We Must Not Yield...

[Ivo Skoric]

We Must Not Yield Easily

George Bush, in his ‘urbi et orbi’ speech, openly asked Iraqi generals to 
desert Saddam - he urged them to think twice before obeying orders to 
use weapons of mass destruction against prospectively advancing U.S. 
troops, under the threat of charging them with responsibility for war 
crimes. This came from a man that leads the Administration that just a 
couple of months ago vehemently opposed the establishment of 
universal accountability for war crimes under the auspices of the 
International Criminal Court. And, of course, it could be implemented 
only if the U.S. win its war against Iraq.

Larry King, in his globally watched talk-show, openly asked four stars 
U.S. general and the current Secretary of State, Colin Powell, would he 
heed such an advice coming from the enemy leader - would he, as a 
general in the field, betray his supreme commander - and Powell calmly 
said, that, under the circumstances of the threat of having his ass hung 
for war crimes, he would, indeed, betray his president and his country. 
This, in fact, unless you are a Beltway Republican chicken-hawk, is 
comforting to hear world-wide: U.S. Secretary of State admits that he 
would rather be a traitor than a war criminal.

However, the U.S. pre-emptive strike against the ICC already made sure 
that Powell may never have to face that awful dilemma. The U.S. troops 
and officials are virtually immune from war crimes prosecution, and 
Powell shall feel no fear to loyally execute Bush’s orders with impunity - 
one that is explicitly withheld from the subordinates of Saddam Hussein. 
The ICC should, therefore, make a ruling that it would not prosecute Iraqi 
generals for any measures taken against any U.S. troops that are not 
operating within the U.N. Security Council mandate. Double standards 
should not be allowed to prevail.

American leaders should abandon the notion that they are the chosen 
ones, that their society is the scientific end of human history (the mistake 
the Soviet Marxists made...), and that theirs is the best of all possible 
worlds in Leibniz’s sense. Maybe Prince Charles should write a candid 
letter to Bush, like he writes to British politicians. Because, Americans, 
indeed, are despised around the world. And the British, also, are still 
despised around the world, despite they don’t even run an empire any 
more! They are made fun of and called silly names wherever they go (like 
poms in New Zealand, referring to ‘pohm’ - prisoner of his majesty - or 
early British settlers there).

It is the fate of citizens of an Empire to be hated. Romans were hated. 
Brits were hated and still are. So, Americans are hated, too. And in the 
“Coalition” with Brits that run an empire for more than a couple of 
centuries, they are the ones that have to learn a lot. Because, it does not 
matter that they believe that they want to do good. All empires cast 
themselves in a benevolent light. Wasn’t the British argument against 
pacifism, noted in the Aldous Huxley’s Encyclopedia of Pacifism, “that a 
disarmed Britain would lose all influence in world affairs and that, since 
this influence is an influence for good, the world would suffer.”? It is 
how other nations perceive what they are doing, that matters in the long 
run.

The U.S. came into existence through a revolution against British Empire. 
Yet, today, the U.S. is probably the place of the least resentment against 
Brits in the world. Because, the U.S. tends not to dwell on the past 
grievances. Not holding a grudge is perhaps the single major 
contribution to world peace by the U.S. After they kick your ass, they 
forgive you. Americans dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan and 
destroyed 9 of 10 buildings in Germany during the WW II, yet once they 
won, they helped those two countries becoming the #2 and the #3 
economies of the world. There was even a movie made, a comedy about a 
small nation sending combatants to New York city to provoke U.S. to 
bomb their country in hope of generous country rebuilding package after 
the war.

Osama bin Laden’s sick sense of humor turned that movie into a reality 
with September 11 terrorist attacks, and subsequent bombing and ‘nation 
building’ of Afghanistan. But where was ever anything remotely similar 
to Marshall Plan for Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama and other places 
where the U.S. waged wars after the WW II? True, Marshall Plan’s 
success owes a lot to the existent human resources in the region where it 
was applied. However, it is surely possible to design a similarly 
successful aid packages that take in account specific requirements of the 
target area. Summarily implying that, without the European mentality of 
aid recipients, such a comprehensive aid package would never work, 
makes the U.S. look more and more like an old-fashioned empire, that 
watches only after its own best interest. The shape and form of the 
action the U.S. takes in Iraq has a chance to either confirm or refute that 
ill repute. Therefore, it is very important that Congress weighs it very 
carefully.

Ivo

More on the lessons of the Marshall Plan:
http://www.lcsys.net/fayette/history/plan17.htm