Bush's "Star Wars" Plan Produces Political Fallout

Getting at the Roots of Global Terrorism

CW/PS Loses a Stalwart

CW/PS Limits Global Report

---

It should surprise no one that if the administration of President George W. Bush proceeds to build a national anti-ballistic system this would evoke grave concern not only among U.S. allies in Europe, but also with Russia and China. This worry of the two former bitter rivals took the form of the Treaty of Good Neighborly Friendship and Cooperation Between the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China, signed in Moscow on July 16, 2001, by Presidents Jiang Zemin of China and Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, pictured above.

In its report on the signing of the treaty, The New York Times said: "Both nations fear the missile defense system could undermine the deterrent power of their own nuclear arsenals." The report added: "In a joint statement, the two nations said that they were hoping for a 'just and rational new international order' and that the merger of interests enshrined today were "not directed against third countries'."

Subsequently, after a meeting between Bush and Putin in Shanghai at the summit meeting of 21 leaders of Asia and the Pacific, Putin appeared to have given in to Bush's demands

In my view, what we are witnessing is the floundering of three mediocre global politicians. Where is the commitment to the "just and rational new international order" that the Russian and Chinese leaders had called for in July? Where are their specifics? Perhaps the world's best hope for leadership embracing peace and justice may lie with those who are acting outside of governments.

---

If there is any proposition on which three of the world's most headlined people, U.S. President George W. Bush, admitted terrorist Osama bin Laden, and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan might jointly agree, it could be this:  after the events of September 11, 2001, the world is at a historic crossroads. Beyond that, all bets are off.

Our own crystal ball is foggy, but three general shapes for the global political system appear possible for the coming decades:

It seems clear that for those committed to a world of peace with justice, the third alternative is the vastly preferred goal.

Some tentative comments on these three scenarios:

• The Bush administration began with a strong commitment to unilateral action, with Bush rejecting the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol limiting greenhouse gas emissions, the International Criminal Court, enforcement provisions for the biological weapons treaty, and first steps to curb the proliferation of small arms around the world.  However, Bush has made a major about-face from his campaign stance against "nation-building."  U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John D. Negroponte enthusiastically joined in the unanimous vote on Dec. 20 in the Security Council authorizing a British-led international force to provide security in and around Kabul, the Afghan capital.

• Terrorism is one of the dangers lying ahead with which the U.N. could and should be dealing. The New York Times reported (Nov. 9) on a statement of Osama bin Laden:

In looking at international terrorism as a long-term problem to be dealt with over the next several decades, perhaps over the rest of the 21st century, the ultimate goal must be "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war," as the United Nations Charter states in its opening sentence.  This will require the establishment of a system of world rule of law, with all of its essential elements:  proper legislative, executive, and judicial functions. This must be done within the framework of the United Nations, the only world organization we have, imperfect as it is.

Keeping in mind always the question of what time frame we are discussing, let us begin with the here and now and gradually move to widening perspectives in time and politics to transform the global climate to one of genuine peace with justice.

First, the obvious: the United States and its allies must continue their efforts to stem terrorism.  At the same time, the global community must not surrender any more privileges of individual liberty than is clearly necessary to protect public safety.

A vastly more difficult question is how to bring the terrorists to justice. The September 11 attacks, presumably carried out under the aegis of Osama bin Laden, and his subsequent defiance of international efforts to bring him to account were so egregious that it is difficult to imagine that anything short of military action could have achieved the objective of halting his terrorist aims.

One important question concerns the extent to which the Bush administration in its military action in Afghanistan is complying with U.S. law.  The law in question is The War Powers Resolution of 1973, 93rd Congress, H.J. 542, November 7, 1973. In the section of the act under "Purpose and Policy" the bill states:

Growing out of The War Powers Resolution was United States Public Law 107-40  (Joint Resolution to authorize the use of U.S. Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States) of September 18, 2001. Section 2(a) of the resolution reads:

While such a sweeping resolution is understandable in the atmosphere of war fever in Washington, D.C., it seems imprudent, despite the current heavy popularity of President George W. Bush, to give him authority to do whatever to whomever "he determines" is in some way connected to the terrorist attacks.

