ATTY. MANUEL J. LASERNA JR. vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ET. AL., GR No. 157916, c. 2003.
I. NATURE OF THE PETITION
This is a citizen’s and taxpayer’s suit for certiorari and prohibition (Rule 65, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure), with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order, questioning the constitutionality and legality of the published decision of the President of the Philippines, Her Excellency Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, to send to Iraq on May 15, 2003 about 500 Filipino soldiers, policemen and health workers and to spend, in the process, about Six Hundred Million Pesos (P600,000,000.00). (News reports on May 6, 2003 stated that the respondents would reduce the number of personnel to 175 and the amount for the mission to P141 Million).
The respondents (and their principal, the President of the Philippines, Her Excellency Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo) do not have the jurisdiction and the constitutional power and authority to effect the sending of a Philippine military/police expedition/contingent to Iraq and to spend the aforementioned sum out of the public funds of the Government for such purpose without the prior approval of the Philippine Congress, as will be discussed in the main body of this petition.
This petition is being brought pursuant to the expanded jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Sec. 1 and Sec. 3 (1), Art. VIII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
II. PARTIES
The petitioner is a Filipino citizen, taxpayer, member of the Philippine Bar, secretary of the IBP PPLM Chapter, founding president of the Las Pinas City Bar Association, and professor of law of Far Eastern University, with postal address at Laserna Cueva-Mercader & Associates Law Offices, Unit 15, Star Arcade, C.V. Starr Ave., Philamlife Village, Las Pinas City 1743.
The public positions and official addresses of the respondents, who are being sued in this petition in their official capacities as the cabinet-level alter egos and political agents of the President of the Philippines tasked by the latter to implement the aforementioned presidential decision to send to Iraq on May 15, 2003 about 500 Filipino soldiers, policemen and health workers and to spend some P600,000,000.00 in the process thereof, are as follows:
1. The Hon. Executive Secretary
Office of the President
Malacanang Palace, Manila
2. The Hon. Secretary of National Defense
Department of National Defense
Camp Aguinaldo, EDSA, Quezon City
3. The Hon. Secretary of Foreign Affairs
Department of Foreign Affairs
Roxas Blvd., cor. Libertad St., Pasay City
IV. MATERIAL DATES
From the latter part of April 2003 and up to May 5, 203 Philippine newspapers published the unilateral decision of the President of the Philippines to send to Iraq on May 15, 2003 about 500 Filipino soldiers, policemen and health workers, for an expected total expenditure of some P600,000,000.00, as part of the President’s alleged “humanitarian and peacekeeping” contribution to the so-called “coalition of the willing” (composed of some 45 countries), led American President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, which unilaterally invaded Iraq on March 18, 2003 on a declared “regime change” mission and, after one month of such military action, had completely occupied and ruled the said country, without the benefit of a prior official resolution from the Security Council of the United Nations expressly authorizing such military invasion and occupation.
Attached hereto and marked as Annexes “A” hereof are the original copies of the aforementioned news articles published from April 24, 2003 to May 5, 2003 by the leading Philippine newspapers, The Philippine Daily Inquirer and The Philippine Star, as proofs of such presidential decision.
V. CAUSES OF ACTION AND CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL ISSUES;
DISCUSSION
A. INTERNATIONAL LAW ASPECT
At the time of the unilateral invasion of Iraq on March 18, 2003 by about 300,000 American and British soldiers upon orders of American Pres. George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who are the leaders and financiers of the minority “coalition of the willing” (of which the Philippines is a “member” by virtue of the decision of Pres. Macapagal-Arroyo), the 200 member-states of the United Nations (UN), thru the Security Council (SC), were still in the process of deliberating on the status reports on the official UN SC “disarmament” program (not “regime change” program) for Iraq. In a report to the Security Council on March 7, 2003, Dr. Hans Blix, the Executive Chairman of the U.N. Monitoring and Verification Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), had stated:
“Mr. President,
Let me conclude by telling you that UNMOVIC is currently drafting the work programme, which resolution 1284 (1999) requires us to submit this month. It will obviously contain our proposed list of key remaining disarmament tasks; it will describe the reinforced system of ongoing monitoring and verification that the Council has asked us to implement; it will also describe the various subsystems which constitute the programme, e.g. for aerial surveillance, for information from governments and suppliers, for sampling, for the checking of road traffic, etc.
How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months. Neither governments nor inspectors would want disarmament inspection to go on forever. However, it must be remembered that in accordance with the governing resolutions, a sustained inspection and monitoring system is to remain in place after verified disarmament to give confidence and to strike an alarm, if signs were seen of the revival of any proscribed weapons programmes.” (See www.unmovic.org. See Annex “B” for the full text of the foregoing Status Report).
Also on March 7, 2003 Dr. Mohamed El Baredei, the Director General of the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (UN IAEA), reported to the UN Security Council, thus:
“Conclusion
In conclusion, I am able to report today that, in the area of nuclear weapons - the most lethal weapons of mass destruction - inspections in Iraq are moving forward. Since the resumption of inspections a little over three months ago - and particularly during the three weeks since my last oral report to the Council - the IAEA has made important progress in identifying what nuclear-related capabilities remain in Iraq, and in its assessment of whether Iraq has made any efforts to revive its past nuclear programme during the intervening four years since inspections were brought to a halt. At this stage, the following can be stated:
· There is no indication of resumed nuclear activities in those buildings that were identified through the use of satellite imagery as being reconstructed or newly erected since 1998, nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected sites.
· There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990.
· There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import aluminium tubes for use in centrifuge enrichment. Moreover, even had Iraq pursued such a plan, it would have encountered practical difficulties in manufacturing centrifuges out of the aluminium tubes in question.
· Although we are still reviewing issues related to magnets and magnet production, there is no indication to date that Iraq imported magnets for use in a centrifuge enrichment programme.
As I stated above, the IAEA will continue further to scrutinize and investigate all of the above issues.
After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq. We intend to continue our inspection activities, making use of all the additional rights granted to us by resolution 1441 and all additional tools that might be available to us, including reconnaissance platforms and all relevant technologies. We also hope to continue to receive from States actionable information relevant to our mandate. I should note that, in the past three weeks, possibly as a result of ever-increasing pressure by the international community, Iraq has been forthcoming in its co-operation, particularly with regard to the conduct of private interviews and in making available evidence that could contribute to the resolution of matters of IAEA concern. I do hope that Iraq will continue to expand the scope and accelerate the pace of its co-operation.
