By David Swanson
Probably
the biggest news story of 1928 was the war-making nations of the world
coming together on August 27th and legally outlawing war. It's a story
that's not told in our history books, but it's not secret CIA history.
There was no CIA. There was virtually no weapons industry as we know
it. There weren't two political parties in the United States uniting in
support of war after war. In fact, the four biggest political parties
in the United States all backed abolishing war.
Cue whining, polysyllabic screech: "But it didn't wooooooooork!"
I wouldn't be bothering with it if it had. In its defense, the Kellogg-Briand Pact (look it up or read my book)
was used to prosecute the makers of war on the losing sides following
World War II (an historic first), and -- for whatever combination of
reasons (nukes? enlightenment? luck?) -- the armed nations of the world
have not waged war on each other since, preferring to slaughter the
world's poor instead. Significant compliance following the very first
prosecution is a record that almost no other law can claim.
The Kellogg-Briand Pact has two chief values, as I see it. First,
it's the law of the land in 85 nations including the United States, and
it bans all war-making. For those who claim that the U.S. Constitution
sanctions or requires wars regardless of treaty obligations, the Peace
Pact is no more relevant than the U.N. Charter or the Geneva Conventions
or the Anti-Torture Convention or any other treaty. But for those who
read the laws as they are written, beginning to comply with the
Kellogg-Briand Pact makes far more sense than legalizing drone murders
or torture or bribery or corporate personhood or imprisonment without
trial or any of the other lovely practices we've been "legalizing" on
the flimsiest of legal arguments. I'm not against new national or
international laws against war; ban it 1,000 times, by all means, if
there's the slightest chance that one of them will stick. But there is,
for what it's worth, already a law on the books if we care to
acknowledge it.
Second, the movement that created the Pact of Paris grew out of a
widespread mainstream international understanding that war must be
abolished, as slavery and blood feuds and duelling and other
institutions were being abolished. While advocates of outlawing war
believed other steps would be required: a change in the culture,
demilitarization, the establishment of international authorities and
nonviolent forms of conflict resolution, prosecutions and targeted
sanctions against war-makers; while most believed this would be the work
of generations; while the forces leading toward World War II were
understood and protested against for decades; the explicit and
successful intention was to make a start of it by outlawing and formally
renouncing and rendering illegitimate all war, not aggressive war or
unsanctioned war or inappropriate war, but war.
In the never-ending aftermath of World War II, the U.N. Charter has
formalized and popularized a very different conception of war's
legality. I've just interviewed Ben Ferencz, aged 94, the last living
Nuremberg prosecutor, for an upcoming edition of Talk Nation Radio.
He describes the Nuremberg prosecutions as happening under the
framework of the U.N. Charter, or something identical to it, despite the
chronological problem. He believes that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was
illegal. But he claims not to know whether the U.S. invasion and
ongoing over-12-year war on Afghanistan is legal or not. Why? Not
because it fits either of the two gaping loopholes opened up by the U.N.
Charter, that is: not because it is U.N.-authorized or defensive, but
-- as far as I can make out -- just because those loopholes exist and
therefore wars might be legal and it's unpleasant to acknowledge that
the wars waged by one's own nation are not.
Of course, plenty of people thought more or less like that in the
1920s and 1930s, but plenty of people also did not. In the era of the
United Nations, NATO, the CIA, and Lockheed Martin we have seen steady
progress in the doomed attempt, not to eliminate war, but to civilize
it. The United States leads the way in arming the rest of the world,
maintaining a military presence in most of the world, and launching
wars. Western allies and nations armed, free-of-charge, by the United
States, including Israel, advance war-making and war-civilizing, not
war-abolition. The notion that war can be eliminated using the tool of
war, making war on war-makers in order to teach them not to make war,
has had a far longer run than the Kellogg-Briand Pact had prior to its
supposed failure and the Truman Administration's remaking of the U.S.
government into a permanent war machine in the cause of progress.
