With three little words, the United States Senate has set itself on what seems to be a collision course with Belgrade over the surrender of The Hague’s most wanted man. The fateful words–“including Ratko Mladic”–appear tucked away inside a financing bill for American aid to Serbia.
Serbia plunged itself into confrontation with The Hague–and possibly also the international community–this week, by refusing to hand over four former commanders in Kosovo whose indictments were made public on October 20. The four held the rank of colonel-general at the time of their alleged offenses in Kosovo in 1999, while one is now a senior government minister. Former Pristina corps commander Vladimir Lazarevic, the current head of the Serbian interior ministry’s public security department, Sreten Lukic, his predecessor Vlastimir Djordjevic, and former army chief of staff Nebojsa Pavkovic are charged with attacks on villages and ethnic cleansing.
As a Liberian living in Zimbabwe, I, like many of my expatriates, have been tying up Africa’s phone lines trying to reach my relatives in Monrovia. The reports of violence in the mainstream press have deep meaning for me, as I worry about the fate of my family, especially my mother, who was just released from the hospital. My sister told me that rocket-propelled grenades fired by Liberia United for Reconciliation and Democracy (LURD) rebel forces had landed on the house where she lived. My mother’s house also suffered such an attack. Thankfully, their lives were spared, but immediately after the explosions destroyed the houses, desperate vandals looted them, and my sister and mother are now among the 1 million Liberians who are displaced. They were able to seek refuge at the Faith Healing Temple in Logan Town, about a mile from their homes. As I spoke to them, the voices of others, especially crying babies, were audible in the background.
The current U.S. administration has a near-religious aversion to the new, permanent International Criminal Court (ICC). The court, now with 90 member countries, was established to ensure that the rule of law prevails in places where the only alternative is impunity for the most gut-wrenchingly vicious crimes against humanity. Its opponents in the administration, however, claim that the court will become a forum for politicized prosecutions. In fact, they are so sure that the court is out to persecute U.S. citizens that they are willing to undermine some of the most basic foundations of international security to protect against this perceived, but nonexistent, threat.
The terrorist bombings that struck Saudi Arabia on May 12th have raised a number of serious questions regarding American security interests in the Middle East. First of all, the attacks underscore the concern expressed by many independent strategic analysts that the United States has been squandering its intelligence and military resources toward Iraq–which had nothing to do with al Qaeda and posed no direct danger to the United States–and not toward al Qaeda itself, which is the real threat.
There has been a real fear in recent months that the right-wing government of Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon might take advantage of the international focus on the U.S. invasion of Iraq to increase its repression in the occupied Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Few people realized, however, that one of the first casualties would be a young American.
Considerable attention has been given to President George W. Bush’s February 26 speech before the right-wing American Enterprise Institute in Washington, DC outlining his vision of the Middle East in the aftermath of a possible U.S. invasion of Iraq. The speech was broadcast live over national radio and television and given widespread coverage in the print media, yet few critical voices questioning the major points raised in this sanctimonious and highly misleading address were given the opportunity to offer commentary. Below are excerpts of some key portions of the speech followed by some critiques that listeners and viewers were unable to hear:
In his proposed “Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief” announced during last month’s State of the Union Address, President Bush promised, among other things, “a comprehensive plan [to] prevent seven million new HIV infections.” International organizations working to prevent the spread of HIV and improve women’s health worldwide met the announcement with a mixture of hope and skepticism. Hope because prevention is critical to reducing the toll of HIV worldwide. Skepticism because sound AIDS prevention depends on effective promotion of safe sex, an obvious area of contention for the Bush administration.
As U.S. officials look for political cover after losing the drive for a second UN Security Council resolution, the recently renamed “Coalition to Disarm Iraq” is the Bush administration’s only opportunity to salvage a semblance of international legitimacy for war. A closer look at the countries involved reveals that claims to multilateral action in the name of democracy are grossly exaggerated. In reality, the U.S. is isolated internationally, and a few of the countries signing on to “liberate” Iraq have human rights records that rival Saddam Hussein’s.
As the administration’s rationales for invading Iraq–such as Baghdad’s alleged ties to al Qaeda and claims of an imminent nuclear threat–have crumbled under closer scrutiny, the administration and its allies in Congress and the media are increasingly emphasizing a point that cannot be disputed: the repressive nature of the Iraqi regime.