VigilanceVoice

VigilanceVoice.com
Tuesday--October 1, 2002—Ground Zero Plus 384
___________________________________________________________
Vigilance Change
Not Regime Change
___________________________________________________________
by
Cliff McKenzie
   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 keeper."
        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 Hitler.
        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 innocent.     

         National 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 being abused?  

       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 children's children.    
         I know it is going to take time to change the perspective of the world from one of national Complacency to international Vigilance.

       Leaders of nations want ultimate power over their people.  But, change is in the wind.

       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.