August 2002

LONDON – “A Russian scientist who worked on nuclear reprocessing has gone missing. Sergei Bakhvalov disappeared in Krasnoyarsk, Siberia on Sunday”. That’s all the Financial Times reported. Important enough to be on the front page. Obscure enough to have no further information or follow up. We are left to read between the lines and there is much to read. Ironically a day later newspapers gave prominent coverage to the reporting of a joint American, Russian, Yugoslav, UN mission to whisk away 45 kilograms of weapons-grade uranium from an ageing nuclear reactor in Yugoslavia in what was described as a “dramatic, military-style operation”. It was, supposedly, the first of a series of pre-emptive strikes against the threat of nuclear terrorism. According to the U.S. State Department two dozen research reactors in 16 countries are being considered as subjects of similar missions. Fine. There is much to be done in countries all over...

Ignoring conflict-resolution’s rules of thumb Any professional conflict-resolution expert will tell you that it is better to keep some channels open for communication with the adversary than to close them. She or he would also argue that the more we know about the other side – and about ourselves – the greater the chance that we will eventually make a compromise or otherwise solve the problem. That is, if we want to find a solution. The Bush regime obviously doesn’t, and the rest of the West – in particular the EU – doesn’t seem able to be able get its act together and decide on much more than criticising Iraq for one set of reasons and the U.S. for another. The United Nations, who ought to be the mediator, has been systematically marginalised by the U.S. and has little legitimacy in the eyes of the Iraqis. So, we are heading for war...

The Bush administration’s apparent resolve to wage war against Iraq, tempered for the moment by conservative critics, violates the spirit and letter of the US Constitution, as well as disregards the prohibitions on the use of force that are set forth in the UN Charter and accepted as binding rules of international law. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter states: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” Nothing in Iraq’s current behavior would justify a preemptive attack against Iraq based upon self-defense as set forth in Article 51 of the Charter. Even Henry Kissinger has stated, “The notion of justified pre-emption runs counter to modern international law, which sanctions the use of force in self-defense only against actual not...

Af Birgitte Rahbekkultursociolog og forfatter til bogen “En stat for enhver pris” 27 august 2002 Det er nu næsten to år siden det palæstinensiske oprør intifadaen brød ud, og i mellemtiden er omkring 650 palæstinensere og 170 israelere blevet dræbt. Det har fået mange – heriblandt en del israelere – til at spekulere på om der mon skulle findes andre løsninger på det største problem i Mellemøsten. Men i næsten et år fortalte Bill Clinton og de israelske ledere til de efterplaprende medier at palæstinenserne sidste år havde sagt nej til fred da de i Camp David afviste Ehud Baraks generøse tilbud. I dag ved vi – både fra en amerikansk deltager i topmødet og fra israeleren Ron Pundak, en af de såkaldte arkitekter bag Osloaftalen – at der aldrig kom til at foreligge noget konkret skriftligt tilbud, end mindre et generøst! Det palæstinenserne fik stillet i udsigt var en...

Af Birgitte Rahbekkultursociolog og forfatter til bogen “En stat for enhver pris” 27 august 2002 Store begivenheder kræver ikoner. Camp David forhandlingernes ikon blev en stump TV-film med Barak, Clinton og Arafat vej på ind ad døren til forhandlinger en smuk julidag år 2000. Clinton er den venlige vært, og de to mellemøstlige herrer pjatter om hvem der er mest høflig, et after-you-Sir-ritual mellem den stive Barak og den mere slebne Arafat spilles igen og igen. Så gode venner var de vist, siger billedet, men hvorfor gik det så alligevel galt? Det gjorde det fordi Arafat ikke ville tage imod Baraks generøse tilbud om at få næsten hele Vestbredden og dele af Østjerusalem tilbage. Forklaringen kom et par måneder senere, den 28. september, da den anden intifada brød ud og bekræftede manges antagelse om at palæstinenserne i virkeligheden ikke ønsker fred. Denne fremstilling vil formentlig forekomme mange læsere bekendt, for...

The American Constitution at the very beginning of the republic sought above all to guard the country against reckless, ill-considered recourse to war. It required a Declaration of War by the legislative branch, and gave Congress the power over appropriations even during wartime. Such caution existed before the great effort of the 20th century to erect greater barriers to war by way of international law and public morality, and to make this resistance to war the central feature of the United Nations Charter. Consistently with this undertaking German and Japanese leaders who engaged in aggressive war were punished after World War II as war criminals. The most prominent Americans at the time declared their support for such a framework of restraint as applicable in the future to all states, not just to the losers in a war. We all realize that this struggle to avoid war has been far from...

