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 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: : https://rightweb.irc-online.org/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

Nominated for the post of attorney general by Donald Trump, William Barr held the same post under George H.W. Bush, and established a reputation as a staunch conservative and supporter of executive authority.


Pundit Charles Krauthammer, who died in June 2018, was a staunch advocate of neoconservative policies and aggressive U.S. military actions around the world.


Former Weekly Standard editor and current Fox News commentator Bill Kristol is a longtime neoconservative activist who has been a leading right wing opponent of Donald Trump.


Jon Kyl, a hawkish conservative, served in the Senate from 1996-2013 and again in 2018, and helped guide Brett Kavanaugh through his confirmation process.


Paul Ryan (R-WI), Speaker of the House from 2015-2018, was known for his extremely conservative economic and social views and hawkish foreign policies.


On August 16, 2018, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced the formation of the Iran Action Group (IAG). It would “be responsible for directing, reviewing, and coordinating all aspects of the State Department’s Iran-related activity, and it will report directly to me,” he stated. Amid speculation that the Donald Trump administration was focused on…


Norm Coleman is a lobbyist for the Saudi Arabian government, chair of the Republican Jewish Coalition, and former senator from Minnesota, known for hawkish, pro-Likud, and anti-Iran foreign policy views.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Had Washington made an effort after the last time President Trump promised to quit Syria to pursue diplomatic and military channels and prepare the ground for a U.S. departure, we have had something to celebrate.


Although a widespread movement has developed to fight climate change, no counterpart has emerged to take on the rising danger of nuclear disaster — yet.


U.S. supporters of Israel are in a bind: public opinion is changing; there are more actors publicly challenging Israel; and the crude, heavy-handed tactics they have successfully used in the past to silence criticism now only aggravate the situation.


As the civilian death toll from Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen grows and the backlash against Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s role in Khashoggi’s murder escalates, former Sen. Norm Coleman’s control of Republican Party campaign purse strings positions him as a key influencer of Republican congressional action, or inaction, in curtailing the increasingly aggressive and reckless actions of Saudi Arabia.


Increasingly, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are positioned as rivals, each with pretensions to Middle Eastern influence or even hegemony. It’s not clear whether they can continue to coexist without one or the other—or both—backing down. This has made it more difficult for the United States to maintain its ties with both countries.


What does President Trump’s recent nomination of retired Army General John Abizaid to become the next U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia signify? Next to nothing — and arguably quite a lot.


The Donald Trump administration’s handling of nuclear negotiations with Saudi Arabia promises to lay bare some realities about security issues and nuclear programs in that part of the world that the administration has refused to acknowledge.


RightWeb
share