The BRussells Tribunal, a hearing about the
'Project for the New American Century' and
the New Imperial World Order
(Provisional list of participants: Denis Halliday, Hans von Sponeck,
Scott Ritter, Michael Parenti, William Rivers Pitt, Immanuel Wallerstein,
Felicity Arbuthnot, Saul Landau, Jim Lobe, Tom Barry, Nawal
Al Saadawi, Samir Amin, Neil Mackay, Jean Bricmont a.o.)
We are looking for WAP's, Wealthy Angry People.
Dear,
BRussells Tribunal is a hearing concerning the New Imperial World
Order and its war logic. We are contacting you as we are looking
for WAPs. We have protested against the American-British invasion
of Iraq, together with millions all over the world. The doctrine of
"pre-emptive" War has created a dangerous precedent of unilateral
warfare and gravely dammaged international institutions. In the
meantime it has become clear that Bush and Blair have not only
blatantly breached international law, but that their arguments for
this war were built on sand. The atrocities of Saddam Hussein's
regime have become the latest alibi, brought up afterwards, to
compensate for the absence of weapons of mass destruction. Iraq is
still occupied and the country is well under way to enter a spiral
of violence and underdevelopment. The world is no closer to peace
or to dealing with the sources of terrorism. On the contrary. It is
extremely alarming that the designers of a New Imperial World Order
dominate policy making in Washington.
Hence the initiative to investigate thoroughly the think tank behind
the Bush administration, 'The project for the New American Century',
and its most important members Cheney, Rumsfeld & Wolfowitz. The
BRussells Tribunal is an independent commission of investigation (in
the tradition of the Russell Tribunal), supported by a large platform
of NGO's, peace organisations and cultural institutions. The
witnesses will be internationally distinguished scholars, journalists
and authors; the members of the commission, people of fame and moral
authority. Our initiative is part of the World Tribunal on Iraq,
a series of hearings and moral courts all over the world, with the
final session in Istanbul. The BRussells Tribunal will take place
in the Beursschouwburg and Les Halles in Brussels from April 14th to
April 17th 2004.
Alas, we have little means. Therefore we are looking for WAP's:
Wealthy Angry People. You don't have to be rich, but sufficiently
enraged about the arrogance that is pushing our world towards a
planetarian state of exception. We hope that you are angry enough
to support the BRussells Tribunal with a WAP- contribution of 100 ?
(more or less. But more, or less, is also welcome). Of course you
are cordially invited to the sessions of the hearing. You can find
our platform text and more information on the project on our website:
www.brusselstribunal.org
The BRussells Tribunal direction committee
Lieven De Cauter (Philosopher, K.U.Leuven/RITS), Annick de Ville
(Director of Les Halles), Guido Minne (Director of the
Beursschowburg), Patrick Deboosere (Demographer, VUB)
Please donate on the following bank account: 001-4117951-86 of the
Brussels ribunal.
IBAN code: BE 78 0014 1179 5186 Fortisbank Belgium (Warandeberg
3/Montagne u Parc 3 B-1000 Brusssels) Bic-code: GEBABEBB; please
mention 'gift'.