President Lyndon Johnson, after jamming the notorious Gulf of Tonkin Resolution of August 1964 through Congress, said to his wife, Lady Bird: "It's like being in an airplane and I have to choose between crashing the plane or jumping out.  I do not have a parachute." Has the U.S. Congress, today, abdicated its responsibility to "insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United Sates Armed Forces into hostilities..."?  Has the U.S. Congress given away the store?

One small voice to raise questions regarding our policy Ñ as a minority of one in the House of Representatives Ñ was Barbara Lee, a Democrat from the Oakland area of California.  This is what she said in her speech as she cast her solitary negative vote:

Does this authorization by the U.S. Congress extend to allowing the U.S. to invade Iraq?  There is substantial debate in Washington on this question. For example, in interviews with Wolf Blitzer on CNN on December 23, Lawrence Eagleburger, former Secretary of State, and James Woolsey, former C.I.A. Director, appeared ready to support an attack on Iraq in order to remove Sadaam Hussein from power, with the latter more itchy than the former. This raises a host of political, legal, and strategic questions.

The American public is understandably in an unprecedented state of alarm, not only because of the September 11 events, but by the anthrax crisis and other possible nightmarish attacks; some might argue that in such dire circumstances, it is unseemly to indulge in "legal niceties."  Precisely the opposite is the case:  in times of great stress, the international legal system must stand firm on the fundamentals of principle.

There are three matters on which the United States could move immediately to strengthen the world rule of law:

The first would be for the Bush administration to reverse its opposition to the International Criminal Court, as embodied in the Rome Statute of 1998. President Bill Clinton signed the Rome Treaty on the 31st of December, 2000, at the last possible moment.  Early in his term, President George W. Bush announced that he would not submit the treaty to the U.S. Senate for ratification. Particularly in light of subsequent developments in regard to Afghanistan, this can be seen as a grave blunder.

President Bush wants "to bring Osama bin Laden to justice."  But before what court would he do this?  In the present circumstances, should Osama bin Laden be captured, probably the best recourse would be to go to the U.N. Security Council and seek to establish a special tribunal.  There are precedents for this in the ad hoc tribunals set up by the international community in Rwanda and Yugoslavia.

The second move the Bush administration could make to boost prospects for rule of law in the world would be to actively endorse the United Nations Rapid Deployment Act, H.R. 938, which at this writing has 44 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives. The situation was summarized in the spring 2001 issue of The U.N. Reformer, published by the Campaign for U.N. Reform, as follows:

(If such a Rapid Deployment Force were in existence today, it could well be useful in monitoring cease-fires in such places as Afghanistan and the Middle East.  Recent history has shown that international forces can help stop the killing in, for example, Cyprus, Kosovo, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and East Timor.)

The third way the Bush administration could help the cause of peace under the rule of law would be simple:  just pay up the $1.5 billion in arrears the U.S. still legally owes to the United Nations.

The foregoing analysis, however, is mostly defensive against international terrorism. For the long run, it will be necessary to get at the roots of terrorism: poverty, disease, illiteracy and squalor.

In an article in The New York Times (October 14, 2001) under the headline, "The Despair Beneath the Arab World's Growing Rage," Susan Sachs included this quotation:

Well, the swamp can be cleaned up, but this will mean making some fundamental reforms in the political system under which the human race is operating.  The nation-states of the world, and their citizens, must recognize the imperative of transferring a portion of their sovereignty to the global level in the common interest of humanity.

The first new norm for the 22nd century must be actual realization of the long-beleaguered cliche: "replacement of the rule of force by the rule of law." Unfortunately, the reverse seems to be occurring in the United States and other countries around the world. Take, for example, the headlines of the lead story in the January 7  issue of the New York Times:

Pentagon seeking a large increase in its next budget Ñ $20 billion more sought  Ñ feeling confident of support, officials say spending on weapons must go up. This increase for the 2003 fiscal year budget would bring the total up to an increase of about $20 billion over the $239 billion budget, or about 6%, after adjusting for inflation. This huge increase announced by defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld comes at a time when the United States still owes $1.5 billion in back dues to the United Nations and is listed last among the 25 countries ranked by their level of Official Development Assistance (O.D.A.), which helps raise living standards of poor countries. Thus, if military strength can be argued to be of about equal importance with all other elements of U.S. foreign policy Ð economic, social, political, etc. Ð then our almost exclusive emphasis on the military must be seen as exponentially shortsighted.

