Focus 580; New American Foreign Policy

Good morning this is Focus 580 our morning telephone talk show. My name is Jack Brighton sitting in for David and glad you tune in today. When George W. Bush and his crew took over the foreign policy reins they took the U.S. on a new course. Unilateralism as the only remaining superpower an economic leader of the world. America could go it alone. We backed out of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. The International Criminal Court tree even the international biological weapons protocol then came the morning of September 11th. Suddenly the U.S. needs the rest of the world. Heck on October 5th we even paid back most of our back dues to the United Nations. Questions for this our focus 580. How did the events of September 11th affect the direction of U.S. foreign policy. Does this moment represent a true paradigm shift in our relations with the rest of the world. A moment when America finally understands the meaning of the world globalization or assuming this crisis eventually passes will we again retreat to attend merely to our own self-interests and hope the rest of the world can straighten itself out without our involvement. Questions surely too big for us to answer during the next hour. But that never stopped us from trying.

Our guest during this hour is someone who has worked for many years on issues human rights sovereignty and international law. Doug Cassel is director of the Center for International Human Rights at Northwestern University. He's also president of the Due Process of Law Foundation and vice president of the board of Justice Studies Center of the Americas to which he was elected by the Organization of American States. He has served as consultant on human rights to the United Nations the OAS the U.S. State Department and the Ford Foundation and has lectured throughout Europe Asia and the Americas. He's also served as legal advisor to the U.N. Commission on the truth in El Salvador where he supervised investigations and was the principal editor of its report. He also has a weekly commentary heard every Wednesday on WBEZ in Chicago the NPR station up there as we talk during this hour with Doug Kasell. You are invited into the conversation. Your questions and comments on the topic are welcome. All you have to do is call us around Champaign-Urbana at 3 3 3 9 4 5 5 3 3 3.

Well few match the letters with the numbers. Also toll free anywhere you hear us around Illinois Indiana parts of the or the States we reach with a AM 580 signal the number toll free 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5. Again around Champaign-Urbana 3 3 3 w oil well toll free elsewhere. Eight hundred. Two to two oil well. Doug Cassel Good morning. Good morning. Thanks so much for joining us. My pleasure to begin. Let's talk about U.S. foreign policy before and after September 11th have I overstated this change of course business a little bit. I think September 11 is a watershed dramatically altering U.S. foreign policy not only in the weeks since then but for the foreseeable future certainly years and probably decades to come. The one point where I think the intro may have overstated it a bit is is the suggestion that we may have finally come to understand the meaning of globalization. I think we're a far. A far cry

from that yet but I think on the other hand we have gone from viewing the world through a predominantly unilateralist eyes to a new foreign policy that understands. The significance of multilateralism in the New World. Well prior to September 11th I mean you note in some of your your commentaries that the US was essentially retreating from a number of international agreements and you know sort of taking a new tack. I wouldn't use the word retreating I would say that the United States before September 11 perceived itself and in some ways correctly so as a superpower unrivaled its history going back to perhaps the Roman Empire where measured by the military terms that applied before September 11 and measured by economic and diplomatic terms the United States towered so high above the rest of the world that we felt and to some extent correctly so for

that period of time that we were able to do pretty much whatever we wanted on our own and did not have to resort to alliances to treaties to international law or to international organizations except if we happen to perceive some particular situation where it might suit our interests. What's changed after September 11. Far more than the policy is the reality that underlies it because the reality after September 11 is that military power in the world has been redefined. It is no longer measured by the number of nuclear bombs and aircraft carriers you have but it can be measured by the determination of a small number of people to board civilian passenger jets with box cutters or to hide out in some suburb in New Jersey and sticks. Anthrax spores and a few on Globes once military power gets redefined in that way what it does is to greatly reduce the power

military power disparity between the United States and the rest of the world. I'm interested in hearing you talk about the legal authority under which we are operating in the international arena. And hell perhaps that has changed or our thinking about it has changed since September 11th. Well international law is essentially a way of expressing two things number one international agreement the agreement of a large number of nations in the world and number two a commitment by those nations to regard themselves as being bound by the agreement pre-September 11 the United States didn't care terribly much what most other nations thought. Most of the time and in those instances where the nations of the world had gotten together and entered into treaties and other forms of international law the United States did not feel itself particularly bound by those except again when it was perceived to be in our self-interest. After September 11 I think. The Bush administration and Secretary

