Justifying Further Intervention by the Big Powers throughout the World

Workers' Daily Internet Edition : Article Index :

Justifying Further Intervention by the Big Powers throughout the World

March Against Racist Attacks in Sunderland

Iraq Rejects Accusation of Atomic Weapons

"Preventive War" and Signs of Crisis Concerning US Hegemonism

The government’s intention is to intensify its interventionist and warmongering activities around the world, on the grounds that in the modern world such intervention is required to prevent the dangers of "state failure". This was signalled in the speech delivered to the European Research Institute in Birmingham by Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary on September 6 as he further developed the spurious concept of "failed and failing states".

The government first attempted to expound this concept as justification for the Anglo-US invasion of Afghanistan, carried out in the wake of the events of September 11 last year. It argued at that time that such states posed a danger to the "international community" and that "turning a blind eye to the breakdown of order in any part of the world, however distant, invites direct threats to our national security and well-being". Now there is a clear intention to justify intervention, including military action, by Britain, the US and the other big powers anywhere in the world.

According to Jack Straw, a state "fails" when it is unable "to control its territory and guarantee the security of its citizens; to maintain the rule of law, promote human rights and provide effective governance; and to deliver public goods to its population (such as economic growth, education and healthcare)". It is Jack Straw’s view that criteria can be established to indicate signs of "failure". But it is clear that such judgements are only to be made by Britain and the other big powers and will therefore be made on the basis of which states uphold Anglo-American values consistent with the requirements of neo-liberal globalisation and which do not. There is, Jack Straw suggests, a growth of "state failure", and "international action" is required to prevent it. Most significantly, Jack Straw argues that intervention should begin "at the point when a state begins to display the symptoms of failure, rather than when it is a lost cause".

Most of the features of "failure" that Jack Straw identifies are a legacy of colonialism, the contention of the superpowers and the other big powers during the so-called Cold War, as well as the consequences of the end of the bi-polar division of the world and neo-liberal globalisation. It is the contention between Britain and the other big powers, a reflection of the drive of the monopolies to re-divide the world, that is creating such "failure", instability, international crises and the likelihood of further bloody conflicts. It is in this context, and in response to the growing opposition to the activities of Britain and the other big powers, that the government is seeking ever more elaborate justifications for its intervention around the world.

Jack Straw’s talk of the need for intervention in "failed and failing states" is, amongst other things, clearly designed to attempt to side-step the doctrine of the sovereignty of states, which has existed in international law since the 17th century. Thus he argues for the possibility of military intervention in Iraq, while recognising that it does not fit his definition of a "failed state". He argues instead, "Whether the danger to international order comes from totalitarianism or chaos, all countries have the right to respond." But it is clear that Jack Straw intends that Britain and the other big powers shall decide on the nature of the response even if they are able to call on their proxies to carry out the intervention. He even suggests dividing the world into spheres of intervention, explaining: "This could mean the EU, NATO or the OSCE taking the lead in dealing with problems around the margins of Europe; the French or ourselves (perhaps jointly) in parts of Africa; and countries like Canada or the US under the OAS in the Americas."

Jack Straw is at pains to present intervention in "failed and failing states" as a humanitarian act, carried out for the good of humanity. But far from being a policy designed to bring greater peace and stability in the world, it is aimed to further the predatory interests of the big monopolies. It seeks to justify trampling over the sovereignty of states. In particular, it is being trotted out at this time to justify "regime change", especially in those states which refuse to adhere to the "universal values" of the big powers.

At root, the elaboration of the doctrine of "failed and failing states" is nothing but a device to justify the unjustifiable, namely the method of force and terror in international affairs, the declaration that "Might Makes Right". The "mighty" are the ones which decide, and the "failed and failing states" must submit to their dictate, because this is for the good of the "international community" in this "interdependent" world of ours. WDIE condemns this doctrine and calls upon all workers and progressive people to reject it, and defend the sovereignty of nations and peoples.

On Saturday, September 7, a second march marked the brutal murder of Peiman Bahami in Sunderland two weeks before. The march gave support to refugees and asylum seekers and demonstrated the condemnation of the people in the area for racist treatment of these refugees.

About 300 people took part at short notice in the march and it was headed by the banner of the International Federation of Iranian Refugees marking the fact that Peiman was an Iranian seeking asylum in Britain. A contingent from UNISON Northern Region Black members also took part in the march followed by a large contingent from UNISON Sunderland Local Government Branch. A contingent from Nottingham of the International Federation of Refugees also took part. One of the banners proclaimed: No Deportations! No Detentions! No Dispersals!

During the march slogans were shouted by the demonstrators condemning the growing racism and fascism in Britain.

At the end of the march a short rally was held outside the Civic Centre in Sunderland. Yunus Baksh from UNISON asked where were the statements from the labour MPs in support of asylum seekers and against racist attacks and at the same time he condemned the stand of the Home Secretary, David Blunkett in making speeches which encourage attacks on asylum seekers and refugees.

