Questions to important for the US to ignore

October 6 2003

In some 15 months time the US voters will probably be re-electing George W Bush for a second term as President.

Before they do; I hope anyone who cares for the truth seeks out answers to the following questions posed by Michael Moore in his new book.

One of the strengths of the free world is that Michael Moore's books are published and widely read. One of the weaknesses of US politics is that it is Moore who is articulating the questions that a forceful democratic opposition should be articulating.

Incidentally, these are all questions that Tony Blair should have asked BEFORE so closely aligning himself to the Bush cause.

Two lost years

Leader
Thursday September 11, 2003
The Guardian

Wounds heal, anger abates, memories fade. As time passes, the human impact of even the most gruesome and shocking tragedies gradually lessens. Two years on, the survivors of September 11, and the relatives and friends of those who died, still suffer. Two years on, their pain and loss is not forgotten, and will be recalled again today in countless public and private memorials. But for most ordinary people, in the US and beyond, those dreadful events in New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania are now beginning to slip into history. It happened; it was truly awful. But life must go on.

And therein lies the rub. Two years on, by these and many other measures too numerous to mention here, Mr Bush and his top officials are woefully failing the American people and America's allies. America can do better than this. But it needs more able, less ideologically-warped people in charge. Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Condoleezza Rice, whose judgments have repeatedly proved unsound, should be dismissed. And if matters have not greatly improved by this day next year, Mr Bush should decline to seek a second term. As a more eminent republican, Cicero, might have told this discredited, distrusted crew: "Among us you can dwell no longer."

Two years on from 9/11

September 8 2003

Two years on from 9/11; more terrorist threat against America; Iraq in upheaval; the Middle East peace process derailed again; suicide bombings almost becoming an everyday event; airport security still somewhere between offensive and competent; the USA asking the UN to help in Iraq; the UN failing to show a common purpose (again).

The only view that we all hold is that there will be more attacks on US interests; we dont know where or when.

But there are pointers; and they are all ominous.

Firstly, terrorism has changed. Hijacking used to be about taking a plane and hostages; landing the plane in a sympathetic country and negotiating demands.

9/11 changed that. The traditional response was the wrong response. And the first people to understand that were the passengers who downed UA93 over Sharpeville before it could complete its deadly mission.

Terrorists are not afraid of dieing for their beliefs. Suicide attacks are now much more common place.

Secondly, terrorism strikes where it is least expected. As well as the loss of life and property the impact is psychological. The attack on the World Trade Centre had a massive impact on the American sense of superiority and made them a much more vulnerable people.

So do not look in the obvious places for the next attack. The newspapers are full of threats of air to ground missile attacks on aircraft. Airlines are talking of the astonishing costs of equipping their planes with anti missile technology.

It is being talked about so much that it probably will not happen.

So where next; where are rich Americans most comfortable; big cruise ships, holiday spots, behind the wheel of their cars and in front of their TVs. How about a small submarine attacking US cruise ships in the Carribbean. It is what you cannot see or hear than can do you the most damage.

US economic interests; the world's oil supplies are an obvious target. Pipelines through Alaska; power supplies (although the USA seems quite capable of creating their own problems); cinemas, theaters (small targets but easy to create huge disruption and significant loss of life).

It may be that the terrorists will not go for one major strike at this time. More likely they will look to attack many smaller sites; create the greatest possible unease. This works well for the Hammas terrorists in Israel. Imagine the similar level of suicide attacks in the US. On the street, on the buses, on the subway, in the theatres, in the malls.

Was the Iraq war justified?

August 3 2003

This will be the sort of question posed in history examinations in the 22nd century. And the students will by then have the proof of history to support their analysis.

This writer, at the eleventh hour argued that the war was inevitable and that Tony Blair at least should have our support: this is what I wrote back on March 18, 2003:

"Whatever our personal views about war; whatever our personal views about the US and its leadership Blair deserves a fair hearing and our support.

He could have sat by and done nothing. This is the Canadian approach as expressed yesterday by Jean Chretien. This will cost Canada dearly in its future dealings with the USA. Politically this will not harm the liberals. But I hope that Canada does not need US support for any cause in the near future.

