The US, The UN and Iraq

ci

Regarding Tony Parsons article in that "notorious left wing rag" the Daily Mirror, many Brits feel as he does. Perhaps we don't go around dancing in the streets to show our feelings like some people. Americans should not get the wrong impression about Britain from a few religious nuts who hang out around the Finsbury Park mosque.

But on the other hand it is not just an Islamic reaction to W's war on terror that breeds anti American sentiment. Bush has hardly helped by unlilaterally withdrawing from the international criminal court, the various treaties on biological weapons, imposed steel import tarrifs and all sorts of things that actively hurt countries that supported and still do support America in its time of need, Britain being one.

Bush appears to be cynically exploiting the terrible events of 911 to justify all sorts of American interventions around the world, most notably in Iraq. He seems to have embarked on a program of re ordering central Eurasian countries (mainly for energy requirements, and the security of Israel), from Kazakhstan to Yemen and Palestine to Pakistan.

Now I might even agree with this program if Bush would honestly spell out what he was about. But I don't accept Iraq had anything to do with 911, and the lingering suspicion remains that America is re ordering the Eurasian continent for its own selfish interests.

Far from Tony Parson's assertion that no instant response by the US demonstrates America's magnanimity, I believe 911 will be used as the ultimate reason to justify the consolidation of American hegenomy around the world for decades to come. (As I said I don't necessarily disagree with this, I just wish the administration would be more open about its aims and objectives).

Its this sort of fear and doubt about the US policy that can lead many people to be deeply suspicious about America, especially when our extended hand of friendship and support is met with a smack in the face for example on steel tariffs. Now I know its not really like that, but that's how it SEEMS some times, especially when it keeps on happening!

When I was a young student in school, I often wondered why nearly all teachers were such jerks - testy, judgemental, full of odd quirks and mannerisims, etc. I contrasted them to my classmates who, for the most part, were agreeable, sophisticated (in my view) and 'with it'. I occasionally wondered, what happend to teachers along the way - after all they were once students.

Much later I recognized that the difference is the teacher was in the front of the room and the object of everyone's attantion. All of his/her warts and awkward moments were visible to all, while those of the students were hidden in the crowd. The same was true of Commanding Officers in the service, of CEO's in business, etc., etc.

The United States is, by a large margin the largest economy in the world, the principal exporter of new cultural phenomena, the principal military power, and generally a principal object of the attention of people and governments throughout the world - Steve among them.

Moreover the United States is the leader of the alliance that won and survived a very serious struggle with a feared and generally despised adversary. Suddenly, after over 40 years of bipolar tension, the struggle is over, the opposing empire crumbled. The United states appears for the moment to have no rivals who might either threaten it seriously or, more significantly, even counterbalance its influence in the world.

It does not require much imagination to conclude that these circumstances alone could explain most or all of the frustration being expressed on this and other threads regarding U.S. policy. Moreover, I believe this is the most likely explanation.

After two years of slaughter in Bosnia, the United States was heavily criticized by most of the European powers for a reluctance to insert its ground forces into that conflict (in the heart of Europe). A few years later the United States is similarly criticised for a willingness to engage militarily in a Persian Gulf conflict, which involves its vital interests far more than does yet another European conflict in the Balkans. Odd.

Most of the truly large and populous nations of the world have rejected both the Kyoto treaty and the International Criminal Court. The list includes China, India, Russia, the United States, Pakistan, Indonesia, and many others. Interesting isn't it that we see very little expressed concern or disapproval about the choices made by any of these nations - except for the United States. Why?

It is understandable that the existence of any relatively unchallenged dominant power would be unsettling to many - our friends, enemies, and those in between. However what are the alternatives? Shall we encourage the growth of a powerful antagonist? That was the situation before 1992, but I doubt that many would wish to go back to that. The lessons of history clearly suggest that a rival will emerge soon enough anyway.

Alternatively, shall we find a way to tame the sole superpower, to constrain him as did Swift's Lilliputians with Gulliver? (I believe that is what our many critics really want.) But how can this be accomplished? Has such a thing ever happened in the recorded history of the world? It has not. Every period of world dominance or near dominance at the hands of a superpower was marked by resentment and the struggles of many to escape the consequences of that dominance. It is not in the nature of nations, large or small, to give up power where their vital interests are involved. And every champion of every contest knows that he will inevitably face a challenger, so he husbands his strength, power and independence for that day.

In the matter at hand, the most voiciferous critics of the United States are themselves now in the process of forming a political union (the EU) that will eclipse the United States in area, population, and economic power. (Our rival is at hand!) The process of European union involves the gradual surrender of national soveriginty by its members to the organs of that union. Perhaps this has distorted their vision. There is every likelihood that the process of union has iinadvertantly facilitated the resentment on the part of European nations for the necessary retention of all elements of soveriginty by the United States, - we are not a candidate for membership in the EU.

