I Don’t Want my Country to Be an Empire

[Time for change]

It’s really great that racial prejudice in the United States has diminished so much in recent years that we could elect a black man as President of our country. Until just 45 years ago, prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, racial discrimination was virtually officially condoned in the United States. We still have a long way to go. Illegal purging of black voters in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections was a major cause of the election of George W. Bush as president in those years. But nevertheless, the election of a black president was a big step forward.

But it’s not enough. Militant nationalism is as malignant a force as is racism. In fact it’s probably worse, since it is more likely to lead to war. As the United States has evolved into an empire and become the primary source of terrorism in the world, it has spread untold misery throughout the world.

Americans need to better understand how other peoples of the world feel about the imperialistic attitudes and behaviors of their country, as well as the suffering that these behaviors create. These attitudes and behaviors starkly contradict the professed political philosophy of our nation – that all people are created equal and have inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – and they destabilize world civilization. If continued much longer they will probably result in the destruction of our country and of world civilization. Given modern weaponry, a nuclear holocaust is much more likely than a lot of people realize.


THE EMPIRE OF THE UNITED STATES

Americans may think of their country as a democracy. But most of the rest of the world doesn’t see us that way. There was, however, a time when it did.


The beginning of international law

Largely because of the widespread international recognition that the world could ill afford another major war, the United Nations came into existence in October 1945, two months after the surrender of Japanese forces ended World War II. The United States played the leading role in the founding of the United Nations. President Roosevelt deserves most of the credit for conception of the idea, and President Truman led the process of its creation after Roosevelt’s death.

Emphasizing the need to prevent war, the first sentence in the preamble to the United Nations Charter reads:

We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime brought untold sorrow to mankind…

The Charter goes on to define “Crime against peace” as a war crime, and more specifically as the invasion of one country by another for any purpose other than self-defense. The bottom line is that international law is needed for the very same reason that national laws are needed. In the absence of law, anarchy reigns, and the only principle to guide international relationships is “everyone for himself” and “might makes right”.


The U.S. today as an imperial power and the biggest violator of international law

It is a terrible shame that our nation, which led the world in the formation of international law, is now its biggest violator. Pedro A. Garcia-Bilbao, in an article titled “The Right to Interfere in a Context of Imperial Impunity”, from the book, “International Justice and Impunity – The Case of the United States”, discussed this issue in detail during the Bush administration:

I am going to try to be direct: We have to analyze, expose, and debate specific cases where the protagonist is a specific state, the United States of America. And the reason for this is obvious: it is the state which most repeatedly, and during the longest period of time, has acted both against and outside of the attempts of the international community to subject conflicts between states to the rule of law, in the clearly established goal of avoiding war and protecting rights and human dignity…

International law demands respect for the rules, but those who hold power seek to avoid any form of control. In the United States, the association of economic and political power is severely distorting the democratic order…The international institutions and international law are… an external source of control and limits which the emerging imperial power (the United States) is rejecting and fighting against.

Aggressive war
As the prevention of war was the prime goal of the United Nations, the illegal waging of war is considered the ultimate and worst war crime of all. This is an issue that is rarely voiced in the United States among “mainstream” politicians, journalists, or other “respectable” people. But the rest of the world is well aware of it. Garcia-Bilbao explains:

As informed citizens, we have been witnesses to military attacks (by the United States) in recent years, with an indiscriminate use of force against countries which were far from representing a real threat to world peace. We have seen how these countries were, and still are, subject to the ravaging of military occupation forces, without any excuse and beyond any form of legality…

The example of Iraq is paradigmatic… Action against this state brought war, immense destruction, and the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives of completely innocent women, elderly people and children. This action was taken outside the international legal system created to prevent war… This war still continues today, atrocious crimes are continually committed against the civilian populations, and also against those who fight the occupation. Iraq today is a country which has been destroyed, where the entire population is suffering…

On the alleged reasons for the conflict, the infamous Weapons of Mass Destruction, it was soon proved that they were simply an excuse… There were no such arms, “but there could have been”, and this justified the intervention according to (Bush)…

Fascism and hypocrisy
Those who do bad things generally seek to justify them through self-serving and hypocritical means. When Americans point out the fascist aspects of their country they are usually pilloried by their fellow citizens as “unpatriotic” or worse. But we would do well to look at the situation more objectively. Garcia-Balboa points out the clear similarities between our country and the fascists of World War II:

One of the distinctive traits of fascism was that it did not hide its crimes, because they were considered justified and legitimate. Nowadays, when we blitz and kill the civilian population in some countries subjected to an illegal military occupation or to wars of aggression, when we justify and defend the need for torture, when we legalize mercenaries, we are beginning to do it openly. We still use ideas which legitimize, we still preserve the big words (justice, freedom), but we use them in conjunction with ancient horrors such as torture…

