Editor:

In light of U.S. foreign policy’s penchant for double-standards, the United States’ notoriously arrogant claim to immunity regarding international law and its wholly unwelcome involvement and presence in the Middle East, anti-American sentiment is more pervasive than ever.

Accordingly, many Americans fear that an attack on Iraq would further inflame anger against the United States and may well lead to more terrorist attacks. As we all observed in horror, one need not possess nuclear, biological or chemical weapons to murder thousands of innocent people. If Saddam Hussein is as great of a threat as President Bush claims (and this is a question that should be critically scrutinized), an attack on Hussein’s country would give him more reason than ever to unleash his latent destructive powers on the citizens of this country.

Until there is solid evidence demonstrating to American citizens and the United Nations just how Saddam represents a clear and present danger, military action is unfounded and violates international law. Such law exists for no other purpose than to protect the citizens of all countries from war and human rights violations. Pre-emptive military strikes would not simply be in violation of international law, but would also characterize the United States as a global aggressor.

Rather than act unilaterally and with such haste, why not urge our Representatives in Congress to demand that Bush consider less rash options than war? Why not demand first and foremost that Bush engage in a discussion with other U.N. members and actually consider what they have to say instead of simply trying to convince them of the righteousness of his pre-emptive militaristic solution? If the United States were to take the United Nations seriously, it would re-engage with the rest of the world. That would help cool anti-American sentiment and as a result, truly help to promote our national security.

Brian Emerson

Class of 2002, Environmental Studies