[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 41 (Thursday, March 13, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Page S3717]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AMERICA'S COMMITMENT TO INTERNATIONAL LAW
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, when future generations reflect on the
fallout from the terrorist attack of 9/11/2001, I fear they will see
our own commitment to international law as a casualty of that event. I
do.
For some time now, there has been a contest within the U.S. foreign
policy establishment between those who believe our greater security
lies with the strengthening of international institutions and
agreements, on the one hand, and, on the other, those who believe our
security is enhanced if we demonstrate the will and capacity to
prevail; that is, to dominate the new world and shape it to our liking.
The election of President Bush and the attack of 9/11 have moved U.S.
policy to endorse this second vision--that of U.S. dominance of a world
that meets our standards of acceptable conduct.
The result of this shift in U.S. foreign policy is now evident in the
statements and actions of the President regarding Iraq. Unless I
misread those statements by the President and his foreign policy team,
sometime within the next few days, the United States, and possibly
British, troops will begin an invasion of Iraq. The mission, according
to the President, will be to disarm Saddam Hussein, to capture and
destroy his weapons of mass destruction, to liberate the people of Iraq
from his despotic rule, to install a new and democratic government, and
to hold up Iraq as a model for freedom and democracy that can be
emulated by other Middle Eastern countries.
These are noble objectives. My concern is not with the objectives but
with the apparent decision the President has made to proceed with an
invasion now while many Americans and many of our traditional allies
believe that alternatives to war still exist.
In his State of the Union Address, the President spoke about a
circumstance where ``war is forced upon us.'' After the President
spoke, I came to the Senate floor to make what I considered an obvious
point; that is, that war had not been forced upon us. It is still my
view today that war with Iraq has not been forced upon us. Our allies
who are urging that the U.N. weapons inspectors be given more time to
do their work agree with that view.
In the report to the Security Council last Friday, Hans Blix and
Mohamed ElBaradai, the heads of the U.N. inspection teams, reported
progress toward the goal of ensuring that Iraq has been disarmed. They
pointed out that more cooperation by Iraq is needed, but they
acknowledged that cooperation has increased.
President Bush and Secretary of State Powell have correctly pointed
out that Iraq's increased level of cooperation does not constitute full
compliance with Security Council Resolution 1441, in that Iraq has not
fully, completely, and immediately disarmed.
The question is whether this failure to fully comply with the U.N.
resolution justifies an armed invasion of Iraq at this time. Many
Security Council members believe it does not, and, in my view, it does
not.
Our Government's position appears to be that we will enforce the U.N.
Security Council resolution even though the Security Council itself
does not support that action at this time. In other words, we will act
in coordination with the views of the world community of nations as
long as those views agree with our own. When those views differ from
our own, we will use our great military capability to impose our will
by force.
I, for one, can support a policy of imposing our will by force,
notwithstanding the views of our allies, if there is an imminent threat
to our own security and if all options, other than war, have been
exhausted. But neither of those circumstances prevails today.
A decision to wage war at this time, absent the support of our
traditional allies, contradicts the foreign policy on which this Nation
has been grounded for many decades. It undermines the international
institution that previous U.S. administrations worked to establish as
an instrument for world peace. It clearly signals that even absent an
imminent threat to our security, we consider ourselves the ultimate
arbiter of acceptable behavior by other governments and that we will
act to ``change regimes'' when we determine the actions of other
governments to be unacceptable.
Madam President, this is an unwise and dangerous precedent for us to
establish. Stripped of its niceties, it is essentially a foreign policy
premised on the belief that ``might makes right.'' At this point in
world history, we have the might and, therefore, accommodating the
views of others seems a low priority. But the day will surely come when
others also have the might, and then we may wish we had shown restraint
so that we can argue that others should as well.
There is a famous scene from ``A Man For All Seasons,'' the
magnificent play Robert Bolt wrote, about the conflict between Sir
Thomas More, a man of conscience and the law, and his sovereign, Henry
VIII.
More and Roper, his son-in-law, are arguing about the law at this
point in the play. Their conversation is instructive. Roper, the son-
in-law, exclaims: ``So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!'' More
replies: ``Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to
get after the Devil?'' Roper says: ``I'd cut down every law in England
to do that,'' to which More responds: ``. . . And when the last law was
down, and the Devil turned round on you--where would you hide, Roper,
the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from
coast to coast . . . and if you cut them down--and you're just the man
to do it--d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that
would blow then?'' ``Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own
safety's sake.''
I submit that if the United States determines to circumvent the U.N.
in this case, the Devil may well turn round on us, and we could reap
the whirlwind for years to come.
I yield the floor.
____________________