One of the primary principles by which ethics and law work is a logical one: it is usually called the principle of universality, and is roughly defined as applying the same principle in the same way to all parties. The United States has been anything but consistent when it comes to following ethical and international legal norms. In fact, the U.S. administration is currently leading the world in its inconsistencies, lies and duplicity regarding its actions in the Mideast. The Bush administration's lies leading to war in Iraq are now legion, so we will pass them by here and look at their lies and inconsistencies in dealing with Iran.
First, while the Bush regime demands that Iran and other nations follow the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty to the letter, the regime itself violates it at all turns. For example, this year President Bush went to India and announced the selling of nuclear technology to them, not only violating NPT but overturning the balance of power between India and Pakistan.
Second, while it declares its strategy in Iran as being one of preventing them from obtaining nuclear weapons in violation of NPT, the Bush administration threatens to use nuclear weapons in Iran and has plans on the table to do so.
Third, while requiring all nations it deals with to follow the United Nations Charter and Resolutions, the U.S. ignores and even expresses contempt for those with which they disagree. For example, the Bush-appointed (not congressionally approved) U.S. ambassador to the U.N., John Bolton, stated: "The United States makes the U.N. work when it wants to work, and that is exactly the way it should be, because the only question-the only question-for the United States is what's in our national interest."
Fourth, according to Article IV of the NPT, each signing party, of which Iran is one, has the "inalienable right...to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes..." The U.S. thus has no right to deny Tehran the production of nuclear energy. In fact, as Edward S. Herman and David Peterson report, Britain, France, and Germany reached an agreement with Iran in November, 2004, that would have had these three countries give "objective guarantees that Iran's nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes" while giving "firm commitments to security issues." This agreement failed because the United States would not agree to the "security issues" part, and in fact raised the level of its threats toward Iran. Thus, the U.S. prevented Iran from exercising its legal rights under NPT.
Fifth, the United States has made it a central plank of its Mideast policy that places like Iraq and Iran comply with complete openness to U.N. inspectors, while simultaneously rejecting its agreement to have the same done to it and to Israel.
With such gross inconsistencies in following principle and law, it should be clear to all who have eyes that the United States has become the "Untied States," a rogue or outlaw state and a far greater threat to world peace by its actions than weak countries like Iraq or Iran. The Bush regime and its supporters need to remember that its own actions of ignoring all laws and conventions that are not in their self-interest, when applied universally, as those whose demise they now seek will do, then those who seek to harm us will have every rationale they need for their acts of terror in the current example set by the United States. But if self-interest is the motto of the Bush foreign policy, and self-interest means anything, it means not jeopardizing the health and safety of one's own country, as the Bush administration is currently doing. At that point, there is no appeal to law or ethics that would not be hypocritical in the extreme and rightfully ignored at that point by the rest of the world community. But as argued above, there is no way to stop a philosophy or procedure (i.e. terrorism) except by a better one, and "might makes right" has shown itself throughout history to be a philosophy that ultimately fails its defenders.
VII. Conclusions
This is a perilous adventure we are discussing here. A military attack on Iran would not be supported by the principles of ethics concerning war; it would not be countenanced by international law; it would violate many of the international laws of war; it could well lead to a world war; and it almost certainly will cause a true jihad in response from the Arab world. Reason and thus prudence would dictate that we not strike Iran with our military muscle, but rather engage in the diplomatic route for a change. The United Nations Security Council, the proper place for legal complaints against U.S. policies of aggression and illegal actions, is handcuffed by the ever-present threat of a U.S. veto of its resolutions, such as the U.S. did by its veto on July 13 of a U.N. resolution calling for a ceasefire in the Israeli aggression in Lebanon. So it is left for the member nations of the U.N. to push for weapons inspections in Iran and elsewhere, and to demand openly that the U.S. stay within the boundaries of international law and universal disarmament, as required by NPT. If the U.S. does not accede to world demands, the world has the option of the International Court of Justice. Most of all, though, the first and perhaps most important step to take is to force the U.S. into negotiating with its perceived enemies. However, we now know that Bush and Cheney have no interest in dialogue or negotiations. It is not the neocon way. If the neoconservatives see this as World War III, as Newt Gingrich has called it, then it is absolutely imperative that they be stopped before they can go any further. They must be forced, by weight of public outcry, to follow ethical and international norms and engage in dialogue. It is time to engage in protest in whatever way possible and to call or write your Congresspersons today.
