Bush Speech Reminiscent of Historical Models

In his speech of January 30, delivered to both Houses of Congress and to millions of viewers, the American President George W. Bush declared that the war against terror would be continued. With his speech he has clearly spurred on the escalation of violence. The war has only just begun and will persist beyond his period in office.

nr. Following his alleged plan to combat international terrorism, President Bush spoke of 'the entire world' as the 'battlefield of the USA'. Bush explicitly threatened Iraq, Iran and North Korea and claimed that these three nations 'constitute an axis of evil'. All three were seeking 'chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons' and thus threatening 'the peace of the world'. America, however, 'must not and will not allow it'. He also threatened nations like the Philippines, Bosnia and Somalia with military intervention if they did not meet with the US concept of the war on terror. Bush called the American war against 'terrorist parasites' a 'just' cause. America must 'go after', 'seize' and 'eliminate' those parasites. He added that 'the depth of their hatred is equalled by the madness of the destruction they design'. 'History has called America and our allies to action', and it is the 'responsibility' and the 'privilege' of the USA to 'fight freedom's fight'. The war will require 'the largest increase in defence spending in two decades'. The 'price of freedom and security is high, but never too high', and America is ready to pay the price 'whatever it costs'. The President's speech was accompanied by standing ovations.

NATO General Secretary Robertson, however, declared that NATO was not will-ing to support America's future wars without reservations, since he considers the military alliance for mutual defence applicable only to the terrorist attacks of September 11. Any further war operations would have to be based on clear evidence. Nevertheless, the German Chancellor Schröder has already declared 'overall compliance' ('Einverständnis in allen Fragen') and firmly rejected any criticism of the US President. Meanwhile, German warships disembarked from the African harbour Djibouti for their first 'anti-terror operation', and German troops will soon be stationed in Kenya. German forces specialised in nuclear, biological and chemical weapons' defence (ABC) are on their way to Kuwait. At the Security Conference in Munich of 2-3 February, CDU/CSU Chancellor candidate Edmund Stoiber demanded an enormous rise in the defence budget. Germany must be able, he stated, 'to end conflicts by military means if necessary'.

Last weekend there was increasing evidence that an attack on Iraq was imminent. The Arab newspaper Ar-Raya reported that the aim of the planned attacks was the over-throw of Saddam Hussein. To this aim the Kurds in northern Iraq and the Shiites in the south will be instrumentalised, similar to the strategy used in Afghanistan. At the Munich Security conference, US-Senator John McCain called Saddam Hussein a 'terrorist' and named Iraq as their next target ('nächste Front'). The American Deputy Secretary of Defense, Hall Wolfowitz, reiterated in Munich: 'We are at war.'

With his belligerent rhetoric, the Ameri-can President has demonstrated that he and his Government are willing to wage another world war which aims at promoting and pushing through the interests of big business, the weapons industry and the oil trusts. The labelling of so-called enemies is reminiscent of similar examples from the times of Hitler and Stalin. It is appalling that such verbal aberrations manage to draw applause like Hitler's speeches in the Berlin Sportpalast, and that only few people in responsible positions have voiced concern and opposition against this madness. The reactions of the German political elite to the President's speech is characteristic of their blind vassalage.

Despite the undisputed fact that the regimes of North Korea, Iran and Iraq are undemocratic and despotic, it must be acknowledged that, in the past decade, none of these three states has attacked any other country-in contrast to the United States, who, within the same period of time, has ignored the sovereignty of many nations and peoples, and has always refused to allow anyone to run controls on their own abhorrent arsenals.

In view of the present situation, it is important to remember that international law is still valid and guarantees sovereignty and equal rights to all the states in the world. This means that it is clearly unlawful for any power to shape the world according to its own gusto, and to wage war against other peoples.

It must also be remembered that fifty years ago the world community decided to ensure that humanity be freed of the plague of war and that difficult conflicts were to be solved peacefully and by political means. War was and is the worst and most inhumane expression of power politics.