The detailed knowledge of Iraq's capabilities that IAEA experts have accumulated since 1991 - combined with the extended rights provided by resolution 1441, the active commitment by all States to help us fulfil our mandate, and the recently increased level of Iraqi co-operation - should enable us in the near future to provide the Security Council with an objective and thorough assessment of Iraq's nuclear-related capabilities. However credible this assessment may be, we will endeavour - in view of the inherent uncertainties associated with any verification process, and, particularly in light of Iraq's past record of co-operation - to evaluate Iraq's capabilities on a continuous basis as part of our long-term monitoring and verification programme, in order to provide the international community with ongoing and real time assurances. (See: www.iaea.org).
The UN Security Council Resolution No. 1441 (Nov. 8, 2002) speaks of DISARMAMENT, NOT REGIME CHANGE. The resolution empowered the UNMOVIC and the UN IAEA to complete the revival of the disarmament inspections on alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and nuclear weapons. By virtue of the resolution, the UN Security Council had decided that it would “remain seized of the matter”. As of March 18, 2003, when the US and UK-led “coalition of the willing” invaded Iraq, the UN Security Council had not authorized any UN member state, much less the US/UK-led “coalition of the willing”, to invade Iraq and to forcibly change its domestic form of government and its internal legal and administrative systems. To this day, the UN Security Council has not ratified the unilateral invasion and occupation of Iraq by the American and British forces or by any member of the “coalition of the willing”. Nowhere in the resolution did the UN Security Council authorize the use of force against Iraq to change its national leadership or internal/domestic system of government. Neither did the resolution recognize the existence and international role of the US’UK-led “coalition of the willing” as part of the UN SC enforcement mechanism. US SC Resolution 1441 (Nov. 8, 2002) is reproduced hereinbelow, for easy reference.
UN Security Council Resolution on Iraq: November 8, 2002
[Adopted as Resolution 1441 at Security Council meeting 4644, 8 November 2002]
The Security Council,
“Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,
Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,
Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,
Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area, Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,
Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,
Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council’s repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,
Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,
Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,
Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,
Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,
Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary-General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq’s continued failure to comply with relevant Council resolutions,
Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,
Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,
Commending the Secretary-General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary-General for their efforts in this regard,
Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);
2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;
3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;
4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;
5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC’s or the IAEA’s choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;
6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;
7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq, to facilitate their work in Iraq:
- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;
- All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA;
- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);
- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq’s chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;
- Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient United Nations security guards;
- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;
- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;
-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and
- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;
8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;
9. Requests the Secretary-General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;
10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;
11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;
12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;
14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.”
Source: http://www.state.gov/p/io/rls/rm/2002/15018.htm [US Dept. of State. See also: Annex “D” hereof)]
B. PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ASPECT
Section 2, Article II of the 1987 Philippine Constitution contains the INCORPORATION CLAUSE in respect of the adoption into the Philippine legal system (the law of the land) of “the customary norms and general principles of international law” (jus cogens). (See Also: Kuroda v. Jalandoni, 83 Phil. 171; Gibbs v. Rodriguez, 84 Phil. 230; USA v. Guinto, 182 SCRA 645; Holy See v. Rosario, 238 SCRA 524; Marcos v. Manglapuz, 177 SCRA 668; Agustin v. Edu, 88 SCRA 195; La Chemise Lacoste v. Fernandez, 129 SCRA 373; Reyes v. Bagatsing, 125SCRA 553; Borovsky v. Commissioner, 90 Phil. 107; PAFLU v. Sec. of Labor, 27 SCRA 40; Boy Scouts of the Phils. v. Araos, 102 Phil. 1080; Mejoff v. Director, 90 Phil. 256; Chirskoff v. Commissioner, 90 Phil. 256; Andreu v. Commissioner, 90 Phil. 347; Raquiza v. Bradford, 75 Phil. 50; Tubbs and Tedrow v. Griess, 78 Phil. 249; Dizon v. Phil. Ryukus Command, 81 Phil. 286).
The basic norms and general principles of international law include, inter alia: the principles contained in the United Nations Charter; the primacy of the decisions of the United Nations and its agencies, the most important among which in terms of resolving issues of international peace and security being the Security Council; the duty to refrain from the use or threat of force in resolving international disputes; the duty to respect the domestic independence and jurisdiction and the territorial integrity and sovereignty of all states; the duty to cooperate with all states and the United Nations and its agencies; and the duty to perform in good faith a state’s international obligations (pact sunt servanda). (See: UN General Assembly Resolution No. 2625, Oct. 24, 1970, entitled “Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations”, appearing as an appendix in Dean Merlin M. Magallona, A Primer in International Law in Relation to Philippine Law, 1997 ed., pp. 89-104).
The US and UK-led minority “coalition of the willing” violated Chapter 1, Chapter 6 and Chapter 7 of the UN Charter when it unilaterally invaded Iraq to change its regime (without any prior UN SC resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq) on the pretext of “enforcing” the ongoing disarmament program of the United Nations and after linking Iraq to international terrorism (the latter is a matter on which the UN SC to this day has not made a factual and legal finding). The US and UK-led invasion was widely assailed by the other Permanent Members of the UN SC, namely, France, China, Russia; by the other prominent member-states of the United Nations, notably Germany, the Holy See, Canada, Syria, Egypt, India, et. al.; by all the members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, except the Philippines under the presidency of Pres. Macapagal Arroyo; and by the international civil society and the international religious sector.
To send to Iraq some 500 Filipino soldiers, policemen and health workers and by deciding to spend some P600 Million in the course thereof for the purpose of assisting the US and UK-led minority “coalition of the willing” during the current occupation phase of the coalition’s invasion program is tantamount to a declaration of war against Iraq without the prior approval of the Philippine Congress and amounts to a unilateral presidential ratification by the President of the Philippines of the originally illegitimate war and invasion initiated by the US and UK-led “coalition of the willing” without the benefit of an approval by the Philippine Congress. The President of the Philippines is not a Queen or a Monarch; she has no inherent or delegated constitutional power to declare a war or a state of war or to ratify, directly or indirectly, the status and legitimacy of an existing war. Only the Philippine Congress has that special constitutional power. (Sec. 23, Art. VI, 1987 Philippine Constitution).
Further, for the Philippine President to spend some P600 Million to finance the expedition of the 500-man Philippine military/police contingent to Iraq without a prior budgetary appropriation duly approved by the Philippine Congress would violate the doctrine of separation of powers among the three branches of Government and would intrude into the specific constitutional power of the Philippine Congress to initiate budgetary appropriations for official government activities and objectives, more so on the very important matters of war and foreign relations. (Sec. 24, Art. VI, and Sec. 22, Art. VII, 1987 Philippine Constitution).
