Do As We Do, Not As We Say
One thing that frustrates me when I read the news is how our nation's official policies have changed so much the last few years. Granted, our gummint hasn't always been angels, and there have been plenty of times in the past when we've done things that are not in our long-term (or even in our short-term!) best interests. But it seems like it's gotten worse of late.
Exhibit A is the announcement earlier this week that the Pentagon plans to omit from its detainee policies central portions of the Geneva Conventions related to "humiliating and degrading treatment." This means, of course, that our gummint and the Pentagon are effectively saying that despite Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, there isn't anything wrong in their eyes with how the U.S. treats its prisoners and detainees. At heart, it's a big "fuck you" to the rest of the world; anyone want to bet this won't come back to haunt us eventually?
If this happened elsewhere in another nation, there would be an outcry on Capitol Hill, and among the punditry everywhere; folks would be tut-tutting over the abandonment of such a integral international accord, one that has its origins in the 19th century and intertwined with the history of the International Red Cross. Nearly every nation on the planet is a signatory, including all but one member of the United Nations (the exception is Nauru). Such a compact is not enforced easily-- there's a mutual understanding that regardless of conflicts and disputes, than the Conventions (there have been four major ones, the last one drafted in 1949) will be honored and respected. When a powerful nation such as the United States thumbs its nose at such a document, it becomes easier now that the taboo has been broken for some other nation in the future to say, "Well, if they did it, so can we," and follow suit.
Sadly, this has already happened to an extent with Bush's "doctrine" emphasizing the right to conduct pre-emptive wars-- a U.S. policy shift that occurred conveniently in the fall of 2002, as the gummint began its ramp-up to the Iraq War the following spring in March 2003. In February 2003, and again this recent March 2006, North Korea has declared that it too possessed the right to conduct pre-emptive attacks, all in the name of preserving its sovereignty. There have been rumblings by Iran about conducting such pre-emptive strikes, and even though the leader now is Olmert, statements by people like Netanyahu saying that Israel should attack Iran don't leave me feeling comfortable at all (Here's one analysis of the consequences of such a Israel-Iran conflict). Thus, Smirk's insistence on flouting international law by pushing a unilateral military policy has opened a Pandora's Box that I don't think will be closed anytime soon.
The tendency of this gummint to do whatever it wants and shout, "My way or the highway" is starting to have repercussions; in March, the U.N. ignored U.S. objections and approved a new Human Rights Council. If all the influence the U.S. is going to wield in the future is money and economic power, other nations are going to start ignoring us more and more; despite our past fiscal hegemony, we aren't a creditor nation any longer, and that comes with its own set of consequences.
War is a nasty business, there's no doubt about that. But by denying or sweeping under the rug such things as the Geneva Conventions, Abu Ghraib, and Haditha* (WARNING: Both links have graphic pictures; if you can't handle it, don't click), it makes it that much easier for other nations to start doing as we do, and not as we say.
*[for a good overall look at Corporate Media and independent reporting of Haditha, check out this blog entry at Amygdala.]
Exhibit A is the announcement earlier this week that the Pentagon plans to omit from its detainee policies central portions of the Geneva Conventions related to "humiliating and degrading treatment." This means, of course, that our gummint and the Pentagon are effectively saying that despite Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, there isn't anything wrong in their eyes with how the U.S. treats its prisoners and detainees. At heart, it's a big "fuck you" to the rest of the world; anyone want to bet this won't come back to haunt us eventually?
If this happened elsewhere in another nation, there would be an outcry on Capitol Hill, and among the punditry everywhere; folks would be tut-tutting over the abandonment of such a integral international accord, one that has its origins in the 19th century and intertwined with the history of the International Red Cross. Nearly every nation on the planet is a signatory, including all but one member of the United Nations (the exception is Nauru). Such a compact is not enforced easily-- there's a mutual understanding that regardless of conflicts and disputes, than the Conventions (there have been four major ones, the last one drafted in 1949) will be honored and respected. When a powerful nation such as the United States thumbs its nose at such a document, it becomes easier now that the taboo has been broken for some other nation in the future to say, "Well, if they did it, so can we," and follow suit.
Sadly, this has already happened to an extent with Bush's "doctrine" emphasizing the right to conduct pre-emptive wars-- a U.S. policy shift that occurred conveniently in the fall of 2002, as the gummint began its ramp-up to the Iraq War the following spring in March 2003. In February 2003, and again this recent March 2006, North Korea has declared that it too possessed the right to conduct pre-emptive attacks, all in the name of preserving its sovereignty. There have been rumblings by Iran about conducting such pre-emptive strikes, and even though the leader now is Olmert, statements by people like Netanyahu saying that Israel should attack Iran don't leave me feeling comfortable at all (Here's one analysis of the consequences of such a Israel-Iran conflict). Thus, Smirk's insistence on flouting international law by pushing a unilateral military policy has opened a Pandora's Box that I don't think will be closed anytime soon.
The tendency of this gummint to do whatever it wants and shout, "My way or the highway" is starting to have repercussions; in March, the U.N. ignored U.S. objections and approved a new Human Rights Council. If all the influence the U.S. is going to wield in the future is money and economic power, other nations are going to start ignoring us more and more; despite our past fiscal hegemony, we aren't a creditor nation any longer, and that comes with its own set of consequences.
War is a nasty business, there's no doubt about that. But by denying or sweeping under the rug such things as the Geneva Conventions, Abu Ghraib, and Haditha* (WARNING: Both links have graphic pictures; if you can't handle it, don't click), it makes it that much easier for other nations to start doing as we do, and not as we say.
*[for a good overall look at Corporate Media and independent reporting of Haditha, check out this blog entry at Amygdala.]
posted by Mr. Sandman | 4:29 PM
<< Home