Does USA foreign policy have a moral imperative?

Great Debates
61

litost - The US military is not keeping a count of civilian casualties. Can someone tell me why?

Reasons for not reporting body counts
Leher asks -
We just talked about the U.S. casualties, and there have been reports from time to time about Taliban casualties and about opposition forces casualties. But the Pentagon has thus far refused to discuss civilian casualties in Afghanistan. How do you read that?

MARK THOMPSON: I think it goes back to Vietnam where we were preoccupied with body count. You may remember in the Gulf War we still don’t have a U.S. government estimate of how many Iraqis were killed, be they civilian or military. I think they are averse, almost allergic to discussing this topic.
The point is made in the interview that counting bodies is very difficult, especially in enemy territory.

62

msmith537,
That is a question I am struggling to answer myself. I don’t have the experience nor the information to arrive at a decision, and I acknowldge that I cannot propose an alternative other that just guarding ourselves, and monitoring that region along with many other around the world, carefully.
That said, taking the war as inevitable, shouldn’t you be concerned with the manner in which the war is being pursued? As the NYT report claims, US seems to be unwilling to risk its own soldiers over and above Afghan civilian lives. Airstrikes based on potentially specious intelligence rather than ground forces.
Let me ask you a question. Do you support what Israel did in bombing an apartment area knowing fully well that there will be civilian deaths, including children? If you don’t, what is the substantial difference between that and the US campaign? Granted, US doesn’t intentionally target civilians, but it does know that civilians could be around. I don’t understand the “I didn’t know” argument because even though the exact knowledge is unknown, they are aware that the possibility is real. It is an a priori risk involving human lives. Actually, if one were to extrapolate based on your previous statements, you would support the Israeli action. Why? Because otherwise they too will be turning the other cheek.

jacksen9,
Thanks for that link. I am not asking they keep an accurate count. Since they decided to execute this campaign, I think they should at least seek out the families of those who are positively identified to have died under their “accidental” bombing, and provide some retribution. I need to check what the US policies are in this regard.

63

Fang,

I apologize. The US did vote in favour of the original UN Resolution 242 in 1967, and held to this interpretation of UN 242 until 1971. Since then, however, the US has not supported this resolution. Nor has it supported a meaningful peace in the region.

In 1971, when President Sadat had taken power in Egypt, he offered a settlement in the terms of UN 242: full peace in return for full Israeli withdrawal. It was understood that Sadat’s proposal was, as Israel put it, a genuine peace offer (Yitzhak Rabin, then Ambassador to the US, described it in his memoirs as a “genuine road to peace”).

The USA adopted Kissinger’s policy of stalemate and rejected calls for negotiation. So the US effectively rejected UN 242 in February 1971 when it insisted that the interpretation of the resolution means withdrawal insofar as the US and Israel decide.

That has been the operative meaning of UN 242 under US global rule since 1971.

By the mid 70s, a broad international consensus came to accept Palestinian national rights alongside those of Israel. In January 1976, the Security Council debated a resolution, which included the wording of 242 but added Palestinian national rights in the territories from which Israel would withdraw. The US vetoed it.

This continued. The US vetoed a similar Security Council Resolution in 1980, and voted against similar General Assembly resolutions year after year, usually only with Israel.

After the Gulf War the Arab world was in total disarray. The US immediately moved to the Madrid negotiations, where it could unilaterally impose the rejectionist framework that it had protected in international isolation for 20 years.

That led to Oslo, and the adoption of the Declaration of Principles (DOP) by the USA on September 13, 1993. The DOP outlined US policy clearly.

The DOP states that the ultimate settlement down the road is to be based on UN 242; meaning, under the Kissingerian revision, partial withdrawal, as the US determines. Since this is a unilateral power play, UN 242 means “as the US decides.”

After the Oslo agreements, Israel continued to settle the occupied territories and integrate them within Israel, with US funding. In fact, the crucial diplomatic and military support the USA provided and still provides for these gross violations of international law are probably one of the reasons it has strictly rejected calls for effective international courts and tribunals.

UN 242 calls for a settlement among existing states of the region. The agreement was, to put in simple terms, that there should be full peace in return for full Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories. And it was official US policy at the time. Any settlement or development within the occupied territories is prohibited.

In fact, there is no dispute over the fact that such settlement would be in violation of the Geneva Conventions. On this, world opinion is unanimous, apart from Israel and the US.

So while the USA voted in favor of Resolution 242 in 1967, it certainly has not supported that resolution since 1971. In light of the above, I hope you understand my error.

Second, you stated that “[m]ost, if not all, of your other allegations are equally ridiculous.” Perhaps you could elaborate.

Gelb