Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Final Statement of the BRussells Tribunal

(The following is the final statement of the BRussells Tribunal, an international commission of inquiry held in Brussels on April 14-17, 2004. Tom Barry, policy...

(The following is the final statement of the BRussells Tribunal, an international commission of inquiry held in Brussels on April 14-17, 2004. Tom Barry, policy director of the IRC, participated in this tribunal, which focused on the origins of the “new imperial world order.” More information on the Brussels Tribunal and other planned international tribunals can be found at: www.brusselstribunal.org )

The BRussells Tribunal focused on the programs and policies proposed by “The Project for the New American Century” (PNAC), a predominantly neo-conservative “think-tank” that has advocated global US hegemony, primarily through the threat or use of military power. The objective of the Tribunal, working as a commission of inquiry, was to establish whether there was a link between PNAC’s proposals and the foreign and military strategy of the current US government, and the subsequent invasion and occupation of Iraq. The Commission also examined the impact of policies and programs advocated by PNAC on the stability and security of international relations.

 To establish its findings and shape its report, the Commission heard testimony from specialists on international affairs and witnesses knowledgeable about the current conditions in Iraq. The Commission also relied on PNAC’s reports and official US government documents, as well as written analyses.

The Commission came to the following conclusions: 

  1. The PNAC program consists of three main components:
    1. to establish US hegemony in the new century, relying primarily on military and technological superiority;
    2. to prevent the emergence of any competing global or regional powers by imposing what is sometimes termed a “Pax Americana”;
    3. to exercise pre-emptive action against all perceived threats to American “interests” and security.
  2. A significant number of signatories to PNAC’s 1997 founding Statement of Principles” became senior members of the current US administration, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. The adoption of those principles by this administration is evidenced by official White House documents such as “The National Security Strategy” of September 2002. These principles have been put into action through the 2003 invasion of Iraq.  
  3. According to a clear majority of States and a large consensus of legal experts, the invasion of Iraq constitutes an act of aggression, a breach of one of the most fundamental norms of the international legal order. This demonstrates that the implementation of policies emanating from PNAC and endorsed by the current administration runs counter to the principles of the UN Charter and undermines the United Nations itself, which bears the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.  
  4. The invasion of Iraq has resulted in more than 10,000 civilian deaths. With each passing day of occupation, the number of victims grows, as do the gross violations of humanitarian law and human rights, such as arbitrary detention, ill-treatment and deprivation in regard to basic needs. The situation of the Iraqi people has clearly deteriorated and the promises of democracy and freedom have proved to be illusory. The constant use of the words “democracy”, “freedom” and “human rights” in such a context amounts to a complete perversion of those terms.  
  5. Far from bringing stability and peace in Iraq and the region, the invasion and occupation have created instability and chaos. Moreover, the deliberate destruction of Iraq has effectively promoted the Israeli government’s policies of further unlawful expansion and de facto annexation of territories as well as further annihilation of the rights of the Palestinian people. The Tribunal noted that PNAC itself called explicitly in 2002 for the US administration to align itself with the views of the Israeli government. These developments increase hostility between the peoples of the region and the West, contrary to the proclaimed objectives of making the world a safer place.  
  6. There is evidence of a consistent US strategy, as envisioned by the PNAC report entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”, to establish global domination by military means.  Contrary to claims that this domination would be a “benevolent hegemony”, it is more likely to lead to a state of permanent war. PNAC policies are based on brutal unilateralism and disregard for legality. As such, the ideas of PNAC constitute an intellectual crime. The war in Iraq is only one element of a global agenda which is linked with logics of the dominant economic system, inspired by neo-conservative ideology and supported by religious fundamentalism.  
  7. Due to the growing resistance encountered by the occupying powers in Iraq and other unanticipated difficulties, the United States and United Kingdom have made cynical requests for the involvement of the United Nations in Iraq, thereby pre-empting the sovereign rights of the Iraqi people to determine their future.  The United Nations should avoid complicity with — let alone legitimise in any way — the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. Any such action would further discredit this world body. The UN should restore its legitimacy through ensuring the complete withdrawal of all occupying forces and assisting the Iraqi people in recovering their full sovereignty.  Any involvement of the European Union or of NATO to help the occupying powers should be refused.  
  8. Finally, the Tribunal calls upon the peoples of the world to demand that their governments    deny  military, political, financial or any other support to the occupying powers; and
    oppose the illegal implementation by occupation forces or their surrogates of any plans for the wholesale privatization of the Iraqi economy.
     