Associated characteristics of imperial powers

The defining characteristic of an imperial power is that it dominates, controls, and/or plunders other nations, of whose laws it is not subject to. As it does so, it comes to be defined by secondary characteristics as well. Garcia-Balboa discusses these:

Disappearance of freedom and democracy

When, using the excuse of the fight against international terrorism, we limit the American firefighter’s right to trade union activity… and we threaten the activists of the United States peace movement, this shows that some things, many things, are not right. Without doubt, freedom and democracy are in danger; the main threats do not come from outside the system, but rather from its very heart.

Class war
The American people will be a lot better off when they finally recognize that the wars that their country engages in are generally not waged for their benefit. To the contrary, wars of aggression generally benefit only a specific segment of a nation’s elite, while most of its citizens suffer the price:

The problem is extremely complex because this power (the U.S.) which seeks to escape all control is not exclusively State power, because this State is, first and foremost, a tool in the hands of the social class which holds the economic power… Every day is more clearly serving private interests…

American exceptionalism and arrogance in the extreme

Not long before the fraudulent presidential elections which gave power to George W. Bush, a neo-conservative research center (Project for a New American Century), consisting of people linked to the previous Reagan and Bush administrations, and to the military-industrial pressure groups, produced a series of documents claiming to show the need for the United States to follow an imperial course. Resort to the army and technological superiority… were to be implemented in order to ensure that the 21st century would be “the new American century”. The United States was to follow the clear destiny which made this nation a state elected by God. The shining city on a hill found itself legitimized to impose its view on the entire world.

Impunity and its consequences

Garcia-Balboa repeatedly notes that the worst of the problem is not merely that laws have been broken, crimes committed. Rather, it is the impunity that routinely accompanies the worst crimes, when committed by the militarily most powerful nation on earth:

Impunity

In these first years of the 21st century, we are observing a painful reality. The development of international law relating to humanitarian rights, conventions on war and violence, and attempts to make conflicts less inhumane, is being subjected to harsh attacks… The fact that crimes which are classified as serious under international law are being committed is cause for concern; but repeated impunity is even worse. We live in a time where brute force has become the main source of legitimization, where we face a claim to impose the rights of the strongest, and where barbarity is disguised with words like democracy, freedom and human rights. In order to defend democracy, we are creating special laws and powers immune to all external control; to defend freedom, we are restricting individuals’ rights and denying collective rights; to defend human rights, we are legalizing, or we are claiming to legalize, torture…

It is on the subject of impunity that the Obama administration most merges with the Bush administration. Even if the Obama administration were to stop dead in its tracks all crimes committed by the Bush administration, if it allows them to stand without punishment, and even actively protects them, it will be confirming the principle that the United States is not subject to international law. In essence, it will be thumbing its nose at international law (not to mention its own Constitution). Garcia-Balboa wonders how it is possible for such impunity to coexist with a stable system of international law:

How have we been able to arrive at such a situation, in which a state claims its so-called right to attack and destroy another state as a preventive measure, and moreover where it has been done with impunity? … How is it possible that lies and manipulation can be used as evidence and that nothing happens… and that crimes against humanity continue to take place with complete impunity?

One step away from barbarity

Crimes have always been committed, but today they are openly justified and legitimized, or disguised by appealing to the state of need which arose after September 11. Since then, that power (the United States) publicly states that international law has ceased to count in its present form, that international obligations are only valuable if they serve its own interests, and then acts in full impunity… in such a case we are just a step away from barbarity….

THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION POSITION

As I noted, the above description of the United States as an empire was written during the Bush administration, and it applied to Bush administration crimes. So, how is this all changed now that we have a new President? On the one hand, it is great that President Obama signed an executive order banning torture.

The value of his plan to shut down Guantanamo Bay is less clear. Guantanamo Bay is just a place. The problem is not Guantanamo Bay per se, but what our country has done there. Whether or not Guantanamo Bay is shut down, the issue of greatest importance is how we handle our prisoners, not at what geographic location. So, how is the Obama administration planning to change Bush administration policies in that regard?


Obama administration treatment of prisoners

In some respects it is difficult to tell the difference between the policies of the two administrations. A recent case in which the Obama administration is attempting to deny habeas corpus rights to its prisoners is quite worrisome:

The Obama administration said Friday that it would appeal a district court ruling that granted some military prisoners in Afghanistan the right to file lawsuits seeking their release. The decision signaled that the administration was not backing down in its effort to maintain the power to imprison terrorism suspects for extended periods without judicial oversight.