Civilizing war for the benefit of the world has been an abysmal
failure. We now have wars launched on unarmed defenseless people
thousands of miles away in the name of "defense." We now have wars
depicted as U.N.-authorized because the U.N. once passed a resolution
related to the nation being destroyed. And just seconds before the
Israeli military blows up your house in Gaza, they ring you up on the
telephone to give you a proper warning.
I remember a comedy sketch from Steve Martin mocking the phony
politeness of Los Angeles: a line of people waited their turn to
withdraw cash from a bank machine, while a line of armed robbers waited
their turn in a separate line to politely ask for and steal each
person's money. War is past the point of such parody. There is no
space left for satire. Governments are phoning families to tell them
they're about to be slaughtered, and then bombing the shelters they flee
to if they manage to flee.
Is mass-murder acceptable if done without rape or torture or
excessive targeting of children or the use of particular types of
chemical weapons, as long as the victims are telephoned first or the
murderers are associated with a group of people harmed by war several
decades back?
Here's a new initiative that says No, the abolition of the greatest evil needs a renaissance and completion: WorldBeyondWar.org.
##
--
This email may be unlawfully
collected, held, and read by the NSA which violates our freedoms using
the justification of immoral, illegal wars absurdly described as being
somehow for freedom.
I'm noting the above to offer some Gaza news.
"
Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Thursday, July 24, 2014. Chaos and violence continue, Iraq gets a 'new'
president, Brett McGurk appears before Congress again and is grilled by
Senator Robert Menendez, US House Rep Frank Wolf notes the plight of
Iraqi Christians, and much more.
Yesterday morning,
the State Dept's Brett McGurk and the Defense Dept's Elissa Slotkin
appeared before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Today, they
appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. They were the
first panel. The second panel was former US Ambassador to Iraq James
Jeffrey, retired Lt Gen Michael D. Barbero and Brookings Institute's
Kenneth Pollack.
Americans remain in Iraq, including many working out of the US Embassy
in Baghdad. After Iranians repelled the US-installed Shah of Iran in
1979, they then seized the US Embassy in Tehran. A similar event in Iraq
is one of the big fears in Congress and in the White House.
Senator Barbara Boxer raised the issue in the hearing.
Senator Barbara Boxer: Last question is: Are you confident we have
adequate personnel on the ground to truly protect our embassy and the
Americans in Baghdad?
Brett McGurk: Uh, Senator, yes. We have moved in substantial assets
both into the airport and also into the embassy. Uhm, I was just there
as late as [last] Thursday and we're confident that our defensive
parameters and everything -- that our people will be safe. Our
Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security just visited Baghdad last
week to do his own assessment. We've also had teams on the ground from
Centcom and this is an ongoing assessment. And our intelligence assets
have the entire everything all around the parameter of Baghdad, the
airport and our embassy, very well covered so we're
Senator Barbara Boxer: Okay. Can you tell us how many people we have
at the embassy or is that something that you don't want to discuss in
open --
Brett McGurk: We have total in Baghdad about-about 2500 now.
As with yesterday's hearing, the administration's view/spin was noted
because no one knows how safe it is or isn't for diplomatic staff in
Iraq.
Senator Marco Rubio also raised the issue in the hearing. And pointed
out that Shi'ite militias could be as dangerous to the US embassy staff
as IS. McGurk rushed to disagree, insisting that "since 2011," there
have been no attacks on the US Embassy or its staff by Shi'ite militias.
A State Dept friend lamented today that I never say anything "nice" about Brett.
So let's note, he managed to keep it in his pants. Of course, the hearing was in DC, so maybe that had something to do with it?
I'll also give him credit for grasping how the process of forming a
government in Iraq is supposed to work. He knows how it is supposed to
work and he can outline it very clearly. That's not sarcasm on my part,
the western press struggles to grasp these basic facts. Brett had them
down pat.
He also played with his watch far less while speaking than he did the
day before when appearing in front of the House Veterans Affairs
Committee.
So that's the "nice."
