[Peace-discuss] The democrats don't care about obeying international law either

[ppatton at uiuc.edu]

Democratic Party Platform Shows Shift to the Right on Foreign 
Policy
by Stephen Zunes
 

With the backdrop of ongoing death and destruction in Iraq as 
a result of the 2003 U.S. invasion and subsequent occupation, 
the Democratic Party formally adopted their 2004 platform 
July 28 at their convention in Boston. The platform focused 
more on foreign policy than it had in recent years, providing 
the opposition party an opportunity to challenge the 
Republican administration's unprecedented and dangerous 
departure from the post-World War II international legal 
consensus forbidding such aggressive wars as well as a means 
with which to offer a clear alternative to the Bush Doctrine.

Even the Republican Party under Barry Goldwater in 1964 and 
Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984 did not openly challenge such 
basic international principles as the illegitimacy of 
invading a sovereign nation because of unsubstantiated claims 
they might some day be a potential security threat.

Yet not only have Senators John Kerry and John Edwards 
continued to defend their support of the illegal invasion and 
occupation of Iraq, the 2004 Democratic platform complains 
that the administration "did not send sufficient forces to 
accomplish the mission." The most direct challenge to Bush 
Administration policies in Iraq contained in the platform is 
its alleged failures to adequately equip American forces.

The only thing the 2004 Democratic Party platform could offer 
opponents of the war is a sentence which acknowledges 
that "People of good will disagree about whether America 
should have gone to war in Iraq."

As the Los Angeles Times editorialized, "Indeed they do. That 
is why we have elections, and it would have been nice if the 
opposition party had the guts to actually oppose it."

A Platform in Defense of Unilateralism and Skewed Priorities

While the foreign policy segments of this year's Democratic 
Party platform had some positive elements, there are serious 
problems not just in what it did not say, but in much of what 
it did say.

For example, the platform justifies the ongoing U.S. military 
occupation of Iraq by claiming that "having gone to war, we 
cannot afford to fail at peace. We cannot allow a failed 
state in Iraq that inevitably would become a haven for 
terrorists and a destabilizing force in the Middle East." 
This ignores the fact that Iraq's instability and the influx 
of foreign terrorists is a direct consequence of the U.S. 
invasion and occupation authorized and supported by the 
Democratic Party's presidential and vice-presidential 
nominees.

To those who are disturbed at Senator Kerry's support for 
invading foreign countries in defiance of the United Nations 
Charter, the platform arrogantly asserts "With John Kerry as 
commander-in-chief, we will never wait for a green light from 
abroad when our safety is at stake." However, there is 
nothing in the UN Charter which limits the right of the 
United States or any government to genuine self-defense. Such 
language may be preparing the way for a President Kerry, like 
President Bush, to launch invasions or other military actions 
against foreign countries in defiance of international law by 
simply claiming that "our safety is at stake," just as Kerry 
did from the Senate floor in justifying his support for the 
U.S. invasion of Iraq.

One possible target for American forces under a Kerry 
administration is Iran. The platform implies an American 
right to such military intervention in asserting that "a 
nuclear-armed Iran is an unacceptable risk to us and our 
allies." No concern is expressed, however, about the already-
existing nuclear arsenals of Iran's neighbor Pakistan or of 
nearby Israel. Iran has called for a nuclear-free zone in the 
region, which the Democrats appear to reject, apparently 
because it would require America's regional allies to get rid 
of their nuclear arsenals as well. The Democrats, like the 
Republicans, believe that instead of pushing for multilateral 
and verifiable arms control treaties, the United States can 
effective impose a kind of nuclear apartheid, unilaterally 
determining which countries can have nuclear weapons and 
which countries cannot.

Furthermore, like the neo-cons in the Bush Administration, 
the Democrats appear to have rejected the longstanding 
doctrine of nuclear deterrence in favor of policy based upon 
risky, destabilizing, and illegal unilateral pre-emptive 
military strikes.

