Destroying World Order


 
Home
Authors' Home
Bookstore
Readers' Club
Writers' Workshop
Literature Corner 
Articles
In the News
Debate Corner
Special Events
Links
Arab World Books
In the Media
Services
Contact Us
Search our Site
 

 

 

Destroying World Order Book Review
author: Francis A. Boyle
Publisher: Clarity Press, Inc.(2004)

source: Emirates Center for Strategic Studies

Dr. Francis Boyle is a leading American expert in international law, a human rights activist, and the author of Destroying World Order. He unequivocally opposes what he views to be breaches of international law in US policy. Since the events of 9/11, Boyle has been engaged in continuous conflict with the Bush Administration's policies'foreign and domestic'under the veil of the War on Terror campaign. In Destroying World Order, he makes the legal argument against the US neoconservatives' worldwide transgressions.

American 'Neutrality' and the Iran-Iraq War
Boyle begins his case with a 1986 legal study that sheds light upon the US's approach to the Iran-Iraq War. He exposes the legislative pretext of a deeply rooted American tradition'neutrality, laws on which date back to the 1790s. In theory, the principle of neutrality served to grant priority to US economic interests over that of political agendas, by not limiting international trade to select partners.

In practice however, the US's policy of neutrality has never been very neutral at all'ever. The Iran-Iraq War was no exception. Throughout the war, the United States continued to supply Saudi Arabia, an Iraqi ally, with military equipment. Iran viewed this as hostile. Subsequently, the Reagan Administration characterized the Iranian hostage-taking as an act of international terrorism. This impeded a rational US foreign policy toward Iran sufficient to protect the US's legitimate security interests. The US also lobbied to remove Iraq from the list of nations that support international terrorism, so that Saddam Hussein's regime could purchase dual-use nuclear technology, capable of being employed towards military purposes. According international law, which is premised upon sanctifying neutrality, these were aggressive actions. Thereby, Iran, if so inclined, reserved the right to contest and dispute these actions by declaring war against the US.

US War Crimes
Boyle, interestingly, provides readers with the transcript of a 1992 international war crimes symposium. The conference essentially put the United States on trial for war crimes. In the aftermath of the 1991 Iraq War, an international committee of inquiry investigated alleged war crimes committed in Iraq by the US. In February of 1992, the committee presented their findings before a War Crimes Tribunal, whose members are made up of international judges and human rights activists. Charges were brought against all senior members of George H.W. Bush's Administration. The accusations focused on three particular breaches of international law, similar to those at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, in addition to violations of other far-reaching precedents. A Doctor of Law, Boyle also recalls a case in which he was called to testify in the court martial of an army doctor who refused to serve her duty in Iraq's 1990 prewar preparations. He attested that many international conventions excused her actions. Regardless, the army captain was convicted, dishonorably discharged, jailed for 15 months, and deprived of all her end of service compensation. In 1991, Boyle also petitioned the UN Secretary, accusing President George H.W. Bush and his entire Administration of genocide. He called for the lifting of international sanctions on Iraq and compensating the siege victims.

He analyzes the legal implication of humanitarian intervention, which often 'justifies' contemporary wars. Boyle is of the belief that humanitarian intervention is an overused excuse by the United Nations and NATO members'whether in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, or Iraq. He defines humanitarian intervention to be a misleading concept and accuses developed nations of taking advantage of developing nations, using whatever means necessary to justify lengthy military occupations.

The Post 9/11 World
According to Boyle, the 2001 US-led war in Afghanistan can be described as an "armed & illegitimate aggression," because evidence was insufficient to prove the Taliban was involved in the 9/11 attacks. He makes the same case against George W. Bush's Iraq War, adding personal vendetta and greed. Boyle claims US incursions in Afghanistan and Iraq illustrate the US Administration's plan to control the world's energy sources. He goes further, hypothesizing that the US aims to "control the energy and natural gas supply to Europe, Japan, and Asia, and thereby, control the future of world economy." As a result of this alleged desire to dominate the world's energy sources and economy, the powerful elite in the US are destroying world order.

At a peace demonstration in October of 2002, Boyle launched a national campaign to oust the George W. Bush Administration, in an effort to deter the administration from going to war against Iraq. Despite his failure, the case for impeachment was indeed made. A future case remains open for posterity to spearhead.

The US Threat to World Peace
Is the world headed towards World War III? Boyle concludes by posing that wonder. He speculates that the US possesses the military capability and the audacity to initiate a first atomic strike. It also has the capacity to neutralize any retaliation'be it from Russia, China, or elsewhere. It is the only world nation to have a track record of detonating a nuclear devise upon a civilian population. Boyle thereby calls upon American citizens to organize a civil resistance movement without resorting to violence with the aim of arresting 'criminal activities' executed by high ranking officials in the US government.

Destroying World Order represents opposition to the US mainstream. It sheds light on leftist intellectualism and its counterargument to that of the far right, Christian fundamentalist movement. There are many Americans that would prefer a more moderate stance towards Arab issues. And despite the fact that such fringe elements often tend to be unrelated to reality, the case for mobilizing US efforts towards a more sympathetic US-Middle East policy remains open.
 


Back to Top 


 ' Arab World Books