Powell to their credit have realized that given our number one current foreign policy priority which is the campaign against international terrorism. That is a priority that can best be advanced in a multi lateral and multi national matter. And that means that we now do care about what other countries think. We also have to care about what international law says because that's the embodiment. The strongest consensus reached by the international community. So for example do we want to engage in military actions in Afghanistan or elsewhere against terrorism. If we do we need bases nearby. We need overflight permission from Pakistan and other countries we need overflight for logistical supply lines we need bases for our aircraft carriers. All of that means we have to care what country what other countries in the

region think of us and are prepared to agree with us about. Do we wish to fight international terrorism by the law enforcement route. Well then we need help with the sharing of evidence. Arresting of suspects wherever they may be found conducting law enforcement investigations in many countries. If people are in fact identified and arrested then we need help with extradition. We may ultimately need help with the question of where they might be put on trial. All of those questions again we cannot handle single handedly we have to enter into agreements with other nations and those agreements will have to operate within a framework that has already been defined by international law. Suppose our battle against terrorism is on the intelligence front and of course it's on all three of these fronts. Military or law enforcement and intelligence are intelligent agencies have some strengths and some weaknesses their strengths are primarily in the electronic eavesdropping area.

But that's not enough to deal with the terrorists like they've been allied group which are smart enough to use means of communication that cannot be detected from satellites. So we also need human sources in there. Unfortunately the CIA is extremely weak particularly in the Arab world and particularly among the extremist Islamic groups who are the base of al-Qaida and some of these other terrorist groups. And so we need cooperation from Egypt to tell intelligence from Jordanian intelligence from other intelligence agencies of Arabic speaking and Islamic countries and again we're not going to be able to force that. Singlehandedly we have to work in a cooperative mode. Now you add all these things together and what you get is a pretty obvious case for the need to pursue a multilateral policy in regard to our number one national priority in foreign

policy campaigning against terrorism. And once you build that set of multilateral ties agreements discussions personal relationships rep or trust at such or it has an inherent tendency to expand to other areas of our foreign policy first because other nations demand that is a quid pro quo. They may tell us they're happy to help us on terrorism but then they'd like to have from us on some other issue. And secondly because once you begin to build these relationships and build these networks they have a sort of a self-perpetuating momentum. Diplomats get to know each other better. They get to trust each other better they work together better it becomes a little more awkward to do things behind someone's back or without consulting them. So for all of these reasons I think that we are not looking at a scenario where the U.S. will wage an intensive campaign against terrorism for say six months or year theoretically or hypothetically when that campaign. And then go

back to business as usual pre September 11 I think we have turned a corner and there's no going back. OK. We're talking this morning with Doug Cassel He's director of the Center for International Human Rights at Northwestern University and we're talking about U.S. foreign policy in the wake of September 11th. We do have one caller waiting and we'll get right to them. Others are welcome 3 3 3 9 4 5 5 around Champaign-Urbana elsewhere. 800 2 2 2 9 4 5 5. We have a listener on a car phone and I 57 so rather than make them run off the road. Let's include them in the conversation. Good morning you're in focus 580. Hello. Hello. Yes you're there as a caller there. Well that we did have a caller there. And that person is welcome to call back. We sort of have them but I guess they didn't have us. Well let me let me then continue along the the previous question. In the case of the the war in Yugoslavia there were

quite a bit of people worried that the United States and NATO were pursuing military action perhaps in violation of international law the UN charter and so forth. What is different about the current campaign with regard to you know the activities the military campaign in Afghanistan and perhaps elsewhere with regard to international law in this case. Well I was one of the people who thought the need in military action against Yugoslavia in regard to Kosovo was a violation of the United Nations charter. I didn't think that because it was violating Yugoslav sovereignty I think that Yugoslavia had forfeited whatever right to sovereignty it had by virtue of having committed crimes against humanity in Kosovo justifying humanitarian intervention. So the violation was not of the rights of Yugoslavia but rather of the rights of the rest of the world who have a right under the United Nations charter to have international use of force limited to two circumstances.

