Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
The End of World Order
Iraq was not condemned to be without rights or outlawed for all time. An authorization for the use of force cannot be read from resolution 1441.. A right to preventive self-defense may exist in an extreme situation when enemy missiles are being launched..
The End of World Order
Government advisor Christian Tomuschat on a possible Iraq war, the errors of foreign minister Joschka Fischer and the dangerous attitude of the US
[This interview is translated from the German in: Spiegel 4/2003. Christian Tomuschat, 66, professor in Berlin, is regarded as one of the most important government experts in questions of international law.]
Spiegel: Professor Tomuschat, may the US strike Iraq without a new UN resolution?
Tomuschat: No, that is impossible. The basic rule is still valid that use of force against a state is only authorized in two cases: for self-defense or when the Security Council issues an authorization.
Spiegel: To American hardliners, resolution 1441 of November 2002 threatening Iraq with “serious consequences” for new violations is enough.
Tomuschat: The resolution obviously threatens consequences for non-compliance. The Security Council must first pass a resolution.
Spiegel: The resolution refers to earlier resolutions that justified a military action against Iraq.
Tomuschat: These were designed for the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait. This is past since 1991. Iraq was not condemned to be outlawed or without rights for all time. An authorization for the use of force cannot be read from resolution 1441.
Spiegel: Foreign minister Joschka Fischer recently said that the resolution leaves open whether a new authorization is necessary or whether the Americans can act without a new authorization.
Tomuschat: I cannot agree with this legal interpretation. The resolution says nothing on this point. There is no exception here to the general rule of prohibition of force.
Spiegel: Did you tell this to the minister?
Tomuschat: Not personally. However the question was discussed at a hearing of the international law advisory board.
Spiegel: Are there no international law scholars on whom the foreign minister can rely?
Tomuschat: There are only a few isolated supporters.
Spiegel: President George Bush insists on a right to preventive self-defense.
Tomuschat: A right to preventive self-defense may exist in an extreme situation when enemy missiles are ready to be launched. Even if Iraq has hidden weapons, a concrete danger is not manifest.
Spiegel: What if the US simply ignores these misgivings?
Tomuschat: One of the basic pillars of the modern order of international law would then be pulled down. I think the US is interested in the long-term that every state cannot simply do what it wants.
Spiegel: What if it is not proven that Iraq has destroyed all weapons of mass destruction?
Tomuschat: The burden of proof is on those who say a war should be waged, the US. If the US has exclusive, secret service information, they must make this public.
Spiegel: The US regarded Iraq’ s latest incomplete weapons report as a violation.
Tomuschat: The fact that Iraq neglected to make careful and exact disclosures cannot justify a war.
Spiegel: The chancellor in the election campaign described a war in Iraq as an “adventure”. Now Germany sits on the Security Council and must vote.
Tomuschat: Statements from the election campaign should not be overrated. All Security Council members must examine the evidentiary material without prejudice. Every country is obligated to reject such a resolution if nothing concrete is put on the table. However Germany can hardly exclude itself if 14 other countries deem a military strike as necessary.
Spiegel: If the US attacks Iraq without a new resolution, must Germany refuse its bases and the deployment of German occupation forces?
Tomuschat: This is a very serious problem. According to the constitution, the prohibition of force underlies obligations from international treaties. Germany may not help the US in a war against international law. In this case, Germany must make clear that granting fly-over rights and the like are not prohibited assistance.
Spiegel: Foreign minister Fischer says this was “yesterday’s debate”.
Tomuschat: I fear this is “tomorrow’s debate”.
Spiegel: One motive of the Bush administration is rescuing the enormous oil reserves of Iraq from Saddam Hussein’s arbitrariness. Can interest in stable oil prices justify a war?
Tomuschat: Never in a lifetime.
Spiegel: The Iraq conflict seems like a classic example for the new security strategy of the US.
Tomuschat: In fact, the US before the UN now claims the right to act preventively and militarily when its security interests are threatened. US security interests also include economic security. We Germans owe much to the US. However if this new military doctrine is enforced, this would be the end of the present world order. Only the right of the stronger would be in effect. No one really wants to live in such a world.
Government advisor Christian Tomuschat on a possible Iraq war, the errors of foreign minister Joschka Fischer and the dangerous attitude of the US
[This interview is translated from the German in: Spiegel 4/2003. Christian Tomuschat, 66, professor in Berlin, is regarded as one of the most important government experts in questions of international law.]
