2-02-06, 9:09 am

Lawless World: America and the Making and Breaking of Global Rules From FDR’s Atlantic Charter to George W. Bush’s Illegal War

Phillip Sands New York: Viking, 2005

The lawlessness of the present occupant of the White House is well-known, with this reputation being further bolstered by the revelation of mass-and illegal – wiretapping of electronic communications, supposedly in pursuit of the 'war on terror,' not to mention the unsavory and improper tactics that brought him into the highest office in the land in the first place. Though the Bush Administration has taken outlawry to a new level of outrageousness, it would be a mistake to assume that it all began in 2001. That would hardly explain the scandal involving the Reagan Administration ignoring the World Court condemnation of their mining of Nicaraguan harbor. It was Reagan who also walked away from the Law of the Sea Convention after fifteen years of negotiation. And, of course, what is 'legal' – ultimately – about a settler state that by foul means seizes the land of the indigenous, then kidnaps Africans and compels them to work for free?

However, it is to the credit of this book written by a law professor in London that new light is shown on the unfortunately neglected issue of international law and its contemporary application.

The author spends a considerable amount of time discussing the 1998 detention in London of former Chilean dictator, Augusto Pinochet, who was held there after a Spanish magistrate sought his extradition for crimes committed during his bloody reign against Spanish nationals. The rise of the notion of 'universal jurisdiction' or the ability of one state to hold to account a leader of another state is one of the more intriguing turns that international law has taken of late. Apparently, it has caused Henry Kissinger to avoid certain nations for fear of being held, then tried for the crimes committed by U.S. imperialism in Vietnam during his tenure as U.S. Secretary of State. For a while Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was being sought by Belgium for crimes committed in the Occupied Territories and Lebanon. The author argues passionately – and correctly – that the principle of universal jurisdiction 'should apply across the board – to Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair or George W. Bush.' This is notably true of Bush, not only because of the magnitude of his crimes but, as well, it is evident that the U.S. people – as of now – seem unable of bringing him to account and need assistance from the international community, just as it was necessary for international assistance to be rendered during the Cold War in order for Jim Crow to erode.

Unfortunately, however, the author does not come to grips with the fact that given the present correlation of forces globally, it is likely that 'universal jurisdiction' is most likely to be used against leaders of less powerful states, rather than Bush and Blair. For example, there is serious talk of an international trial for former Liberian leader, Charles Taylor, now in exile in Nigeria, just as there is a distinct possibility that Hissen Habre, former leader of Chad and now in exile in Senegal will be similarly subjected to 'universal jurisdiction.' Still, it is bracing to contemplate Washington’s reluctance to adhere to the International Criminal Court. It is as if an implicit concession is being made that a nation which engages in torture, which kidnaps foreign nationals abroad and drags them to prisons in Guantanamo, Poland and Romania, which illegally invades and occupies another sovereign state, has something to fear from the ICC. To be sure, Washington had no objection to the international trial of former Yugoslav leader, Slobodan Milosevic; in fact, the U.S. threatened to withhold up to $100 million in financial aid if the new Yugoslav government did not deliver him to the tribunal. The objection is to U.S. nationals being subjected to international jurisdiction. Indeed, with utter chutzpah, Washington 'passed the American Servicemembers’ Protection Act', which is 'intended to intimidate countries which exercise their sovereign right to ratify the Rome Statute', which brought the ICC into being. That is, the act authorizes the President to 'use all means necessary and appropriate' to free any U.S. national who is 'being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of' the ICC. This is why the act is referred to – not jokingly – as the 'Hague Invasion Act'. This disregard of the ICC – and the similar disregard of the Kyoto Accord on Global Warming – has caused great consternation, particularly among the so-called allies of U.S. imperialism in Europe. The so-called 'war on terror' has caused U.S. imperialism to reach new lows in its adherence to international law. Prisoners of this conflict can be tried by military commissions conducted in secret and the prosecution may rely on secret evidence and witnesses. There is no appeal to any civilian court. One prisoner caught up in this bizarre hall of mirrors 'claimed to be 105 years old and weighed just 123 pounds.' His 'family had no idea where he was.' He was finally released from Guantanamo – without apology. Then there are the arguments that the U.S. President has the right to permit torture. But as Harold Koh, Dean of the Yale Law School, replied, the logical extension of such an argument is that the President has the right to permit genocide. Sadly, if one examines the history of Native Americans, it is not hard to deduce that the White House already has arrogated to itself this dubious 'right.' After all, the U.S. waited forty long years to become a party to the 1948 Genocide Convention. It is no accident that leading bourgeois analysts, as the author writes, have asserted that '’there are worse things than empires. After half a century the White Man’s Burden must be taken up again.’' The author does point to the contradiction that U.S. imperialism, which regularly ignores and violates international norms and laws, also seeks to convert the regulations of one global body into holy writ – I refer, of course, to the World Trade Organization. But even here there are noteworthy wrinkles. When the WTO authorized sanctions against the U.S. sought by the European Union and the latter in 2004 announced their intention to slap these designated sanctions on citrus fruits from Florida so as to affect the presidential race, the Bush White House caved in to the pressure. Cogently, the author observes that 'politics dictates that [U.S. imperialism] must give the impression of being in control' – even when it is retreating frantically. So when Bush decided to lift measures limiting foreign imports of steel into the U.S. – which had brought on these sanctions – he made no mention of the sword of these E.U. and WTO imposed sanctions hanging over his head but acted as if his decision came solely from a change of his own mind. This is an important lesson: progressives must not accept the myth of the omnipotence of U.S. imperialism, particularly since the Wizard of Oz himself – one George W. Bush – does not want us to peer behind the curtain.

But naturally we must scrutinize ever more insistently the alleged omnipotence of U.S. imperialism-then proceed to dismantle it, blow by blow. For driving us inexorably to this valuable lesson, this author merits our heartfelt thanks.



--Gerald Horne is a contributing editor of Political Affairs.