One is self defense and in Yugoslavia we were not going in as a matter of self-defense Yugoslavia was not attacking us. And the other is by authorization of the United Nations Security Council acting under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter which authorizes the council to take military action were to authorize military action in cases of threats to international peace and security. There was no Security Council authorization for the intervention in Yugoslavia either. So I argued that NATO could not usurp the powers of the UN Security Council and the intervention was illegal as a matter of law in my opinion. Afghanistan however is quite a different matter. On September 11 as everyone knows we were massively brutally and viciously attacked the United Nations Charter recognizes the inherent right to self-defense. And

that right of self-defense does not authorize you to retaliate for something that is over and done with but it does authorize you to take military action necessary to protect yourself from a continuing threat. And in the case of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan harboring bin Laden and in the case have been alive and his al Qaeda group clearly unless we put them out of business there's every reason to expect them to just keep committing terrorist acts they've been doing it for years. They're publicly committed to doing it. And so as a matter of self-defense in my opinion under the U.N. Charter and international law the United States has every right to go into Afghanistan provided that it was not reasonably possible to resolve the conflict with the Taliban and bin Laden by diplomatic means which it was not. And provided that in the course of going in there we respect international law in terms of making every effort to

avoid civilian casualties. Hitting military targets with proportionate force. And in my opinion we're meeting both of those criteria as well. So I view the military action in Afghanistan unlike the one connected with Kosovo and it's entirely justified under international law and being conducted in a manner consistent with international law. Very good. We have several callers to include in our conversation and I think we have our personal and I 57 back on line number one. Good morning on focus 580. Thank you. Sure. Sorry it must have been in between towers. OK. I'd like to say that I or I agree with all the conclusions that your guest made. With the exception of one and the conclusion was that this was not a sudden revelation he took exception with your introduction. I think your introduction is right on. As a matter of fact I think many of

the actions that were being taken by the Bush administration reflected exactly what you had said. And I think that there was a revelation on the part of many of the Conservatives are generally speaking Republican group that we were we were going to go it alone and I think that they did perceive themselves as you compared to. Time of the Roman Empire. I think that they didn't see themselves that way and there's some truth there but that doesn't reflect the fact that we do need people and I don't and it's the shame that it took the collapse of the towers and that kind of an attack to bring of that realisation. I think about is what the remnants of that realisation because I think they were on a path of rejecting the need for other people in the world and a lack of concern and a high degree of arrogance in regard to other people around the world. I agree entirely with everything your caller just said.

I wasn't disagreeing at all that September 11 was a moment of revelation it was and it has drastically altered the approach to U.S. foreign policy. The only exception I was taking was with any suggestion that even today Washington understands globalization for two reasons first of all I don't think anybody understands globalization. It's far more complex and rapidly developing then then I think even the best analysts can keep up with. But secondly I don't think the Bush administration or Washington is up to speed even with the best thinking that's been done in policy analysis circles I think they've come a great distance since September 11 but I think they still have a ways to go. And just to give you one example. As part of the deal by which Tom DeLay and Jesse Helms and some others agreed to allow George Bush to pay the installment of our U.N. dues in early September as was mentioned in the introduction there was a condition on that deal and the

condition was that the Bush administration would have to proclaim its support which it has now done for something called the American servicemembers Protection Act which is basically a bill declaring war on the International Criminal Court and it is supported by all of our democratic allies and which would go so far as to authorize the president of the United States to use military force to liberate any American who might someday be he detained for the blind or for the International Criminal Court. Now that is aside from the fact that we ought to be supporting the international criminal court rather than opposing it. That is just spitting in the face of our European and Democratic allies around the world. And so I would suggest that the while the Bush administration has learned a great deal since September 11 it still has a ways to go. Oh I absolutely agree with that. Good conclusions in regard to policy. Maybe something a little more closer to what's happening

right now. And that's the bombing that's going on in regard to the people that are very hungry and in fact starving that are unable to get food for 4 due to the bombing and a lot of other reasons. But if I guess I make a comment then a request for information. I'm concerned that we are going to continue this and that right now seven million people are in jeopardy. And if we do a continuation of this and seven million people in fact do die of starvation as a direct or indirect if you will of our actions. I'm very concerned at the world. Never give up. And we should never forgive ourselves if there is not a plan. There is a plan a plan that will take consideration of the people and so rapidly.