The “treaty clause” in Sec. 21, Art. VII of the 1987 Constitution (see also: Sec. 10 [7], Art. VII, 1935 Constitution and Sec. 14 [1], Art. VIII, 1973 Constitution), which grants the President of the Philippines the exclusive power over the adoption of the foreign policy of the Philippines and over the conduct Philippine foreign relations excludes the power to declare war or a state of war, or to ratify an existing war or state of war, or to appropriate government funds to send Philippine military and police forces to help in the post-invasion phase (occupation) an independent state (Iraq) as part of the prosecution of a war or state of war initiated by a state (US or UK) and or a group of states ( US/UK-led “coalition of the willing”)
The President of the Philippines, acting thru the respondents as her alter egos and political agents, does not have the jurisdiction and the constitutional and legal power and authority to send military and police forces to Iraq, to appropriate and spend public funds for such a military/police expeditionary force/contingent, to declare a war or a state of war against Iraq, to ratify the war or state of war initiated by the US and UK-led “coalition of the willing”, or to engage in or contribute to the post-invasion occupation phase of Iraq, notwithstanding her pronouncement that such a Philippine military/police contingent is the contribution of the Philippines to the humanitarian and peacekeeping phase of the invasion of Iraq, unless such acts are authorized by the Philippine Congress.
Furthermore, the President of the Philippines is bound by her constitutional duty to respect the jurisdiction of and abide by the provisions of the UN Charter and the UN Security Council, pursuant to the incorporation clause of the 1987 Philippine Constitution and pursuant to her constitutional duty to uphold the rule of law and the primacy of the Constitution.
VII. MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
The petitioner seeks the immediate issuance by this Honorable Court of a Temporary Restraining Order against the respondents enjoining and prohibiting them, pendente lite, from implementing the presidential decision to send to Iraq on May 15, 2003 some 500 Filipino soldiers, policemen and health workers and to spend some P600 Million of public funds for such purpose, on the following grounds:
1. The President and the respondents do not have the constitutional power and authority and the jurisdiction to send such a Filipino military/police expeditionary force and contingent and to spend some P600 Million for such purpose without the prior approval of the Philippine Congress;
2. To send such a military/police contingent to Iraq is tantamount to (a) a unilateral presidential declaration of war or a state of war against Iraq, which is an independent state, or to (b) a unilateral presidential ratification of the illegitimate war initiated by the US and UK-led “coalition of the willing” and the occupation phase of the illegal invasion plan of the said coalition, without the benefit of a prior UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq;
The petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for.
Further, the implementation of the questioned presidential decision to send the Philippine military/police contingent to Iraq on May 15, 2003 and to spend P600 Million of public funds for such purpose would work a grave injustice to the Filipino people, whose representatives in Congress have not consented the questioned unilateral presidential decision; and, further, the same would clearly violate Article VI and Article VII of the Philippine Constitution and the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers among the three branches of Government.
VIII. PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that, immediately upon receipt of this petition, this Honorable Court issue, pendente lite, a Temporary Restraining Order, enjoining and prohibiting the respondents from implementing the publicly announced decision of the President of the Philippines to send to Iraq on May 15, 2003 some 500 Filipino soldiers, policemen and health workers and to spend some P600 Million of public funds for such purpose; that the petition be granted due course; and that thereafter a writ of certiorari and prohibition be issued against the respondents perpetually enjoining and prohibiting them from implementing the aforementioned unilateral presidential decision.
FURTHER, the petitioner prays for such and other reliefs as may be
deemed just and equitable in the premises.
Las Pinas City, May 5, 2003
ATTY. MANUEL J. LASERNA JR.
Petitioner
(end)
Missing Weapons Of Mass Destruction:
Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense?
By JOHN W. DEAN
See: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030606.html (June 6, 2003)
President George W. Bush has got a very serious problem. Before asking Congress for a Joint Resolution authorizing the use of American military forces in Iraq, he made a number of unequivocal statements about the reason the United States needed to pursue the most radical actions any nation can undertake - acts of war against another nation.
Now it is clear that many of his statements appear to be false. In the past, Bush's White House has been very good at sweeping ugly issues like this under the carpet, and out of sight. But it is not clear that they will be able to make the question of what happened to Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) go away - unless, perhaps, they start another war.
That seems unlikely. Until the questions surrounding the Iraqi war are answered, Congress and the public may strongly resist more of President Bush's warmaking.
Presidential statements, particularly on matters of national security, are held to an expectation of the highest standard of truthfulness. A president cannot stretch, twist or distort facts and get away with it. President Lyndon Johnson's distortions of the truth about Vietnam forced him to stand down from reelection. President Richard Nixon's false statements about Watergate forced his resignation.
Frankly, I hope the WMDs are found, for it will end the matter. Clearly, the story of the missing WMDs is far from over. And it is too early, of course, to draw conclusions. But it is not too early to explore the relevant issues.
President Bush's Statements On Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction
Readers may not recall exactly what President Bush said about weapons of mass destruction; I certainly didn't. Thus, I have compiled these statements below. In reviewing them, I saw that he had, indeed, been as explicit and declarative as I had recalled.
Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:
"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
United Nations Address
September 12, 2002
"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."
"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
Radio Address
October 5, 2002
"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."
"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States"
"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
October 7, 2002
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003
Should The President Get The Benefit Of The Doubt?
When these statements were made, Bush's let-me-mince-no-words posture was convincing to many Americans. Yet much of the rest of the world, and many other Americans, doubted them.
As Bush's veracity was being debated at the United Nations, it was also being debated on campuses - including those where I happened to be lecturing at the time.
On several occasions, students asked me the following question: Should they believe the President of the United States? My answer was that they should give the President the benefit of the doubt, for several reasons deriving from the usual procedures that have operated in every modern White House and that, I assumed, had to be operating in the Bush White House, too.
First, I assured the students that these statements had all been carefully considered and crafted. Presidential statements are the result of a process, not a moment's though. White House speechwriters process raw information, and their statements are passed on to senior aides who have both substantive knowledge and political insights. And this all occurs before the statement ever reaches the President for his own review and possible revision.
Second, I explained that - at least in every White House and administration with which I was familiar, from Truman to Clinton - statements with national security implications were the most carefully considered of all. The White House is aware that, in making these statements, the President is speaking not only to the nation, but also to the world.
Third, I pointed out to the students, these statements are typically corrected rapidly if they are later found to be false. And in this case, far from backpedaling from the President's more extreme claims, Bush's press secretary, Ari Fleischer had actually, at times, been even more emphatic than the President had. For example, on January 9, 2003, Fleischer stated, during his press briefing, "We know for a fact that there are weapons there."
In addition, others in the Administration were similarly quick to back the President up, in some cases with even more unequivocal statements. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly claimed that Saddam had WMDs - and even went so far as to claim he knew "where they are; they're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad."