Canadians and others find it easy to criticize the United States almost as though they were citizens, while they recoil in indignation if one of us reciprocates. This is yet another indication of the skewed standards that apply to any dominant figure. It may well be that this, in an odd way, is an indication of the benign character of our dominance compared to other similarly situated powers. More may be expected of us and a relative lack of frightfulness may make us an easy mark. If so that is a good sign.

Even so, an occasional kind word would be appreciated.

Canadian guy here....george...come on now...'recoil in indignation'
at some criticism of Canada?! I usually have a good memory for recoil instances. I think you'd be pressed to locate such, most of us here in snow country (myself definitely included) are quite happy to throw pudding at the queen's portrait and the flag, most particularly when someone wraps him or herself in them. The instance you may be referring to related to a claim (and assumption) that Canada ought to change it's immigration policies because bad folks (Arabs) can just drive straight from the Thunder Bay MacDonalds and past your customs agents.

You've made the argument previously (as you do above) that history doesn't show examples of big powers doing anything but acting to selfishly maintain such hegemony. That is admirably honest regarding what might be termed US intent and justification for certain present ideas. But it is the same argument for tyranny in any context - 'if I don't do it, someone else will, and I"m the best so I should, it's better for everybody, now stop arguing.'

It is, as you say, a new world, and new opportunities are presented. What better time than now to evolve the UN, in something like a third phase, to a body which functions in accordance with the admirable ideals of American democracy? Not easy, sure. But neither was the Magna Carta or the establishment of the US.

Blatham,

Well you have at least made a concrete suggestion. To paraphrase -- Why not involve the UN in a next (and unprecedented) evolutionary step presumably towards the creation of a world government?

How would you propose to do that? It is easy to say, but the act itself has no precedent and may be hard indeed to accomplish. How would you go about it?

Do you believe that the evolution of law and the institutions of government throughout the world is sufficiently uniform and advanced to facilitate this next step? Magna Carta was, after all, merely a treaty between a King and the Nobles on whom his power much depended. It gave hardly a nod to the rights of the vast majority of the inhabitants of Britain. However that was all that the situation then prevailing in Britain permitted, and it was indeed a step forward. The process of evolving a liberal Democracy in Britain took centuries (and the head of at least one king). The Irish penal laws and a famine that killed millions in a country that was throughout a net exporter of food (to England) are, on an historical scale, recent events. Britain is one of the most advanced countries in the world - most others are very far behind.

In this new world government how would you deal with problems such as the stupidity and intolerance of the government of Zimbabwe? Or the unambiguous threats to her neighbors (principally Japan and South Korea) that have emerged from Kim Jong Il's regime in Poyngyang? The long-standing disputed between Israel and her neighbors (including the population of the areas she illegally occupies)? Iraq (if you believe there is a problem there)?

These problems exist and will continue to exist, even under a radically changed world-wide political structure. W have a near perfect knowledge of the defects of our present arrangements in the world. We can only imagine the trouble we might face under the arrangements you propose - even if it could be accomplished. Do you honestly believe that the UN could do a better job, acting alone as the ultimate arbitrer in these matters? Would you bet everything on that? Really?

Consider for a moment the ghastly spectacle of ethnic cleansing and slaughter that continued for two years in the very heart of Europe, while the advanced liberal democracies of Germany, France, Italy, the Low Countries, Britain et. al. fretted without doing anything to stop it. Indeed the differing sympathies of these nations (Germans for Croats, Russia for Serbs, France for control, etc.) positively abetted the conflict. How, I ask you, could the world-wide least common denominator do any better?

I assert that the average state of governance in the world is far from sufficient to permit accomplishment of your purpose. The Durban SA Human Rights conference of two years ago provided us with an example of the prevailing levels of Democratic development and Liberalism in much of the world. Would you be ready to submit to the laws of a legislature similarly composed?

More to the point though, I cannot imagine that what you advocate could be accomplished by any means. Aesop's fable of the mice debating the proposal to put a bell around the cat's nect tells the tale.

However I would be very interested to read of any concrete proposals you may have.

George

Are you referring to the World Conference on Racism in September, 2001 in Durban?

There are two problems with having a world government. Who would be President, and who would he appoint as foreign minister?

Walter,

Yes, my reference was to that conference in Durban. Noble purpose; high ideals on the part of some; utterly cynical on the part of others; high degrees of manuipulation on the part of some blocks; sordid outcome.

Thank you two times, Steve. I really needed to wonder who would be foreign minister of a world government, and then ponder the functions of the post.

Your previous post to c.i. of about three hours ago will probably not be as widely read as it should. It makes points I had never considered, and seems right on the money.