I don't think there is a plan currently in place that's designed to deal with starvation on the scale of 7 million people. But we're not at that point yet and I think there are contingency plans in place to try to prevent us from reaching that stage. I don't think we'll ever reach that stage for two reasons first of all it would be a humanitarian disaster on an unthinkable scale and I don't think that Washington would permit itself to be associated in any way with such a calamity. I would hope not. But secondly even if Washington had no particular humanitarian sensitivity it would be a great way to lose this war. And by this war I don't mean necessarily what happens in Afghanistan I mean what happens in the war for public opinion particularly but not only in the Arab and Muslim world. Absolutely. The government of President Musharraf in

Pakistan in the scenario you describe. Would almost certainly fall and be taken over by forces much more sympathetic to the Taleban and hostile hostile to us. One would have to wonder about the stability of other governments in the Islamic and Arab world and we would certainly lose the support of public opinion even in Europe. So you're right we have to be very concerned about the scenario you're portray and take action and develop plans to nip it in the bud before it reaches that stage. But on the other hand I think it is. It is virtually certain that we will do that because the consequences of not doing it are unacceptable either in human terms or geo political terms. Thank you for taking my call. Thanks. Thanks very much for your call. We're almost halfway in our conversation with Doug Cassel director of the Center for International Human Rights at Northwestern University we're talking about U.S. foreign policy in the wake of September 11th. We have a

couple callers waiting and time for others if you'd like to join us. The number around champion Abana 3 3 3 9 4 5 5. Toll free anywhere else you hear us 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5. Let's talk with a listener in Savoy on line number two. Good morning you're on focus 580. Hi how you doing. Good. Hey I've been following your your talk today and I kind of take issue with the you know with the supposed fact that these terrorists were military geniuses and and have you know the same standing in terms of military terms as the United States. If you go and you look at what the enabling action was to make their plan successful it was. They relied upon the fact that no one on board would be armed. And that's the thing that really allowed that to take take place after that everything was set in motion.

We can't think of these terrorists have political you know having any political or or human standing at all. And you know I'm surprised that we can give him so much credit. And I'd like to know how you came to that conclusion. Well I didn't suggest that they were equivalent to the United States and military prowess no one is of military prowess is defined as armed forces and military equipment have traditionally been defined. My point is that the definition of military capability has now been redefined. You no longer have to be well-equipped well-trained highly professional well-armed well-financed all of the things that the United States is and has been. You no longer have to be that to pose a very serious military threat to another country. You can take a few zealots squirrel them away for 18 months and sneak them onto an airplane with some box cutters which

was. I think their only weapon as far as I can recall are other low tech methods. And you're capable of killing 6000 people in a single day as they did. So I'm not suggesting that they are equal by any means in military terms what I'm suggesting is that their military capability in a very different way poses a far greater threat to us than the conventional military capabilities of countries did before September 11 in terms of giving them any political or military standing. Certainly politically they deserve no standing whatsoever their criminals should be captured and prosecuted if they resist by military force which they're currently doing now. They should be the object of military operations. They the bin Laden group has no political standing and even the Taleban is not recognized by any government in the world with the sole exception of Pakistan and Pakistan's relationship with the Taliban now is mostly a sort of a useful

channel of communication because it's the only country where the Taliban still has an ambassador who can who can speak and be spoken to in terms of human terms. I am not sure what you mean by that but I guess I would say that from my point of view and from the point of view of international human rights law every human being no matter how evil their actions may have been is still a human being with certain basic human rights. So I as much as I deplore and detest of the terrorists for what they have done. I recognize them as human beings entitled to the basic human rights that any member of the human family has. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be bombing their military forces were doing that. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't be attempting to arrest and prosecute them. We're doing that but they're still human beings.

Apologies the last caller but we have several of you waiting I want to try to include as many people as we can in the time remaining. We'll go next to a listener in Bloomington on the line number four. Good morning you're in focus 580. Good morning. Yes Bush has said that his war against terrorism will go on for years and years. Has he not. Yes. All right. Certainly he does not believe that Afghanistan will take years and years. Does he know. Well then who is he going after after Afghanistan. In my opinion he is building this coalition with these Muslim countries that he has far really said were terrorists or harboring terrorists. Now my reading of that is that he intends to pick these nations off. Well one of the times over the years. Can you reassure me that that is not the case.