Beyond the Sanctions What accounts for the obsessiveness of American policy toward Iraq over the course of more than a decade? Is it another Vietnam in the sense that the US Government cannot bring itself to acknowledge the failure of its approach to regime change in Baghdad since the end of the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein having withstood comprehensive sanctions, a variety of covert assaults, and repeated American harassment from the air without flinching? Is it the pique at the White House and Pentagon associated with the electoral removal from the scene of Bush, Sr. contrasting with the persistence of Saddam Hussein, posing a filial challenge to Bush, Jr.? Is it the long deferred payback to Israel for staying on the sidelines during the Gulf War, despite the Scud missiles being fired from Iraq? Is it a matter of securing US control of the oil reserves being linked to periodic...

LONDON – The trillion dollar lawsuit filed in America against Saudi citizens by relatives of the September 11th attack is but the latest manifestation of a sharply deteriorating relationship with America’s 35 year old Middle East ally, a downward path that at best will end in tears for an already weakening dollar and, at worst, a re-alignment of the major Arab regimes, once friendly to Washington, to something more akin to an adversary position. The timing of the lawsuit could not have been worse coming as it does only days after a high-level Pentagon discussion paper was leaked that accused Saudi Arabia of being “the kernel of evil” and counselled the Administration to countenance the seizing of Saudi financial assets. Although the White House later sought to distance itself from the paper it was not until after Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld, questioned by the press, refused to take the opportunity...

Two weeks in Iraq are not sufficient to acquire the knowledge necessary to produce an extensive and detailed analysis of the conditions prevailing in this part of the Middle East. It is, however, long enough to be able to verify the picture so powerfully presented by the individuals and organisations involved who fight daily for the several humanitarian issues that plague those most ignored and forgotten developing countries. The aim of this text is not to try to influence one’s opinion with emotionally charged expressions but to discuss some of the reasonable arguments concerning the “Oil-for-Food” programme. A Short History of the Sanctions For more than a decade the UN has been imposing sanctions against Iraq. During the last few years, three of the highest UN representatives have left their positions in protest against the unreasonable character of the sanctions programme. Various organisations (the UN and others) involved in the...

LONDON – Europeans are beginning to experience the same sensations of impotence that Muslims long have. Whatever they think or say, it is tossed in the wastepaper basket by their American friends. In the last week or so it has become evident that the Bush Administration is hell bent on implementing a new law, part of the recent anti-terrorist legislation, that sets out in no uncertain terms to undermine the new International Criminal Court, the pride and joy of a lot of countries but of the Europeans in particular, who see it as an effective tool for deterring would-be war criminals. The State Department has made it clear to all foreign countries that their military aid will be cut off unless – like Romania and Israel last week – they sign a pledge to protect Americans serving in their countries from the Court’s reach. Brave Norway has told the Americans “no”,...

The Iraq issue must get out of the “zone of silence” Scholars do empirical work based on theories and hypotheses. Journalists profess to describe reality. Diplomats are supposed to know countries and policies by being present. Western embassies in Moscow were particularly important during the Cold War. This has not been so with Iraq. Generally – a word that means that there are exceptions – Western scholars seem to think that they don’t have to go there to know or form their own opinions or influence those of others. Journalists and their editors don’t seem to think that they should go there before they write their articles and editorials. Governments are under-informed since many countries either have no representations, low-level representations or cover Baghdad by shuttling in and out from a neighbouring country from time to time. This is not as it should be. Reports everywhere tell us that the...

LONDON – Twenty years ago when Luiz Inacio da Silva, “Lula” as everyone calls him, first started to make a splash in Brazilian politics both the West German chancellor Helmut Schmidt and the Spanish prime minister Adolfo Suarez took time out on one of their Latin American trips to seek out the young trade union leader and talk over his political philosophy and how he saw the future of Brazil. They made it clear to journalists that they were impressed. So was I. I spent four hours in face to face conversation with Lula and we ranged far and wide. Uneducated in a formal sense, his facility for answering a difficult question well was awe-inspiring. “I think it is better just go forward one millimetre”, he told me, “but one down to earth millimetre, knowing that we won’t have to go two millimetres backwards later on”. That was two decades ago...