Questioning the New Imperial World Order
An International Court of Academics, Journalists,
Intellectuals and Artists
on the geopolitical, humanitarian, social, cultural and economical
effects of the war policies devised by the 'Project for the New
American Century' (PNAC) and put into effect under the Bush War
Cabinet
(History) Just before the start of the war in Iraq a petition was
launched. It was signed by some 500 artists, writers, intellectuals
and academics, including Julia Kristeva, Richard Plunz, Irving
Wolfharth, Anne Teresa De Keersmaeker, Hans Ulrich Obrist, and
François Houtart. It called for moral and, if possible, legal
action against the `Project for the New American Century' and the
authorities responsible for the war against Iraq. It was published
on March 21st (one day after the start of the war) in two Belgian
newspapers, De Standaard and De Morgen. It soon appeared that legal
action was unlikely to succeed as the United States have consistently
acted against any legal authority that would be liable to threaten
them and still continue to do so. Hence the idea to set up a 'Moral
Court' or `People's Court' to condemn the new American policy as
well as the think tanks behind it (the latter always remain beyond
the grasp of legal action). A broad platform composed of several
Belgian cultural organizations was created to carry out the
petition's first proposal: to set up a Brussels Tribunal, after
the historical example of the Russell Tribunal. At a networking
conference set up by the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation at the
end of June 2003 in Brussels it was decided that a series of hearings
would be held in different places all over the world, culminating
in a final session in Istanbul. The Brussels Tribunal will be one of
these commissions of inquiry. The Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation
accepted to support the initiative. In a press release after the
conference they stated: "A proposal to constitute a Commission
of Inquiry culminating in a Tribunal on the war in Iraq was discussed.
Working parties would be considering this proposal further in a round
of consultations in Turkey, Belgium, the United States and Japan".
Many peace and lawyer organisations around the globe joined the
network since. The initiative is gaining in scale and momentum
everyday. (A provisional list of supporting organisations is included
at the end of this document).
(Synopsis) The Brussels Tribunal is a hearing committee composed of
academics, intellectuals and artists in the tradition of the Russell
Tribunal, set up in 1967 to investigate war crimes committed during
the Vietnam War. The hearing is scheduled for 15-17th April 2004 at
The Beursschouwbug and Les Halles in Brussels. It will be presided by
Professor François Houtart, one of the founding fathers of the World
Social Forum in Porto Allegre. It is directed against the war in
Iraq and the Imperial war policies of the Bush II administration.
Its main focus will be the `Project for the New American Century',
the think tank behind this war, in particular three of the cosignatories
of the mission statement: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney
and Paul Wolfowitz, as they are the physical link between the
discourse and the brutal practice of the New Imperial World Order
as designed by PNAC.
(Concise information on PNAC) The acronym PNAC is a key to the war
in Iraq and to many other wars to come. In the spring of 1997 the
neo-conservatives Robert Kagan and William Kristol of The Weekly
Standard founded `The Project for the New American Century' (PNAC).
The most distinguished signatories of the mission statement are
Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Jeb Bush (George W. Bush's
brother), Francis Fukuyama, and `last but not least' Paul Wolfowitz,
a former Professor of International Politics and former Dean of the
Department of International Politics at Johns Hopkins University.
Its current director is Gary Schmitt. It is important to note that
many of its members have close ties with both the military and the
oil industry. PNAC describes itself as "a non-profit, educational
organization whose goal it is to promote American global leadership."
Its 'Statement of principles' is unequivocal: "The history of the
20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape
circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they
become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to
embrace the cause of American leadership." (That is the doctrine of
"Premptive Strike" and "Benevolent Hegemony")
PNAC drew up a four-point agenda to achieve its mission:
- "we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are
to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize
our armed forces for the future;"
- "we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to
challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;"
- "we need to promote the cause of political and economic
freedom abroad;"
- "we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in
preserving and extending an international order friendly to our
security, our prosperity, and our principles".
In September 2000, before George W. Bush won the presidential
election, PNAC published the crucial report `Rebuilding America's
Defenses: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century', in
which they clearly stated that to attack Saddam was but an alibi
for American supremacy: "The United States has for decades sought
to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the
unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification,
the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf
transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." (p. 14).
The report argued for a large-scale upgrade of the army and
estimated that a yearly budgetary increase of 15 to 20 billion
dollars would be required to transform the army into something
like an 'imperial super-force' taking the lead in "the revolution
in military affairs". However, PNAC was well aware that this
objective would not be easy to achieve: "The process of transformation
is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing
event...like a new Pearl Harbor" (p. 51). Thomas Donnelly, main
author of the report is currently working for Lockheed Martin.