It's also worth noting that Brett was still spinning like crazy. His
catch phrase appeared to be: "We have been embraced." He said it
repeatedly when asked how the Iraqis were responding to the beefed up
American presence.
He delivered his catch phrase with such gusto, a few probably almost
forgot that it was the book end to Donald Rumsfeld's (false) claim that
US troops would "be greeted as liberators" (then-President of Vice Dick
Cheney) -- with roses strewn in their path.
Senator Robert Menendez is the Chair of the Committee and he wasn't in
the mood for spin. Nor was he in the mood for prettying up tyrant Nouri
al-Maliki. What happens, he wanted to know, if Nouri doesn't go but
gets a third term as prime minister.
Chair Robert Menendez: Now if it ends up being Prime Minister
Maliki, how do you think that you keep this government together, this
nation together?
Brett McGurk: Uhm, as I mentioned in my statement, as the president
has said, it is not our job to pick the leaders but our leaders do have
to have a very inclusive agenda and pull the country together.
Chair Robert Menendez: I'm not asking you to pick. Nor do I suggest
we should. The question is that if that is the result, by their own
choice, it seems to me that it was very difficult -- based upon what has
happened so far, based upon Sunni responses to ISIS at least in
response to their grievances with the current national government --
that isn't the likely outcome of that to be more possible to see a
divided Iraq?
Brett McGurk: Uh, the prime minister will be chosen from the Shia
political blocs. And Grand Ayatollah [Ali al-] Sistani, interestingly,
over the last month, he has been very active and he has laid down some
guideposts for how to form the next government. First, it has to
correct the mistakes of the past meaning it can't look anything like the
current government. Second, you need new leaders that reflect a
national consensus. We've had that now with the Speaker and the
President, and so the prime minister will also have to reflect that
emerging national consensus. It remains to be seen whether the existing
prime minister could build such a consensus but that remains very much
in question.
Chair Robert Menendez: You commented in the House hearing yesterday
that options being developed for the President are more concrete and
specific as a result of the US military advisors on the ground in Iraq
and increased intelligence collection. What guidance have you received
in terms of timing for these decisions and how will the political
insecurity conditions on the ground influence the president's decisions?
Elissa Slotkin: Well, as I said, the assessments came in last week.
Uhm, they're dense, they're significant and so we're still working
through those. After we've done that, the President -- I'm sorry, the
Secretary and the Chairman will make informed recommendations to the
President. Uhm --
Chair Robert Menendez: Are you going to be able to tell us anything more than I read in the New York Times.
Elissa Slotkin: I would --
Chair Robert Menendez: Which was more than I knew before you came here.
Elissa Slotkin: I would -- I understand. I would caution against using a leaked, half-report in the New York Times as your basis for that --
Chair Robert Menendez: Well the absence of having information leads
me to only publicly reported resources. So when do you intend to come
to us in whatever setting to advise the Congress? You know, this
Committee has the jurisdiction over arm sales. And my reticence to arms
sales to Iraq has in some respects been proven true when in fact we've
had much of our equipment abandoned and now in the hands of ISIS. So
unless you're going to give us a sense of where the security forces are
at, moving forward, this Chair is not going to be willing to approve
more arm sales so that they can be abandoned to go to the hands of those
who we are seriously concerned about in terms of our own national
security interests.
Elissa Slotkin: Sir, I understand and our intent is to come and
brief Congress at the time when we've piled through it ourselves. We've
kept the Congress very informed. I know I've been up at least twice a
week for our Committees. We are committed to remaining in close contact
with you and there is no attempt to hide it from you.
Brett McGurk: And I would just add, Mr. Chairman, I think we're in a race against time there's no question --
Chair Robert Menendez: Well that's my point.
Brett McGurk: And one thing that we have found, by surging special
forces, by surging intelligence assets, as you mentioned, we do know an
awful lot more than we knew, uh, uh, even six weeks ago. Security
forces in Baghdad, particularly north of Baghdad -- I describe some of
this in my written testimony -- are trying to do some things to fight
back. They have taken nearly a thousand casualties in the last month.