Finally, I explained to the students that the political risk was so great that, to me, it was inconceivable that Bush would make these statements if he didn't have damn solid intelligence to back him up. Presidents do not stick their necks out only to have them chopped off by political opponents on an issue as important as this, and if there was any doubt, I suggested, Bush's political advisers would be telling him to hedge. Rather than stating a matter as fact, he would be say: "I have been advised," or "Our intelligence reports strongly suggest," or some such similar hedge. But Bush had not done so.
So what are we now to conclude if Bush's statements are found, indeed, to be as grossly inaccurate as they
currently appear to have been?
After all, no weapons of mass destruction have been found, and given Bush's statements, they should not have been very hard to find - for they existed in large quantities, "thousands of tons" of chemical weapons alone. Moreover, according to the statements, telltale facilities, groups of scientists who could testify, and production equipment also existed.
So where is all that? And how can we reconcile the White House's unequivocal statements with the fact that they may not exist?
There are two main possibilities. One that something is seriously wrong within the Bush White House's national security operations. That seems difficult to believe. The other is that the President has deliberately misled the nation, and the world.
A Desperate Search For WMDs Has So Far Yielded Little, If Any, Fruit
Even before formally declaring war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the President had dispatched American military special forces into Iraq to search for weapons of mass destruction, which he knew would provide the primary justification for Operation Freedom. None were found.
Throughout Operation Freedom's penetration of Iraq and drive toward Baghdad, the search for WMDs continued. None were found.
As the coalition forces gained control of Iraqi cities and countryside, special search teams were dispatched to look for WMDs. None were found.
During the past two and a half months, according to reliable news reports, military patrols have visited over 300 suspected WMD sites throughout Iraq. None of the prohibited weapons were found there.
British and American Press Reaction to the Missing WMDs
British Prime Minister Tony Blair is also under serious attack in England, which he dragged into the war unwillingly, based on the missing WMDs. In Britain, the missing WMDs are being treated as scandalous; so far, the reaction in the U.S. has been milder.
New York Times columnist, Paul Krugman, has taken Bush sharply to task, asserting that it is "long past time for this administration to be held accountable." "The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat," Krugman argued. "If that claim was fraudulent," he continued, "the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history - worse than Watergate, worse than Iran-contra." But most media outlets have reserved judgment as the search for WMDs in Iraq continues.
Still, signs do not look good. Last week, the Pentagon announced it was shifting its search from looking for WMD sites, to looking for people who can provide leads as to where the missing WMDs might be.
Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, while offering no new evidence, assured Congress that WMDs will indeed be found. And he advised that a new unit called the Iraq Survey Group, composed of some 1400 experts and technicians from around the world, is being deployed to assist in the searching.
But, as Time magazine reported, the leads are running out. According to Time, the Marine general in charge explained that "[w]e've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad," and remarked flatly, "They're simply not there."
Perhaps most troubling, the President has failed to provide any explanation of how he could have made his very specific statements, yet now be unable to back them up with supporting evidence. Was there an Iraqi informant thought to be reliable, who turned out not to be? Were satellite photos innocently, if negligently misinterpreted? Or was his evidence not as solid as he led the world to believe?
The absence of any explanation for the gap between the statements and reality only increases the sense that the President's misstatements may actually have been intentional lies.
Investigating The Iraqi War Intelligence Reports
Even now, while the jury is still out as to whether intentional misconduct occurred, the President has a serious credibility problem. Newsweek magazine posed the key questions: "If America has entered a new age of pre-emption --when it must strike first because it cannot afford to find out later if terrorists possess nuclear or biological weapons--exact intelligence is critical. How will the United States take out a mad despot or a nuclear bomb hidden in a cave if the CIA can't say for sure where they are? And how will Bush be able to maintain support at home and abroad?"
In an apparent attempt to bolster the President's credibility, and his own, Secretary Rumsfeld himself has now called for a Defense Department investigation into what went wrong with the pre-war intelligence. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd finds this effort about on par with O. J.'s looking for his wife's killer. But there may be a difference: Unless the members of Administration can find someone else to blame - informants, surveillance technology, lower-level personnel, you name it - they may not escape fault themselves.
Congressional committees are also looking into the pre-war intelligence collection and evaluation. Senator John Warner (R-VA), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said his committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee would jointly investigate the situation. And the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence plans an investigation.
These investigations are certainly appropriate, for there is potent evidence of either a colossal intelligence failure or misconduct - and either would be a serious problem. When the best case scenario seems to be mere incompetence, investigations certainly need to be made.
Senator Bob Graham - a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee - told CNN's Aaron Brown, that while he still hopes they finds WMDs or at least evidence thereof, he has also contemplated three other possible alternative scenarios:
One is that [the WMDs] were spirited out of Iraq, which maybe is the worst of all possibilities, because now the very thing that we were trying to avoid, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, could be in the hands of dozens of groups. Second, that we had bad intelligence. Or third, that the intelligence was satisfactory but that it was manipulated, so as just to present to the American people and to the world those things that made the case for the necessity of war against Iraq.
Senator Graham seems to believe there is a serious chance that it is the final scenario that reflects reality. Indeed, Graham told CNN "there's been a pattern of manipulation by this administration."
Graham has good reason to complain. According to the New York Times, he was one of the few members of the Senate who saw the national intelligence estimate that was the basis for Bush's decisions. After reviewing it, Senator Graham requested that the Bush Administration declassify the information before the Senate voted on the Administration's resolution requesting use of the military in Iraq.
But rather than do so, CIA Director Tenet merely sent Graham a letter discussing the findings. Graham then complained that Tenet's letter only addressed "findings that supported the administration's position on Iraq," and ignored information that raised questions about intelligence. In short, Graham suggested that the Administration, by cherrypicking only evidence to its own liking, had manipulated the information to support its conclusion.
Recent statements by one of the high-level officials privy to the decisionmaking process that lead to the Iraqi war also strongly suggests manipulation, if not misuse of the intelligence agencies. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, during an interview with Sam Tannenhaus of Vanity Fair magazine, said: "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason." More recently, Wolfowitz added what most have believed all along, that the reason we went after Iraq is that "[t]he country swims on a sea of oil."
Worse than Watergate? A Potential Huge Scandal If WMDs Are Still Missing
Krugman is right to suggest a possible comparison to Watergate. In the three decades since Watergate, this is the first potential scandal I have seen that could make Watergate pale by comparison. If the Bush Administration intentionally manipulated or misrepresented intelligence to get Congress to authorize, and the public to support, military action to take control of Iraq, then that would be a monstrous misdeed.
As I remarked in an earlier column, this Administration may be due for a scandal. While Bush narrowly escaped being dragged into Enron, which was not, in any event, his doing. But the war in Iraq is all Bush's doing, and it is appropriate that he be held accountable.