He could have taken the French approach; saying "non" whatever the circumstances or evidence. Chirac's position is hugely popular with domestic voters; but it is political expediency without any underlying moral decency.

But Blair has stuck to principles of fundamental decency - of right and wrong. He clearly believes in the cause and the objectives.  He is taking the most difficult of decisions that any leader faces; people will die; he will not sleep easily; but he should sleep knowing that he has been true to himself.

The trouble is that no one really believes George Bush. It has to do with his appearance; his words; his background; his friends; his business contacts. The trouble is people don't want the world's one superpower to be able to dictate what our world should look like.

But the peace demonstrators are in many cases missing the point. The demonstrations are too easily hijacked by those people who are scared of US power and influence. So the demonstrations become anti US platforms. They should be protesting outside the Iraqi consulates and asking why have you not disarmed yet as you said you would?"

However, weapons of mass destruction have not been found and at least some of the intelligence presented to support the war is looking less than intelligent. This must be at a minimum causing embarrassment and some anguish to Tony Blair, who I still believe to be a fundamentally decent man.

In Canada the war is seen rather differently. In large part because of the love-hate relationship that Canadians have with the United States. When a Canadian MP publicly called Bush a moron she was echoing views widely held across the country. But she is a politician. American bashing is a vote winner in Canada. Sadly. And there is a real danger of confusing the rights and wrongs of the Iraq war with good old fashioned US bashing. Canada is stuck with the US; it cannot live with them and it cannot live without them !

Back to my initial question which has to be answered.

Yes the war remains justified; but it needs massive investment and understanding to ensure a peaceful and prosperous Iraq.

For those who were already convinced before the war began that it was unjustified their arguments have been re-enforced by the failure to find weapons of mass destruction. Those people, me included, who accepted that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction were a threat, must admit to feeling undermined that none have been found, and perhaps a little concerned at the wider implications. They could still be found; these weapons are often small and the country is large; but clearly the weapons were not widely deployed for use during the war. Clearly there was no weapons ready for launch within 45 minutes.

For those who believed war was necessary they find support in the short, sharp war, the lack of mass casualties, the absence of humanitarian disaster and the fact that there was no wide spread anti-American uprising in the Arab world.

Why was the war necessary; Saddam had to be removed. The Iraqi leader had toyed with UN inspectors for a decade. UN resolution 1441 gave him a final opportunity to make a complete declaration. He did not account for the chemical and nuclear weapons that the UN knew that he had as recently as 1998. Only the threat of military action would force him to change. And I suspect Saddam truly believed that a divided UN would protect him.

But there is more to the justification of war than were or were there not weapons of mass destruction.

In 1991 Saddam signed an agreement after the first Iraq War that within one year he would get rid of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, to eliminate his ballistic weapons and to cease the weapons development programmes. UN inspectors showed that at least 3,900 litres of the deadly nerve agent, VX, were subsequently produced.  The inspectors withdrew in 1998, and were then barred from returning. Saddam was told in November 2002 under UN resolution 1441 what he had to do to comply. His failure to do so required action. The UN were clear that he did not comply with 1441, either in his vast formal declaration or in the inspections process. Without action the international community looks weak and divided.

Could the US and Britain have waited maybe until the fall and allowed the UN to pass and try to enforce further resolutions? That was just what Saddam wanted; more procrastination. The UN process too often falls apart with delays and divisions among the members; and what right the French have to a power of veto in the security council is a mystery. They abused their global responsibility in favour of domestic electioneering and their Iraqi business dealings.

Saddam had faced containment, sanctions and inspections for twelve years. It really was time to stop the charade.

The justification for the war will be supported in large part by the shape the country takes over the next five to ten years. The US and Britain both argue their intent to make the country and the region more peaceful, more prosperous and less threatening in the future.

US credibility will come from a commitment to staying to build a secure and stable country but also through leaving when power is handed over to a government run by and for the people of Iraq. It is a long term commitment.  America can do this; they have shown a fifty year commitment to South Korea. It is costly; but if it succeeds then the world has much to be grateful for; even the Canadians might acknowledge that.

The exploitation of Saddam's sons

1 August 2003

The big news from Iraq in the last two weeks was that Saddam's two sons were slaughtered and then put on public display. This was a moment from the middle ages. In Britain, traitors were taken to the Tower of London, beheaded, and their heads stuck like trophies on a spike pour encourager les autres !!What has changed in 600 years?

