Bush's understanding of international law is a crude form of social Darwinism, writes Bishop John Kirby
This week President Bush makes his first visit to Ireland to attend the EU-US summit in Dromoland Castle, Co Clare. Like presidents Kennedy and Clinton before him, Mr Bush's visit looks set to be a colourful affair with crowds of people taking to the streets. This time, however, the atmosphere will be somewhat different. The flags will show symbols of protest, the gardaí will be in riot gear and, of course, the President himself will be nowhere to be seen.
But are such protests justified?
The first point to make is that any protest should not be construed as directed at the American people, nor at the visit itself. This visit is critically important for EU-US relations. Rather, any protest should be against the policies of the US administration, on the grounds that they pose a threat to international peace and development.
The policies in question are well known. Since 9/11, the Bush administration has capitalised on the deepest fears of American citizens to push through a radical new foreign policy under the guise of the "War on Terrorism", outlined in the National Security Strategy. The essential elements of that strategy are the pursuit of global US supremacy in economic, military and political spheres.
In military terms, it translates into a new arms race; in political terms, it translates into unilateral action in pursuit of America's interest; in economic terms, it translates into market fundamentalism.
Most worryingly, the strategy endorses the use of pre-emptive military action.
These policies are underpinned by a simplistic philosophy that gives pre-eminence to competition in every sphere of life. All considerations, including the provisions of international law and human rights, are subject to the US interest.
As George Soros has put it, when describing the Bush administration's understanding of international law: "International relations are relations of power, not law; power prevails and law legitimises what prevails." In short, it is a crude form of social Darwinism that attempts to reduce human relations to the survival of the fittest.
Given the impact of such policies on international relations, due to the power that the US wields, citizens have a right to voice concern. The US now holds an unrivalled position of economic and military might. It influences all our prospects and also those of our brothers and sisters in the developing world. Neither we, nor they, elect the US administration, but we live largely by what it decides.
The Bush Doctrine, of course, is flawed and its weaknesses are already beginning to show. Such a doctrine ignores the role that co-operation plays in all aspects of human society. The rhetoric of the Bush Doctrine - "spreading freedom and democracy" - is far removed from the actual reality of those same values.
Economic and social development is as much dependent on co-operation as competition, if not more so. The enduring lesson from Iraq is perhaps the exposure of this double-speak: freedom and democracy cannot be imposed through military might.
International relations are a balancing act between national interest and the global common good. Both are essential in today's inter-dependent world. The lesson from Iraq is that little can be achieved in reality through unilateral action.
Such policies are already proving counter-productive. Terrorism is a serious concern for us all and requires more resources to tackle the infrastructure of international crime that supports it. It also requires a lasting resolution of the Middle East crisis, including the Palestinian situation - as called for by the Pope in his recent address to President Bush. The Bush Doctrine actually undermines this effort through diverting resources, blocking collaboration, and clouding the issues in the public mind.
The "War on Terror", moreover, has distracted international attention from the pressing needs of the world's two billion citizens who face the daily struggle to survive. Hunger, disease and lack of economic opportunities for millions have slipped to near the bottom of the American and international agenda.
There are for instance real concerns over the return to a Cold-War style political manipulation of access to development finance. Increases in US aid over the past few years have been strategically directed towards countries aligned with the "War on Terror".
Whilst the international community has set objective criteria for poverty reduction in the Millennium Goals, the US has demonstrated its willingness to flaunt those rules to meet its own ends. The outcome will be another generation of poor people who are pawns in the global geopolitics of the powerful.
EU leaders, however, have so far failed to counter such threats through their lack of unity and lack of alternatives. The summit tomorrow is a key opportunity for EU leaders to send a strong signal that they oppose any doctrine based on unilateralism and pre-emptive action and to urge an international alliance to fight poverty.
As President Bush visits Ireland this week, I believe it is important for our voices to be heard on these issues.
Peaceful protest is not anti-American. It is actually in America's own interest, lest the world descend further into a spiral of violence and terrorism in the pursuit of the unattainable goal of US supremacy.