These units, particularly units that we have relationships with, they
are fighting, they are capable. And those are the type of units that
we're looking at to assist. But, again, this is all being discussed by
the national security team as we --
That's enough of that exchange.
There were practical moments as well -- or possibly just 'practical.'
Why should the US spend almost half-a-million dollars on the military request DoD has for Iraq operations?
McGurk was given the chance to explain that.
Who had "ninety minutes in"? In the pool for how long before an administration official mentioned oil, who had 90 minutes?
Let's note an exchange that came up almost 90 minutes into the hearing.
Senator Marco Rubio: But here's the question that we get from people
-- and that is that people are outraged about what is happening and
that is especially the different reports that are coming out about what
ILIS is doing. And by no means is this a group that's popular and
Americans understand that this is a terrible, radical group of
individuals. That being said, public opinion polls and just from the
phone calls we get in our offices, the attitude of much of the American
public is: "It's a mess but it's their problem, let them figure it out."
And I have personally said this isn't even about Iraq at this point,
it's about the longterm security of the United States and the threat
that ISIL poses to the United States, especially if they're able to
establish a safe haven of operations -- similar to what al Qaeda did.
In fact, it was even worse than what al Qaeda was able to do in
Afghanistan. But I was hoping from the administration's point of view
and from the State Dept and the Defense Dept's point of view, you could
perhaps use this as an opportunity to explain to my constituents in
Florida why this matters to America? Why something happening half-way
round the world in a country that people quite frankly think
increasingly perhaps we shouldn't have gotten involved in, why does this
matter? Why should people care about what's happening in Iraq given
the problems that are happening here at home?
Brett McGurk: Thank you, Senator. I'll say a couple of things. You
know, of course, I address the ISIL threat in my opening statement and
that is a very serious counterterrorism threat and that is, number one.
But these are vital-vital US interests in Iraq. Number one, the
counterterrorism, the al Qaeda threat. Number two, just the supply of
energy resources to the global markets. Iraq through 2035 will-will
account for 45% in all of the growth in energy exports. If Iraq were to
collapse and a major civil war -- sectarian war, the-the effects to our
economy here at home would be -- would be quite serious.
Oil -- a national security issue? But, of course, it had nothing to do
with the reasons why the US government declared war on Iraq.
Crazy.
You shouldn't call the Iraqi people 'crazy,' but you can certainly apply
that term to the Kurdish officials who picked the nominee for President
of Iraq. Fouad Massoum. 76-year-old Fouad Massoum. The president is
limited to two terms. Prior to today, the post has been held by only
one person since the US invasion: Jalal Talabani.
When he began his second term, Jalal was 76-years-old. Fouad Massoum?
76-years-old.
He should be in a retirement home, not presiding over Iraq.
How stupid are Kurdish officials? Fouad Massoum isn't as overweight as Jalal but few people are.
The world remembers what happened the last time an unhealthy, elderly and obese man was installed as President of Iraq, right?
December 2012, Iraqi
President Jalal
Talabani suffered a stroke. The incident took place late on December
17, 2012 following Jalal's argument with Iraq's prime minister and chief thug Nouri al-Maliki (see the
December 18, 2012 snapshot). Jalal was admitted to Baghdad's Medical Center Hospital.
Thursday, December 20, 2012,
he was moved to Germany. He remained in Germany until July 19, 2014.
That's one day shy of 19 months -- 19 months, Jalal spent out of the
country. 19 months, his family refused to allow the Speaker of
Parliament to see him, refused to allow PUK officials to see him,
refused to allow anyone to see him.
19 months Iraq suffered without a president.
The PUK is Fouad Massoum's party as well. The PUK should have had the
decency to step aside on this round having deprived the country of a
president for 19 months and refused to call for the Constitution to be
followed and Jalal to be replaced for failure to perform his duties due
to being incapacitated.
The illegal war (and the US-imposed sanctions prior) helped ensure that
Iraq is a young country -- the median age, per the CIA, is 21.3
years-old.