Of course the sons would never have surrendered to the Americans; but when the US knew where the sons were they could have at least made some attempt at their capture. I am sure there would have been more than a few willing interrogators to help ask questions. Indeed the two sons might even have known where their father was. Since the US does not seem to know !

The media treatment was rank hypocrisy. Show an American POW on TV and the US cries that it is in breach of the Geneva convention. But showing the mutilated bodies of the Iraqi leader's two sons was somehow permissable?

And were they really Saddam's sons? The pictures were unrecognisable. So they US brought in the morticians to remodel their faces and prove that you really can do anything with plastic surgery. So maybe they remodelled strangers into the two sons. Who knows? But the conspiracy theorists are having a great time!! And no one trust the US to tell the truth.

Those Washington "Bastards"

11 June 2003

In an amazing break from the normal diplomatic decencies Hans Blix described as "bastards the people who he alleges continually undermined his role as the UN's chief weapon's inspector.

He described as "bastards" people in Washington who planted "nasty things" in the media.

His accusations made during an interview with The Guardian newspaper are that:

An apology - we were all misled

30 May 2003

Am I the only person who is fed up with daily stories of mass graves, the barbarity of Saddam's sons and what a jolly bad lot the Ba'ath party were, or are !

This is not why we went to war in Iraq. If that was the reason for war there are plenty of regimes, some of whom call themselves friends of the Americans, that we should be engaging with equal vigour.

No - we went to war because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that could kill hundreds of thousands and cause massive international instability.

Well there are no weapons of mass destruction. The Iraqi army was so poorly equipped that they barely had weapons of minor destruction. The Americans dramatically over-estimated the Iraqi army's strength.

Tony Blair fell for what was clearly misleading and poorly researched evidence. And his sincerity sold me and many others that this was a just (as just as can be !) assault on Iraq.

Are most Iraqis glad to see the end of Saddam's regime; the answer is yes. Without the Americans (and the Brits) they would be ruled by Saddam and his sons for all time. But is what has replaced them any better? The longer Iraq remains a mess the less chance the allies have of earning the goodwill that can change the nation.

The looting has continued for three months. That the allies sat back and watched it happen was a disgrace. They had created the lawlessness; they had an obligation to manage the problem immediately.

The former dictator and his two unpleasant sons are in hiding. The country is being torn apart by the infighting of hard line and more liberal clerics. Everyone sees an opportunity.

The weapons of mass destruction have not been found. Maybe Mr. Blix did his job rather effectively. It looks very much as though we should not have been at war. But now we have dropped our cluster bombs we have to clean up after ourselves, do it quickly and leave.

What Mr. Blair has to do is call a full Parliamentary enquiry into the intelligence gathering, presentation and justification of the war. And he has to accept that its findings may mot be flattering.

He would not lose my vote - the opposition is too pathetic to deserve it - but he has lost my trust.

Iraq - this may be a very hollow victory

19 April 2003

There are some important questions that need to be quickly addressed if the US and Britain are to emerge from this war with some credit:

Where are the alleged WOMD?

Where us Saddam Hussein?

Why did the invading forces have no plan for Baghdad after its capture?

When will the Americans and British leave?

What sort of regime will they leave behind them?

It is no use encouraging the news agencies and the media to print stories of the excesses of Saddma's family; of the wealth of his palaces and the excesses of his family.

There are plenty of countries across the world where ruling families, parties, governments and dictators enjoy lavish and excessive lifestyles. There are plenty of regimes that subjogate their people through oppression, imprisonment and torture. But the Americans have not yet invaded each of those.

How this war is judged will not be based upon the relative ease with which the "coalition" forces took Iraq but by the life Iraq's people live after in the years ahead. The Americans have always assumed that what the people of Iraq want is a prosperous democracy. Maybe we should have asked them first. The recent demonstrations reflect a growing frustration with America and suggest that the people of Iraq would be happy with a safe secure Islamic state.

