that plague those most ignored and forgotten developing countries. The aim of this text is not to try to influence one’s opinion with emotionally charged expressions but to discuss some of the reasonable arguments concerning the “Oil-for-Food” programme. A Short History of the Sanctions For more than a decade the UN has been imposing sanctions against Iraq. During the last few years, three of the highest UN representatives have left their positions in protest against the unreasonable character of the sanctions programme. Various organisations (the UN and others) involved in the...

LONDON – Europeans are beginning to experience the same sensations of impotence that Muslims long have. Whatever they think or say, it is tossed in the wastepaper basket by their American friends. In the last week or so it has become evident that the Bush Administration is hell bent on implementing a new law, part of the recent anti-terrorist legislation, that sets out in no uncertain terms to undermine the new International Criminal Court, the pride and joy of a lot of countries but of the Europeans in particular, who see it as an effective tool for deterring would-be war criminals. The State Department has made it clear to all foreign countries that their military aid will be cut off unless – like Romania and Israel last week – they sign a pledge to protect Americans serving in their countries from the Court’s reach. Brave Norway has told the Americans “no”,...

London – Af de 3 alvorlige krige, som USA har udkæmpet siden 1945 – Korea, Vietnam og Golfkrigen, endte en med nederlag og to uafgjort – ikke rigtig nogen strålende historie. En Irakkrig kunne på samme måde ende uafgjort. Saddam Hussein er ikke Taliban. En krig vil kræve en storstilet invasion af en engelsk – amerikansk landstyrke, som utvivlsomt ville lide væsentlige tab. Det ville også forudsætte baser og denne gang er Saudi Arabien, hovedbasen fra Golfkrigen, meget utilbøjelig til at acceptere denne opgave. Og endelig, hvad gør Amerika, hvis Saddam beslutter at anvende de frygtelige våben, han hævdes at besidde? En ting er for ham at bruge dem, hele verden ved, at han er en børste – men hvad hvis USA og England også bruger dem, de vil blive bedømt med en helt anden standard. USA blev umådelig vanæret ved at bruge napalm i Vietnam, og napalm er intet...

London – Of the three serious wars that the U.S. has fought since 1945 – Korea, Vietnam and the Gulf War, one ended in defeat and two in draws – not exactly a glorious record. An Iraq war likewise could end in stalemate. Saddam Hussein is not the Taliban. A war would require a large-scale land invasion of an American-British force that would undoubtedly suffer significant casualties. It would also need staging grounds and this time round Saudi Arabia, the main base for the Gulf War, is unlikely to agree to offer its services. Moreover, what does America do if Saddam decides to use the horrible weapons he is said to possess? It’s one thing for him to use them – the entire world knows he is a rogue – but if the U.S. and Britain uses them too they will be judged by a different standard. The U.S. suffered immense...

LONDON – Twenty years ago when Luiz Inacio da Silva, “Lula” as everyone calls him, first started to make a splash in Brazilian politics both the West German chancellor Helmut Schmidt and the Spanish prime minister Adolfo Suarez took time out on one of their Latin American trips to seek out the young trade union leader and talk over his political philosophy and how he saw the future of Brazil. They made it clear to journalists that they were impressed. So was I. I spent four hours in face to face conversation with Lula and we ranged far and wide. Uneducated in a formal sense, his facility for answering a difficult question well was awe-inspiring. “I think it is better just go forward one millimetre”, he told me, “but one down to earth millimetre, knowing that we won’t have to go two millimetres backwards later on”. That was two decades ago...

Ground Zero is a place of profound sadness and heart breaking sorrow. Its earth is filled with the blood of thousands who lost their lives. For what did these people die? Their deaths seem so meaningless. Could we, the living, give their deaths meaning, even if only postmortem? What would the dead want us, the living, to build on their graves? What would they reply, if they could speak? Would they want us to leave Ground Zero empty, literally “zero”? Or would they want us, the living, build a memorial for the unspeakable tragedy that happened? I believe the dead would want to offer life, they would be delighted by symbols of liveliness and joy, and not be willing to invest in past sufferings. The dead would wish to dedicate their deaths to be the seeds for future peace, not for future divisions. To die for peace provides ultimate sublime...