[Reader-list] Defending ourselves

[Anjali Sagar]

Defending ourselves

Peter Kilfoyle Only a united Europe can counterbalance an increasingly
paranoid and hawkish America

Monday September 23, 2002
The Guardian 

In ancient Rome, the statesman Cato the Elder was renowned for declaiming,
at the end of every speech, that "Carthage must be destroyed", referring to
Rome's long-standing enemy. It is perhaps appropriate, therefore, that one
of the rightwing thinktanks in the US should be called the Cato Institute -
except that the ultra-right of American politics sees enemies everywhere.

The thinking of these ideologues is alien to most of us. So extreme is one
of their number, Paul Wolfowitz, that it is said that the description "hawk"
does not do him justice ("What about velociraptor?" one of his former
colleagues once remarked). Yet this world is cosily comfortable for its
inhabitants. They speak to each other and for each other, and their websites
are seamlessly linked.

If, for example, one accesses the website of the National Institute for
Public Policy - largely responsible for the current posture whereby the US
is ready to attack non-nuclear nations with nuclear weapons - better known
organisations like the Heritage Foundation appear, together with an eclectic
collection of bodies, from the Korean Central News Agency, the Government of
Pakistan and the US Department of Defence's Missile Defence Agency (for
which the institute works).

Possibly the strangest pair of these factories of paranoia are the Centre
for Security Policy, and the Project for the New American Century. The
former is run by the ultra-hawk Frank J Gaffney. He calls UN inspections in
Iraq "harebrained" and is very well-connected in Washington.

Back in 1997 Gaffney was cosignatory of the principles of PNAC, along with
Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and Lewis Libby (all senior
officials to President Bush), together with Jeb Bush, brother of the
president and famed for his dimpled chads. It was this organisation that
wrote to President Bush last Friday saying: "Should Iran and Syria refuse to
comply with [our demands], the administration should consider appropriate
measures of retaliation against these known state sponsors of terrorism."
War without end. 

What does the PNAC stand for? Four things: increased defence spending;
challenging regimes "hostile to our interests and values"; the promotion of
"political and economic freedom"; and America's need to keep the world
"friendly to our security, our prosperity and our principles". In short,
they wish to impose an imperialist Pax Americana on the world.

The links and ideas among the far right are well-embedded in the current
administration. Those links are both personal and ideological, and heavily
influence American government policy. They are closely tied in, too, with
the defence industry, oil interests, hawkish Israel supporters and the
fundamentalist Christian right.

Its current manifestation is the bellicose demand for a military solution to
the problem of Saddam Hussein. Many around the world breathed a sigh of
relief when President Bush went to the UN recently, unaware that the
approach was merely a tactic. This administration and its leading lights
have been consistently hostile to the UN; and they quickly made clear after
Bush's address that, UN mandate or not, they will take out Saddam. This can
hardly have comforted the British government, which switched under the
pressure of public opinion to the inspections option, only to find it
blocked by American determination to effect regime change.

The ramifications of this hardline American policy on the US relationship
with the world are huge. First, no one can doubt in the short term America's
ability to enforce its will on much of the globe. Indeed, its defence
document Joint Vision 2020 explicitly states: "The label 'full spectrum
dominance' implies that US forces are able to conduct prompt, sustained and
synchronised operations with combinations of forces tailored to specific
situations, and with access to and freedom to operate in all domains -
space, sea, land, air and information." It clearly intends total military
domination - including missile defence - to effect such a strategy.

The present administration also has the will to pursue such a course. It is
both unilateral and isolationist, and will act in America's immediate
national interest, regardless of international opinion and convention. Thus,
the administration has unilaterally rejected Kyoto, the international
criminal court, the ABM treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, World
Trade Organisation provisions and many more - all in favour of narrow
American interests. It openly despises any restraint on its autonomy.

For international organisations, this "might is right" approach is
disastrous. What value is the UN when the world's only superpower treats it
with open contempt? What of the EU, derided as "wimps"? What of the WTO,
portrayed as a one-way street to American advantage? What of Nato, wherein
national armies are seen as subordinate to American control and whim?

Here in the UK, we are in a substantially worse predicament. Successive
governments have deluded themselves that we have a "special relationship"
with the US - special only in so far as we tend to fall in with every crazed
administration notion, and ask for nothing in return. We end up as America's
handrag, with diminished credibility within Europe and facing increased
hostility across the globe. Is this in the British national interest? I fear
not. 

A unipolar world is a dangerous place. It is like standing on one leg - one
is far more liable to lose balance than when one is standing on two, or even
four legs. Increasingly, it is clear that there needs to be an effective
counterbalance to this over-powering American hegemony, best illustrated by
the tragedy of Palestine. Here, the EU invested large amounts in the
civilian infrastructure of the embryonic Palestinian Authority. Along came
the Israeli government, using massive American military aid, and with tacit
American approval, to destroy that peace-building capacity. Where is the
sense, or the justice, in that? Is British and European opinion of no
account? 

The time has surely come for the UK government, along with its European
partners, to have the courage, within the restraints of realpolitik, to
reassess its foreign policy priorities in line with our national interests
and these new realities. Do those interests lie with those with whom we do
our trade? Do we have more to gain in a strengthened relationship with
Europe? Are we to be Europe's heartland or America's frontline? As we
approach a heightening of the debate on the euro, it would be appropriate to
widen that debate to include a full consideration of our community of
interest with our European partners in a world overshadowed by the rampant
hawks in Washington. As recent events have shown, a truly independent common
defence and security policy for the EU is long overdue.

· Peter Kilfoyle is MP for Liverpool Walton and a former defence minister
(1999-2000) 

kilfoylep at parliament.uk 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20020926/ab5640ef/attachment.html