The current power vacuum is troubling as it suggests a complete lack of planning and a lack of sensitivity to the very real needs of the people that were to be liberated. When Germany and Japan surrendered in the 1940s there was a basic civil service that still functioned. In Iraq - there was no surrender. The rulers of Iraq simply fled and the institutions of government crumbled as anarchy broke out. And what did the invaders do? They certainly did not preserve law and order; they sat back and allowed the looting to happen....looting which for many people was probably more terrifying that the US led bombing. The bombing was targeted and mostly pinpoint in its accuracy. The looting was indiscriminate.

The military victory will look very hollow indeed if law, order, electricity, water, medical care, employment, a working currency (not the US$) and above all else a sense of security and safety are not quickly established.

Where are the WOMD

21 March 2003

The Guardian Editorial:

Tony Blair may have won the war, but he is in danger of losing the peace. This country did not go to war in order to overthrow Saddam Hussein. The fact that Mr Blair inserted that objective into his national address at the start of the conflict and the fact that Saddam's overthrow is overwhelmingly welcome do not alter that fact. Britain went to war in order to enforce UN resolutions that require Iraq to destroy its weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. This was the issue on which UN resolution 1441 was drafted and adopted last year. This was the basis on which Britain tried to get the UN to adopt a second resolution in February and March. This was the basis on which parliament, in its historic March 18 vote this year, authorised military action. And this was also the basis of the attorney general's legal authority to the government to carry out an otherwise dubious invasion. The enforcement of the international mandated crackdown on WMD is absolutely at the heart of the whole Iraq crisis. It is the reason British troops are in Iraq. It is not some passing pretext which can be picked up or discarded according to convenience. It is therefore of more than academic importance to demand to know where Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and missiles are, and to demand that the UN should now continue to carry out its work of inspection to find them.

It will take time, agreement and effort to carry out a full and credible inventory of Iraq's WMD capability. No one should assume that, somewhere in Iraq, there is a gleaming, functioning row of weaponised missiles that has somehow not yet been spotted. The truth is more complicated and it will require patience to discover it. MPs and others who suspect they have been sold a turkey on WMD need to contain themselves and not act prematurely. Nevertheless, this invasion was sold to the British people on the basis of a genuine threat from Iraqi weapons and missiles to international peace and security. Britain's participation in America's missile defence plans is being sold on exactly the same basis. We are fully entitled to know whether the threat actually exists. We are entitled to know whether the situation in Iraq is as we were told. And we are entitled to expect that the inspection process has been carried out and verified by people and international agencies whom we can trust.

The Coalition That Isn't

Brookings Daily War Report, March 24, 2003

Ivo H. Daalder, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies

From The Brookings Institution (http://www.brook.edu/default.htm}
 

The Bush administration sure is trying hard to convince the world that its war against Iraq has broad, international support.

Consider the following:
 

The administration is trying too hard to prove something that isn't. By insisting that the "coalition of the willing" is larger, deeper, and wider than is in fact the case, the administration only emphasizes the extent of its own isolation. Only Britain is offering meaningful support.

Take the list coalition countries the White House is updating daily. Sure, there are some important allies aside from Britain—notably Japan, South Korea, Spain, and Italy as well as number of "new" Europeans. But only three countries of these allies are actually contributing combat troops and capabilities (2,000 Australian troops, a Danish submarine and naval escort, and 200 Polish troops and refueling ship)—all in all less than one percent of the total number of troops in the region. The rest of the list is a motley crew of supporters—including such powerhouses as Afghanistan, Albania, Macedonia, Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Palau.

Fleischer's assertion that the coalition consists of more than a billion people worldwide only underscores the administration's desperation. By that measure, only about one in five people worldwide supported the military effort against Iraq. But, of course, governments that favor the war are in many cases opposed by their own people. Thus, one of Bush's staunchest supporters, Spanish Prime Minister Jose-Marie Aznar, reassured his public last week that "Spain will not participate in attack missions. As a result, there will not be any Spanish combat troops in the theater of operations." Of such allies is the coalition made.

The effort to portray the fighting in Iraq as anything other than an American-British war also lacks credibility. Bush's insistence that "coalition forces" were striking military targets at the outset was disingenuous—the bombs and cruise missiles that had slammed into Baghdad only moments before were launched from American ships and fighter planes. (On Sunday, The New York Times reported that Australian special operation forces had joined U.S. troops in taking down command and control centers in Iraq at the outset of the war—a fact leaked to emphasize the U.S. was not acting alone.)

