As a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer and as a registered member
of the Republican party who voted for George Bush in the last presidential election,
I have to admit to a certain trepidation and uncertainty when I was asked by Labour
MPs to participate in the massive anti-war rally in London on September 28.
In my way of thinking, mass demonstrations, regardless of the righteousness
of the cause, were the theatre of the political left, and not something with which
I should be associated. I was proven wrong on all counts. The outpouring of democratic
will that occurred on that day came not only from the left, but from across the
breadth of mainstream British society. It sent a message to a Blair government
that had grown increasingly isolated from public opinion: UK support for an American
unilateral war on Iraq would not be tolerated. That message met a response a few
days later from the Labour party at its annual conference in Blackpool. Democracy
in action is a wonderful thing.
Across the Atlantic, in the United States, a debate is about to begin in the
US Congress over the granting of sweeping war powers that would enable President
Bush to wage war against Iraq, even if such action were unilateral and lacking
in authority from the United Nations.
To many Americans, myself included, the granting of such powers represents
a breach of constitutional responsibility on the part of Congress, which alone
under the constitution of the United States is authorized to declare war. There
is at least one US senator - Robert Byrd of West Virginia - who recognizes this,
and has indicated his willingness to launch a filibuster of the debate. Senator
Byrd is famous for carrying a copy of the US constitution in his breast pocket,
and pulling it out on the floor of the Senate to remind fellow senators what American
democracy is founded on. One man fighting in defense of the basic foundation of
American society. Where are the large-scale US demonstrations in support of this
struggle? Where are the voices of outrage over what amounts to a frontal assault
on the constitution of the United States? Democracy silenced is awful.
The constitution has always guided me in my actions as an American citizen.
It establishes the US as a nation of laws, and sets high standards for the ideals
we Americans strive to achieve as a nation. As an officer of Marines, I took an
oath to defend the US constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
It is an oath I take very seriously and I am willing to give my life in defense
of this document - something I demonstrated during my time in uniform, including
service in Operation Desert Storm.
I am no pacifist, but I am opposed to President Bush's rush towards war with
Iraq this time around. As signatories to the UN charter, Americans have agreed
to abide by a body of international law that explicitly governs the conditions
under which nations may go to war. All require authority of the security council,
either through an invocation of article 51 (self defense), or a resolution passed
under chapter seven of the charter (collective security).
President Bush's case for war simply has not been demonstrated to meet any
of these criteria. The president repeatedly announced that Iraq has failed to
comply with its obligation to disarm, and as such poses a threat to international
peace and security. The president declared that Iraq must allow weapons inspectors
to return to Iraq, without conditions, with unfettered access to all sites. Iraq's
failure to allow inspectors to return to work since their withdrawal in December
1998 has prompted fear in many circles (recently demonstrated by the UK government's
dossier on Iraqi weapons programs) that Iraq has taken advantage of the intervening
time to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction programs dismantled under
UN supervision. With no inspectors in Iraq, it was impossible to know for certain
what the regime of Saddam Hussein was up to; and, given Iraq's past record of
deceit over these weapons, the US and others were justified in presuming ill intent.
But now Iraq has agreed to allow the inspectors to return, unconditionally,
and to be held accountable to the rule of law as set forth in existing security
council resolutions governing Iraq's disarmament. The opportunity finally exists
to bring clarity to years of speculation about the potential threat posed by Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction, as well as an opportunity to resolve this ongoing
crisis of international law peacefully.
B ut President Bush refuses to take "yes" for an answer. The Bush administration's
actions lay bare the mythology that this war is being fought over any threat posed
by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. It has made it clear that its objective
is the elimination of Saddam Hussein. And this is where I have a fundamental problem.
The UN charter prohibits regime removal. The US constitution states that international
agreements entered into by the United States carry the force of law. The US has
signed the UN charter. Regime removal is not only a violation of international
law, it is unconstitutional.
There is a way to deal with the need to change a regime deemed to be a risk
to international peace and security, and that is through the UN. If President
Bush truly wanted to seek regime removal in Baghdad, then he would push for an
indictment of Saddam Hussein and his senior leadership in the international court
for crimes against humanity, something that should not prove hard to do, given
the record of the Butcher of Baghdad (and something other members of the UN would
clearly support as an alternative to war). But seeking judgment through the international
court requires a recognition by the US of the primacy of international law, something
the Bush administration has been loath to do.
The fact of the matter is this crisis between Iraq and the US goes beyond even
the issue of regime removal. It represents the first case study of the implementation
of a new US national security strategy, published last month, which sets forth
a doctrine of unilateralism that capitalizes on American military and economic
might to maintain the US as the sole superpower, to impose our will on the rest
of the world, even through pre-emptive military action. This strategy is a rejection
of multilateralism, a turning away from the concepts of international law.
This new Bush doctrine of American unilateralism reeks of imperial power, the
very power against which Americans fought a revolution more than 200 years ago.
The streets of Washington DC are empty of demonstrators protesting at this frontal
assault on American democracy. Will the streets of London be filled again with
protesters against this assault on the rule of international law? I certainly
hope so, because the people of Britain could lead by example, sending a clear
signal to fellow practitioners of democracy in America that when it comes to determining
what actions a government takes in the name of the people, the will of the people
cannot, and will not, be ignored.
Scott Ritter was a UN weapons inspector in Iraq in 1991-98 and chief of
the concealment investigations team. His interview with William Rivers Pitt forms
the core of War on Iraq (Profile Books)
WSRitter@aol.com
© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002
###