To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."
It's important to recall that when Richard Nixon resigned, he was about to be impeached by the House of Representatives for misusing the CIA and FBI. After Watergate, all presidents are on notice that manipulating or misusing any agency of the executive branch improperly is a serious abuse of presidential power.
Nixon claimed that his misuses of the federal agencies for his political purposes were in the interest of national security. The same kind of thinking might lead a President to manipulate and misuse national security agencies or their intelligence to create a phony reason to lead the nation into a politically desirable war. Let us hope that is not the case.
Does the USA Intend to Dominate the World:
Andy Clark Interview Noam Chomsky for The Amsterdam Forum
(See: ZNet (http://www.zmag.org [June 3, 2003])
ANDY CLARK
Hello and welcome to Amsterdam Forum - Radio Netherlands' interactive
discussion programme.
Today a special edition featuring the world-famous author and political
activist Noam Chomsky.
Professor Chomsky, once described by the New York Times as arguably the
most important intellectual alive, is an outspoken critic of US foreign
policy. He says, following the war in Iraq, the US is seeking to
dominate the world by force, a dimension in which it rules supreme. And
he warns this policy will lead to proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction and terror attacks based on a loathing of the US
administration. He says the very survival of the species may be at
stake.
Well professor Chomsky joins us to take questions from our listeners
around the world. Welcome professor Chomsky.
The first e-mail is from Norberto Silva, from the Cape Verde islands,
and he says: "Could the USA and president Bush lead the world into a
nuclear war with their policy of pre-emptive attacks?"
NOAM CHOMSKY
They very definitely could. First of all we should be clear - it is not
a policy of pre-emptive attacks. Pre-emption means something in
international law. A pre-emptive attack is one that is taken in the case
of an imminent, on-going threat. For example, if planes were flying
across the Atlantic to bomb New York, it would be legitimate for the US
Air Force to shoot them down. That's a pre-emptive attack. This is what
is sometimes called preventive war. That's a new doctrine that was
announced last September in the National Security Strategy. It declares
the right to attack any potential challenge to the global dominance of
the United States. The potential is in the eye of the observer, so that, in effect, gives the authorisation to attack essentially anyone. Could that lead to a nuclear war? Very definitely. We've come very close in the past. Just last October, for example, it was discovered, to the shock and horror of those who paid attention, that, during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, the world was literally one word away from probably terminal nuclear war. Russian submarines with nuclear weapons were under attack by US destroyers. Several commanders thought a nuclear war was on, and gave the order to shoot nuclear missiles. It was
countermanded by one officer. That's why we're around to talk. There
have been plenty of such cases since.
ANDY CLARK
Are we in a more dangerous situation now, with this preventive doctrine
in place?
NOAM CHOMSKY
Sure. The preventive war doctrine is virtually an invitation to
potential targets to develop some kind of deterrent, and there are only
two kinds of deterrent. One is weapons of mass destruction, the other is
large-scale terror. That's been pointed out over and over again by
strategic analysts, the intelligence agencies and so on, so sure, it
raises the danger that something will get out of control.
ANDY CLARK
This email is from Don Rhodes, from Melbourne, in Australia, and he
says: "I do not believe that the US wants to dominate the world. The
Americans have been attacked on several fronts, 9/11 being only one of
them. Someone has to bring into line rogue states and it is the USA
alone that has the capability to do this. Without such a 'world
policeman' the world would just disintegrate into warring factions. Look
at history for examples of this." What do you make of that sort of
statement?
NOAM CHOMSKY
The first sentence is simply factually incorrect. The National Security
Strategy states fairly explicitly that the US intends to dominate the
world by force, which is the dimension in which it rules supreme, and to
ensure that there is never any potential challenge to this domination.
That was not only stated explicitly, it has also been commented on
repeatedly, right away in the main establishment - the Foreign Affairs
journal in its next issue is pointing out that the United States is
declaring the right to be what it calls a "revisionist state", which
will use force to control the world in its own interests. The person who
sent the email may believe that the US has some unique right to run the
world by force. I don't believe that, and contrary to what was stated I
don't think history supports that at all. In fact the US record,
incidentally with the support of Australia, since the period of its
global dominance in the 1940s, is one of instigating war and violence
and terror on a very substantial scale. The Indochina War, just to take
one example in which Australia participated, was basically a war of
aggression. The United States attacked South Vietnam in 1962. The war
then spread to the rest of Indochina. The end result was several million
people killed, the countries devastated, and that's only one example. So
history does not support the conclusion and the principle that one state
should have a unique right to rule the world by force. That's an
extremely hazardous principle, no matter who the country is.
ANDY CLARK
This is from Noel Collamer, from Bellingham, in Washington, in the USA,
and he writes: "Noam says: 'The Bush administration intends to dominate
the world by force, the one dimension in which it rules supreme, and to
do so permanently.' To this I ask, if we, who can, do not act with force
against tyrants, then what does he suggest be done? That the brutalized
populace should use non-violent resistance against their tyrant even
though this will result in their own genocide?"
NOAM CHOMSKY
First of all - I don't say that, the Bush administration says it. I'm
simply repeating what is stated quite explicitly, and that's not
particularly controversial. As I mentioned, it was commented on,
essentially in those words, in the first issue of Foreign Affairs
immediately afterwards. As for countries suffering under tyranny - yes,
it would be very good if somebody would help and support them. Take for
example the current administration in Washington. They themselves -
remember, these are mostly re-cycled Reaganites - they supported a
series of monstrous dictators, who subjected their populations to
vicious tyranny, including Saddam Hussein, Ceausescu, Suharto, Marcos,
Duvalier. It's quite a long list. The best way to deal with that would
have been to stop supporting them. Incidentally, support for terror and
violence continues. The best way to stop it is to stop supporting them.
Often, in fact in every one of those cases, they were overthrown by
their own populations, even though the US was supporting the dictator.
Ceausescu, for example, was a tyrant perfectly comparable to Saddam
Hussein. He was overthrown in 1989 by his own population, while he was
being supported by the current incumbents in Washington, and that
continues. If there are people resisting oppression and violence, we
should find ways to support them, and the easiest way is to stop
supporting the tyrants. After that, complicated issues arise. There is
no record, that I know of, of the US, or any other state - [there are]
very rare examples - intervening to try to prevent oppression and
violence. That's extremely rare.
ANDY CLARK
OK, another email. This is from H.P. Velten, who is from New Jersey, in
the USA, and he says: "Why isn't there more controversy about Bush's
motives in the US media?"