Resources:
Christopher de Bellaigue, "Under the Olive Trees: Waiting for the war in Iran," in Harper's, July, 2006.
Seymour M. Hersh, "The Iran Plans," The New Yorker, July 17, 2006.
Edward S. Herman and David Peterson, "U.S. Aggression-Time Once Again: Target Iran," Counterpunch.org, May 11, 2006.
Taken from Robert Dreyfus, "Next We Take Tehran," Mother Jones, July/August, 2006.
For this and other good summaries of the speeches and statements made lately by top administration officials concerning Iran, see Tom Englehardt, "Iran and the Irrationality Factor," March 21, 2006, www.TomDispatch.com.
Ibid.
"Glitches hit Iran's Enrichment Work," Aljazeera, July 11, 2006.
See Gary Leupp, "The Secret Cabal Got What it Wanted: No Negotiations," Counterpunch.org, April 26, 2006.
Seymour M. Hersh, "Last Stand," The New Yorker, July 17, 2006.
Ibid.
"The National Security Strategy of the United States of America," www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html.
See Duffy, Helen. The 'War on Terror' and the Framework of International Law, Introduction (2005: Cambridge). See also Restatement of the Law, Third, Foreign Relations Law of the United States, The American Law Institute, 1987.
Ibid.
These first two possible consequences were outlined in two papers: Anthony Cordesman and Khalid AlRodhan's "Iranian Nuclear Weapons? The Options if Diplomacy Fails," published by the Center for Stategic and International Studies, and "Iran: Consequences of a War," by Paul Rogers of the Oxford Research Group, in Britain. Both were quoted in and taken from Christopher de Bellaigue, "Under the Olive Trees: Waiting for the war in Iran," in Harper's, July, 2006, p. 59.
Robert Dreyfus, "Next We Take Tehran," Mother Jones, July/August, 2006.
Hersh, "The Iran Plans," op. cit.
Remarks made at a symposium in 1994, called "Global Structures: A Convocation: Human Rights, Global Governance and Strengthening the U.N.," and quoted in Herman and Peterson, op. cit.
"U.S. Vetoes Resolution on Mideast," www.cnn.com, July 13, 2006.
In an televised interview on Sunday, July 16, 2006.
First, while the Bush regime demands that Iran and other nations follow the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty to the letter, the regime itself violates it at all turns. For example, this year President Bush went to India and announced the selling of nuclear technology to them, not only violating NPT but overturning the balance of power between India and Pakistan.
Second, while it declares its strategy in Iran as being one of preventing them from obtaining nuclear weapons in violation of NPT, the Bush administration threatens to use nuclear weapons in Iran and has plans on the table to do so.
Third, while requiring all nations it deals with to follow the United Nations Charter and Resolutions, the U.S. ignores and even expresses contempt for those with which they disagree. For example, the Bush-appointed (not congressionally approved) U.S. ambassador to the U.N., John Bolton, stated: "The United States makes the U.N. work when it wants to work, and that is exactly the way it should be, because the only question-the only question-for the United States is what's in our national interest."
Fifth, the United States has made it a central plank of its Mideast policy that places like Iraq and Iran comply with complete openness to U.N. inspectors, while simultaneously rejecting its agreement to have the same done to it and to Israel.
With such gross inconsistencies in following principle and law, it should be clear to all who have eyes that the United States has become the "Untied States," a rogue or outlaw state and a far greater threat to world peace by its actions than weak countries like Iraq or Iran. The Bush regime and its supporters need to remember that its own actions of ignoring all laws and conventions that are not in their self-interest, when applied universally, as those whose demise they now seek will do, then those who seek to harm us will have every rationale they need for their acts of terror in the current example set by the United States. But if self-interest is the motto of the Bush foreign policy, and self-interest means anything, it means not jeopardizing the health and safety of one's own country, as the Bush administration is currently doing. At that point, there is no appeal to law or ethics that would not be hypocritical in the extreme and rightfully ignored at that point by the rest of the world community. But as argued above, there is no way to stop a philosophy or procedure (i.e. terrorism) except by a better one, and "might makes right" has shown itself throughout history to be a philosophy that ultimately fails its defenders.
