Independent Caucus

Are Chavez and Ahmadinejad the New Moral High Ground?

The recent convening of the U.N. General Assembly, and speeches given there by President Bush, Chavez of Venezuela and Ahmadinejad of Iran, may have left one wondering who holds the international moral high ground these days, if anyone.

Admittedly, and regrettably, it's difficult for President Bush to claim it.  Whether or not you believe that Security Council resolutions at the time gave President Bush all the international authority he needed to invade Iraq, and whether or not you believe the last of those resolutions was falsely or even dishonestly obtained by presentation of an urgent and untrue WMD case, the President could not claim the moral high ground simply for having invaded with too few troops to maintain peace on the street, and between historic sectarian rivals till then kept at bay only by Saddam's iron hand.  Abu Ghraib, secret CIA prisons, a broadened definition of interrogation and a narrowed definition of torture - all of these pale next to the deaths of over 6000 Iraqis in the last two months, and who knows how many tens of thousands over the last 4 years.  The President, the Vice President, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Rice and others who did not heed warnings regarding too few troops were too cavalier with those lives.

Ok, so it's not President Bush.

Is it Hugo Chavez or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?  Well, they would at least like you to think so by going to such lengths to argue last week that it was not Bush.  After all, one doesn't criticize someone so sharply unless implicitly one is better and therefore in a position to criticize, true?  It would be hypocritical, and no one likes a hypocrite.  But a quick look to the websites for Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International finds several charges against both countries involving transgressions of civil and human rights.

I listened to both the Chavez and Ahmadinejad speeches at the U.N.  I thought many of their criticisms had value, both of the U.S. and of the U.N., and how it is structured, a structure which they argue is dated, reflecting the world as it was at the end of World War II, and not relevant to today.  Chavez would have done well to not call President Bush "the devil."  Bush, in turn, would have done well some time ago not to have coined the phrase "axis of evil."  Ahmadinejad would do well to not deny the the copious evidence of the holocaust, and to negotiate a peace with Israel, and between Israel and the Palestinians, rather than wish wistfully and openly that Israel be wiped off the face of the Earth.

But Venezuela and Iran, and Chavez and Ahmadinejad specifically, are not, by what I can tell, examples who can live up to the high moral standard and tenor of their own lofty words before the U.N. General Assembly recently.  Again, this does not, in and of itself, nullify their words, for an enlightened perspective and opportunity to do good is the opportunity presented by each new day.  This is true for President Bush as well.  Still, it argues for a longer record of enlightenment than we've seen or heard to date from any of these men.

So who sits atop the moral high ground of international affairs, of fairness, of peace, of human and civil rights?  It would seem the chair is open.  It is a terrific opportunity for whoever chooses to seize it.

Preemption Promotes Proliferation

It should not be lost on most that around the globe offensive military strategies are employed more readily by stronger powers against weaker powers or groups where it is known that such weaker groups do not possess nuclear weapons.

One would have to ask whether President Reagan would have so readily taken a military approach to ousting Noriega from Panama were he reasonably certain that Noriega possessed at least a few nuclear weapons. Would Russia have been as ready to use its military against Chechnya had she reasonable assurance that the Chechens had nukes? Would the government of Sudan have so readily supported the annihilation of villages in Darfur and the torture, maiming, killing and rape of its inhabitants were it known that those villagers possessed a cache of small, battlefield nukes, or perhaps even some chemical weapons?

Some of you may have read recently in the papers that Pakistan signed a peace treaty of sorts with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda inhabitants of the rugged and mountainous region – by reports, about the size of Delaware – on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, after several attempts to confront and dislodge them from that Pakistani territory, resulting in considerably losses for the Pakistani military.

This area is now, as all of Afghanistan was at one point, a safe-haven for terrorists existing within Pakistan with the knowledge and assent of the Pakistani government. But the U.S. did not respond with threats of U.S. military force in the region, nor with familiar post-9/11 refrains that those who give haven to terrorists are themselves terrorists, that you “are either with us, or against us.” No threats of military action against Pakistan have been forthcoming nor will be - Pakistan is nuclear.

As readily as saber-rattling is employed against small, non-nuclear countries is as readily as negotiation, compromise, economic sanctions and deterrence are used with nuclear foes. Even with North Korea, the difference is readily apparent, in that we have doggedly pursued a diplomatic solution, not once rattling swords (besides the usual mantra about how no option is off the table). And North Korea, by all accounts, is nuclear, though recently so.

