The threat of US unilateralism

Contributing Editor Dr SHIREEN M MAZARI discusses the growing uni-polarism in the world.

Post-September 11, 2002, one has been seeing the US pushing forward its unilateralist agenda in an increasingly overt fashion — even as it has tried to create an international coalition against terrorism. Of course, the US has historically opted for unilateralism in terms of its global security policies, from the Monroe Doctrine to Reagan’s Evil Empire, but Bush’s “Axis of Evil” call and his pre-emption doctrine have added a new dimension to this ever more interventionist unilateralism.

Already, the “Axis of Evil” call undermines international stability at multiple levels. To begin with, such a call totally negates the prevailing global Arms Control and Disarmament regime (AC&D). Accusing Iran, Iraq and North Korea of producing weapons of mass destruction when all three states are full parties to most international treaties dealing with control/destruction of these weapons implies that the US lays no value on such international treaties. For instance, Iran, Iraq and North Korea are full parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In fact, Iraq was a full party to this Treaty when the Israelis attacked its nuclear reactor, Osirak. A lack of response against Israel from the international community undermined the NPT even then, for it made it clear that committing to this Treaty would not protect your civilian facilities if the powerful states felt they should be taken out! So the Treaty commitments had no credibility. Nevertheless, North Korea formally acceded to the NPT in December 1985 and in 1992 the IAEA inspected its nuclear programme.

When North Korea threatened to withdraw from the NPT, a UNSC resolution in 1993 asked it to reconsider and the US and North Korea held talks which led the latter to agree to suspend its withdrawal from the NPT. In 1994, after agreement with the US, North Korea not only froze its nuclear programme, but also agreed to allow 8,000 spent nuclear fuel elements to be removed to a third country. If the US was going to continue to label charges against North Korea with regard to nuclear weapons, and by the same token against Iran and Iraq, then why should these states have bothered becoming parties to the NPT in the first place? It is no wonder, then that North Korea and Iraq have so far not acceded to the Chemical Weapons Convention. However, Iran signed this treaty in 1993 at the same time as the US and both these states ratified it in 1997. Iraq, Iran and North Korea are all parties to the Biological Weapons Convention. The point here is that if treaties are not going to be deemed credible, or if acceding to a treaty is not going to be taken as credible, then the whole international arms control and disarmament regime becomes meaningless. 

But then, the US itself is guilty of showing scant respect for such treaties, as witnessed by the unilateral withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. The US has also stopped the process of negotiations on an additional protocol, which was to have been added to the Biological Weapons Convention to cover loopholes and make it a more comprehensive treaty. As for nuclear weapons proliferation, the US has put an end to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Also, the Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) programme of the US will put in jeopardy international treaties like the Outer Space Treaty, the regional nuclear weapon free zone treaties and the NPT itself.

In fact, if the US is serious about implementing the Bush statement on the Axis of Evil, that the US “mission also includes countries which develop weapons of mass destruction, nations with a history of brutality”, then the American focus should be on the axis between Israel and itself! In fact, if the US is so concerned about the spread of nuclear weapons, then it should really focus on Israel, which has a completely unsafeguarded nuclear programme and is the only nuclear state in the Middle East and one which is presently engaged in military aggression against the Palestinians. Which regime can be more brutal than the Israeli regime, and it is in possession of weapons of mass destruction? Worse still, Israel has not ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention (at least till December 2001), which it signed in 1993, and has yet to even sign the Biological Weapons Convention (till December 2001). There are reports that Israel has a very active biological weapons programme.

As for the US, its brutality shows up time and again when we see the Vietnam War (remember Napalm on civilians?) or even the manner in which the war on terrorism in Afghanistan was conducted in terms of civilian targeting and the killing of enchained POWs. The impact of the cluster bombs used in Afghanistan is still being felt, as civilians, including children, become unwitting victims. And let us not forget that the only time nuclear weapons were used, was against Japan, which was a non-nuclear state and was on its way to surrendering! So if states are to be classified in terms of weapons of mass destruction and brutality, then rationally where should the finger be pointing?

It is unfortunate that the US, in times of wanting to assert its politico-military primacy, uses morality in a perverse fashion. From the Monroe Doctrine to the Evil Empire of Reagan’s to the Axis of Evil, the timings have all coincided with US flexing of its muscle. The problem is that by attempting to frame global politics in morality, the US not only puts itself on a weak wicket, given its own, at the very least, amoral political record internationally and its support of brutal regimes like the Israeli regime, but it also destabilizes what could have been a growing international consensus against the evils of terrorism, both non-state and state. Already, many US allies have distanced themselves from the Bush notion of an “axis of evil”. Many more may move even further away if the Bush aim degenerates into a policy of using the US arms industry to revive the American economy. Of course, the US has declared that they will “go it alone if necessary” and it shows every inclination of undermining organizations like the UN and NATO.

In this connection, the US veto of the UN SC resolution to extend UN peacekeeping in Bosnia revealed only too clearly the new US approach to international affairs. The veto was the typical reaction of a superpower that knows it is in a power league (as opposed to a moral league!) by itself and cannot tolerate the rest of the world operationalising something that it disapproves of. Yet that is exactly what the international community has done in giving birth to the International Criminal Court beginning July 1, 2002. This is a court that the US does not approve of, since it feels its citizens, especially soldiers, cannot be internationally accountable, even when it has begun an international war on terrorism.