I don't believe that's the case. When he uses the word war it's ambiguous in one sense of course it refers to the actual kind of war that we all recognize with bombs falling and missiles and jets and so forth that's taking place right now in Afghanistan. But I think when he said the war on terrorism will go on for years he was referring to a metaphorical kind of war to be waged by intelligence law enforcement diplomacy economics and other means not limited to military. So assuming and I have to stress assuming because I think the outcome in Afghanistan is for many reasons remains uncertain. But assuming that he is able to win the military war in Afghanistan sometime in the next few weeks or months. He will then face the question of Binah what it means to continue waging the war against international terrorism in years to come because we will have no choice but to wage that war because they are certainly going to continue

waging it against us. They've been doing it for years that reached a peak on September 11. But there are hundreds and thousands of determined zealots looking for ways to commit violent terrorist murderous acts against the United States. They'll keep it up on their side so we have to keep it up on our side. But that does not necessarily mean that the means by which we wage our side of the war once the Afghanistan chapter is more or less resolved will have to be military. It could be by a whole range of other means. I wouldn't rule out military perhaps in a case or two it might might come to that but I think the Bush administration is likely to be very very weary of trying to take further military action in the Arab or Islamic world. Because in the course of waging this war and hopefully winning it in Afghanistan we are arousing further arousing widespread resentment against us

throughout the Arab and Muslim world. And if we are able to bring the Afghanistan chapter to a close I think we'll have an awful lot of bridge building to do in that part of the world and attacking some other country even if we have justification which we might well have probably would be counterproductive in the region. Well you have drawn a different surgeon from from the fact that we not already know you have drawn a different approach than I have and you are much more sanguine about it than I am sir. I am. I have to repeat what I said. Orig. I think that's what's what's in their minds that they'll pick these Arab countries all Muslim countries off one time after they're successful and run Asinus and then another. We're talking Christine. Thank you for taking for taking my opinion.

OK. I don't claim that my crystal ball is is perfect nobody's is but the main reason why I'm as optimistic on that point as I am is that I think the Bush administration is very much aware that when you attack as we're currently doing one Muslim country it has very serious and obvious negative consequences in other Muslim countries so that they can see that happening now and they know what the cost they would have to pay would be were they to try to do it again. You know one hopes that that's that's the way it is in administration. One does read a lot of commentary by people who say well this is just the beginning. I remember when we first began launching attack military. The strikes in Afghanistan in early earlier this month some analysts were saying yeah this is just the beginning where you know next is going to have to be Libya and Iran and you know Iran have to go back to Iraq and so forth. And the

other thing I want to raise is people talking about Ramadan is coming up and there is there's going to be there isn't going to be more pressure for the United States to cease military strikes in Afghanistan partly because of that also because after Ramadan comes a winter and that's going to be a much more difficult scenario to continue prosecuting the the the military action in Afghanistan. Do you have any thoughts on how you know what's likely to happen how are we likely to deal with these considerations. Well first of all on the on the commentary and advocacy calling for continued military action against other Arab countries I think there are if you will hawks and doves within the administration from day one assistant secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz has been identified with the Hawks faction and there are commentators who like Charles Krauthammer who are with him calling for military action against any and all countries that support terrorism.

But. His views have not prevailed within the administration. The views of Colin Powell seem to be more in accord with those of Connelly's or Rice and George Bush. Rumsfeld has scaled back his rhetoric from the early days so I think the administration has been able to take a broader and in my view a more intelligent assessment of our strategic posture than some of those who are calling for a precipitous or imprudent military action in terms of Ramadan I'm quite worried. As you know there have been public statements by Rumsfeld to the effect that in the past Muslim countries themselves have carried out wars during Ramadan implying that if they can do it so can we have been statements coming out of the Pentagon that this war might go for at least into the middle of 2002. I think it is good for those things to be said now publicly because you

don't want to send a public message to the Taliban that all they have to do is hold out until the beginning of Ramadan in November and they'll be home free. You want to send a message that's going to make them worried that come the beginning of Ramadan they don't suddenly have a have a shelter. So I think publicly making those statements is probably a good idea. But in terms of what we actually do I'm extremely worried that already the costs of this war and of the way in which we're conducting this war at a fairly slow pace unfortunately is exacting a high toll in Arab and Muslim public opinion especially but not only in Pakistan and that that will become far far worse if we continue through Ramadan. So I think even though we may publicly say that we're prepared to come into Ramadan I think we ought to be making every effort to wrap this thing up if at all possible before Ramadan and I

don't know whether that's going to be possible. OK. We have a couple of callers waiting and just about 13 or 14 minutes left in this hour. We're talking once again I should mention with Doug castle. Director of the Center for International Human Rights at Northwestern University and we're talking about U.S. foreign policy in the wake of September 11th and a variety of issues that that pertains. If you'd like to join us we should have time to take a couple more calls the number around Champaign-Urbana 3 3 3 9 4 5 5. Toll free anywhere you hear of 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5 will next to a listener in Champaign on one number two. Good morning on focus 580. Yes just for the sake of moral consistency. During the 90 days when the United States was funding terrorist Contras to a technocracy Nicaragua would you have supported the right if if they were if they were capable. Would you have supported the right if it could be elected and representative government of Nicaragua