When Bush came to power, with Dick Cheney as Vice-President, Donald
Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense, and Paul Wolfowitz as Deputy
Secretary of Defense, the PNAC theories became a blueprint for
the American defense and international policy. This policy was
officially accepted in a White House document personally signed
by President Bush: 'The National Security Strategy of the United
States of America' (September 2002). Events have confirmed in the
meantime that the theory of ruthless military world dominance is
currently being put into practice.
After 9/11, these people had in hand the necessary "catastrophic
and catalyzing event" and the political credit to implement their
program. They could carry out one of the four core tasks of the
transformed American army: "to fight and decisively win multiple,
simultaneous major theatre wars" (p. IV). This terrible sentence
requires maybe some explanation. "Major theatre wars" is a military
term for extended battlefields, but if you know that you will
"decisively win" even before going to war, the effort becomes a
'theatre war' in the more general sense of a `theatrical war'.
The rhetoric should be evident to the entire planet. In the words
of George W. Bush himself: "Who is not with us, is against us".
Therefore these wars have to be "multiple and simultaneous". As
was the case in the Roman Empire, the Project for the New American
Century wants to enforce a planet-wide so-called "Pax Americana",
but its means is "Full spectrum dominance". The PNAC report is a
road map to a New Imperial Order, with a high-tech mega-army ruling
"an increasingly chaotic world" with shock and awe interventions
and slash and burn techniques [1].
(Accusation) We believe that the PNAC program, put into practice
by the Bush War Cabinet, leads directly to violations of international
law, thousands of unnecessary war victims, and the destabilization
of the entire planet in a social, political, and humanitarian respect.
It is heading for an unheard of militarisation of the world. This
New American Hegemony is in fact a way to serve the glory of the
oil industry and military industrial complex (with which many PNAC
members and Bush aides are closely linked). This policy threatens
world peace in a sustained and severe way. The `bill of indictment'
may provisionally be phrased as follows: "The Project for the New
American Century and its members, especially PNAC's key figures in
the Bush War Cabinet, have been preaching, planning and committing
crimes against international law and against humanity (even in a
legal sense, but at least in an ethical sense)."
Even if PNAC has only been producing discourse and therefore could
and will no doubt invoke "free speech", we believe that their speech
acts are performative: it is an intention for action. Such speech
acts are not merely free speech. They are the source of actions.
The actions that directly followed from the PNAC discourse and its
translation into "The national Security Strategy of the United
States, signed by president Bush (september 2002), are inadmissible.
The most important ones are listed below:
- Planning a war without proof of imminent danger to the country
involved is considered an `act of aggression' under international
law. Waging such a war of aggression is a clear violation of the
Charter of the United Nations.
- The doctrine of the "pre-emptive strike" proposed by Paul Wolfowitz
in the 1991 Defense Guidelines is incompatible with international
law, which restricts the use of force in self-defense to situations
where a State has been subjected to an armed attack, i.e. an
aggression. This doctrine, officially taken up by President Bush
in his speech at West Point Military Academy (6/1/2002) is a major
threat to world peace and a violation of international law.
- The invasion of Iraq by the United States and the United Kingdom
is a major violation of international law and of the UN Charter.
- Aside from situations of self-defense, the UN Charter determines
that States can only resort to armed force with the consent of
the UN Security Council. The Charter has instituted a system of
collective security, which is being blatantly disregarded by the
current US administration. Moreover top administration advisers
such as Richard Perle consider it irrelevant, and an obstacle to
be removed.
- So far no Weapons of Mass Destruction have been found, rendering
the entire casus belli a fraud.
- During the Iraq war international humanitarian law was breached
on several occasions, and repeatedly and grossly violated:
- The use of cluster bombs against civilians can be considered a
war crime, as it causes unnecessary injuries, including those
occasioned long after combat has ceased.
- The use of uranium in ammunition and bombs can be considered a
completely unnecessary act and a severe war crime.
