let us see what love can do

http://www.consortiumnews.com August 12, 2008
Neocons Now Love International Law
By Robert Parry

It's touching how American neoconservatives who have no regard for
international law when they want to invade some troublesome country have
developed a sudden reverence for national sovereignty.

Apparently, context is everything. So, the United States attacking Grenada or
Nicaragua or Panama or Iraq or Serbia is justified even if the reasons
sometimes don't hold water or don't hold up before the United Nations,
The Hague or other institutions of international law.

However, when Russia attacks Georgia in a border dispute over Georgia's
determination to throttle secession movements in two semi-autonomous regions,
everyone must agree that Georgia's sovereignty is sacrosanct and Russia
must be condemned.

U.S. newspapers, such as the New York Times, see nothing risible about
publishing a statement from President George W. Bush declaring that "Georgia
is a sovereign nation and its territorial integrity must be respected."

No one points out that Bush should have zero standing enunciating such a
principle. Iraq also was a sovereign nation, but Bush invaded it under false
pretenses, demolished its army, overthrew its government and then conducted
a lengthy military occupation resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths.

The invasion of Iraq also wasn't a spur of the moment decision. In the months
after the 9/11 attacks, Bush proclaimed an exceptional right of the United
States to invade any country that might become a threat to American
security or to U.S. global dominance. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com's
"Bush's Grim Vision" or see our book, Neck Deep]

When asked questions about international law, Bush would joke: "International
law? I better call my lawyer."

The neocons' contempt for international law goes back even further - to the
1980s and the illegal contra war against Nicaragua and the invasion of Panama.
Only in the last few days have the neocons discovered an appreciation for
multilateral institutions and the principles of non-intervention.

Despite this history, leading U.S. newspapers don't see hypocrisy. Instead,
they have thrown open their pages to prominent neocons and other advocates of
U.S.-led invasions so these thinkers now can denounce Russia while not
mentioning any contradictions.

On Monday, the Washington Post's neoconservative editorial writers published
their own editorial excoriating Russia, along with two op-eds, one by neocon
theorist Robert Kagan and another co-authored by Bill Clinton's ambassador to
the United Nations, Richard Holbrooke.

All three - the Post editorial board, Kagan and Holbrooke - were gung-ho for
invading Iraq, but now find the idea of Russia attacking the sovereign nation of
Georgia inexcusable, even if Georgia's leaders in Tblisi may have provoked the
conflict with an offensive against separatists in South Ossetia along the
Russian border.

"Whatever mistakes Tblisi has made, they cannot justify Russia's actions,"
Holbrooke and his co-author Ronald D. Asmus wrote. "Moscow has invaded a
neighbor, an illegal act of aggression that violates the U.N. Charter and
fundamental principles of cooperation and security in Europe."

And to top matters off, the authors accused Russia of breaking an even older
international covenant: "Beginning a well-planned war ... as the Olympics were
opening violates the ancient tradition of a truce to conflict during the Games."

The New York Times ran an op-ed by neocon columnist William Kristol, who also
condemned Russia's aggression without indicating any remorse for his own
enthusiasm for U.S. invasions of countries that Washington didn't like.

Wearing Blinders

While major U.S. news outlets may be comfortable wearing blinders that
let them see only wrongdoing by others, the rest of the world views the
outrage from Bush and the neocons over Russia as a stunning double standard.

This larger problem is that the Bush administration - along with its neocon
allies and many establishment Democrats - have lost any credibility with the
world community when it comes to invoking international law.

Bush has applied these legal principles a la carte for years (for instance,
ignoring the Geneva Conventions when he chooses), and many longer-serving U.S.
officials have viewed events through the lens of American exceptionalism for
decades.

For instance, even as the Reagan administration condemned terrorism in the
1980s, it secretly armed the Nicaraguan contras who engaged in acts of
terrorism inside Nicaragua. In 1990, when President George H.W. Bush
denounced Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, everyone conveniently forgot that he
had invaded Panama in 1989.

It has been as if the rules moved on separate tracks, one set for the United
States and one set for everyone else - and it was impolite to notice.

Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, however, it has become harder to ignore
Washington's double standards. Also, after the five-plus-year fiasco in Iraq,
the Bush administration must confront both the limitations on its own imperial
reach and the fact that it has done grave damage to the protocols of
international behavior.

As Russia is now demonstrating in its conflict with Georgia, other big powers
may want to play by the same do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do rules laid down by the
United States.

It is a case of Washington, Bush and the neocons reaping what they have sown.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the
Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous
Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and
can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege:
The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras,
Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth' are also available there. Or go to
Amazon.com.