We stand passively mute
Robert Byrd, a US senator, appeals to fellow
Americans to reject the administration's 'outrageous,
reckless and inexcusable' foreign policy
Tuesday February 18, 2003
The Guardian
guardian.co.uk
To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human
experiences. As this nation stands at the brink of battle, every
American must be contemplating the horrors of war.
Yet, this chamber is, for the most part, silent - ominously,
dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt
to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war.
We stand passively mute in the United States Senate,
paralysed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the
sheer turmoil of events. And this is no small conflagration we
contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No.
This coming battle, if it materialises, represents a turning point
in US foreign policy.
This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a
revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an
unfortunate time. The doctrine of pre-emption - the idea that the
United States or any other nation can attack a nation that is not
imminently threatening but may be in the future - is a radical
new twist on the traditional idea of self-defence. It appears to be
in contravention of international law and the UN charter. And it is
being tested at a time of worldwide terrorism, making many
countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our - or
some other nation's - hit list. High-level administration figures
recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when
discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more
destabilising than this type of uncertainty?
There are huge cracks emerging in our alliances, and US
intentions are suddenly subject to worldwide speculation.
Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion
and alarming rhetoric from US leaders is fracturing the
once-solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after
September 11.
Here at home, people are warned of terrorist attacks with little
guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family
members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of
what horrors they may face. The mood of the nation is grim. The
economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising.
This administration, now in power for a little over two years,
must be judged on its record. This administration has
squandered a projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion. This
administration has fostered policies which have slowed
economic growth. This administration has ignored urgent
matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This
administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for
homeland security. This administration has been reluctant to
better protect our borders. This administration has failed to find
Osama bin Laden. This administration has split traditional
alliances, possibly crippling for all time order-keeping entities
like the United Nations and Nato. This administration has called
into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United
States as well-intentioned peacekeeper. This administration has
turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labelling and
name-calling.
We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a war
on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation of our allies as well
as the newer friends. Our military will do us little good if we
suffer another attack on our homeland which damages our
economy. Our military is already stretched thin and we will need
the support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not
just sign letters cheering us on.
The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37bn so far, yet there is
evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold
in that region. We have not found Bin Laden, and unless we
secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may
yet again flourish. This administration has not finished the first
war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another
conflict. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned
that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?
And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq.
Speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields? To
whom do we hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein?
Will our war result in attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with
its own nuclear arsenal? Has our bellicose language and our
disregard of the interests of other nations increased the race to
join the nuclear club?
This reckless and arrogant administration has initiated policies
which may reap disastrous consequences. One can understand
the anger and shock of any president after September 11. One
can appreciate the frustration of having only an amorphous,
fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact
retribution. But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of
destabilising foreign policy debacle that the world is currently
witnessing is inexcusable. Many of the pronouncements made
by this administration are outrageous. There is no other word.
Yet on what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and
destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq - a population
of which over 50% is under age 15 - this chamber is silent. On
what is possibly only days before we send thousands off to face
unimagined horrors of warfare - this chamber is silent. On the
eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in
retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the
Senate. We are truly "sleepwalking through history".
To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must
always be a last resort, not a first choice. This war is not
necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good
result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so
quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box
of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more
time.
Robert Byrd is Democratic senator for West Virginia. This is an
extract from a speech made in the US Senate on February 12.
guardian.co.uk |