- The hunt for non-embedded journalists can be seen as a war waged
against the free press and, therefore, a violation of the right
to free speech.
- International law states clearly that it is the duty of the army
at war to identify and bury the soldiers it has killed. The United
States and the coalition forces have not complied with this rule.
- The duties of an occupation force were not (and are still not)
- respected
-
- Not only did the massive bombing wreck the country, the fact that
the looting of hospitals went on for several days proves that the
coalition was not interested in putting a stop to it (its forces
exclusively secured the oil fields and the oil Ministry). The total
lack of protection of all hospitals was a breach of the occupying
forces' duty to assist the victims of war. We may consider this
severe omission a breach of the laws of war, as international war
legislation clearly states that it is the duty of the occupying
country to establish order and security in the occupied country.
- The permissive policy regarding the looting of all Ministries
proves that the coalition is not really interested in
investigating the history of this hideous regime, for it
tolerated the destruction of a significant part of its archives.
This constitutes in a sense an attack on Iraq's collective memory.
- The permissive policy of the US Army and the coalition forces
regarding the looting of the National Museum of Baghdad and
of many important sites, may be considered a crime against the
cultural heritage of the country, and, given the prime value of
these sites (like Babylon) as one of the craddles of Civilisation
(Western and Eastern), a crime against the cultural heritage of
humanity itself.
- The reconstruction of Iraq is and will be a profitable deal for
several American companies: Halliburton, Kellogg Brown & Root,
Bechtel. The revenues of Iraqi oil will flow directly back to
American companies (incidentally, most of them being competitors
in the oil business). This runs contrary to the most basic
principles of international law, according to which the State(s)
responsible of breaches of international laws or regulations may
not take advantage of this fact and are required to provide co
mpensation for damages resulting from those breaches.
- The occupation of Iraq by the US and British military forces is a
violation of international law.
- The fact that the occupation powers are permanent members of the
UN Security Council and will veto any resolution aimed at ending
the occupation, does not change the situation of permanent
violation of international law and of the UN Charter, ratified
by both the US and the UK.
- The 'New American Imperial Sovereignty' is heading for a global
'State of Exception'.
The war in Iraq is not an isolated event, as can be concluded from
the content of the PNAC report and the case of Afghanistan, not
to mention the threats against Syria and Iran or the concept of
'punishing' France for its opposition to this war or Belgium for
its anti-genocide law. This `unilateral policy', heading for a
hegemony of the entire world as spelled out by the PNAC report
(September 2000), then translated into the official 'Security
Report' of President George W. Bush (September 2002) and put into
practice since, will continue to destabilize the planet in a
social, economical, political and humanitarian respect and claim
many unnecessary victims.
The rejection of all international law authorities that would be
able to control or convict the citizens of the United States, notably
the blatant opposition to the United Nations and the rejection of
the International Criminal Court, prove that the United States are
withdrawing all respect for the international legal order. It seems
necessary to us to study and criticize the `philosophical' (or
ideological) foundations of this `New Imperial Order' in the works
of Robert Kaplan, Robert Kagan, Paul Wolfowitz, Francis Fukuyama,
Samuel Huntington, and others. It is necessary to expose the
foundations of the new concept of "full spectrum dominance" [2].
The change American policy has undergone is dramatic and alarming.
The transition from multilateralism to unilateralism is not innocent.
The "benevolent hegemony" [3] Robert Kagan and William Kristol,
founding members of PNAC, were arguing for in 1996, has become
`malevolent'. The "American exceptionalism" they were advocating
is heading towards a `State of Exception'. Sovereignty has always
been the right to declare the state of exception (according to Carl
Schmitt[4]), and it seems that the new American policy is cumulating
this policy of exception:
- Many war prisoners of the Afghan and Iraqi wars are being detained
in Guantanamo Bay (Cuba), a location chosen because it is outside
American territory. Consequently the Bush administration claims
that the American legislation on the treatment of prisoners does
not apply. (The practices in Guantanamo have been criticized by
several Human Rights organizations.)