The Democrats appear to be similarly selective regarding 
democracy. For example, the platform calls for strategies 
to "end the Castro regime as soon as possible and enable the 
Cuban people to take their rightful place in the democratic 
community of the Americas." Significantly, there are no 
similar calls anywhere in the platform to end any of the 
scores of non-socialist dictatorships currently in power 
throughout the world or of enabling the people oppressed by 
theses regimes - many of which receive U.S. military and 
economic support - to join the democratic community of 
nations. Similarly, the platform promises to "work with the 
international community to increase political and economic 
pressure on the Castro regime to release all political 
prisoners, support civil society, promote the important work 
of Cuban dissidents, and begin a process of genuine political 
reform," yet there are no calls for such pressure on any 
right-wing dictatorships.

Strategic parity has long been considered the most 
stabilizing relationship between traditional antagonists if 
the goal is peace and security. When it comes to American 
allies like Israel, however, the Democrats instead appear to 
be committed to maintaining that country's military dominance 
of the region, with the platform pledging that "we will 
insure that, under all circumstances, Israel retains its 
qualitative edge."

Regarding the city of Jerusalem, the Arab-populated eastern 
half of which was seized by Israeli forces in 1967 and 
subsequently annexed, the platform insists that "Jerusalem is 
the capital of Israel and should remain undivided." This has 
been widely acknowledged as yet another Democratic attack on 
the UN Charter, which forbids any nation from expanding its 
boundaries through military force, as well as a rejoinder to 
a series of UN Security Council resolutions calling on 
nations to not recognize Israel's illegal annexation of East 
Jerusalem. It could also be seen as an effort to undermine 
last year's Geneva Initiative and other Israeli-Palestinian 
peace efforts which call for Israeli control of Jewish 
neighborhoods and Palestinian control of Arab neighborhoods 
in a city which would serve as the co-capital of Israel and 
Palestine with full access to holy places by people of all 
faiths.

In yet another attack on international legal principles, the 
platform also dismisses as "unrealistic" any obligation for 
Israel to completely withdraw from lands seized in its 1967 
conquests and denies Palestinian refugees' right to return, 
insisting that they instead only be permitted to relocate to 
a truncated Palestinian state which Israel might allow to be 
created some time in the future.

Despite pressing domestic needs, the Pentagon budget now 
constitutes over half of all federal discretionary spending. 
The United States spends almost as much on its military as 
the rest of the world combined. Never in history has one 
power been so dominant on a global scale. Yet this is not 
enough for the Democrats. The Democratic Platform insists 
that the U.S. military "must be stronger, faster, and better 
armed."

Ironically, the first reason mentioned in the platform as to 
why, despite pressing needs at home, "we must strengthen our 
military" is the "asymmetrical threats we now face in Iraq" - 
threats that were non-existent until the U.S invaded that 
country, a decision authorized and supported by Kerry, 
Edwards and the Democratic leadership of both houses in 
Congress.

Opposition from the rank-and-file

This does not mean that a majority of Democrats support such 
right-wing foreign policies. For example, a poll just prior 
to the convention showed that 95% of the delegates oppose the 
decision to invade Iraq, something that both their 
presidential and their vice-presidential nominees have 
steadfastly refused to do.

That the delegates were prevented from even challenging the 
platform or voting to include an anti-war plank is a 
demonstration as to how undemocratic the "Democratic" Party 
has become. Even in the 1968 Democratic convention, when the 
target of anti-war activists was the incumbent Democratic 
administration and when most state delegations were dominated 
by the party establishment, the delegates were allowed to 
propose, debate and vote upon an anti-war plank, which - 
despite its defeat on the convention floor - did give 
opponents of the Vietnam War an opportunity to express their 
views before the convention and the national media.

It is also sign as to just how far to the right the 
Democratic Party leadership has become as compared to the 
rank-and-file, which could severely weaken the enthusiasm of 
the party base the Kerry campaign needs to counter the 
Republicans' advantage in funding during the fall campaign.

Finally, it is a reminder that should Kerry and Edwards be 
elected anyway, those who support international law, human 
rights, and adequate funding for domestic needs will have to 
continue their struggle as much as ever.

Stephen Zunes is a professor of Politics at the University of 
San Francisco. 
__________________________________________________________________
Dr. Paul Patton
Research Scientist
Beckman Institute  Rm 3027  405 N. Mathews St.
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign  Urbana, Illinois 61801
work phone: (217)-265-0795   fax: (217)-244-5180
home phone: (217)-344-5812
homepage: http://netfiles.uiuc.edu/ppatton/www/index.html

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious.  It is the
source of all true art and science."
-Albert Einstein
__________________________________________________________________