It should be clear then to even a casual reader of the news why smaller, weaker countries of any kind at odds with the U.S. seek the bomb – and the sooner the better – because their continued existence and sovereignty depend on it. Countries fitting that description know they could never win a conventional war with the U.S. – all difficult logistics aside – because the U.S. is simply too sophisticated and too powerful. Rather, countries like these have ably observed that having the bomb, even just a couple of them, is, so far, a 100% deterrent against even the mighty U.S. military.

Whether you have any affinity for the governments of North Korea, Iran or the previous Iraqi regime – and I don’t, as none provide or provided government of, by and for the people – they view their countries as sovereign, and their job to protect that sovereignty. 

North Korea lied, cheated and stole to create its several bombs. It took great risks in doing so – isolation, economic sanctions, etc. Iran will do no differently. Iran will tell whatever lie, accept and endure whatever sanction, whatever penalty the U.S. and other Security Council members put upon her, so long as she secures the bomb, and as soon as humanly possible, because Iran sees the bomb as the only guarantor of her survival against superpowers, and particularly the U.S., since the U.S. has both named Iran as part of the axis of evil, and effectuated recently her doctrine of preemption against another former axis member – Iraq – just across Iran’s border.

It is, therefore, clear to me that this doctrine of preemption runs counter to our doctrine of non-proliferation; rather, for smaller countries at historical odds with the U.S., this newer doctrine provides the strong and immediate provocation and incentive for racing to the bomb as quickly as possible.

The Preemption Doctrine - A Historical Change

It strains the efforts of all but diligent students of American history, aware of an early period of American imperialism, to find a historical pattern or preference for preemptive attack.  But for some interventions in small countries in our own hemisphere, something in keeping with foreign policy practices since the Monroe Doctrine, there is no pattern of preemption.  The Bush preemption philosophy is a stark and historical change.

Reflecting on the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, and the advice of the generals who advocated a comprehensive air attack followed by ground invasion, Robert Kennedy said the following: "I could not accept the idea that the United States would rain bombs on Cuba...whatever validity the military and political arguments were for an attack...America's traditions and history would not permit such a course of action.  They were in the last analysis, advocating a surprise attack by a very large nation against a very small one....Our struggle against Communism throughout the world was far more than physical survival - it had as its essence our heritage and our ideals, and these we must not destroy."

Arguably, as has been reported widely in this country, in Europe, in the Arab world and around the globe, we have done significant damage to our heritage and our ideals as a consequence of our preemptive war against Iraq.

Does this mean we should just wait?  Wait to be attacked?  In an age of smaller and more portable weapons of mass destruction, should we just wait for the mushroom cloud in Chicago or New York, or the chemical attack?  Is it wise to use our leverage as a country to get Security Council resolutions against smaller countries in possession, or possibly in possession, or possibly or knowingly pursuing the development or acquisition of weapons of mass destruction, or their component elements, and then use the violation of those resolutions as justification for preemptive war where no immediate condition besides such pursuits or possessions existed to indicate that America was being targeted? 

And do we believe that it is possible through threats, sanctions and preemptive war to snuff out all such weapons, making an attack on America either impossible or less likely but for such action?  And is it essential and a fair price to allow the federal government wider authority and access to our private lives, conversations, homes, Internet browsing or books bought or checked out from our libraries without the protection and requirement that a case first be made and approval granted by a member of the judicial branch - and as a check on the executive - in order to reduce further the chance that we are attacked?

I believe the progress and evolution of societies, and of systems and theories of government and economies, has been a competition for the hearts and minds of the people, of the masses, throughout time.  Ultimately, even for the most feared dictators, nothing breeds more fear than the sight of hundreds of thousands of people in the streets protesting their ruling authority.

Preemptive attacks can make us safer, maybe, for a while, at a price of a darker, more disapproving, more critical, more cynical view of American principles of government, of economies, and of right.  We possibly make less likely an attack now, for which no imminent threat exists but for the weapon and its possessor, and make more likely an attack later, when vengeance and determination born out of humiliation and the deaths of friends, family and fellow citizens from our preemptive attacks or their aftermath ultimately makes possible some ingenious and despicable counterattack on one of our cities.

Ahmadinejad of Iran is confident enough in the decline of America's moral position to challenge our president repeatedly to a televised debate at the U.N. on our  policies and principles versus theirs.

Long term, a stark decline in the world view of American society, of our rules and form of government, of our leaders, and of our values as they are applied and exercised internationally places us at the greatest risk of incurring vast and motivated enemies, and suffering a devastating terrorist attack.