Byers writes: "Previous administrations at least paid lip-service to the existence of normative constraints by concealing and denying their covert operations. The Bush Administration lets the mask slip, to the discredit of the nation and at the peril of the soldiers whom so many of the rules are designed to protect."
In some ways, the Bush Administration is no different from other Administration as far as its attitudes towards international affairs goes. At the end of the day, Bush does what he thinks is best for American interests, which is the same as all other Presidents before him (of course, whether or not it is in the country's best interest is actually debatable). One of the major differences, however, is his lack of regard for the desires of other states. At least in the past, presidents paid lip-service to the idea of cooperation. But while Bush doesn't seem to care about annoying other states, he does seem to care about the pretense of abiding by norms. This administration couldn't care less about what bridges it burns but it does attempt to justify the international norms it flaunts...well at least until it gets tired of doing so and just breaks them anyway!
As we've discusses so often in class, these are no mechanisms for upholding international norms. Basically, it is states that decide to play by the rules or not. And to be fair, the administration does attempt to justify its actions before it completely ignores the norm. When it invaded Iraq, it attempted to do so under the auspices of preventive and preemptive action. When it put prisoners in Guantanamo it attempted to justify their status. Basically, they've become good at reinventing words and changing the meaning of definitions. And when that doesn't work, they just find loopholes around existing norms. And when that doesn't work, they just flaunt them anyway! "We don't torture." "Water boarding isn't actually torture." "What is torture anyway?" "Let's redefine the meaning of torture..." And it goes on...
Honestly though, Clinton did the same thing with genocide. "Acts of genocide have been committed." It's as if the most important part of norm creation is nailing down the definition so tightly that there is no room to wiggle. Of course, when you do that, states refuse to agree with them. So I guess the goal of future presidents will be hiring lawyers who are clever enough to find loopholes and weak language in the norms. Man, that's depressing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Your post reminds me of the International Law class I'm taking this semester as well. Our professor has repeatedly said, "The law is merely a tool with which to argue your point." The Bush Administration's use of international law is a perfect example of this. The administration doesn't really seem to care what the law says or what its intent is; rather, they are willing to twist its words in whatever way possible. My professor's description of law makes you wonder about the impact of the rules of war or IHL in general...
Your post seems as cynical as mine usually do. Don't let the Turkey rub off on you!
After I wrote my post and after reading yours, I started thinking about the role of technology and the media in all of this.
I can imagine that we actually know alot more about what our government does now than if we had the same administration early in the 20th century. I think that maybe the Bush administration coming out and saying what they did about the Geneva Conventions and Waterboarding was an attempt to admit to everything themselves, on their own terms before someone in the media dug up dirt and did an expose.
I may be stretching, but every time I think of how much more informed we all (supposedly) are because of technology and 24hr access to news, I think of how much must have gone on that slipped by the general public prior to the internet and, to be honest, the truly intrusive nature of technology.
Post a Comment