In a court filing, the Justice Department also asked District Judge John D. Bates not to proceed with the habeas-corpus cases of three detainees

Tina Foster, the executive director of the International Justice Network, which is representing the detainees, condemned the decision in a statement: “Though he has made many promises regarding the need for our country to rejoin the world community of nations, by filing this appeal, President Obama has taken on the defense of one of the Bush administration’s unlawful policies founded on nothing more than the idea that might makes right,” she said.

The right of habeas corpus – the right of prisoners to challenge state detentions – was first established in western civilization with the Magna Charta in 1215. The Obama administration’s actions in this case violate that principle, our Constitution, and international law. It is difficult for me to find an excuse for it.

Some people have claimed that we should give President Obama more time in office before judging or criticizing him. But it is difficult to see how giving him more time is relevant in a case like this. Most of the criticisms of him from the left are based on his actions or statements, not on a presumed inability to accomplish certain things within a specified period of time. How much time should it take to give our prisoners the rights that are required by our Constitution and International law? Is he waiting for it to become more politically feasible?


State secrets

A different, but related issue, is so-called “state secrets”. The Bush administration used the excuse of “state secrets” to keep from public view any and all documents that it didn’t want the public to see. Now, the Obama administration is continuing to invoke “state secrets” in a number of cases that seek to challenge alleged misconduct of the Bush administration.

One of the most important requirements of a democracy is transparency of government actions. To the extent that citizens are not aware of what their government is does, they cannot hold it accountable for its actions. For that reason, “state secrets” should be invoked to shield citizen knowledge of government action only in extreme instances. This is especially important where the rights of the accused are concerned. It is difficult to understand what information could be so important to our national security that efforts to hold our government accountable for its actions should be obstructed. Russ Feingold, previously one of Obama’s most enthusiastic supporters, recently commented on this:

I am troubled that once again the Obama administration has decided to invoke the state secrets privilege in a case challenging the previous administration’s alleged misconduct. The Obama administration’s action, on top of Congress’s mistaken decision last year to give immunity to the telecommunications companies that allegedly participated in the warrantless wiretapping program, will make it even harder for courts to rule on the legality of that program.

In a recent article in The Nation, David Cole criticized the Obama administration for its excessive use of state secrets, as well as for its treatment of its prisoners:

Disturbingly, the Obama administration has continued the Bush administration's attempts to shield illegal exercises of executive authority from judicial review… The bottom line is that executive wrongdoing in connection with the conflict with Al Qaeda should be shielded from judicial scrutiny…. because they involve "state secrets." On this theory, the executive can avoid any judicial review of criminal and unconstitutional wrongdoing simply by declaring its wrongs a secret.

The Obama administration has also adhered to the Bush administration's contention that the right of habeas corpus does not extend to detainees at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan…. Should the executive branch be permitted to avoid accountability for its detentions simply by incarcerating them in Afghanistan rather than in Cuba?

And in a case seeking damages for torture and other abuse at Guantánamo, the Obama administration has argued that Guantánamo detainees have no constitutional rights to due process, so that even if they were tortured, no constitutional rights were violated. The Supreme Court's ruling last year that the constitutional right of habeas corpus extends to Guantánamo rested on its determination that there is nothing impracticable about extending such rights there. The same reasoning would fully support the extension of due process rights – yet the administration simply says no.

SOME FINAL WORDS ON IMPUNITY AND ITS EFFECT ON INTERNATIONAL LAW

Pedro Garcia-Balboa describes the effect of routine impunity on the criminal justice system:

Impunity stimulates a particular effect in a criminal. Crime debases, repeated impunity reinforces the crime, it leads the criminal to believe in his individual right, and it can make him think that the morality and ethics which rule human relationships are made for others, not for him. Repeated impunity leads the criminal to believe himself to be an “exceptional” person, someone for whom the rules which were created for everyone do not apply. In the case of crimes against international law, impunity has similar effects… The danger is not that the unpunished crimes against international law continue. The danger is that we are claiming to re-write international law, and that what is a crime today will become law tomorrow.

Worst of all, international law, and along with it international order, cannot exist in a system where the most powerful nation on earth is routinely allowed to violate the law, to commit heinous crimes with impunity:

According to the practice of the United States, the only thing which can guarantee that a country does not become the object of an aggression is a unilateral decision from the American government itself. The concept of “preventive war” represents the end of the international order based on maintaining peace as the supreme good, the end, too, of a conception of the international community as an order articulated on the basis of law… Based on one fact, its military power, and on one ideological consideration, its so-called “exceptional” character, it is claiming to reconstruct the international community in step with its national interests….