Global Policy Forum

By Sean Gonsalves

How do you explain the president's threat to invade Iraq, in keeping with the "preventive" war prescription laid out in the September 2002 National Security Strategy Directive, while he talks about diplomacy in dealing with North Korea?

That United States policy-makers are preparing for war against an Iraqi military that analysts say we can easily crush while going the diplomatic route with North Korea -- a country we can't beat up on as easily -- is evidence of an ugly principle at work: might makes right.

The contrast between the course of action being followed in the Near East versus the Machiavellian power moves being made in the Middle East reveals the bankruptcy of the war-is-our-only-option idea and affirms what the popular clergyman and author Max Lucado points out: "Conflict is inevitable, but combat is optional."

How to deal with North Korea? A good starting point would be a re-evaluation of questionable policy decisions made over the past few decades, as East Asian specialist Chalmers Johnson suggested last week.

Johnson argues that U.S. policy-makers have enflamed tensions in the region through our rebuff of South Korean President Kim Dae-jung's peace initiative, President Bush's "axis of evil" remark in his 2002 State of the Union speech and the National Security Strategy supporting "preventive" war.

Why is South Korea complaining more about U.S. policy than about its kin to the north? Johnson says it's largely because South Korea is "a genuine democracy, created in 1987 when Koreans revolted against 25 years of American-supported military dictators. The United States still has more than 100 military bases in South Korea. . . . How would we feel if it were reversed?

"Another source of resentment is the South Korean economic meltdown a few years ago, which was essentially caused by the IMF, largely controlled by the U.S. government. South Korea has recovered brilliantly but it still resents American interference and arrogance."

What about Iraq? Let's be clear. This isn't about when we should go to war. We've been at war with Iraq since 1991. The economic blockade, coupled with regular bombings in the no-fly zones, is war.

Critics of the peace movement ask what's the alternative to war in Iraq? It must be a rhetorical question because I can think of six off the top of my head.

• Allow the weapons inspectors to do their job, which includes sharing intelligence with Hans Blix, pointing out where the smoking guns are being hidden by Saddam, if, in fact there are any.

• Keep the weapons sanctions in place but immediately lift the economic embargo -- an 11-year-old failed policy that has only further entrenched Saddam while killing a half-million Iraqi children under the age of 5 in a country that prior to the Gulf War was a nation whose biggest pediatric problem was childhood obesity.

• Pledge to rebuild the civilian infrastructure U.S. bombs destroyed in Iraq during the 1991 war, which is what has been fueling Iraq's incredible infant morality rate. Damaged and destroyed water-treatment facilities, plus the use of depleted uranium weapons, has led to a humanitarian crisis in which little children are dying of preventable water-borne diseases and related birth defects.

• Have the Bush administration sign on to the International Criminal Court and pursue an indictment of Saddam for crimes against humanity, which would gain the support of the international community for a multi-national coalition force to apprehend Saddam, if necessary.

• Investigate potential punitive action against the U.S. corporations that sold and profited from the sale of nuclear, chemical and biological materials as well as missile technology to Iraq during the period when Saddam was committing the atrocities that made him infamous and is the historical "proof" upon which the Bush administration justifies its "preventive" war doctrine.

• Fully and fairly implement U.N. Resolution 661, which calls not only for the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction but stipulates that the Middle East be a nuclear-weapons-free zone. That means, of course, insisting that Israel rid itself of its nukes.

• Apply international pressure on the Israeli government to dismantle all settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, establish a viable Palestinian state and deploy an international peace-keeping force to separate the two sides.

And finally, keep in mind the thoughts of two esteemed statesmen. The late Yitzhak Rabin said, "Peace is not made with friends. Peace is made with enemies."

Nelson Mandela adds: "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner."

Sean Gonsalves is a columnist with the Cape Cod Times.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.