- The already mentioned doctrine of "Pre-emptive strike";
- The abandoning of the Kyoto agreements on climate control;
- The rejection of the International Criminal Court in The
Hague;
- The rejection of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons;
- The Patriot acts I and II that are suspending many basic civil
rights;
- The expulsion since 9.11. of thousands of immigrants, who lived
in the United states for years;
- The total abandoning of the poor and unemployed (in ghetto's
like Skid Row in L.A.) -
all this points clearly to the fact that the "American exceptionalism"
is heading towards a dangerous 'State of Exception' (also within the
United States itself).
Conclusion: Why a Brussels Tribunal?
It took years for the opposition to the Vietnam War to develop into
a mass movement. The current situation is different. Even before
the start of the Iraq War the American-British invasion was globally
rejected and condemned. The sole aim of the Commission of Inquiry in
Brussels, and indeed of the entire process up to the final Istanbul
Tribunal, cannot actually be to bring the unlawful character of this
war under public attention. It has already been largely acknowledged
and debated. What then are the real goals? Why set up this tribunal?
Because it is extremely important for the future of the planet to
resist the tendency to present the current situation as normal,
which is exactly what is happening and what the Bush administration
is trying to do.
Because it is important not to accept this "fait accompli" under
the heading of "Realpolitik", as some politicians and journalists
in Europe are inclined to do.
Because it is important to make this point explicitly, even if it
is already well-known, and to state "this is a crime" and "this
is a violation of international law."
Because it is important to keep up the spirit. Most governments,
including the Belgian, are inclined to give in and to bow to the
American pressure. We, the civil society, the people, need to
raise our voice.
Because it is important to defend fundamental human dignity, justice
and above all World Peace. The war in Iraq is only a step, a stage
in the attempt to impose a "Pax Americana" through multiple and
simultaneous wars - for more wars are bound to follow. The stronger
the resistance is from the start, the bigger the chances are that
we can turn this imperial tide. We are on the brink of disaster.
Breaking the will to resist is the cornerstone of the Bush
administration's policy. Capitulating to this course will only
lead to more capricious, frantic and aggressive interventions. The
treaty of Munich that paved the way for the Second World War should
be kept in mind as a serious historical precedent. The most ardent
interventionists have already mapped out a string of preventive
interventions: Iran, Syria, North Korea, Columbia, Libya or even
China. The American army is not only stationed but intervening
actively in countries all over the planet (not only in Afghanistan
or Kosovo, but also in Columbia and the Philippines, and so on).
The Pax Americana is a New World Order designed in the interest of
a handful of American corporations. Under the banner of `democracy'
and `freedom' the new global economy appears as a source of poverty
for many countries in the developing world. It can only result in
endless resistance from the have-nots.
The Pax Americana can only endure through discord and, hence,
war. In order to mobilize the necessary political forces the Bush
administration stirs up all possible tensions and contradictions
in the world: the opposition between the Western world and Islam,
the opposition between `New Europe' and `Old Europe', the opposition
between different developing countries. It also goes to work
inside these countries by encouraging leanings such as nationalism,
tribalism and fanaticism. The Bush administration follows more
plainly than ever the imperial motto: "divide et impera" and
intensifies or creates potential conflicts all over the world.
To guard the Pax America and impose "full spectrum dominance"
the Bush administration is developing a new generation of nuclear
weapons. These warheads should have the capability of penetrating
the armored protection of underground command centers or weapons
sites. The project threatens to blur the line between nuclear and
conventional arms. In the hawks' eyes these "usable nuclear arms"
will restore the credibility of US nuclear power. As a result of
this policy the nuclear threshold will be lowered and the risks
of a nuclear nightmare will be heightened, even beyond the most
threatening episodes of the Cold War.