Spiegel: Professor Tomuschat, may the US strike Iraq without a new UN resolution?
Tomuschat: No, that is impossible. The basic rule is still valid that use of force against a state is only authorized in two cases: for self-defense or when the Security Council issues an authorization.
Spiegel: To American hardliners, resolution 1441 of November 2002 threatening Iraq with “serious consequences” for new violations is enough.
Tomuschat: The resolution obviously threatens consequences for non-compliance. The Security Council must first pass a resolution.
Spiegel: The resolution refers to earlier resolutions that justified a military action against Iraq.
Tomuschat: These were designed for the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait. This is past since 1991. Iraq was not condemned to be outlawed or without rights for all time. An authorization for the use of force cannot be read from resolution 1441.
Spiegel: Foreign minister Joschka Fischer recently said that the resolution leaves open whether a new authorization is necessary or whether the Americans can act without a new authorization.
Tomuschat: I cannot agree with this legal interpretation. The resolution says nothing on this point. There is no exception here to the general rule of prohibition of force.
Spiegel: Did you tell this to the minister?
Tomuschat: Not personally. However the question was discussed at a hearing of the international law advisory board.
Spiegel: Are there no international law scholars on whom the foreign minister can rely?
Tomuschat: There are only a few isolated supporters.
Spiegel: President George Bush insists on a right to preventive self-defense.
Tomuschat: A right to preventive self-defense may exist in an extreme situation when enemy missiles are ready to be launched. Even if Iraq has hidden weapons, a concrete danger is not manifest.
Spiegel: What if the US simply ignores these misgivings?
Tomuschat: One of the basic pillars of the modern order of international law would then be pulled down. I think the US is interested in the long-term that every state cannot simply do what it wants.
Spiegel: What if it is not proven that Iraq has destroyed all weapons of mass destruction?
Tomuschat: The burden of proof is on those who say a war should be waged, the US. If the US has exclusive, secret service information, they must make this public.
Spiegel: The US regarded Iraq’ s latest incomplete weapons report as a violation.
Tomuschat: The fact that Iraq neglected to make careful and exact disclosures cannot justify a war.
Spiegel: The chancellor in the election campaign described a war in Iraq as an “adventure”. Now Germany sits on the Security Council and must vote.
Tomuschat: Statements from the election campaign should not be overrated. All Security Council members must examine the evidentiary material without prejudice. Every country is obligated to reject such a resolution if nothing concrete is put on the table. However Germany can hardly exclude itself if 14 other countries deem a military strike as necessary.
Spiegel: If the US attacks Iraq without a new resolution, must Germany refuse its bases and the deployment of German occupation forces?
Tomuschat: This is a very serious problem. According to the constitution, the prohibition of force underlies obligations from international treaties. Germany may not help the US in a war against international law. In this case, Germany must make clear that granting fly-over rights and the like are not prohibited assistance.
Spiegel: Foreign minister Fischer says this was “yesterday’s debate”.
Tomuschat: I fear this is “tomorrow’s debate”.
Spiegel: One motive of the Bush administration is rescuing the enormous oil reserves of Iraq from Saddam Hussein’s arbitrariness. Can interest in stable oil prices justify a war?
Tomuschat: Never in a lifetime.
Spiegel: The Iraq conflict seems like a classic example for the new security strategy of the US.
Tomuschat: In fact, the US before the UN now claims the right to act preventively and militarily when its security interests are threatened. US security interests also include economic security. We Germans owe much to the US. However if this new military doctrine is enforced, this would be the end of the present world order. Only the right of the stronger would be in effect. No one really wants to live in such a world.
For more information:
http://www.mbtranslations.com
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$210.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
the international petrochemical complex, international (so called Free) trade, etc. The Bilderbergers and other such groups (e.g. CFR) are merely policy coordinating committee's and think tanks.
It is still nascent, finding it's feet, it is beyond infancy and is now in it's adolescence, and that is why it is violent, full of itself, reckless and expeditionary (adventuresome).
It is at the bully stage, using force, fraud in the form of terror to subdue it's populations and achieve it's goals.
That it hasn't "matured", i.e. achieved it's goals is one of the reasons that it is planning to subdue the Mid East, starting with Iraq.