But they're stuck with a 76-year-old as president?
Roy Gutman (McClatchy Newspapers) notes:
While many politicians had warm words for Massoum, a respected Kurdistan
analyst cautioned that the longtime opponent of ousted leader Saddam
Hussein is widely viewed as weak. "He’s a compromise candidate in
Irbil," said Hiwa Osman, referring to the capital of the Kurdistan
Regional Government. "If people want a compromise, they use him."
The new president was a topic in
today's US State Dept press briefing moderated by spokesperson Marie Harf:
QUESTION: Iraq. Yeah. Today, the parliament elected –
MS. HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: -- Fuad Masum, a man of solid political credentials. But he’s also a communist. So do you have any comment on that?
MS. HARF: That he’s a communist?
QUESTION: Mm-hmm.
MS. HARF: We congratulate the Iraqi people on the election of a
new president. This is a crucial step in the formation of a new
government. Obviously, we’ve said this needs to happen as soon as
possible. The next slip is a prime minister designate must be named
within 15 days. They will then have 30 days to form a government with
parliamentary approval.
QUESTION: Okay. And the general feeling in Iraq that Maliki’s
fortunes are receding, is that your assessment? Do you have anyone in
mind that you might like to support, like (inaudible)?
MS. HARF: As we’ve always said, we do not support any one
person or any one party. We have been very clear about that from the
beginning of this process.
QUESTION: But you would like to see Maliki or the Maliki era end?
MS. HARF: I don’t think I said that, Said.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. HARF: I said we don’t support any one person. And we’ve
also said – and you’ve heard Brett McGurk speak about this a little bit
yesterday – that we have had concerns with some of the ways the Maliki
government has governed and how they have not always governed
inclusively. But we are not endorsing any party or any person, period,
to be the next prime minister of Iraq.
QUESTION: And lastly, the Maliki government announced that
they are receiving Russian equipment or Russian military equipment. Do
you have any comment on that?
MS. HARF: Well, I haven’t seen this specific announcement, but
– the last few times I’ve been asked about this. If it’s done through
the proper channels –
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MS. HARF: I haven’t seen that, but the last few times I’ve
talked about this, look, there’s a way that Iraq can get weapons from
other countries. There’s a proper channel to do this. And if it’s
through that channel, then I don’t think we have a big problem with it.
We know there’s a big threat there that they need a lot of help to
fight.
Iraq may have a new president but it shows little success at shaking the prime minister who won't fade away.
Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Vivian Salama (AP) report, "Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki rejected an attempt by Iran to
persuade him to step down, senior Iraqi politicians said Wednesday,
underlining his determination to defy even his top ally to push for a
third term in office and further exacerbating the country's political
crisis."
In other news,
Sinan Salaheddin and Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) report
an attack on a Taji prison convoy has left at least 60 people dead. On
the topic of violence in Iraq, US House Rep Frank Wolf addressed it
today. His office issued the following:
Washington, D.C. – For the second time this week,
Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) took to the House floor to alert his colleagues –
and the world – of the genocide he believes is taking place in Iraq.
“Christianity as we know it in Iraq is being wiped out,” Wolf said.
Wolf began today’s speech by reading the first two paragraphs of a Wall Street Journal editorial
from earlier in the week: “Mr. Speaker: Imagine if a fundamentalist
Christian sect captured the French city of Lyon and began a systematic
purge of Muslims. Their mosques were destroyed, their crescents
defaced, the Koran burned and then all Muslims forced to flee or face
execution. Such an event would be unthinkable today, and if it did
occur Pope Francis and all other Christian leaders would denounce it and
support efforts by governments to stop it.
“Yet that is essentially what is happening in reverse now in
Mosul, as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham drives all signs of
Christianity from the ancient city. Christians have lived in Mosul for
nearly 2,000 years, but today they are reliving the Muslim religious
wars of the Middle Ages.”
