|
Part of Hussein’s rhetoric in the first Gulf War focused upon his ability to fire
missiles, with chemical warheads, into Israel. A few missiles were fired and fell on
Israel, but they contained no poison, provided no real threat, and mainly served an ideo-
logical goal in illustrating Hussein’s role as liberator of the Palestinians. Memory of
I N T R O D U C T I O N T O G E O P O L I T I C S
98
those weapons loomed large in interpretation of Hussein’s denial of UN weapons inspec-
tors. In what is now known to be partial and faulty intelligence, the US government,
backed by Great Britain, claimed that Hussein was building a chemical and, perhaps,
biological arsenal of weapons that would threaten Israel and US troops in the region.
War came again, and this time Hussein was overthrown.
Case study 4.2: United States representations of the 2003
invasion of Iraq
The reasons given for the 2003 US invasion of Iraq rested upon claims of territorial
security. The Bush administration alleged that Saddam Hussein had links with al-Qaeda
and that he had also developed “weapons of mass destruction” to such an extent that
they could be deployed in 45 minutes, as Prime Minister Blair told the House of
Commons. These allegations and the subsequent retractions are a matter of political
history. For our purposes, the invasion of Iraq and the War on Terrorism in general
illustrates points that are germane to our discussion of the geopolitics of world leader-
ship and the representation of geopolitical codes.
The key point is that world leaders must represent their military actions in a manner
that is different from other countries. First, they must justify their global role. In other
words, the need and ability of world leaders to exert influence in other countries becomes
a generally taken for granted feature of world politics. In the case of the invasion of
Iraq, the question was whether the US had the specific
grounds
to invade, but the
right
for the US to intervene in another country was not questioned. If the evidence was there
to invade, then invading seemed a proper thing to do. Second, the basis for invasion
must be linked to the moral message of world leadership.
In numerous speeches and press releases after the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001, the right, or assumed duty, of the United States to act globally was reasserted.
The world was seen as harboring threats that required a global presence. However, the
justification and methods of such a global presence were not portrayed in terms of power
politics, for that would emphasize material interests. Instead, values were emphasized,
or in other words, the global actions of the world leader were portrayed as benevolent
actions that would benefit all. The following quotes are from Flint, 2004 (see also Flint
and Falah, 2004):
We will rid the world of the evil-doers. We will call together freedom loving
people to fight terrorism.
(www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010916–2.html)
Terrorists try to operate in the shadows. They try to hide. But we’re going to
shine the light of justice on them.
(www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011010–3.html)
Eventually, no corner of the world will be dark enough to hide in.
(www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011010–3.html)
1111
2
3
41
5
6
7
8
91
10
1
2
31111
4
5
6
7
8
9
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
1
2
3
4
51
6
7
8
9
40
1
2
3
4
5111
R E P R E S E N T A T I O N S O F G E O P O L I T I C A L C O D E S
99
The US is the defensor [
sic
] of liberty all over the world, and that’s what this
attack was about.
(www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011015–3.html)
There is no corner of the Earth distant or dark enough to protect them. However
long it takes, their hour of justice will come.
(www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011110–3.html)
The theme of “justice” was used to make the argument that the War on Terrorism
was part of the project of world leadership. Attorney General John Ashcroft (more akin
to the British Cabinet position of home secretary) was quick to equate the United States
with “civilization” and “justice,” and to make these universal ideas part of the global
mission of a particular country, the US.
A calculated, malignant, and devastating evil has arisen in the world.
Civilization cannot ignore the wrongs that have been done. America will not
tolerate their being repeated. Justice has a new mission—a new calling against
an old evil.
(John Ashcroft, Attorney General Ashcroft and Deputy Attorney General
Thompson Announce, Reorganization and Mobilization of the Nation’s
Justice and Law Enforcement Resource, November 8, 2001
www.justice.gov/ag/speeches/2001/agcrisisremarks11_08.htm
)
If the justification of the War on Terrorism lay in providing global justice and
order, then there must be related practical actions. Secretary of State (akin to the
British position of foreign secretary) Colin Powell, began to define what the actual mani-
festation of the innovations of world leadership would look like. There are strong
similarities between this statement and NSC-68, which was introduced in the previous
chapter. A threat has been identified, in this case a very vague “terrorism,” that will be
addressed by seemingly universal notions of “justice” and “civilization” but are in real-
ity the visions of one particular country, and requires a global commitment to building
particular institutions and ways of practicing politics, teaching, economics within other
countries:
But the war on terrorism starts within each of our respective sovereign borders.
It will be fought with increased support for democracy programs, judicial
reform, conflict resolution, poverty alleviation, economic reform and health and
education programs. All of these together deny the reason for terrorists to exist
or to find safe havens within those borders.
(Remarks to UN Security Council, Secretary Colin L. Powell.
New York. November 12, 2001, www.state.gov/)
Though the justification for this geopolitics of world leadership is couched in the
establishment of particular “innovations,” it is built upon a foundation of military might
and power. Furthermore, this power is seen as ultimately serving national interests,
I N T R O D U C T I O N T O G E O P O L I T I C S
100
which implicates the rest of the world. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld couched
the realities of the geopolitics of world leadership in his own inimitable style:
We talked early on, the president did, about the opportunity to rearrange
things in the world in a way that would be beneficial to our country and to
peace and to stability and to free systems, and how as we’re doing this do we
do it in a way that because it’s such a fundamental shift in how people think
about the world, how do we do it in a way that benefits the world after this
event is over.
(Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Wednesday,
January 9, 2002. Interview with the
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