known as Sanity says would you have supported their rights to buy the new United States at that time so whether they were bombing military targets in the United States if they had I think the United States was engaged in a defacto proxy war utilizing both military and terrorist means against Nicaraguan allies was that it was suppressed that the kit was not that the be the case and in that in the 1980s that's when I said I said the United States was in fact would you know were you calling for the would you call it what what were you doing. I mean well let's let the guest dance. I think I think he's I think he's addressing your question with skim a chance here. You know I mean the question you're raising is entirely hypothetical because of course the Sandinistas did not have the capability to bomb the United States in the 1980s that we had which is the hypothetical you pose. In my view it would have been a lawful act of self-defense for them to do so provided

they were attacking military targets. So if they had if they had hypothetically bombed a U.S. military base in response to the war that was being waged against them under the sponsorship of the United States I think that would have been a lawful act of self-defense. On the other hand if they had flown an airplane into the World Trade Center it doesn't matter what your reason for doing something like that is that's just illegal terrorism immoral terrorism. Nobody can be allowed to do that no matter what their reason is so calling to us support the Contras illegal anymore or to terrorism and then in the 1980s. Was I. Yes I was recalling the Israeli invasion of Lebanon illegal and immoral terrorism in the 1980s. Well I don't think I made any public statements about the Lebanon invasion in the 1980s but a little earlier this year I took some flak facta a considerable amount of flak because I suggested that Ariel Sharon should be arrested and prosecuted as a war criminal based on the findings of the Khan commission in

Israel which determined that he had a degree of responsibility for the killings of several hundred Palestinians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps which in my opinion equates under international law to command responsibility the responsibility of a military commander for actions by troops under his or under his control. So I certainly at this point in time and during the 1990s I've been sharply critical of the of the crimes against humanity committed under Sharon's direction at Sabra and Shatila in 1982. Apologies to the caller but we have about 10 minutes left in and we have some more callers on including a conversation. A quick follow up though along the lines of the point of the caller. You were very much involved in the the Commission on the truth in El Salvador including writing that. The final report of that and I think it's OK. Thank you for that clarification. But you know the point being that you're you know I

think your experience gives you good insight into the U.S. track record in Central America certainly with regard to human rights violations. And I think that we know pretty clearly the U.S. does not have a totally clean record when it comes to you know supporting terrorists was people people could certainly call the Contras in Central America and perhaps other regimes that were guilty of human rights violations there and elsewhere around the world. And so the I guess my question is you know if you know if you agree or disagree with that you can you can you know state your point of view but. Given that a lot of people do perceive us as a nation that has has engaged in foreign policy that has violated people's human rights it does create a little bit of a complicated you know situation now when we try to uphold those standards of human rights. It certainly does. I mean I I get myself in trouble with with

this both State Department with both the State Department and with the anti-war and groups opposed to the United States government all the time because my positions are consistently in support of neither side my views are that we have to support human rights everywhere all the time. And we have to oppose violations of human rights by anyone ever anywhere. Sometimes in fact on quite a number of occasions the United States government is guilty of that in places or has been in places like Nicaragua Guatemala El Salvador. And elsewhere currently in Colombia but there are other times when the United States is acting I think in defense of human rights and within the boundaries of HEU international law and Afghanistan is such a case. So the world does not in my view break down into black and white all or nothing the United States is neither always right nor always wrong. We have unfortunately a track

record of frequent frequent and flagrant disregard for international law and for international human rights law which considerably undermines our credibility. Most unfortunately when in fact we are acting in support of human rights and within the bounds of international law as we currently are. But I don't think the fact that we have been wrong in many other places it means that our government should not be supported when it's doing something right. I believe that what it's doing in Afghanistan right now in broad terms is right. OK. We have a couple of the callers let's go next to a listener in Aurora online number one. Good morning on focus 580. Why don't the intent of not declaring that the war and one of the countries right behind Afghanistan and one other country that hates us as much as Afghanistan and why do you say our and the Muslin world why did you make that distinction.