Last week, Iraq denounced as false the accusation that Baghdad could build an atomic bomb, saying it was a pretext used by Washington and London for aggression against Iraq.

"These are false pretexts, false accusations for the intention of aggression against our country," Iraq's Foreign Minister Naji Sabri said.

"They manipulate the power of media they have to circulate false information to mislead the people of Britain and America and the international public opinion so as to market their own war agenda," Naji Sabri said. "We challenge them to present a single (piece of) evidence to these accusations."

"There is no physical existence of anything that is now being promoted by warmongers in Washington and the single warmonger in London who is Mr Tony Blair," the Foreign Minister said in an interview. "It is not only that Iraq has not the material (to produce a nuclear bomb) but Iraq has no intention in the first place," he added.

Meanwhile, British and US aircraft struck Iraq for the third time in a week, bombing a military facility south-east of Baghdad. The attack came as the British and US aircraft flew over the so-called "no-fly zones". Bombings, which have been carried out since the end of the Gulf War in 1991, are in the course of being stepped up. At least 37 strikes have been reported this year by Britain and the US, which itself is clearly an underestimate.

The Iraqi forces continue to exercise their legitimate right to self-defence and the Iraqi government justly points the finger at the aggressor.

Article by Jose Reinaldo Carvalho, vice-president of the Communist Party of Brazil, responsible for International Relations. The article was published in Diario Vermelho (www.vermelho.org.br) on September 5.

The announcement of the "preventive war" of the United States against Iraq that may be unleashed at any moment highlights the most significant aspects of the present world "order": the growing aggressiveness of US imperialism, the existence of contradictions between the United States and the other potencies and the international isolation of George W. Bush’s government.

The "preventive war" is a new concept introduced after the victory on the Cold War that corresponds to the exertion of the US hegemonism by means of raw power and an incontestable military superiority.

The last days were marked by the political and military preparation of the attack on Iraq. The great debate is on the most adequate moment to launch it. The day before yesterday Bush’s Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, announced during a press conference in the Pentagon that his government will show evidences that Iraq represents a threat to world safety, what would justify striking it down by means of a military intervention. He was followed by Britain’s Prime-Minister Tony Blair, an unconditional ally who wants to show the world "all evidences" gathered by the allies regarding Iraq’s mass destruction weapons program. The US government has made immense efforts to balance internal political forces, convince national and international public opinion and obtain the approval of its allies and the United Nations. In the meantime, although Washington authorities deny the existence of a war plan lying on the president’s desk waiting for approval, trustworthy fonts such as The Wall Street Journal inform that Pentagon is transporting to Kuwait and regions near Iraq’s border "tons of military equipment that were stored in American bases in Europe and Qatar". According to Brazilian newspaper O Estado de São Paulo’s correspondent in Washington Paulo Sotero, about 8 thousand US soldiers are waiting near Kuwait’s border with Iraq.

But making politically feasible the "preventive war" and the attack on Iraq in order to bring Saddam Hussein down has not been easy. The illusion that all the world would be willing to hear the call of the United States in order to start the so-called fight against terrorism and the "rogue states" has vanished by now. On the contrary, voices of disagreement or even opposition are growing louder and more diverse as long as the fulfilment of the US hegemonic plans is concerned. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, the Arab countries that are closest to the United States, have manifested their disagreement regarding an attack on Iraq. The matter concentrates attentions during the meeting of the Arab League chancellors, who meet today in Cairo. China and Russia, veto-holding permanent members of the Security Council of the United Nations, have also announced their opposition to the military strike. France and Germany have signalled Europe’s opinion and are against military action. German chief of government, Prime Minister Schröder, has declared that Germany will not take part in the attack, even if it is authorised by the United Nations.

Those are important contradictions indicating that, even displaying a colossal war power, the United States does not have political conditions necessary to endorse the actions it wants to unleash. Should the will to fight be neutralised or contained, many lives will be saved. At least these reserves and contradictions can slow the pace of the death machine the US imperialism has become during the recent years. During the last decade, Iraq has been massacred not only on the Gulf War, but also by successive bombardments and an unfair embargo that have caused the death of about three million people, mostly children.

Many other facts of the international juncture have revealed the growing isolation of the United States. Yesterday State Secretary Colin Powell, on behalf of President George W. Bush, was interrupted by jeers during his speech on Rio+10 Conference in Johannesburg. The Middle East conflict between Israel and the Palestinians also causes disagreements and controversies between the United States and other countries. Lately, the US imperialism has raised a new issue in its foreign policy by claiming immunity to US military in future lawsuits on the International Criminal Court. The list of problems caused by international conflicts on which the positions of the United States are fragile is very long.

The world has changed a lot since the end of the Soviet Union and the imposition of the single-sided US rule. There are clear signs that it still keeps changing and signs of crisis concerning the US hegemonism, which is growing more and more contested.