NOAM CHOMSKY
Well, actually there is plenty of controversy. One thing that was quite
striking about the war in Iraq and the National Security Strategy, which
is the framework for it, was that is was very strongly criticised, right
at the core of the foreign policy elite - it was sharply criticised in
the two major foreign affairs journals, Foreign Affairs and Foreign
Policy. The American Academy of Arts and Sciences, which rarely takes a
position on current controversial issues, had a monograph condemning it.
There's a whole series of other articles. It's partly reflected in the
media, but not very much, because remember, the media tend to be quite
supportive of power, for all sorts of reasons.
ANDY CLARK
OK, another email. This is from Rijswijk, in The Netherlands, from M.J.
"Bob" Groothand. This message says: "Throughout history some nations
have always tried to rule the world. Most recently Germany, Japan and
Russia come to mind. If the US is now the latest 'would-be conqueror'
then we can thank our lucky stars. It would be done with decency and
honour for all mankind. The fact is that nothing like this is being
considered by Bush or the American government. You forget that the US
has a constitution and, unlike Stalin, Hitler, Hussein and other
despots, Bush is up for re-election in two years and American voters are
not dumb nor are they oppressed or intimidated. It's a secret ballot."
Will electoral accountability rein in the US government, do you think,
as this listener suggests?
NOAM CHOMSKY
First of all, the account of history is mostly fanciful, but let's put
that aside. The fact that a country has a constitution and is internally
democratic does not mean that it does not carry out violence and
aggression. There is a long history of this. England, for example, was
perhaps the most free country in the world in the 19th century and was
carrying out horrifying atrocities throughout much of the world, and the
case of the United States is similar. The record goes back very far. The
United States was a democratic country, for example, when it invaded the
Philippines a century ago, killing several hundred thousand people and
leaving it devastated. It was a democratic country in the 1980s, when
the current incumbents in Washington carried out a devastating war of
terror in Nicaragua, leaving tens of thousands dead and the country
practically ruined, an attack for which they incidentally were condemned
by the World Court and the Security Council in a veto-ed resolution, but
then escalated the attack, and so it continues. As to the democratic
election, yes, true, there is an election, and the Republicans have
explained very clearly how they intend to overcome the fact that their
policies are pretty strongly opposed by the majority of the population.
They intend to overcome it by driving the country into fear and panic,
so that they will huddle under the umbrella of a powerful figure who
will protect them. In fact, we've just seen that last September when the
Security Strategy was announced and the drumbeat of propaganda for war
began. There was a government media propaganda campaign, which was quite
spectacular. It succeeded in convincing the majority of the population
that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to the security of the United
States. No-one else believed that. Even Kuwait and Iran, where they
despise him, didn't regard him as a threat. They knew he was the weakest
country in the region. It also succeeded in convincing probably the
majority of the population that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, in fact
instigated it and carried it out, and was planning further attacks.
Again, there isn't a particle of evidence for this, and there is no
intelligence agency or security analyst in the world who believes it.
ANDY CLARK
Where is the political opposition in the US then - the Democrats? Why
don't they seek to make inroads into the Republican camp? Obviously,
there is a substantial peace movement - we saw hundreds of thousands of
people on the streets in the US who were opposed to the military action.
Where is the political opposition in the US now?
NOAM CHOMSKY
The Democratic political opposition is very tepid. There has been very
little debate, traditionally, over foreign policy issues. That's
recognised right in the mainstream. Political figures are reluctant to
put themselves in a position where they can be condemned as calling for
the destruction of the United States and supporting its enemies and
presenting fantasies, and be subjected to fantasies of the kind that in
fact were included in that email. Politicians are unwilling to subject
themselves to that, and the result is that the voice of a large portion
of the population simply is barely represented, and the Republicans
recognise it. Karl Rove, the Republican campaign manager, made it clear
before the last election in 2002 that the Republicans would have to try
to run the election on a security issue, because if they faced it on
issues of domestic policy they would lose. So they frightened the
population into obedience, and he has already announced that they are
going to have to do the same thing next time in the 2004 election. They
are going to have to present it as voting for a war president who will
defend you from destruction. Incidentally, they are simply rehearsing a
script that runs right through the 1980s, the first time they were in
office - the same people, approximately. If you look, the policies they
implemented were unpopular. The population was opposed, but they kept
pressing the panic button, and it worked. In 1981 Libya was going to
attack us. In 1983 Grenada was going to set up an airbase from which the
Russians would bomb us. In 1985 Reagan declared a national emergency
because the security of the United States was threatened by the
government of Nicaragua. Somebody watching from Mars would have
collapsed in laughter. And so it went on through the 1980s. They managed
to keep the population intimidated and frightened enough so that they
could maintain a thin grasp on political power, and that's the effort
since. They didn't invent that tactic, incidentally, but it
unfortunately has its effects, and political figures and others are
reluctant to stand up and face the torrent of abuse and hysteria that
will immediately come from trying to bring matters back to the level of
fact.
ANDY CLARK
OK, another email. This is from Boris Karaman, from Wyoming in the USA,
and he says: "Peace can only come from strength and often comes after a
just war. The Pax Romana resulted from the strength of the Roman Empire,
not from any pacifist ideology. There is more to criticize in U.S.
history when we failed to act soon enough. As examples, Hitler, Stalin
and Pol Pot rose to power because of a lack of aggression against them.
Your criticisms of a power-based approach to foreign policy are either
naive or disingenuous. Those who act against threats make possible a
world where arrogant leftists enjoy the freedom of speech to exhibit
their errors in reasoning. Long may it be so. Peace to you, but peace
through strength." What do you make of that email?
NOAM CHOMSKY
Well, we can begin by looking at the facts. Take, say, Hitler. Hitler
did rise to power with the support of the United States and Britain. As
late as 1937, the State Department was describing Hitler as a moderate
standing between the extremes of right and left, who we must support, or
else the masses of the population might take power and move in a leftist
direction. In fact, the United States did not enter the war until it was
attacked by Japan, and Germany declared war on the United States. In the
case of Stalin, the United States didn't bring him to power, and they
also didn't particularly oppose him. As late as 1948, Harry Truman, the
president, was stating that he thought Stalin was a decent man, who was
honest, [but] being misled by his advisers, and so on and so forth. In
the case of Pol Pot, the Khmer Rouge developed in the early 1970s - they
were virtually unknown in 1970 - and they developed in the context of a
massive US bombing campaign in Cambodia. About 600,000 people died,
according to the CIA, but it helped energise a fierce, vicious
resistance, which took over in 1975. After it took over, the United
States did nothing to try to stop it, but when Vietnam did eliminate Pol
Pot, in 1978-1979, by invading and driving him out, Vietnam was bitterly
attacked by the United States for the crime of getting rid of Pol Pot.
