Untitled Document

So where do we stand on the Bush war?
The fanfare over the peace talks in Thailand has clouded an issue that is critical to Sri Lanka as an independent state. That is the current controversy over the threatened military attacks on Iraq to destroy weapons of mass destruction and effect a change of regime in Baghdad.

The threats emanating from the United States must be seen in the light of President Bush's National Security Strategy document released two weeks ago which spells out clearly Washington's imperialist policies and its readiness to use its two principal weapons in pursuit of those policies- American military and economic power.

Understandably Sri Lankan concerns in recent weeks have been concentrated on the build up to the talks in Thailand and the outcome of the first round that might serve as a pointer to the future direction of negotiations.

Even here there appears to be some ambiguity or uncertainty on what precisely Anton Balasingham meant and whether the LTTE has abandoned its goal of a separate state, as some news reports said or whether Eelam still remains very much an objective as pro-LTTE sources were wont to observe.

All this has unfortunately pushed out of our radar screen the vital question of the use of power, particularly military power, to settle international issues and whether post-war multilateral institutions such as the United Nations are becoming old fashioned and obsolete in the aftermath of an American Century.

Since Sri Lanka is a sovereign nation-and indeed the two decade long conflict in the country has been to preserve that sovereignty and unity- and more so a small state, the new gung-ho militarism of the Bush administration and its willingness to conduct pre-emptive strikes in pursuit of its national interest, concerns us very much.

If America's new interventionist policy sets a precedent that other big powers or major regional powers could employ for pre-emptive strikes against states or regimes they do not like or countenance, then might becomes right and international law will be stood on its head.

As a small sovereign state that has already experienced interference, intervention and the threat of force, it is surprising that Sri Lankans appear to have been kept in the dark on where the country stands policy-wise at this critical moment.

Have there been any government statements or comments that have articulated clearly Sri Lanka's position on a question that is worrying many countries around the world?

I have not seen any. Even if there has been a statement it does not seem to have reached our diplomatic missions.

I wonder how many of our policy makers have indeed read President Bush's National Security Strategy document, which, to say the least, is disturbing.

For President Bush has arrogantly arrogated to himself as America's elected (perhaps it is better left to Anura Bandaranaike to expatiate on this) leader to decide which country should be named "hostile" and as a consequence ripe for eliminating its leaders and replacing them with lackeys.What the United States wants is to have leaders or governments that are subservient to Washington, governments that will catch pneumonia when the White House sneezes.

If such unilateralism based on the threat of force and the mighty dollar is allowed to ride rough shod over international law and world order, then where is the rule of law, of democracy and international relations built on treaties and conventions that the Western world has insisted that poor and ignorant Third World countries imbibe and follow?

President Bush's arguments for attacking Iraq and bringing down Saddam Hussein are not based on sound reasoning but on Washington's policy flavour of the month.

President Bush, and his pliant side-kick Tony Blair, recently provided so-called evidence of Saddam Hussein's armoury of chemical and biological weapons and moves to acquire a nuclear weapons capability.

Most experts in the field say there is hardly anything new in this evidence and most of it has been in the public domain for years.

The Anglo-American leaders have labelled Saddam a dictator, a mass murderer, tyrant and other epithets drawn from a reliable dictionary of abuse. He might very well be all that.

But both these leaders carefully avoid mentioning that their predecessors in power-Ronald Reagan and George Bush in the US and Margaret Thatcher in the UK- were instrumental in creating this monster they abhor today, by supplying him with the material and the tools to become what he is.

Moreover, the monster is now blamed for having weapons of mass destruction and for planning to use them, though no evidence has been produced of Saddam's intentions.
Every one of the nearly 190 members of the UN has weapons, some conventional and some not. That is their sovereign right and a means of self defence. Surely the possession of weapons cannot be considered as tantamount to an attack or an intention to attack.

On the contrary, with an aggressive president in the White House, Saddam could well believe that he will have to defend himself before long.

If the possession of weapons is a crime that needs pre emptive strikes, why did the United States not attack the Soviet Union that both Ronald Reagan and George Bush characterised as the "evil empire"? Surely Nato policy was built on this perceived threat from the Soviet Union and its satellite states that the west argued were determined to destroy capitalism and democracy.

The fact is that had the US attacked, Moscow's retaliation would have taken out many American cities, military installations and killed or wounded millions of Americans.

If the Soviet Union in turn knew the terrible dangers it faced if ever it attacked, refrained from doing so despite its enormous arsenal , why on earth Saddam Hussein with his meagre weapons intends attacking the US and the UK surely defies logic.

President Bush's security strategy opens the doors wide to abuse and violation of international law, of a virtual abandonment of multilateral negotiation through the United Nations and to the restoration of the imperialist doctrine that might is right.

If other countries were to use US policies of pre-emptive strike and regime change, then in our own South Asian region, India as the leading military power, could seek regime change in any neighbouring nation through intervention.

Right now a resolution in being drafted to get the Security Council to pressure Iraq to allow arms inspectors into Iraq.

The US states wants a tough resolution that gives Iraq an ultimatum and would allow the US to act unilaterally if Saddam turns a deaf ear. Sri Lanka might want to cosy up to the US with agreements for military cooperation. But if ever we become the victims of the Bush doctrine exercised by regional or other powers, it would be naive to imagine that Washington will come to our aid.

When the time comes at the United Nations to declare one's position against the megalomania of the Bush administration, one hopes that Sri Lanka will have the courage to be counted against 21st century imperialism.

Back to Columns