What Are Bush's New Doctrines? "Pre-Emptive Strike" and "Regime Change"
- What is Bush's "pre-emptive strike" policy?
On June 1, in his West Point speech, President Bush declared that the U.S. would not wait for the next terrorist threat to emerge: the U.S. will strike first. Bush officials have repeatedly signaled that Iraq--even without proven links to Al Qaeda or the 9.11 attacks--will be the first target under the new pre-emptive strike doctrine.
- What is Bush's "regime change" policy?
After 9.11, Bush officials proclaimed the U.S.' right to topple governments and remove leaders in order to counter terrorism. Initially, the U.S. had international support for its war to oust the Taliban (and hunt down Al Qaeda) in Afghanistan. Since then, and despite near-universal world opposition, Bush officials have vowed to remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and demanded that the Palestinian people remove their leader Yassar Arafat. Neither leader has been linked to the 9.11 terrorist attacks.
- Are "pre-emptive strikes" and "regime change" legal
under international law?
No. Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter clearly states that member nations "shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” Article 51 of the Charter outlines the terms under which a member state may use force in self-defense. That Article states that, if attacked, a nation has an "inherent right to individual or collective self-defense," but only until the Security Council can meet and decide what to do. The Charter does not allow military force to be used absent an armed attack having occurred. In addition, the UN resolution granting the U.S. the right to use force in response to 9.11 does not authorize "pre-emptive strike" or "regime change" measures.
- Has a "pre-emptive strike" ever been used before?
The clearest example was Israel's 1981 unilateral bombing of Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak. The UN Security Council passed a resolution unanimously condemning the Israeli attack. Even the U.S., which usually sides with Israel, supported this resolution. The UN argued that if pre-emptive strike were accepted as legal, any state could attack another under the pretext that it detected a threat.
- When has "regime change" been used?
The CIA has, of course, covertly engineered coups--"regime change"-- against democratically elected leaders, including in Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), Chile (1973), and elsewhere. For decades, the CIA repeatedly tried to assassinate Cuban president Fidel Castro. However, in the mid-1970s, amid scandals, Congress explicitly banned assassinations. After the 9.11 terrorist attacks, Bush granted over $1billion in new CIA funds for covert action, and has publicly announced as a foreign policy objective the goal of unseating Saddam Hussein from power.
Citations/Sources:
Bennis, Phyllis. Calling the Shots: How Washington Dominates Today's UN (New York: Olive Branch Press, 1996). (also see: "Testimony Prepared for Hearings on Iraq Policy Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 31 July 2002--ips-dc.org/comment/Bennis/iraqtestimony.htm).
Fisher, Louis. Presidential War Power (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1995). (pp.245).
Weiss, Peter. "War: Metaphor into Reality," from Opinions, Center for Constitutional Rights website, www.ccr-ny.org--September 19, 2001.
Legal Information Institute, Cornell University School of Law: www.law.cornell.edu/background/warpower
Lobel, Jules and Michael Ratner. "Humanitarian Military Intervention," Foreign Policy In Focus, Vol. 5, No. 1, January 2002 (www.fpif.org).
Lorenz, Frederick M. "Response to Terrorism: Military Force and International Law."
Martyn, Angus. "The Right of Self-Defence Under International Law", Law and Bills Digest Group, Department of the Parliamentary Library (Parliament of Australia), February 12, 2002.
Ratner, Michael. "The Dangers of War," speech at the NYC National Lawyers Guild Meeting, October 3, 2001 (found in Opinions, section, www.ccr-ny.org).
Ratner, Michael and Jules Lobel. "An Alternative to the U.S. Employment of Military Force", Center for Constitutional Rights, September 2001 (found on www.humanrightsnow.org/alternative%20to%20force.htm).
"Rights At Risk," Amnesty International report on post-Set. 11 "antiterrorist" measures worldwide: www.amnestyusa.org.
"Should U.S. Invade Iraq?" Tufts E-News, enews.tufts.edu/stories/080502InvadeIraq.htm, August 5, 2002.
Prepared by Foreign Policy In Focus, a co-sponsor
of First Monday 2002.
Sources for these facts are listed under “Student Activists In Focus”
on our website, www.fpif.org.
Cartoon by Matt Wuerker: www.mwuerker.com
For more information, contact Julie Ajinkya, at 202-234-9382 x254 or julie@ips-dc.org
This
page was last modified on
Wednesday, October 15, 2003 2:18 PM
Contact
the IRC's webmaster with inquiries regarding
the functionality of this website.
Copyright © 2001 IRC
and IPS. All rights reserved.