28.12.2019 Author: James
ONeill
Column: Politics
Region: USA in the World
One of
the persistent themes of western political leaders is that they support the
notion of “the rule of law”. By this they generally mean the system of law as
developed by western nations, and in the international context the formulation
over the past 120 years or so of international law.
By this
of course, they mean “their law”. Any deviation from this by non-western
nations is to be deplored and where appropriate punished.
The epitome of this approach was to be found in the Nuremberg trials and their Japanese equivalent that followed victory in the Second World War. The waging of war was declared to be the supreme international crime. The chief American counsel at the Nuremberg Tribunal, Robert Jackson, stated that the Nuremberg trials placed “international law squarely on the side of peace as against aggressive warfare.”
The epitome of this approach was to be found in the Nuremberg trials and their Japanese equivalent that followed victory in the Second World War. The waging of war was declared to be the supreme international crime. The chief American counsel at the Nuremberg Tribunal, Robert Jackson, stated that the Nuremberg trials placed “international law squarely on the side of peace as against aggressive warfare.”
The
Nuremberg and Tokyo trials may be seen in retrospect as the apogee of the
concept that waging war was an offence against humanity. Since 1945 the major
western powers, notably but not exclusively limited to the United States, have
waged almost continuous war.
This has
mostly been directed at countries that lack the ability, military or otherwise,
to fight back.
Neither
is this a new phenomena. Wikipedia has an astonishing list of wars involving
the United States going back to the Revolutionary War of 1775-1783 and
continuing almost unabated up to the present day. With unintentional humour,
World War Two is listed as a “United States-Allied victory.”
As any
student of that war knows, the vast bulk of the fighting and the casualties,
took place on the eastern front between Germany and its allies and the Soviet
Union. The war had been waging for more than two years before the Americans
became a formal party. Total American losses during World War II were just over
407.000, fewer than Russia lost in the battle of Stalingrad alone (478,000
killed or missing) over a period of five months.
The
West’s proclivity for war continued unabated after the end of World War Two.
The Korean War (1950-53), the Vietnam War 1945-1975), Afghanistan (2001-?, Iraq
2003- ?) and Syria (2008 – ?) are only some of the better known conflicts.
There were constant lesser battles carried out by the United States and its
allies, particularly in the Caribbean and Latin America, seen (by the United
States) as part of its own sphere of influence since the Munro doctrine was
first proposed in December 1823.
One of
the outstanding features of these post-World War II invasions, occupations, or
warfare by other means, is that they have shown a diminishing degree of
success. Where they have been unsuccessful on the battlefield, the United
States has continued to wage economic and financial war on its foes.
The
classic illustration of this is the Korean War, the origins and conduct of
which has always been grossly misrepresented by the West. It is however,
instructive on a number of levels. The North-South boundary was drawn by two
United States functionaries following the defeat of the occupying Japanese in
1945. The Soviet army, which occupied the North following the end of the war,
withdrew in 1948. The United States, which occupied the South, has never left
and today sees South Korea as an essential element in its encirclement of
China.
There are
literally hundreds of United States military bases in proximity to or aimed at
China, yet the western media are solely preoccupied with alleged Chinese
“aggression” actual or potential. Apart from its multiple military bases, the
United States regularly carries out military exercises with its regional allies
such as Japan and Australia that are thinly disguised preparations for waging
war on China. One such regular exercise practices blockading vital Chinese
trade routes through the Straits of Hormuz.
The
Korean War was instructive on a number of levels. The invasion of the North by
United States and Allied troops reached the Chinese border, which threatened
the new PRC. We now know that the United States military command sought
President Truman’s consent to use their virtual monopoly of nuclear weapons (certainly China had none) to
bomb the PRC.
The
primary objective was to reinstate the Chiang Kai Shek Government that had fled
to what was then called Formosa following its defeat in the Chinese Civil War.
The
intervention of the PRC in the Korean War was decisive. United States and
Allied troops were rapidly expelled from the North. What was instructive also
however was that the United States used its overwhelming air superiority to
effectively destroy North Korea’s civilian infrastructure and food producing
capacity.