General Franks' parade of foreign officers was also misleading. The Dutch officer was there not as part of any coalition attacking Iraq, but to defend Turkey in case Iraq retaliates. And the 52 nations in Tampa are posted there for the most part to support coalition efforts in Afghanistan, not to participate in a war against Iraq.

But by far the most deceiving claim of the extent of international support was Rumsfeld's insistence that this "coalition of the willing" is larger than the Gulf War coalition. Twelve years ago, 32 countries joined the United States in combat, providing 160,000 troops, more than 500 combat aircraft, and more than 60 naval vessels. NATO countries contributed 70,000 troops (including 18,000 from France); much of the remainder came from Arab countries. And even those who did not participate on the ground (like Germany and Japan) helped by defraying the cost to the United States of ousting Iraq from Kuwait. (Foreign contributions to the U.S. war effort amounted to $54 billion, covering all but $7 billion of the U.S. costs.)

In 1991, only Cuba, Yemen, Jordan, and the Palestinians openly condemned a war that the UN Security Council voted to authorize (China abstained in the vote). Even Libya was then on our side. Today, Washington suffered a stunning defeat at the United Nations, finds itself opposed by major allies like Canada, France, Germany, and Mexico, and can count on only four other countries actually to participate in combat operations. There is no comparison between the two.

Having botched the diplomacy leading up to the war, the United States now has to fight it largely on its own. To be sure, it's war that it can win even fighting mostly alone. But the administration clearly realizes that the absence of broad international support is a major problem, both at home and abroad, especially if the going gets any tougher and the post-war effort more demanding.

The administration can spin all it wants about its coalition of the willing, the fact is that for now at least Washington and London are very much on their own

Bye Bye CNN

21 March 2003

With the invasion of Iraq now underway I will publish some of the more sensible and thought provoking writing about the war. I have previously argued that CNN were showing an unreasonable appetite for war. Americans do watch CNN in times of crisis. CNN is a very patriotic news network. Their ratings are jumping as this invasion progresses.

However there is another view - and this is wisely summarised by Arab News, Saudi Arabia's English new daily in today's editorial:

Editorial: Bye-Bye CNN
22 March 2003
 

All out of options

18 March 2003

In the Iraq war debate today in the British House of Commons Brent North MP Barry Gardiner said that not one of his constituency party wants war, neither does he, but that he will vote with the PM tonight "not out of loyalty, but out of conviction he is right".

Barry Gardiner was a chum of mine at school. He was bright and resourceful. By all accounts he still is. And I think he has summed up the position that many of us will now take.

Tony Blair is a fundamentally decent man. He has put his political career and personal legacy out on a limb because he believes that Saddam must go and that the world will be a better and safer place without him.

Whatever our personal views about war; whatever our personal views about the US and its leadership Blair deserves a fair hearing and our support.

He could have sat by and done nothing. This is the Canadian approach as expressed yesterday by Jean Chretien. This will cost Canada dearly in its future dealings with the USA. Politically this will not harm the liberals. But I hope that Canada does not need US support for any cause in the near future.

He could have taken the French approach; saying "non" whatever the circumstances or evidence. Chirac's position is hugely popular with domestic voters; but it is political expediency without any underlying moral decency.

But Blair has stuck to principles of fundamental decency - of right and wrong. He clearly believes in the cause and the objectives.  He is taking the most difficult of decisions that any leader faces; people will die; he will not sleep easily; but he should sleep knowing that he has been true to himself.

The trouble is that no one really believes George Bush. It has to do with his appearance; his words; his background; his friends; his business contacts. The trouble is people don't want the world's one superpower to be able to dictate what our world should look like.

But the peace demonstrators are in many cases missing the point. The demonstrations are too easily hijacked by those people who are scared of US power and influence. So the demonstrations become anti US platforms. They should be protesting outside the Iraqi consulates and asking why have you not disarmed yet as you said you would?

It was not the US that first raised two fingers to the UN. It was Iraq. And they have continued to raise two fingers for the last ten tears. Iraq had until 17 March to disarm in accordance with UN article 1441. They have not disarmed.