VII. Conclusions
This is a perilous adventure we are discussing here. A military attack on Iran would not be supported by the principles of ethics concerning war; it would not be countenanced by international law; it would violate many of the international laws of war; it could well lead to a world war; and it almost certainly will cause a true jihad in response from the Arab world. Reason and thus prudence would dictate that we not strike Iran with our military muscle, but rather engage in the diplomatic route for a change. The United Nations Security Council, the proper place for legal complaints against U.S. policies of aggression and illegal actions, is handcuffed by the ever-present threat of a U.S. veto of its resolutions, such as the U.S. did by its veto on July 13 of a U.N. resolution calling for a ceasefire in the Israeli aggression in Lebanon. So it is left for the member nations of the U.N. to push for weapons inspections in Iran and elsewhere, and to demand openly that the U.S. stay within the boundaries of international law and universal disarmament, as required by NPT. If the U.S. does not accede to world demands, the world has the option of the International Court of Justice. Most of all, though, the first and perhaps most important step to take is to force the U.S. into negotiating with its perceived enemies. However, we now know that Bush and Cheney have no interest in dialogue or negotiations. It is not the neocon way. If the neoconservatives see this as World War III, as Newt Gingrich has called it, then it is absolutely imperative that they be stopped before they can go any further. They must be forced, by weight of public outcry, to follow ethical and international norms and engage in dialogue. It is time to engage in protest in whatever way possible and to call or write your Congresspersons today.
Resources:
Christopher de Bellaigue, "Under the Olive Trees: Waiting for the war in Iran," in Harper's, July, 2006.
Seymour M. Hersh, "The Iran Plans," The New Yorker, July 17, 2006.
Edward S. Herman and David Peterson, "U.S. Aggression-Time Once Again: Target Iran," Counterpunch.org, May 11, 2006.
Taken from Robert Dreyfus, "Next We Take Tehran," Mother Jones, July/August, 2006.
For this and other good summaries of the speeches and statements made lately by top administration officials concerning Iran, see Tom Englehardt, "Iran and the Irrationality Factor," March 21, 2006, www.TomDispatch.com.
Ibid.
"Glitches hit Iran's Enrichment Work," Aljazeera, July 11, 2006.
See Gary Leupp, "The Secret Cabal Got What it Wanted: No Negotiations," Counterpunch.org, April 26, 2006.
Seymour M. Hersh, "Last Stand," The New Yorker, July 17, 2006.
Ibid.
"The National Security Strategy of the United States of America," www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html.
See Duffy, Helen. The 'War on Terror' and the Framework of International Law, Introduction (2005: Cambridge). See also Restatement of the Law, Third, Foreign Relations Law of the United States, The American Law Institute, 1987.
Ibid.
These first two possible consequences were outlined in two papers: Anthony Cordesman and Khalid AlRodhan's "Iranian Nuclear Weapons? The Options if Diplomacy Fails," published by the Center for Stategic and International Studies, and "Iran: Consequences of a War," by Paul Rogers of the Oxford Research Group, in Britain. Both were quoted in and taken from Christopher de Bellaigue, "Under the Olive Trees: Waiting for the war in Iran," in Harper's, July, 2006, p. 59.
Robert Dreyfus, "Next We Take Tehran," Mother Jones, July/August, 2006.
Hersh, "The Iran Plans," op. cit.
Remarks made at a symposium in 1994, called "Global Structures: A Convocation: Human Rights, Global Governance and Strengthening the U.N.," and quoted in Herman and Peterson, op. cit.
"U.S. Vetoes Resolution on Mideast," www.cnn.com, July 13, 2006.
In an televised interview on Sunday, July 16, 2006.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