Domestically, this New World Order, is laying the groundwork to subdue internal critics, create perpetual fear within the domain of "first world" nations, and to track and eliminate any and all potential or potentially effective oppositon.
We see that in both the unPatriot Act, and the upcoming unPatriot Act II, which will finish the job started by unPATRIOT act I.
The first target's of this scheme is America. The goal is to mentally and emotionally subdue American's, through fear - we see that happening before our eyes.
With American's subdued through fear, and excited by righteous propaganda, the tremendous productive and technological output of this nation can then be brought to bear to subdue other countries - we see that happening before our eyes.
Meanwhile there has been a consolidation of financial power across lines of production and services.
Media and publishing outlets are being consolidated, their board of directors are interlocked, and these in turn are owned by major corporations whose board of directorships are interlocked. GE owns NBC, Westinghouse CBS, etc. Insurance Companies, Financial Institutions, the petrochemical industry are all cross owned and interlocked. Philip Morris owns more than a Tobacco Company, Prudential is the largest farmer in the nation, and one of the largest land owners as well.
And every time the stock market crashes or takes a dive, there is further consolidation of power through ownership and interlocking boards of directors.
The privatization campaign, the campaign to dismantle government programs and turn them over to private corporations and the vagaries of the gambling den called the stock market has been a major goal of our unseen masters for years, at least since Ronald Reagan.
However, such privatization and dismantling of our social safety net, never had a chance until that portion of the population which would naturally have resisted such an agenda (the "right wing") were induced to jump aboard the train to destruction. And so it was with the last election, when style and theocracy co-opted
substance and common sense.
In an other day, another epoch the disastrous programs and policies of this adminstration, would have been met with howls and hollers of the so called then "silent majority", the "constitutionalists, the FReepers. If it were a Bill Clinton acting the role of President, instead of the Smirking Chim and doing the same thing, playing the same role, the right wing would have it's bowels in an uproar.
The left is no better. The unwashed masses are moved by rhetoric and emotions. Reagan was held forth and believed to be a great "conservative" President, in actuality the polices promulgated under his tour as governor and President were in fact Keynesian and liberal - save in the domain of domestic policies i.e. civil policies, and even then he was more lip service to the right than an effective hammer.
Bill Clinton, despite his reputation, promises and constituency was a "moderate" Republican, who betrayed his constituency of labor, women and gays.
And now that the pendulum of reaction has swung to the right, another clown, another puppet is on stage who will ostensibly finish the job of "privatization" and reducing the population to worshipful, compliant albeit pampered serfs.
It really is quite Hegellian, problem, reaction, solution.
That doesn't mean that the "liberals" and "conservatives", the "right" and "left" are not sincere or driven, but only that they are being used in their driven actions and ideology, to help unravel and implement
a long range plan. The plan is quite public at that, it has appeared in print form in many auspices, unfortunately those who have read it, don't understand it and can only react to it as "proofs" of a "Right Wing" or "Left" Wing conspiracy.
The conspiracy of tweedle dee and tweedle dum, a shell game.
Put a "right wing" puppet in office and move us "left", put a "left wing" puppet in office and move us right, meanwhile the blinded, hormonal non thinking public will either attack or defend the puppet, depending on their identification with his rhetoric and perception as a "liberal - Democrat", "conservative-Republican".
We are being managed and used, and will continue to be so, so long as we play the game, take sides and react.
'dismantling our government programs' is truly the
only answer. The problem is that we see government
as a solution. It is not. We need less. The true
'conservative' position is that any government is
evil, necessary but evil. It is the over-regulation
that puts the little guy out of business, thwarting
true financial independence for citizens. These small
companies are then taken over by the large corporations.
Make government smaller. That is the answer - always has been.
of the European Liberation Front
by Francis Parker Yockey
CONTENTS:
INTRODUCTION
SECTION I. THE HISTORICAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE LIBERATION FRONT.
1. The Unity of the Western Culture
2. The Age of Materialism
SECTION II. THE CHAOS OF THE PRESENT.
A. THE UNDERMINING OF THE NATIONS.
1. Class-War
2. The Emergence of the Jew
3. Social Degeneration
B. THE DESTRUCTION OF THE POLITICAL UNITY OF EUROPE.
C. THE DESTRUCTION OF EUROPE'S WORLD-EMPIRE.
SECTION III. THE MISSION OF THE LIBERATION FRONT.