What Iraq has done so well is to split the UN. They have preyed upon our universal fear of war. They have tried to do just enough to show some element of co-operation. They have created these two coalitions of the willing and the unwilling. I am sure that Iraq thought that the UN could hold the USA in check. After all France was saying it would veto any resolution that could lead to a war with Iraq.

Now with war maybe only 36 hours away let us hope that it is fast and surgical; that casualties are light. That large parts of the Iraq military surrender quickly; that Saddam and his sons leave Iraq and that a new workable government can be established. Anything less that this will severely weaken the US and UK positions and the political credibility of Tony Blair in particular.

Could the war have been delayed; do we have to go now or in 30 days? Diplomacy has failed. Positions have become too entrenched. The UN, once again, has proved to be full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

Barry is right. I would vote with the British PM. We are out of other options.

Thoughts from the diplomatic battle front:

28 February 2002

Never before has Saddam Hussein had so many governments trying to protect him from attack !

The inspectors should not be responsible for dis-arming Iraq. They should be responsible for ensuring that Iraq has disarmed. A subtlety that the French seem to be missing.

Why is it that the UN is classified as irrelevant when it fails to endorse US decisions or strategy?

The biggest diplomatic success so far - the split created in the European Union and the breakdown of Nato.

Where next for Tony Blair - caught between Iraq and a hard place !

28 February 2003

What has happened to Tony Blair; what is he trying to achieve; and just what will be his political legacy?

These are very hard questions to answer right now.

Tony Blair has been leader of the British Labour Party since 1994. He has led the party to two massive election victories and no election need be called for another three years. His position is hardly perilous, yet his party is badly divided and the divisions may never fully heal.

Blair's legacy could be as one of the great parliamentary leaders. He transformed the Labour Party into New Labour; he made the party electable and he showed that New Labour could govern effectively and responsibly.

In his party's first term in office he took principled and strong stands on Kosovo and in Northern Ireland.

Kosovo was a fight that would win him little support at home ; few people could find Kosovo on a map. But Blair fought for the international bombing campaign, Milosevic was halted and the Albanians in Kosovo liberated. The subsequent Human Rights Court trials have shown just how terrifying the genocide was.

In Northern Ireland, Blair with strong support form Bill Clinton, pushed for the Good Friday Agreement, a settlement that had eluded his predecessors.

So Blair led his party into their second term as a confident and established leader with a strong record on the international stage and the near unanimous support of his party.

So, why, now, is he gambling his political future on the overthrow of Saddam Hussein? As an old drinking chum and political ally of Bill Clinton they spoke with a common voice and purpose. Why then does Blair now sound more like Donald Rumsfeld.

Iraq consumes Blair. He is involved in constant diplomacy with world leaders to move them to the side of military action.

The opposition in his own party is significant. The opposition in much of Europe is fierce. And the electorate in Britain is vocally anti-war.

He has committed to the largest British military deployment for a decade; and he is building security at home in the face of potential terror threats.

Yet Blair remains worth listening to. People do trust him. People do not trust George Bush. If this was just about oil then Tony Blair would not be interested. The North Sea resources are quite adequate.

Blair sincerely believes that Saddam Hussein must be overthrown. Preferably by a short war with minimal casualties. A long and difficult war with significant loss of life will likely end Blair's political career.

Blair is convinced he is right. With his massive parliamentary majority he can afford a massive revolt in his own party and still win a substantial supporting vote in Parliament.

The trouble is that Blair and Bush have backed themselves into a corner. Any withdrawal now will give Saddam such a propaganda victory that pulling out of the Gulf region is unthinkable.

Blair looks tired; he has aged. He has alienated many traditional British allies. He has alienated many inside his own party. And the electorate will not forget. Post 9/11 he did exactly the right thing; he stood by an old ally and said we are with you in the fight against the terrorists. The trouble is there is no link between Iraq and Al-Queda.

Blair has conviction, sincerity and persuasiveness. But he is behaving less and less like new or old labour. His new friends are arch conservatives. He has started to ignore his party and ignore Parliament. He will not be challenged (yet) as party leader. But what shape and political direction will the Labour party have after Blair? Blair talks about choice not about equity; his political definitions are more and more those of his new allies. He needs a break; preferably some time away with his old social democrats friends; finding causes that are genuinely worth fighting and dieing for.