The US supported a Chinese invasion to punish Vietnam, and imposed harsh
sanctions on them, and in fact turned to direct support of the remnants
of the Pol Pot armies in Thailand. So, if you want to talk about
history, get it straight. Then we can start with the tirades.
ANDY CLARK
Do you think there is a point where force can be justified? We heard a
lot of arguments about the Iraq war - that this was the lesser of two
evils. The recent history of Iraq was well-known, but now it was a stage
whereby something had to be done to get rid of Saddam Hussein. Lots of
Iraqi people themselves - within the country - seemed to support that
argument.
NOAM CHOMSKY
First of all, we don't know that Iraqis were calling out to be invaded,
but if that was the goal, what was the point of all the lying? What you
are saying is that Tony Blair, George Bush, Colin Powell and the rest
are fanatic liars - they were pretending until the last minute that the
goal was to get rid of weapons of mass destruction. If the goal was to
liberate the Iraqi people, why not say so? Why the lies?
ANDY CLARK
President Bush did say that in the very last weeks [before the war]. He
started talking about a war of liberation.
NOAM CHOMSKY
At the last minute, at the Azores summit, he said that, even if Saddam
Hussein and his associates leave the country, the United States is going
to invade anyway - meaning the US wants to control it. Now, in fact,
there is a serious issue behind this. It has nothing to do with
liberating the Iraqi people. You might ask the question why Iraqis did
not overthrow Saddam the way, say, Romanians overthrew Ceausescu... and
so on through a long series of others. Well, you know it's pretty well
understood. The westerners who know Iraq best - Dennis Halliday and Hans
von Sponeck, the heads of the UN oil for food programme - they had
hundreds of investigators running through the country. They knew the
country intimately, and they have been pointing out, as have plenty of
others, that what has prevented any kind of uprising in Iraq is the
murderous sanctions regime, which killed hundreds of thousands of people
by conservative estimates, strengthened Saddam Hussein, and made the
population completely reliant on him for survival. So the first step in
allowing Iraqis to liberate themselves would have been to stop
preventing it, by permitting the society to reconstruct, so that then
they could take care of their own affairs. If that failed, if Iraqis
were unable to do what other populations have done under the rule of
comparable tyrants, at that point the question of the use of force might
arise, but until they have been at least given an opportunity, and
haven't been prevented by US-British action from undertaking it, we
can't seriously raise that question, and in fact it was not raised by
Britain and the United States during the build-up to war. The focus was
on weapons of mass destruction. Just look at the record.
ANDY CLARK
This is an email from Bob Kirk, in Israel. He says: "Why is Professor
Chomsky so opposed to the spread of democracy and the liberation of most
of the world's peoples (by the US if necessary, since the EU has
abandoned challenging dictators), and what means other than persuasion
and sometimes justifable force would he propose in order to liberate the
unfree societies of the world?"
NOAM CHOMSKY
I would be strongly in favour of bringing democracy to the world, and I
am opposed to preventing democracy. One of the reasons - it's very
striking, if you look at the last few months - [is that] I have never
seen, that I can recall, such clear and brazen contempt and hatred for
democracy as has been expressed by US elites. Just have a look. Europe,
for example, was divided into what was called Old and New Europe. There
was a criterion - Old Europe were the countries where the governments,
for whatever reason, took the same positions as the vast majority of
their populations. That's called democracy. New Europe - Italy, Spain,
Hungary - were the countries where the governments overrode an even
larger percentage of their populations. The population was more opposed
in those countries than in Old Europe, but the governments disregarded
their populations - maybe 80 or 90 percent of them - and followed orders
from Washington, and that's called good! Turkey is the most striking
example. Turkey was bitterly attacked by US commentators and elites,
because the government took the same position as about 95 percent of the
population. Paul Wolfowitz, who is described as the great exponent of
democratisation, a few weeks ago condemned the Turkish military for not
intervening to compel the government to, as he put it, "help Americans",
instead of paying attention to 95 percent of their own population. This
expresses brazen contempt for democracy, and the record supports it.
It's not that the United States is uniquely bad, it's like any other
powerful state, but take a look at the record in the areas where the US
has controlled the region for a long time - Central America and the
Caribbean. It's about a hundred years. The US has been willing to
tolerate democracy, but as they themselves put it, only if it is - I'm
quoting from a Reagan administration advocate of democracy - "top-down
democracy", in which traditional elites remain in power, elites that
have been associated with the United States and run their societies the
way the US wants. In that case, the US will tolerate democracy. They are
very similar to other powerful states, but let's not have any illusions
about it. The sender is writing from the Middle East, if I remember...
ANDY CLARK
>From Israel.
NOAM CHOMSKY
...and there the United States has supported brutal, oppressive
dictatorships for a long time, and it has known for a long time that
that is the major reason for popular opposition. Back in the 1950s, we
know from internal records, president Eisenhower discussed with his
staff what he called the "campaign of hatred against us" among the
people of the Middle East, and the reason was that the US was supporting
oppressive and undemocratic regimes and blocking democracy and
development because of our interest in controlling near-east oil. Well
that continues until the present day. You hear the same thing from
wealthy westernised Muslims interviewed in the Wall Street Journal at
this very moment. There is a long record of opposing democracy, unless
it is under control, and for reasons that are rooted in familiar great
power politics.
ANDY CLARK
Let's take another email. This is from Vera Gottlieb, from British
Columbia, in Canada, and she says: "Under the guise of 'fighting
terrorism', the US Bill of Rights is being strongly curtailed, not to
say decimated. I can't understand why the average American is not up in
arms over it. Does the average American know, or care, what is really
going on?"
NOAM CHOMSKY
Very few are well aware of what's going on. The Patriot Act, and the
new, planned Patriot 2 Act, it is true, undermine - in principle at
least, in words, and partially in actions - fundamental civil liberties
to a remarkable extent. So, the current justice department has claimed
the right to arrest people, including American citizens, put them in
confinement indefinitely, without charge, without access to lawyers and
families, until the president declares that the war on terror is over.
They have even gone beyond that. The new plans include plans to actually
take away citizenship if the attorney general decides to do so. This has
been very harshly condemned by civil rights lawyers, law professors,
others, but very little of it leaks into the media. It's not really
well-known. These moves are quite dramatic. President Bush is supposed
to have on his desk a bust of Winston Churchill, given to him by his
friend Tony Blair, and in fact Churchill had something to say about
this. He said, and this is virtually a quote, [that] for a government to
put a person in prison without trial by his peers is in the highest
degree odious, and the foundation of all totalitarian governments,
whether nazi or communist. He said that in 1943, condemning proposals of
a similar nature in England, which weren't enacted. Remember, in 1943
England was in pretty desperate straits - it was under attack and facing
destruction by the most vicious military force in history, and
nevertheless Churchill rightly described measures like these as "in the
highest degree odious", and "the foundation of totalitarian
governments". Yes, people should be very upset about it.
