Tuesday--October 1, 2002—Ground
Zero Plus 384
Not Regime Change
Editor, New York City Combat Correspondent News
GROUND ZERO, New York
City, October 1--World leaders don't like the idea of another nation
deciding when it is time for a "regime change." In fact, there is a
an international law prohibiting it.
It's kind of like a mafia pact.
"I won't topple you if you won't topple me."
I liken it to the guy next door who, in the
privacy of his house, beats his wife. He says, "I have a right
to do what I want on my own property."
Sovereignty is used by some as an excuse to
violate all kinds of moral principles. Despotic leaders of
nations like the power of knowing they can do anything they want inside
their countries with impunity--at least, without threat of their regime
being toppled by other nations who subscribe to the United Nations pact
that says toppling nations is a "no-no."
It's kind of like looking
in a neighbor's window as he or she beats the children and being
restrained from crashing in the house to stop it, because this absurd law
says the "head of household" can do whatever he or she wants without
threat of someone coming in and pulling the rug.
The world "is not its brother's
Three of the world's most influential
nations are unwavering in their opposing President Bush's formula that
says if Iraq doesn't comply with any of the regulations for arms
inspection he wants to attack. Russia, China and France
vehemently oppose that strategy.
France's foreign minister,
Dominique de Villepin wrote in the newspaper Le Monde that, "Iraq
constitutes a potential menace to regional and international
security." But, he added, "an action whose stated goal from the
outset is regime change would be against international law and open the
way to all sorts of abuses."
It is clear nations don't like
other nations sticking their nose in their business, even if that business
includes the widespread destruction of people within a nation's borders.
Saddam Hussein is one of the few world leaders who killed tens of
thousands of his own people with gas. The other was Adolph
The principle issue that bothers me
is not the reluctance to attack Hussein and free the world from mass
destruction threats, but the preservation of the "good old boy's club"
where one nation supports another nation's right to inflict harm upon the
policies are the result of regimes. The Nuremberg Trials made
it clear there were a host of top officials who endorsed the
indiscriminate killing of millions of innocent civilians, and hanged many
of them. But that was before the formation of the United
Nations, which originally was called the League of Nations.
Somewhere along the line the group got
together and decided to provide shelter for despotic leaders, or, as some
would suggest, to limit the unilateral attack of one nation on another
because the invading nation didn't "like what was going on."
It boils down to what point in time should
a neighbor bust down his or her neighbor's door and rescue the people
Most Terrorism upon a
nation comes in the form of oppression of its citizens.
Corrupt, selfish governmental leaders who care little about their people
have carte blanc to do what they will to whomever they decide to do it to.
If another nation rattles its sword, the leader ducks under the protective
umbrella of international law--"Thou Shalt Not Topple My Regime, No Matter
How Cruel or Brutal It Is."
France's de Villepin is more concerned with
the precedent America's action against Iraq would create. His
comment that the attack would "open the way to all sorts of abuses,"
clearly denies access to oppressive nations by others who intend to
dismantle one set of leaders for another.
What if, for example, America topples
Hussein and then starts on a rampage around the world to find other
nations who aren't "following the party line" and elects to topple their
"regimes?" Where does it stop?
The lassie faire attitude
of international law regarding sovereignty of nations, and the right of
the "head of household" to impose his or her will upon the people without
threat of outside interference is coming to an end.
The world, I believe, is becoming
more Vigilant than Complacent. National leadership power is
giving way to citizen's rights power.
If one looks at the trends in
the world, the movement is away from "isolation" into "community."
In England, the far Left, not
the far Right, is in favor of toppling Hussein. Their
reasoning is simple, human reasoning--"free the people from oppression."
Recently, numerous stories have
been written about the women in Afghanistan going back to school, and
finishing their educations which the former Taliban leadership denied
females. The rights of women to not be chattel but equals has
been met with applause and eager embracement.
Vigilance is all about
keeping an eye out not only on your own house, and the protection of your
own family and your children's children's children's rights, but also
looking out for the rights of others.
Vigilance says if you see
a neighbor brutalizing members of his or her family, you have a duty to
respond to that danger, to neutralize it, at least to report it, to limit
its Terroristic threat.
When I was a young boy living
with my Grandmother in Cascade Locks, Oregon, next door was a shambled
house with an old garage and strange people who lived inside.
The man and woman had two children, a boy and girl about my sister and
myself's age. However, we couldn't play with them.
The children were not allowed to play with anyone. We watched
them through the fence, sad children, deprived of contact with others.
Every night at meal time their
parents would spank them. We could hear their cries and shuddered.
I felt sorry for the kids. And I wondered why my Grandmother
and Grandfather didn't do anything.
"Live and let live," my Grandfather
said. "It's a shame, but it's their house, their family. It's
not our business."
But it was our
business. These kids were Terrorized every night as children.
What kind of adults did they grow up to be? As I child, I felt
unprotected. If someone wouldn't stop a child from being
beaten next door, what would happen to me if someone in my family wanted
to beat on me?
While I wasn't beaten, I was always
afraid--afraid of not being protected.
I believe the children of
nations who live under despotic rulers feel that same feeling.
They walk and talk and play with one eye wary--wondering when and if they
might be the "next" to be attacked. And, they develop deep
seeded Fear, Intimidation and Complacency as a result.
When we talk about "regime
change," I think it would be better to say, "Terrorist change." If
we, as a nation, assume the role of "moral guardian of Vigilance," then we
are only justified to replace the "head of household" when that "head"
acts in an abusive manner toward the children of that nation, and their
I know it is going to take time
to change the perspective of the world from one of national Complacency to
Leaders of nations want
ultimate power over their people. But, change is in the
The United Nations and world
leaders who oppose the attack on Iraq need to ask themselves
if they would bust through the neighbor's door to help a child
being beaten by its parents. If the
decision to maintain a "hands-off" regime change is
based on protecting power in the few, then such a law is both
morally and practically wrong.
Only when a regime
change is effected to protect the children of a nation will
such an act be justified.
I think the Left
Wing in England has the right point of view.
Forget politics and think
of the children.
To Sep 30--The Cain & Able of Iraq
- 2004, VigilanceVoice.com, All rights reserved - a