The US View

26 February 2003

There are many views about how world order may be changing. Certainly European, British and US relationships are at their worst for some sixty years. World order may be changing. Indeed world order is looking more akin to disorder. And world interest and goodwill is in some quarters looking more like expedient self-interest. Turkey's support comes at a high price. There is no moral right or wrong here. It is simply how much "aid" (an interesting choice of words) is required to but access to Turkey's military bases to the North of Iraq.

The following timely article by the political correspondent of the Washington Post is a useful reminder of why the building resentment of the US could cause long standing economic and political fall out.

Earning Americans' Resentment
 

By Robert J. Samuelson

Wednesday, February 26, 2003; Page A23

We Americans are people too -- something our foreign critics ought to remember. Since World War II, U.S. globalism has enjoyed steadfast popular support. In 1945, 71 percent of Americans thought it would be "best . . . if we take an active part in world affairs." In 2002, 71 percent still thought so. But this support is not preordained. It could wither. Creeping isolationism and protectionism are alternatives, whose losers would include (among others) the Germans, Belgians, Chinese and even the French.

They underestimate the dangers of backlash. Americans resent putting their sons and daughters at risk only to earn the contempt of so-called allies. Although the United States doesn't desire empire, its foreign policy does seek to promote world economic and political order. We identify our interests with these broader interests. No other country (or bloc, such as the European Union or the United Nations) can now substitute for what the United States provides:

(1) A Global Police: Though foreigners tend to see the United States as an eager "cowboy," most Americans dislike this role. A recent poll found that 65 percent thought that "the U.S. is playing the role of global policeman more than it should."

(2) A Global Marketplace: No other major country is so open to other countries' exports -- a big prop to their economies. In 2002 a record U.S. trade deficit (in goods) of $484 billion included deficits of $103 billion with China, $82 billion with the European Union, $70 billion with Japan and $13 billion with South Korea. As consumers, Americans benefit from inexpensive imports; but in a weak economy, a rising trade deficit worsens unemployment.

(3) A Global Currency: The dollar remains the main international currency, used in trade and cross-border investment. Foreigners park massive savings in the United States; in 2001, they owned $3.1 trillion of U.S. stocks and bonds, says the International Monetary Fund. In theory, the yen and euro could share the dollar's role. In practice, they don't.

These commitments require confidence in America -- and American confidence. By and large, Americans think the benefits outweigh the costs. Up to a point, we tolerate anti-Americanism. In the Middle East it's virulent. Elsewhere, we know that foreign intellectuals love to cast us as a global bully and corporate imperialist. Still, the latest outburst feels different. In France, 34 percent of adults have an unfavorable view of the United States, reports the Pew Global Attitudes Project. In Germany, it's 35 percent. In South Korea, it's 44 percent.

One lesson is that history doesn't count for much. Americans have assumed that World War II and the Cold War earned us a bedrock goodwill. South Korea would not exist but for the 34,000 Americans who died defending it. In the past century, the United States has rescued Europe at least six times: World War I, 53,000 dead and 204,000 wounded; World War II, 292,000 dead and 671,000 wounded (including the Pacific theater); postwar reconstruction -- the Marshall Plan; the Cold War -- protecting Europe from Soviet tanks; the Persian Gulf War -- protecting Europe from high oil prices; and Bosnia and Kosovo.

But the World War II generation is dead or dying. Except among Eastern Europeans, the Cold War seems to matter little. A generation gap feeds anti-Americanism. A recent poll asked South Koreans whether they liked or disliked the United States. Among those 50 or older, 56 percent expressed pro-U.S. feelings; among those under 30, only 22 percent did.

Along with history, what's also being discarded is enlightened self-interest. Exactly which recent U.S. military intervention would the French, Germans and others retract? The Persian Gulf War? That prevented more Iraqi aggression, stopped Saddam Hussein from becoming a nuclear power and lowered oil prices. Bosnia and Kosovo -- a conflict where the United States intervened reluctantly only to show its commitment to Europe? Afghanistan? It weakened al Qaeda, even if it didn't eliminate terrorism.