ANDY CLARK
Why isn't this an issue of common debate in the USA then? And why isn't
there grassroots opposition against the Patriot Act and these things
you've just been describing?
NOAM CHOMSKY
First of all, to know these things you have to do a bit of a research
project. I don't say that it is hidden - you can find the facts if you
look, but they are certainly not common knowledge. To the extent they
are common knowledge, there is opposition, but you have to recall the
great success of the government media propaganda campaign, since last
September, to convince the population of the United States that they are
in imminent threat of destruction by the monster Saddam Hussein, and
next week it will be someone else who we have to protect ourselves
against. Incidentally, the majority, who were convinced by those
propaganda lies, their attitudes correlate very closely with support for
war, and you can understand why - if you really believe that, you're
willing to see civil liberties erode. Of course, it was fabrication, one
of the most spectacular examples of propaganda fabrication known, as
many have pointed out, but it did work. When people are frightened they
will - sometimes - be willing not to defend the rights that they have
won.
ANDY CLARK
OK, another email. This is from Venezuela. This is from Alberto
Villasmil Raven, and he says: "I would like to know if Professor Chomsky
thinks it possible that the US will invade Venezuela."
NOAM CHOMSKY
Well, I don't think they'll directly invade, but among the regions that
are targeted for so-called preventive war, one of them is almost
certainly the Andes region. It's a region of substantial resources. It
is, to a certain degree, out of control. The US already has extensive
military resources - a large military basing system in Ecuador, the
Dutch islands, El Salvador - surrounding the region, and quite a few
forces on the ground. My suspicion is that the US will probably, in
Venezuela, once again support a coup as it did last year. But if that
doesn't work, direct intervention is not impossible. Remember, this has
long been planned. One of the very good things about the United States
is it's a very free society, uniquely so. We have extensive records of
internal planning. Right in the middle of the Cuban missile crisis,
where we have the records, president Kennedy and his brother were
discussing the threat of the Cuban missiles, and they said one of the
big problems they posed was: "They might deter an invasion of Venezuela,
if we decide to invade." That was 1962. These are old policies, deeply
rooted.
ANDY CLARK
OK, this is from Berrada M. Ali, from Rabat, in Morocco, and his
question is as follows: "Do you think that, after the unjustified and
unjustifiable war against Iraq, the world will lose the meaning of its
existence, like in the field of language, when we lose the gramatical
rules? Will we automatically lose the reference of the meaning of
sentences, and consequently the meaning of the world around us?"
NOAM CHOMSKY
In my opinion, the most honest commentary on this point has been made by
strong supporters of the war in Iraq. For example, if you take a look at
the current issue of Foreign Affairs, the main establishment journal,
there is a lead article by a well-known specialist on international law,
Michael Glennon, who argues that we should recognise that international
law and international institutions are what he calls "hot air". They
have proven their inapplicability by the fact that the United States
disregards them, and he says it is right to disregard them, and the
United States must maintain the right to use force as it chooses,
independent of these institutions, which we simply have to dismiss and
disregard. Well that's at least an honest statement. I think it's a
terrible threat to the world, and it's part of the reason why the US
government has become an object of massive fear around the world. The
international polls on this are remarkable, and it's understandable.
When a country takes that position, of course people are going to be
frightened, and furthermore, as again has been pointed out over and over
by intelligence agencies and analysts and so on, they'll do something
about it. They'll try to find means of deterrence. The United States is
calling on the world to proliferate weapons of mass destruction and
terror, if only as a deterrent.
ANDY CLARK
One final email. This is from John Blessen, in Beverly Hills, in the
United States, and his message is: "How can the United States best
protect itself from rogue states like North Korea? And from nuclear,
chemical, and biological threats from outlaw states? Cataclysmic threats
to the United States are real and some say imminent, so how would you,
Dr Chomsky, fashion a defense policy for the United States?"
NOAM CHOMSKY
Well, let's take the one example that was mentioned - North Korea. You
can't make a general comment, it depends on the case. Take the case of
North Korea. Here there is a strong consensus among the states of the
region - South Korea, Japan, China and Russia - that a diplomatic path
should be followed, a path of negotiations to reduce the threat, which
is real, and to integrate North Korea slowly back into the region in
some fashion, and that's a wise move. Actually, Clinton made moves in
that direction. He didn't actually implement them, but he made them.
They were pretty successful, and I think that consensus is correct. The
way to defend yourself against such threats is to prevent them from
arising. There are many ways to do that, and the same is true in other
cases that were mentioned. In the case of Iraq, it was a horrible
regime. That's why I was always opposed to the fact that the United
States supported Saddam Hussein, and also was opposed to the sanctions
regime, which prevented a revolt against him, but, horrible as it was,
it was not a threat. Kuwait and Iran, which despise Saddam Hussein -
they were both invaded by him - nevertheless didn't regard him as a
threat, and there was good reason for that. Iraq was the weakest state
in the region. Its military expenditures were about a third those of
Kuwait, which has ten percent of its population. It had been decimated
by the sanctions, virtually disarmed - a horrible place, but not a
threat. This was propaganda - grotesque, ugly propaganda. If you want to
look at other cases that one has a reason to be worried about - yes,
then make up appropriate plans for them. Take, say, the threat of
terror. That's very real and very dangerous. The threat of terror has
been increased by actions of the Bush administration. For example,
intelligence agencies are pointing out that recruitment for terrorist
organisations like al-Qaeda has risen very sharply since the threat to
invade Iraq began, and then the invasion, and that's to be anticipated
for good reasons. It's understood why.
ANDY CLARK
You are somebody who seeks to debunk this propaganda that you say the US
government is pushing onto the population. What sort of attitudes do
people take towards you now - someone who speaks out against current US
policy?
NOAM CHOMSKY
I probably spend an hour a night just very reluctantly writing letters
turning down invitations to talk all over the country - huge audiences,
tremendous interest. The United States is not different from other
countries in the world in this respect. There is great fear and concern
about the policies that the Bush administration is pursuing. If you
eliminate the element of panic, which was induced by the propaganda,
which is unique to the United States, then opposition to the war and to
the security strategy here are approximately the same as elsewhere. I
and in fact other people who are willing to speak publicly are simply
overwhelmed by requests and demands to discuss these issues.
ANDY CLARK
Professor Noam Chomsky, author, political activist and linguistics
professor from the Massachussetts Institute of Technology, thank you
very much for joining us.
NOAM CHOMSKY
Thank you.
ANDY CLARK
And thank you all very much for listening.
