Righteous Wrath, Or Unlawful Attack? In light of the Gulf of Tonkin and WMD fabrications, one might have thought that the default position of “responsible” commentators, when presented with US justifications, would be one of extreme scepticism. And yet, in New Zealand and across the Western World, the US assertion that the chemical attack on the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun was the work of the Syrian head-of-state, President Bashar al-Assad, has been accepted without question.
THERE IS AN ASSUMPTION among New Zealand foreign policy
“experts” that what the United States tells us should be believed. If, to take
the most recent instance, the US Government informs the New Zealand Government
that the Syrian Government is responsible for using chemical weapons against
its own people, then that intelligence should be accepted by all responsible
commentators. More importantly, it should reinforce all subsequent commentary
concerning New Zealand’s diplomatic and military responses.
But, is this willingness to take the justifications of the
United States at their face value really all that responsible? Surely, the
first obligation of all those in a position to comment on the tragic chemical
release at Khan Sheikhoun and President Trump’s retaliatory missile strike on
Syria, is to be guided by America’s record? Shouldn’t we be examining past
justifications for US military adventures before offering New Zealand support
for this latest attack on a sovereign state?
Because the United States’ post-war record really isn’t all
that flash when it comes to justifying its military assaults on other
countries.
America’s most costly military engagement of the post-World
War II era, the Vietnam War, was justified with what was later exposed as a carefully
constructed falsehood. The so-called “Gulf of Tonkin Incident” of 22-24 August
1965, which prompted the “Gulf of Tonkin Resolution” of the United States
Congress, which, in turn, authorised President Lyndon Johnson to assist any
Southeast Asian government endangered by
“communist aggression”, never happened.
That America’s allies, including New Zealand, were somehow
persuaded that a US naval force, including a fully-equipped aircraft carrier
and at least one destroyer, had been threatened seriously by three North
Vietnamese patrol boats, tells us much about the influence of Cold War paranoia
on Western decision-making in the mid-1960s.
The exposure of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident as a fabricated
pretext for US military aggression in Indochina should have encouraged
America’s friends to treat any future justifications for US violations of the
United Nations’ Charter with considerable caution.
To the eternal credit of the Labour-led government of Helen
Clark, it was not persuaded by the United States’ repeated claims, peaking in
January and February 2003, that the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, remained in
possession of “Weapons of Mass Destruction” (WMDs) and must, therefore, be
overthrown by an American-led invasion.
Thirty-eight years after the non-existent Gulf of Tonkin
Incident, Clark rightfully insisted that any such invasion could not be
supported by New Zealand unless and until it had been authorised by a
resolution of the United Nations’ Security Council.
In an attempt to persuade the UN Security Council to pass
such a resolution, the US President, George W. Bush, sent his Secretary of
State, Colin Powell, to make the case for military intervention. The hapless
Powell appeared before the Council on 5 February 2003, equipped with all manner
of diagrams and slides. His “evidence” even included a “model” phial containing
the deadly Anthrax virus!
The Council was not persuaded and refused to authorise an
American-led invasion. A wise decision, as it turned out, because when, in
defiance of the United Nations, the US, the UK and Australia invaded Iraq in
March 2003, Saddam Hussein’s claims (backed-up by UN Inspectors) that Iraq had
destroyed all of its WMDs, turned out to be true. In spite of the most
exhaustive searches, the US was unable to locate any WMDs whatsoever.
There’s a schoolyard chant: “Fool me once, shame on you!
Fool me twice, shame on me!”
In light of the Gulf of Tonkin and WMD fabrications, one
might have thought that the default position of “responsible” commentators,
when presented with US justifications, would be one of extreme scepticism. And
yet, in New Zealand and across the Western World, the US assertion that the
chemical attack on the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun was the work of the
Syrian head-of-state, President Bashar al-Assad, has been accepted without
question.
Colin Powell and Nikki Haley Show and Tell the UN Security Council ..... Lies?
In a diplomatic atmosphere alarmingly reminiscent of Cold
War fear and suspicion, the alternative explanation offered by Syria’s ally,
the Russian Federation – that Syrian bombs struck a warehouse in which rebel
munitions, including deadly chemical agents, were stored – has been dismissed
out of hand.
New Zealand’s Prime Minister, Bill English, responding to
the US missile attack, said:
“We of course would rather see the Syrian differences
resolved by diplomatic processes but the Security Council hasn’t been able to
condemn it or do anything about it.
“So we can understand the US taking action to prevent that
kind of chemical attack occurring again – and we support action as long as it’s
proportionate.”
Clearly, the events of 1965 and 2003 have left no trace upon
Prime Minister English. Nor, it would seem, upon New Zealand’s “expert”
commentators. Neither the lessons of history, nor the UN Charter, count for
much against the unchallengeable word of Uncle Sam.
This essay was
originally published in The Press of Tuesday,
11 April 2017.
