War on terror

Part 2 of 2

Continued from the last issue

September 11, 2001 provided the US with a new twist and political justification to pursue its continuing aggressive military intervention in the affairs of other sovereign peoples and nations—the war on terrorism—one which it claims is global in both nature and character. This line jibes conveniently well with its claim of working for a truly peaceful and civilized world.

The war on terror was rationalized by the US in raining bombs in Afghanistan, even as terrorism morphed to “regime change” directed at the ruling Taliban providing sanctuary to notorious al-Queda leader Osama bin Laden—the man allegedly behind 9/11 attacks.

In Iraq this year, the war on terror was again used to befuddle and convince the world to justify a change of regime, which means the downfall of Saddam Hussein—as a “threat to humanity”—allegedly due to his possession of weapons of mass destruction. By this writing and after the fall of Hussein, the US has yet to show proof of Saddam’s dreaded WMD, even as his alleged link to terrorism is now conveniently lost in the rubbles of America’s military aggression, and sadly faded to the background.
Back to the UN

Presented before the UN Security Council relative to the reported global threat of Hussein to world peace was the issue of UN inspectors looking into nuclear warheads and missiles as well as WMD in Iraq. This authority was given through an earlier Council resolution allowing the UN to do so.

At the time, however, various economic sanctions against Iraq were already in place and the only allowed policy for Iraq to undertake was the Oil-for-Food Program, also administered under the aegis of the UN. Before the sanctions, Iraq was the world’s second biggest supplier of crude after Saudi Arabia.

As the world breathlessly witnessed the destructive might of America’s military power, unencumbered by any fresh UN resolution to justify its presence in Iraq, the US arrogantly ignored, as in various instances before, and thus effectively marginalized the UN before the eyes of the world. For how long will the international community tolerate America brazenly supplanting diplomacy and international law with unilateral military superiority? The bi-polar world of the cold war era, as we indicated earlier, had given way to a unipolar system where US became the sole and only superpower. Does this development portend the demise or perhaps an aberrant meandering of the UN as an institution of global peace—in the same way that the League of Nations was sidelined by the victorious allied powers in WW2?

It is our view that the UN should be strengthened, not weakened, nor ignored by the world community. The US by its deeds clearly showed its contempt for world peace, harmony and peaceful competition and development amongst civilized nations. Global peace must not be allowed to stand on weak and unreliable foundations, nor be sustained simply on the basis of ad hoc arrangements that America may again forge in the future with new batches of “coalition of the willing” in pursuit of its seemingly insatiable and impertinent imperial designs.

Besides running refugee and health care programs; population control; initiating conferences on world issues and problems; building up civil, public and private institutions; and organizing peace-keeping forces in war-torn areas; the UN has proven the unique and effective roles it can play in maintaining global peace and order.

The world therefore must not be allowed to descend into anarchy where might and superior military power may rule in place of humanity’s clamor for justice, decency and order. The community of nations must guard global civilization against predatory ambitions and bigotry of powerful nations—now epitomized by the United States of America.*

Back to top

You may email the author at ernie@philippinestoday.net.