This was
instructive on a number of levels. Not only was the destruction of civilian
targets a monumental war crime (for which they hung Germans following the
Nuremberg trials), but there has never been legal accountability for these
crimes. Again, this precedent is instructive for the actions and lack of
accountability for American war crimes to this day.
Despite
enormous Western pressure, most of it illegal under international law, the
North Koreans have survived to this day. There is still no peace treaty to
formally end the war, although it is now more than 66 years since the
armistice. North Korea is now a nuclear armed power and in this writer’s view any
expectation that they will disarm is delusional.
Those
nuclear weapons, and the military protection of Russia and China are the major
deterrent to further United States aggression in the region.
Vietnam
was a similar defeat for United States imperialism in the region. Again, a long
war (1945-1975) fought first by the French and then by the United States and
its Western allies following the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu In May 1954.
Although
the United States did not use nuclear weapons, they employed a full range of
other chemical and biological mechanisms, the use of which were again war
crimes perpetrated on a civilian population. The consequences of this chemical
and biological warfare persist to the present day in the form of ravaged
agricultural land, and most distressingly, children still being born with
deformities directly attributable to the chemical and biological warfare agents
employed by the United States throughout the war.
Again, in
what is by now a manifestly common pattern, the perpetrators of these war
crimes remain completely immune from prosecution, notwithstanding token
prosecutions of low level military officers such as Lieutenant William Calley
for the My Lai massacre. An article in the United States publication Foreign
Policy (21 May 2019) in titled “America Loves Excusing its War Criminals” is a
perfect encapsulation of the reality.
More
recently two other major wars illustrate a number of facets, including
deceptive motivations for the wars; persistent lying about the realities following
the invasions; and the extraordinary difficulties by the victim nations in
dislodging the invaders, even decades later.
The two
wars in question are Afghanistan (2001 – to the present and counting) and Iraq
(2003 to the present and counting). In both cases the ostensible justification
for the invasion were blatant lies. Ron Susskind’s book on Bush’s Treasury
Secretary Paul O’Neill (The Price of Loyalty 2004) revealed how the decision to
invade Afghanistan was made well before the purported reason of the events of
11 September 2001. Rather, the invasion and occupation had more to do with
Afghanistan’s strategic location and the oil routes from the Caspian Sea basin
than any alleged role by Osama bin Laden who was alleged (falsely) to have
orchestrated the use of aeroplanes to destroy public buildings in New York and
Washington.
In Iraq’s
case the monstrous lies told and repeated ad nauseam by loyal allies, was
Saddam Hussain’s “weapons of mass destruction.”
It is not
difficult to perceive recurring patterns here. Countries that are strategically
located with valuable resources become the object of invasion, occupation and
the theft of those resources and suffering enormous civilian casualties (well
over 1 million people in the case of both countries). None of the allegations ever bear any resemblance to the
truth.
Similarly,
in another recurring pattern, none of the perpetrators of these monstrous
activities ever face a court holding them to account for their crimes. There
are of course many examples. When one examines the record of invasions,
occupations, demonstrable lies uttered in justification, and ongoing theft of
natural resources it is impossible to reconcile this history with the “rules
based international law” mantra so solemnly repeated by western leaders.
There are
however, some encouraging signs that this era of lawless banditry may be
approaching its end days. I refer here to the rapid rise of China, or more
accurately, the reemergence of China as the dominant power in the world.
Through a
variety of initiatives, of which the BRI is the biggest and best known (and
significantly, opposed by the United States and Australia). There are a variety
of other economic and political initiatives that are of a truly transformative
nature. Their very successful present and likely future trends are a major
reason the United States is using every weapon in its political, economic and
financial arsenal to oppose and undermine these predominantly Chinese led
initiatives.
In this
writer’s view, that attempted sabotage will ultimately fail, although at
considerable cost to a number of nations. As we enter 2020 however, these
initiatives, from China in the East to Russia in the West and beyond, offer the
best prospect of a stable world than the past disastrous two centuries of
western dominance have proved to be.
James
O’Neill, an Australian-based Barrister at Law, exclusively for the online
magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.