Wolf then read parts of an e-mail he received form someone on
the ground in Iraq who painted a very dire situation: “All Mosul
churches and monasteries are seized by ISIS. There are around 30. The
cross has been removed from all of them. Many of them are burned,
destroyed and looted. Many others are being used as ISIS centers. The
religious Sunni, Shiite and Christian tombs are destroyed in Mosul.
This destruction is endangering very ancient sites, such as prophet
Jonah’s tomb, which was broken last week, according to many reporters.”
Wolf then asked: “Where is the West? Where is the Obama Administration? Where is the Congress? The silence is deafening.”
Wolf ended his remarks by quoting William Wilberforce, the
British parliamentarian who, in making the case against slavery in 1789,
told his colleagues, “Having heard all of this, you may choose to look
the other way, but you can never say again that you did not know.”
Below is the complete text of Wolf’s remarks:
“‘Imagine if a fundamentalist Christian sect captured the French
city of Lyon and began a systematic purge of Muslims. Their mosques
were destroyed, their crescents defaced, the Koran burned and then all
Muslims forced to flee or face execution. Such an event would be
unthinkable today, and if it did occur Pope Francis and all other
Christian leaders would denounce it and support efforts by governments
to stop it.
“Yet that is essentially what is happening in reverse now in
Mosul, as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham drives all signs of
Christianity from the ancient city. Christians have lived in Mosul for
nearly 2,000 years, but today they are reliving the Muslim religious
wars of the Middle Ages.’
“These are not my words. They are the first two paragraphs of a Wall Street Journal editorial published earlier this week.
“Now I want to read parts of an e-mail I received yesterday from
someone in the ground in Iraq: ‘All Mosul churches and monasteries are
seized by ISIS. There are around 30. The cross has been removed from
all of them. Many of them are burned, destroyed and looted. Many
others are being used as ISIS centers. The religious Sunni, Shiite and
Christian tombs are destroyed in Mosul. This destruction is
endangering very ancient sites, such as prophet Jonah’s tomb, which was
broken last week, according to many reporters.’
“It has been widely reported that ISIS soldiers have painted ‘N’
on the doors of Christians to signify that they are ‘Nasara,’ the word
for Christian. Shiite homes were painted with the letter ‘R’ for
“Rawafidh,’ meaning rejectors or protestants.
“Christianity as we know it in Iraq is being wiped out.
“With the exception of Israel, the Bible contains more references
to the cities, regions and nations of ancient Iraq than any other
country.
“I believe what is happening to the Christian community in Iraq is genocide. I also believe it is a crime against humanity.
“Where is the West? Where is the Obama Administration? Where is the Congress? The silence is deafening.
“The West, particularly the church, needs to speak out.
“The Obama Administration needs to make protecting this ancient
community a priority. President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry need
to have the same courage as President Bush and former Secretary of
State Colin Powell when they said genocide was taking place in Darfur.
“The Congress needs to hold this administration accountable for its failure to act.
“The United Nations has a role, too. It should immediately
initiate proceedings in the International Criminal Court against ISIS
for crimes against humanity.
“I will close today by reading the final two paragraphs of The
Wall Street Journal editorial I began my statement with: ‘Today's
religious extremism is almost entirely Islamic. While ISIS's purge may
be the most brutal, Islamists in Egypt have driven thousands of Coptic
Christians from homes they've occupied for centuries. The same is true
across the Muslim parts of Africa. This does not mean that all Muslims
are extremists, but it does mean that all Muslims have an obligation to
denounce and resist the extremists who murder or subjugate in the name
of Allah. Too few imams living in the tolerant West will speak up
against it.
“As for the post-Christian West, most elites may now be
nonbelievers. But a culture that fails to protect believers may
eventually find that it lacks the self-belief to protect itself.’
“As William Wilberforce, the British parliamentarian and
abolitionist, famously told his colleagues, ‘Having heard all of this,
you may choose to look the other way, but you can never say again that
you did not know.’”
iraqmcclatchy newspapersroy gutman