America's foreign critics have two replies. First, friendship with the United States cannot require blind obedience to U.S. policies -- or to George W. Bush. Second, we're not anti-American, only antiwar. These arguments deserve some respect. Indeed, millions of Americans share doubts about a war with Iraq. It's not an easy call. But the arguments would be more convincing if they seemed less expedient.

The entente not so cordial

24 January 2003

The rift between Britain and France, and the rest of Europe is growing wider by the day. Tony Blair has aligned Britain strongly with the USA; and further and further from his European allies. France and Germany have very publicly stated that they will not support a US led war against Iraq and demanded that the weapons inspectors be given more time. Unlikely bedfellows, the French and the Germans. The Germans know all about the damage of war and their distance from an attack on Iraq is understandable. The French, well they have a mixed agenda; their middle east trading interests are significant and they are also seeking a more prominent role as a leader of the new Europe; a Britain's expense.

China and Moscow have also said that the UN inspectors should complete their work. The stand taken by Paris, Beijing and Moscow means a majority of the five veto-wielding permanent members on the Security Council are against war. The other two permanent members are the United States and its strongest ally Britain

And now France has invited Robert Mugabe to attend a summit of African heads of State in Paris, despite opposition from Britain, marking the first break of the British-led EU sanctions against Zimbabwe. Mugabe's travel ban to the EU conveniently expires on 18 February the day before the conference starts.

Maybe the British need a serious think about where their real allies lie. Britain's future lies as part of Europe, not as a part of the USA.

Major world powers are trying to avoid a war. They deserve attention.

Comprendez-vous les French?

1 November 2002

It is quite hard to work out why it is the French voice at he UN Security Council that is the most vocal in restraining the US from unilateral action against Iraq.

For the last two weeks the French and the US have been negotiating acceptable words to the latest resolution to be put to the security council.

Why are the French standing their ground. I do not believe that President Chirac has any great affection for either Iraq or its leader. I think he wants to defend the role of the UN security council and to wage a campaign against the US policy of pre-emptive and unilateral action.

For this the French should be applauded.

I suspect the French are also fully aware that Iraq will never comply fully with the very strict obligations likely to be imposed on it next week by the security council.

The following guide from the Guardian newspaper in England may help explain le histoire of Anglo/French rivalry:

The German Election result - a welcome win for the peacemakers and environmentalists

24 Sept 2002

I must say that Gerard Schroeder's retention of power in Germany under his Social Democratic Party with the support of the Green Party is a much needed boost for the centre left parties in Europe.

When the campaign started Shroeder's right wing opponent, Edmund Stoiber, had an eight point lead in the polls. That was a little over four weeks ago. There has been a marked shift to the right in Europe over the last eighteen months; fuelled by terrorist threats, the weakening economies and playing on fears of immigration. Although the SDP/Green alliance has a reduced majority it is reasonable to argue that Germany has taken a solid stand against such bigotry.

So what took Herr Schroeder past the winning post. One , people like him; he has personality. Herr Stoiber is still looking for his. Two, his rapid pledge of support to cities ravaged by the summer floods; and three, the fact that he stood up to the USA. His party does not support a war against Iraq. From a country that was ravaged by two wars in the last century that makes a lot of sense to people.

His campaign was rather hampered by his justice minister's unfortunate comparison of Hitler and Bush. But he reacted quickly to that and she has lost her place in the new cabinet. A sensible and very public rebuke.

The response from the US was predictable. Donald Rumsfield stating that "I have no comment on the German election's outcome. But I would have to say that the way it was conducted was notably unhelpful and, as the White House indicated, has had the effect of poisoning the relationship [with the US]." This sounds like the classic Bush doctrine of if you are not with us you are against us. It is a timely reminder to the USA that its allies still believe that the UN should be taking a lead role over Iraq. Incidentally Germany takes a seat on the UN Security Council from 1 January 2003 and will serve as the Council's president. A role that could be influential in determining the UN response to Iraq.

Herr Schroeder will not be too upset if he does not get an early invitation to the White House ! He has pressing economic issues at home, led by a 9% unemployment rate and a stagnating economy, the third largest economy in the world. And he has to agree an agenda that accommodate the support of the Green Party.