Because the Muslim world is not limited to the Arab world. Afghanistan is not an Arab country Pakistan is not an Arab country nor is Iran nor is Indonesia which is the largest Muslim country in the world. So when we look at the reactions of public opinion in countries that perceive themselves as more closely linked to the Afghan people than say the people of Europe do we have to look both at the Arab world which has a. Which is almost exclusively Muslim and therefore strongly identifies with the Muslim population of Afghanistan. But we also have to look at that part of the Muslim world which is a very important part of the Muslim world which is not part of the Arab world. Now in your first question why do we why did we not declare war. That is a question surely of national law within the US. International law doesn't really care whether someone formally

declares war or simply engages in war. And so I've been analyzing what Washington is doing and for purposes of international law it doesn't make any difference at all whether Washington chooses to make a formal declaration of war or simply has the president get up and make a speech about war and then start sending in the missiles and the bombs in terms of domestic US law and politics why did we not declare war I have to I have to confess to you I don't know. I haven't talked to anybody in Washington who want to ask them why they didn't do that and that's not my area of specialization. OK we have a couple of calls to try to get them both in the 5 mins or so remaining next is a listener in Schomberg on number four. Good morning on focus 580. VicRoads have biological warfare anthrax and smallpox are the two that things are being in focus right now is there a lot of other that could come to the forefront. That's one question the other courts that I was born in

one hundred forty three. And we were all vaccinated at right at that time again. Back his back or what we need is that when we get back again. Well I'm not a either a medical or a bio expert but I did hear on NPR this morning an interview with a medical expert who said that the last vaccinations that were widespread in the United States were ended in one thousand seventy two. And at the concern of the medical community is that those vaccinations no longer Shield people like you and me from smallpox so if you had your vaccination as I did decades before that I think we have to assume based on what I heard this morning that that vaccination is no longer valid. The United States does currently have a stockpile as I understand it of something like 10 million doses of small packs of smallpox vaccine and they are preparing

an experiment now to see whether that can be diluted so that it would reach as many as 75 million. Vaccinations Plus they are in the process of contracting for an additional supply of vaccinations. Now in terms of our smallpox which fortunately has not yet broken out and anthrax which has are they the only two forms of bioterrorism to worry about certainly NOT even without being a biological expert. I can assure I can be confident that there are many other types of bacterial viral and other sorts of insidious bio warfare that we have to worry about and that I'm sure that the government is looking into. Am I sure that the government will not be caught off guard by some new form of bio terrorism. No I'm not sure of that I wish I were but unfortunately we've been operating under the safe assumption for many

years that this sort of thing was so inhuman that that nobody would be likely to do it. We now know that that's no longer the case and we have to take these threats as being far more imminent serious and realistic today than we might have a few years ago. We have less than two minutes left. We have one last caller I'll try to squeeze in here and just have to ask a person to try to be brief with the questions on Crystal Lake on line number two. Good morning. Solution to this terrorist and those corporations and and the US and its military backed by our US government is to get out of the unfair trade in foreign countries because it's large multinational export sweatshops and in taking their resources like announcer in Nigeria and they get the oil and have the stationer revolt take for the corporations just like us well with our troops. In fact in in in East Timor

they had the IT workforce. With the South Korean generals. At the workplace and who once said that we if we have to sweat shafts and slave labor really definitely going to help I'm sorry I'm going to have to cut off the call because we're. At a time but I think her point is that our economic policy has also been an issue in terms of the way that the United States is perceived around the world that maybe that's part of the problem as well. I agree and I think the caller is by coincidence sort of brought us back to the point that you opened with one of the reasons one of the major reasons for anger against the United States. In many countries around the world but particularly in the Arab world is economic under-development massive unemployment in those countries resulting in part and perceived to result from a market dominated system of globalization where the most advanced and competitive countries

namely the United States Europe and certain East Asian countries including Japan have a built in advantage over countries like most of the Arab world which are not really yet competitive. And the result of. Opening up thread markets to open competition in that sort of an uneven contest is that we the United States and other advanced countries tend to win and the countries in the Arab world tend to lose and people there not understand not. Quite understandably get very angry at us. I think that is one of the lessons which the Bush administration has not really fully absorbed yet. And that's why I regard September 11 as a major turning point. But I think we still have some more turns that will need to make in the road. OK well we're going to have to leave it there since we're here the end of our time and I'm sure we'll continue talking about these issues and we want to thank you very much for spending the time with us or our guest has been Doug Cassel director of the Center for International Human Rights at Northwestern University. Thanks so much.

Thank you.