Of course, given the scant regard for international norms that the US has shown, especially post-9/11, it is understandable why the US would not want to get involved in the International Criminal Court (ICC). After all, its soldiers have been killing Afghan civilians and allied forces indiscriminately with not so much as a regret, all in the name of collateral damage. Even earlier, US and British warplanes have been bombing Iraqi territory and population at will, and now the US has every intent of launching a military strike against Iraq once more. Also, the US has failed to observe any international norms regarding the prisoners at Guantanamo bay, and gradually the international community is trying to take action against this abuse of prevailing international law, with 24 Kuwaiti families trying to sue the US government for denying its citizens at Guantanamo Bay the basic rights under international law, which even the Nazis were provided at Nuremberg and which Milosevic is being given presently at The Hague.

However, to simply spite the international community’s operationalisation of the ICC and veto the resolution on UN peacekeepers in Bosnia reflects the worst aspects of US unilateralism. After all, if the US feels its soldiers cannot be subject to international norms, other states will also adopt a similar posture and one can visualize the end of notions such as multilateral peacekeeping.

This is the unfortunate reality today in global politics. The US, post-9/11, has evolved a unilateralist approach to global politics (and economics as the steel issue showed) even as it seeks international support for its policies. Nor is this unilateralism isolationist in character. Instead, it is extensively interventionist and premised on the dangerous doctrine of preemption. So now the US can, on its own assessment, go and attack any country any time and anywhere as part of the new preemption doctrine which Bush spoke of at the US Military Academy at West Point (New York State). Based on a US defined “axis of evil”, this new policy sees no role for consultation with allies and so on — it simply rationalizes US military aggression under the guise of pre-emption against a perceived threat.

From now on, any state which differs with the US on crucial security issues may become a victim of US military pre-emption, with no verification or substantive evidence required. “Pieces of information” will be adequate, or perhaps just the whims of the US President. And no international framework will be in place to take stock of the realities on the ground and assess the validity of such a threat in the first place. A new, free-for-all will be the hallmark of global politics with the strong doing what they please and the weak having no recourse to any international institutional safeguards. No wonder the US feels threatened by the ICC.

So the tone has been set for a militaristic unilateralism on the part of the US. And what is kosher for the US will soon become kosher for its ambitious allies across the globe. Already one can see that in the growing militarism of Israel and India. Israel refused to allow a UN SC-mandated inquiry into the Jenin massacre! And India continues to use the same unilateralism in its military aggression against the Kashmiris in Occupied Kashmir. And the US allows this to happen. In fact, Israel has adopted the pre-emption doctrine even more extensively than the US itself presently. Hence, we are seeing Israeli forces simply destroy Palestinian buildings with people in them on the pretext that these people are “terrorists”. And not a word of condemnation from the US. Even the Europeans, who do not go along with Mr Bush on all aspects of the new US unilateralism, seem to have been browbeaten into an uneasy silence.

Of course, the Bush statement on the Middle East reflects an acceptance and encouragement of Israeli military aggression against the Palestinians. Even more dangerous has been the call by the US for the removal of Arafat. This shows a new dimension of the interventionist unilateralism and, as is already being demonstrated, can hardly be a recipe for peace and stability. First it was Gaddafi, then Saddam and now the US wants to remove Arafat. One really wonders which leader will be targeted next by the US, and how long the international community will allow the US this leeway? Ironically, while Bush was calling on the Palestinian people “to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror”, he seemed to have had a convenient amnesia about the terrorist credentials of successive Israeli leaders, especially Sharon who is guilty of the massacre of the Palestinian refugees in the Sabra and Shatilla camps in Lebanon in 1982. But then Sharon was also part of the Jewish underground organization Haganah (along with ex-premier Begin) which carried out terrorist attacks in Palestine before the creation of the Zionist state and were responsible for the blast at the king David Hotel which killed many British soldiers who were housed there. But the US chooses to forget all this because of the compulsions of US unilateralism!

Nor has this unilateralism been a result of 9/11. 9/11 has aggravated it and allowed the US to become more overt in its expression but the seeds were there much before. After all, the CTBT was killed by the US Senate much before 9/11 as was the Kyoto Protocol. And Bush had made it clear, on coming to power, that he was going to take the US out of the ABM Treaty. But post-9/11, the US has adopted a dangerous aggressiveness to this unilateralism.

This new US unilateralism is not limited to external policies. There is a domestic dimension also, in that racial groups are being profiled and targeted on the basis of ethnicity and religion. And the US civil rights groups are by and large maintaining either a total silence or a muted response. The result is that Muslims, especially Arabs and Pakistanis are being targeted for abuse and even murder - and children are not exempt either. Detention of these people without provision of the basics of legal counsel and so on is becoming part of the US domestic practice. Returning detainees have their own tales of horror while many who remain behind live in fear.

The irony is that all these policies will not make the Americans feel any safer since fear is being instilled in their psyches. They do not have to travel to be fearful, even in their own cities they are told they are not safe from the “terrorist” threat. This psyche may allow US unilateralism and militarism to gain domestic support but the cost to the American nation in the long-term will be extensive. After all living in fear indefinitely hardly creates a healthy society. And the diversity and freedom that were the enviable hallmarks of American society and culture will become hostage to this new militaristic unilateralism. At the end of the day, the independence and freedom of the American people cannot be divorced from that of peoples around the world. Unilateralism of the powerful in an era of global interdependence will be destructive for all of us. This is what Americans, who still retain their ability to question their leaders, need to contemplate as they approach another 4th of July, their Independence Day.