In the current international political context, it is worth noting that of the 6 billion people currently alive, about 1 billion are Muslims and most of them exist at the poverty level. (About half of all of the 6 billion exist close to or below the poverty level.) The human race has no excuse for this situation, except for rank selfishness. There can be no doubt that humanity, if it applied a modicum of generosity, creativity, and political will through the United Nations and its agencies, could provide every inhabitant of our planet with a minimum level of survival.

This is where the Binding Triad proposal to strengthen the U.N. General Assembly enters the picture.  The essence of the Binding Triad system is that, through one amendment to Article 13 of the United Nations Charter, it would add a new power to the General Assembly enabling it to enact binding international law, provided it did so by a special vote.  Binding decisions would require three simultaneous majorities based on one-nation-one-vote, population, and contributions to the regular U.N. budget.  Decisions winning the three majorities of the Binding Triad would represent strong support of most of the nations of the world, most of the population of the world, and most of the political/economic/military power of the world.  As a global legislature, the General Assembly would be able to enact laws on world problems such as peace and security, economic development, the environment, and human rights.  (Non-binding resolutions Ñ recommendations Ñ could continue to be made on the same basis as now, requiring simply a two-thirds majority of those present and voting. Thus, the Binding Triad would not change the existing voting rules, which are set out in Article 18 of the U.N. Charter.)

The Center for War/Peace Studies is continuing its long campaign to get the Binding Triad proposal on the official U.N. agenda, and we believe we are making some progress in getting this done with a number of U.N. delegations.  In this effort, the recent monograph, "Alternative Voting Systems in International Organizations, and the Binding Triad Proposal to Improve U.N. General Assembly Decision-Taking," by Paul C. Szasz, published by the Center for U.N. Reform Education, is proving to be most helpful.  Copies of the 72-page monograph are available either from the Center for U.N. Reform Education, (1160 Hamburg Turnpike, Office #2, Wayne, New Jersey 07470) or the Center for War/Peace Studies.

---

CW/PS Loses a Stalwart

Charles C. Price, 1913-2001

The death of Charles C. Price on February 11, 2001, was a deep loss to the Center for War/Peace Studies.

He was 87 years old, and died of complications after a series of strokes.

Charlie, as he was known by everyone, was a key member of The CW/PS Board of Directors for many years, and when his health limited his activities he continued to participate as a member of our Board of Sponsors.

Active within the World Federalist Association for over 46 years, Charlie served as President of W.F.A. in 1965, 1975, and 1991. He was Benjamin Franklin Professor of Chemistry and Chairman of the Chemistry Department at the University of Pennsylvania, and was a former President of the American Chemical Society. He was also the first Chairman of the Chemical Heritage Foundation.

I particularly recall Charlie's role at the Sixth CW/PS Mohonk Conference at New Paltz, New York, in September 1991. He and I were co-chairmen; he rode herd on the contentious gang of diplomats, U.N. officials, and NGOs, leaving me free to be an advocate of the Binding Triad system for global decision-making. (It was at this conference that we made a major conceptual advance in the proposed language for the amendment to the U.N. Charter that would incorporate the Binding Triad into the United Nations system. For details, see Global Report No. 34.)

Charlie is survived by his wife, Anne, of Haverford, Pennsylvania.     -- R.H.

CW/PS Limits Global Report;

With nostalgia for "print" being overpowered by the Internet juggernaut, the Center for War/Peace Studies has decided to concentrate more on our website (cwps.org) in order to be able to report and comment faster on current events. However, we will continue to produce Global Report on an irregular basis, as, for example, with this issue. Anyone who wants to be placed on our E-mail Alert List to be informed of new items put up on our website, should let us know their

E-mail address, by letter, Fax, or E-mail