As this topic is also about Iraq and the UN, i would like to draw the discussion back to Iraq. Lash Goth has provided a very informative piece of writing, and it takes me back to what i have said here so many times, and it ties in, as well, with what is being said about the US. Saddam's regime is a clan regime, the privileged of which the author wrote in the article provided by Lash Goth are clan members, or the cronies of clan members. These people care very much is Saddam is in power, because not only will they lose privilege if he goes, they will be the target of those upon whom they have constantly trodden for a generation. This is why i pay little attention to contentions that Saddam may well be simply removed by the Iraqis if the nation is sufficiently threatened. Far too many now wealthy and powerful people have a stake in his continuance in power--their very lives are at stake. This is why i so quickly tire of the breezy contention that defeating Iraqi military forces and setting up a new regime will be a snap. Take out Saddam, and the blood feuds will begin. Does no one remember how terribly, tragically involved we became when we just went to Somolia to protect those passing food out to the starving? Bush Sr.'s appointee to run the UN mission, an admiral whose name escapes me at the moment, made a tragic decision to take sides, and oppose the most powerful clan, that of Mohammed Farrah Aidid. What will happen if we do take over Iraq? We either breeze in, wipe out the current power structure and breeze out again, creating a power vacuum which will lead to another generation of strife--or, we stay and "encourage democracy." Any bets on how many casualties, American, Allied, and Iraqi that will lead to? This is an extremely complex situation, fraught with many potential disasters, and likely to have myriad small and many large tragic consequences. I remain unconvinced that the posse headed by the White House is giving proper consideration to what is entailed. Either we're in for a long haul, with bloody reprisal the order of the day--or we waltz in and out again, and leave the Iraqis to swim in the welter of blood which will ensue.

And another point occurs to me. The percentages may be different, and the contrasts sharper, but, what is so very different about the US, within the community of nations, enforcing it's will down the barrel of a very large gun indeed, and Saddam's clan imposing itself on the rest of the Iraqis?

Steve, I agree with your opinion that, "Bush appears to be cynically exploiting the terrible events of 911 to justify all sorts of American interventions around the world, most notably in Iraq." I, for one, do not trust GWBush; never have, never will. All he has done thus far is only talk of the 'potential' dangers of Saddam. Bush has changed the world politics of war all by himself.

george, IMHO, your analogy comparing your days as a student with the world politics of today has some merit, but it's not that simple. The EU as an economic and political organization will not be that successful, because there is too much variance in their economic and political development between the EU countries. Their goals to expand EU only creates greater frictions. At present, Germany is the strongest economy of the EU, but they are suffering a ten percent unemployment (vs eight percent in the US). When you speak to "skewed standards" of non-American citizens of US policies, we in the US are also guilty as charged.
c.i.

Thanks Roger!

Hey guys, d'you hear what Rog thinks of my post! Get scrolling back

"Your previous post to c.i. of about three hours ago will probably not be as widely read as it should. It makes points I had never considered, and seems right on the money".

Its moments like this that make it all worthwhile!

Bush was asked today about the upcoming campaign. Granted it's a little early to be concerned about the 2004 elections but one of his retorts about why he wouldn't engage in campaigning and would be concentrating on his job was, "There's going to be a lot of verbage."

I'm still trying to figure out if he was trying to say "verbosity," or may even "garbage" 'cause the only reaction I can have to such a statement is: well, duh. He might have carefully choosing a word that basically says nothing rather than call attention to the verbosity of this adminstration which is virtually without peer.

That topic, LW, always reminds me of he Doonesbury cartoon in which Teddy Kennedy drones on and on and on, and, in the last panel, one of the reporters hollers out: "A verb, Senator, we need a verb . . .

It reminds me of the sportscaster who on Friday before the big games on the weekend says, "No upsets are expected."

If he's actually pernounced it correctly as "ver-bi-age," it might have sound too affected.

What he really said is, "There's going to be a lot of a lot of words."

Maybe he was referring to Trent who got in trouble using a Lott of words.

"Verbiage", as used by the talented wordsmith and grammarian known as George W. Bush, is a colloquialism.

But only in Texas.

Bush is likely to say something like, "We have meetings about Iraq spasmodically; not ever' day or anything. 'Course, my PEOPLE meet about it all the time..." at the same time his spokespersons are saying, "The president is fully engaged ..."

Who was it who said recently that Bush has been 'engaged' more often than Elizabeth Taylor?

That is an affirmative PDiddle he always adopts that phoney Texas accent at home and in other Southern states. I swear it makes me crazy. I think Bush is a Bubba trying to be intelligent and Clinton was intelligent and had to work at being a good Bubba.

You nailed it, Joanne. He does switch back and forth between the obviously trained quasi-Professor Higgins diction and slips back into the homespun Texas drawl. I believe he'd be better off shying away from multi-syllable words as they always seem to slip into the wrong context and surely. in this instance, verbosity isn't the only reason he's not beginning to campaign. Even though I know he meant that campaigns are always verbose, it won't be long before he'll be back into spouting out those strings of meaningless political rhetoric. Another problem of the first term of a President -- first two years trying to learn on the job, last two years campaigning to get reelected which manifests itself in all sorts of ways. That includes campaigning under the guise of "doing your job." Of course, the second terms of the last fifty years have been scarred by scandals of various levels of importance. The desire to find a scandal to fit Clinton was begun before the end of his first term. Clinton is glib even when he's chatting with reporters. Bush is merely glum.

I don't care how he says it I care what he says. The Bushisms don't bother me nearly as much as the hardline posturing that thankfully I haven't seen much of recently.