the nato citizen

Lesson in politics and foreign policy for dumb Americans
Lesson 1 - The use of an 'international test' before going to war
By ESLaPorte
Fri, Oct 08 2004
http://www.pronato.com/commentary/index.htm


The discourse here in America during "silly season" (election season) is
beginning to validate the idea that Americans have been dumbed down. This
Author would like to add that part of the dumbing down is the lack of
political education in American schools and the pervasiveness of right-wing
talk radio, which distorts both domestic political issues and the basic
operation of relation between nations. So, many Americans are acquiring
strong opinions on foreign affairs that are based of sheer ignorance!

If the average American had a basic education in foreign affairs and
international relations, he/she would first learn that; one; there is an
"international test" prior to going to war, and two; all nations are
sovereigns and that there are various operating theories of international
relations, such as liberalism, realism, socialism.

First of all, the average American, either left or right, does not appear to
know about the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, which laid the ground work for the
state system and international society. Part of this 'new world order' in
1648 is that states are equal and sovereign, and that they have the right to
territorial integrity. Next, the use of force against a sovereign state is
aggression and invasions are wrong unless the sovereign state requests the
help in suppressing rebellions. The aggressor state can be punished and
opens his nation for justifiable attack from others. When Saddam Hussein
invaded Kuwait, the response to declare war on Iraq was justified.

Now, under liberal theory, nations cannot interfere in the affairs of other
nations. There are, how ever, a few exceptions. One of them is for
humanitarian reasons, such as genocide and massacres of a group of people.
Another reason would be to aid in a war of national liberation in a
contested piece of land. A model for this type of intervention could be the
aid that the French gave to Americans to help liberate them from British
rule in the American Revolution. Foreign intervention should stay out of
civil wars and only the people of that nation should decide their form of
government.

In the 'international test' that John Kerry is correct on and has been in
existence for four centuries. This 'international test' referred to applies
not only to America, but to other nations in the international system as
well. First, realist theory (which about 85% of Bush policy is based on, the
other is liberalism) does justify so-called 'pre-emptive attack' but this is
limited to an impending threat to the security and territorial integrity of
a nation. Realists see the international system as in a state of anarchy and
a self-help system. However, aggression against another nation by another
nation is unacceptable, although wars for self defense are acceptable. By
the standards set by the Bush administration, Saddam Hussein's invasion of
Kuwait was justified.

In the modern international system, the nation-state is still the most
important unit. In that, all nations are sovereigns and do not submit their
security and foreign policy decisions to other nations. However, there has
been for several hundred years - and should always be - a test of whether a
war, especially of invasion, meets the international test of a war for
justifiable reasons, such as self-defense. While no nation controls the
foreign policy and use of force policy of another nation - international
norms, standards and laws of the use of force and military action do - and
should always - condemn aggressive military action between nation-states.

The 'international test' is correct and this test, as stated, has existed
for hundreds of years. For Americans, especially the right-wing, neo-cons,
to state that this is yielding American security to'veto by other nations'
is poppy****, plays on the ignorance of dumb Americans in international
relations theory, and has only been justified by the 'bad guys' in history.
Those nations in history that do ignore or attempt to undermine the
'international test' for the use of force are usually those nations that
have been condemned and are considered the 'bad guys' of history. Those
nations that have ignored the 'international test' for the use of force
include, beside Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Nazi Germany, and these have also,
like the Bush administration, have used dubious reasons for aggressive
actions.

For Americans to be duped by the notions that a president would 'give other
nations a veto' over use of force and that there should be no test for the
use of force indicates just how dumbed down the American public is with
regard to the basics facts of history, foreign policy and norms of
international relations.