    The Tribunal also expresses its solidarity with the Iraqi people and its support for their attempts at recovering their full sovereignty.
  9.  

    For More Information “Project for the New American Century,” IRC Right Web Profile, December 2003, online at: : /org/pnac.php

     

     

    Citations

    Tom Barry, "Final Statement of the BRussells Tribunal," IRC Right Web (Somerville, MA: Interhemispheric Resource Center, April 21, 2004).

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Update was slow, but still no lag in the editor window, and footnotes are intact.     This has been updated – Bernard Lewis, who passed away in May 2018, was a renowned British-American historian of Islam and the Middle East. A former British intelligence officer, Foreign Office staffer, and Princeton University professor, Lewis was…


Bernard Lewis was a renowned historian of Islam and the Middle East who stirred controversy with his often chauvinistic attitude towards the Muslim world and his associations with high-profile neoconservatives and foreign policy hawks.


John Bolton, the controversial former U.S. ambassador to the UN and dyed-in the-wool foreign policy hawk, is President Trump’s National Security Adviser McMaster, reflecting a sharp move to the hawkish extreme by the administration.


Michael Joyce, who passed away in 2006, was once described by neoconservative guru Irving Kristol as the “godfather of modern philanthropy.”


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Michael Flynn is a former Trump administration National Security Advisor who was forced to step down only weeks on the job because of his controversial contacts with Russian officials before Trump took office.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Trump is not the problem. Think of him instead as a summons to address the real problem, which in a nation ostensibly of, by, and for the people is the collective responsibility of the people themselves. For Americans to shirk that responsibility further will almost surely pave the way for more Trumps — or someone worse — to come.


The United Nations has once again turn into a battleground between the United States and Iran, which are experiencing one of the darkest moments in their bilateral relations.


In many ways, Donald Trump’s bellicosity, his militarism, his hectoring cant about American exceptionalism and national greatness, his bullying of allies—all of it makes him not an opponent of neoconservatism but its apotheosis. Trump is a logical culmination of the Bush era as consolidated by Obama.


For the past few decades the vast majority of private security companies like Blackwater and DynCorp operating internationally have come from a relatively small number of countries: the United States, Great Britain and other European countries, and Russia. But that seeming monopoly is opening up to new players, like DeWe Group, China Security and Protection Group, and Huaxin Zhongan Group. What they all have in common is that they are from China.


The Trump administration’s massive sales of tanks, helicopters, and fighter aircraft are indeed a grim wonder of the modern world and never receive the attention they truly deserve. However, a potentially deadlier aspect of the U.S. weapons trade receives even less attention than the sale of big-ticket items: the export of firearms, ammunition, and related equipment.


Soon after a Saudi-led coalition strike on a bus killed 40 children on August 9, a CENTCOM spokesperson stated to Vox, “We may never know if the munition [used] was one that the U.S. sold to them.”


The West has dominated the post-war narrative with its doctrine of liberal values, arguing that not only were they right in themselves but that economic success itself depended on their application. Two developments have challenged those claims. The first was the West’s own betrayal of its principles: on too many occasions the self interest of the powerful, and disdain for the victims of collateral damage, has showed through. The second dates from more recently: the growth of Chinese capitalism owes nothing to a democratic system of government, let alone liberal values.


RightWeb
share