In a short statement written for the International Tribunal
Initiative of Istanbul John Berger states: "The records have to
be kept and, by definition, the perpetrators, far from keeping
records, try to destroy them. They are killers of the innocent
and of memory. The records are required to inspire still further
the mounting opposition to the new global tyranny. The new
tyrants, incomparably over-armed, can win every war - both
military and economic. Yet they are losing the war (this is how
they call it) of communication. They are not winning the support
of world public opinion. More and more people are saying NO.
Finally this will be the tyranny's undoing. But after how many
more tragedies, invasions and collateral disasters? After how
much more of the new poverty the tyranny engenders? Hence the
urgency of keeping records, of remembering, of assembling the
evidence, so that the accusations become unforgettable, and
proverbial on every continent. More and more people are going to
say NO, for this is the precondition today for saying YES to all
we are determined to save and everything we love." -John Berger,
18.06.2003, Paris - Mieussy
Therefore, we conclude that there are urgent and sufficient
reasons to hold a hearing against this New Imperial policy - as
a successful outcome of any legal action is highly improbable -
and to investigate both the theory and practice of this policy.
That is why we have chosen 'The Project for the New American
Century' as our focal point. We are convinced that it is the duty
of the people of planet Earth to protest against this dangerous,
immoral and, in fact, criminal policy: The People vs. Total War
Incorporated.
Contact: info@brusselstribunal.org
Lieven De Cauter
Patrick Deboosere
postal adress: Fabienne Aucant, Halles de Schaerbeek, Rue de la
Constitution 20, 1030 Brussels
phone +32 2/219 4290 fax +32 2/219 4290
[1] For further information on PNAC, see www.newamericancentury.org ;
an excellent file on PNAC was compiled by moveon.org (can be
send on request), see also the websites: www.pnacrevealed.com or
www.pnac.info.
[2] Key concept in "Joint Vision 2020", the blueprint for the U.S.
military for the next decades, defined as the ability of U.S.
forces to defeat any adversary and control any situation across
the range of military operations.
[3] William Kristol and Robert Kagan : Toward a Neo-Reaganite
Foreign Policy - Foreign Affairs July/August 1996.
[4] Giorgio Agamben's Homo Sacer (Paris 1997) clearly suggests that
the New World Order is based on this sovereignty, being the
power to declare a state of exception.
http://www.brusselstribunal.org/platform.htm
>----->----->----->----->-----><-----<-----<-----<-----<-----<
NEUE MAILINGLISTE! www.giv-seiten.de OUR NEW MAILINGLIST!
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jetzt Abonnieren: giv_mailing-subscribe@giv-seiten.de
Subscribe Now: giv_mailing_eng-subscribe@giv-seiten.de
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zum Abbestellen: giv_mailing-unsubscribe@giv-seiten.de
To Unsubscribe: giv_mailing_eng-unsubscribe@giv-seiten.de
>----->----->----->----->-----><-----<-----<-----<-----<-----<
http://home.arcor.de/ge.lange/www.giv-archiv.de/2002/Oktober/021031GI.010
Kasnazaniya / Casnazaniyyah
http://home.arcor.de/ge.lange/www.irak.de.cx/Video/kcas-16.htm
>>>-----------------------------------------------------------------<<<
>> Further Informations about Iraq and Palestine:
>> GIV-Archiv: http://www.giv-archiv.de http://www.giv-seiten.de.tt
>> http://home.arcor.de/ge.lange/index.html http://giv-seiten.de
>> http://home.arcor.de/ge.lange/Menue/www.giv.de.cx/index.html
>> http://home.arcor.de/ge.lange/Menue/www.irak.de.cx/index.html
>> http://home.arcor.de/ge.lange/Menue/www.giv-archiv.de/index.html
>> http://soziales.freepage.de/irak/index.htm
>>>-----------------------------------------------------------------<<<
|
