Screaming Penguin - Source Does Matter

rogue

adj.
1. Vicious and solitary. Used of an animal, especially an elephant that has separated itself from its herd.
2. Large, destructive, and anomalous or unpredictable: a rogue wave; a rogue tornado.
3. Operating outside normal or desirable controls: �How could a single rogue trader bring down an otherwise profitable and well-regarded institution?� (Saul Hansell).

For a number of years now, we have heard administrations in the US and Europe refer to "rogue nations" as being the largest threat to planetary security. Nations like Iraq and North Korea, before being part of the Axis of Evil were rogue nations. They were nations that bucked international pressure at every front. They were agressive nations that disregarded international law. They were nations that posed a clear and present danger to the security of the world. Today, they have been replaced by a greater threat. An enemy so ominous, ignored for so long that it has obtained world wide reach. With bases of operation all over the world it is difficult to imagine any location being safe from attack.

The United States of America has become a rogue nation.

A year ago today, we saw the world united in outrage at one of the worst atrocities ever commited. The events of September 11 drew words of support from nations like Iran and Syria and Pakistan with whom we have had a tenuous relationship at best. People all over the world cringed at the deaths of thousands at the hands of so few. Pledges of support in hunting down these monsters came from all corners of the world. Now, we have squandered the opportunity to turn tragedy into a powerful turning point for good on scale unseen in history.

The current push by the administration for unilateral action against Iraq has changed all that. Some of our oldest friends are turning against us. We are saying that organizations the UN, the IAEA and the International Court no longer apply.

I remember many discussions in this country from the coffeehouse to the Sunday talk shows about how the United States shouldn't be the "policeman to the world." I have never had a problem with that title personally. We have the strength, we have the resources and I would like to think we have the ethical sense to play that role in the New World Order. With our sidestepping of international organizations, however, we are not acting as the policeman to the world, we are acting as a vigilante at best, a bully at worst. Many people all over the world have always held an uneasy sense about the United States. Being the last remaining superpower has left many wondering what we would do with our military might. The Arab nations call us empirialist. The African nations call us uncaring. The Europeans call us arrogant. With our current action, I get the feeling we may have confirmed all of their fears.

When we rolled into Afghanistan, it was the Europeans, not the United States who seemed concerned about making this downtrodden nation into a functional member of the world community. Today we are discussing the overthrow of the Iraqi government with little or no discussion about how to re-establish nation. We have ignored injustices all over the world for years. We have allowed huge and hugely profitable drug companies to deny treatment to the aids ravaged nations. Now, we are calling out Iraq. Why?

There was an interesting memo from the State Department during the last year of the Regan administration, after Iraq had just gassed thousands of citizens. The quote was "Genocide and use of chemical weapons aside, our national interests are in line with those of Iraq." Think about that for a minute. These are the reasons that Bush and Blair are giving us as justification. Meanwhile, Rowanda goes ignored. When Muslims were being slaughtered in the former Yugoslavia, you know who was there? Osama. Millions murdered in Cambodia and we stood by and watched. In fact, as Afghanistan was falling into the hands of the bin Ladens and the Taliban, American newspapers were accused of spending too much time covering it. "Afghanistanism" was the label placed on the New York Times for it's attempt to cover what was happening elsewhere in the world. It is in these places we have long ignored that these dark elements have flourished. Now when the world finally begins to unite in the understanding that nation building is important and that it is in everyone's interest to work together for larger peace and justice, we are saber rattling against not only Iraq, but the foundations of the United Nations. We are using thin excuses to act in a hurried, unilateral, rogue way against a nation that shows little imminent danger to us. Instead of pressing ahead with the Iraqi issue in the international arena, we immediately talk of invasion.

Has the last few years seen Iraqi problem ignored? Absolutely. Pressure in the United Nations has fallen off. Should this be brought back to the forefront of international attention? Definitely. However, I would like to answer a question posed before Parliament today by the Prime Minister: "Does an action that is good and true and justified if taken by many nations become wrong if taken by one?" Yes. It does for the same reason that avenging of a murder by a victims family is still murder. It does because civilization, even at the international level, is governed by agreement and law. As soon as the US or the UK begins ignoring this, we have turned our backs on the ideals on which our great nations were founded.

The League of Nations fell because international perception deemed its decisions carried no weight. In 1991, the world united against the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The United Nations demonstrated that it was not yet prepared to be relegated to a footnote in history like the League of Nations. Today, we are threatening to destroy this venerable institution by showing that two of the most powerful nations in the world consider it moot. Saudi Arabia has no friend in Hussein. Qatar and Bahrain don't either, especially as smaller more Western friendly nations. None of them -- none -- have been willing to support unilateral US action in Iraq, yet each has pledged support fot UN action if deemed necessary by the international community.

In the last 2 weeks, we have seen people from Colin Powel, to the Chairman of the Join Chiefs to former NATO Supreme Commander Clark attest that maintaining actions in Afghanistan and unilateral action Iraq is within the capabilities of the US military. I don't doubt that. In real terms we have very few troops in Afghanistan and I have the utmost faith in our uniformed personel. What I am not hearing is discussion of what an action could mean. After September 11, we heard Sharon using echoes of President Bush's agressive language to escalate actions against the Palestinians. He has already stated publicly that Isael would not stand by if attacked as a recourse to an Iraqi action. What happens when Israel responds to lobbing of missiles, escalates action against the PLA even farther and precipitates action by Syria or Lebanon? We are talking about a keg that has been getting powder poured into in contantly since 1999, now we are ready to fire a cruise missile into it. Do we think we can invade Iraq, defend an Israel on questionable moral footing already and give due focus to our domestic issues, both security and economic?

Contrary to what Lynne Cheney would have us believe, I don't think that patriotism means nationalism. I don't think patriotism means blind acceptance of what our leaders put in front of us. I don't think that being part of a community of nations lessens us in any way. I would like to encourage everyone to think about what kind of world we want to live in, and judge our nations current actions in that light. We have power and wealth and strength. Does this mean we want dominate a Lord of the Flies international environment, or work toward something larger?