The UN, US and Iraq IV

Craven

No----but it would take a monumental effort to write it so that even the permanent members of the security council could ratify it. That will never happen with France as a member IMO. China---maybe, Russia--maybe. England most certainly. France never.

My question was about the theory, not the practice.

So, why not?

So why not what?

My bad, after going back to the last page I noticed that I'd misread.

New question:

Do you support the ICC (read: baby teeth)?

What I don't like is our attitude that we can use the UN but we don't have to support it. The UN is a community of nations. Think of us as neighbors. And then there's that neighbor up on that hill who doesn't help, is critical, but continues to benefit from the partnership. That's the neighbor I think the US has become.

I have always wondered where this impression people haev of France being a shrinking violet comes from. France, with the possible exception of Spain, has the most warlike and aggressive past of any European nation. France's military ambitions did not end until 1918, when it would seem they learned the futility of war. Germany and Japan learned the same lesson in 1945. I hope the US can learn the same lesson without having to experience the same events France , GErmany and Japan did.

Maybe----with "baby teeth"

Gotta start somewhere. People would accept a snapping turtle before a saber toothed tiger.

With a little bit of international cooperation (remember that?) he could be an American general.




It can be undermined. It IS being undermined, unforgivably. But despite all, I'm sure the UN would prefer the US inside the tent, pissing out.
United, something could be achieved. GWB's coterie are finding that out, to their chagrin, too late.

The US' refusal to ratify the ICC seems to tell the rest of the world: We do not wish to be held responsible for any actions we might take that might violate these statutes.
Why not instead ratify the ICC and avoid actiosn that are in violation? This would include actions like kidnapping family members of Iraqi leaders and leaving ransom notes that imply their family members will be harmed if the subject refuses to turn himself in, or firing into demonstrations. Think of how much animosity the US could have avoided if it had not done these sort of things?

My bad impression of France started with their immediate collapse in front of the Germans at the beginning of WW 11.

It was hardened into obsession with Chiracs duplicity and intransigence just prior to this last gulf war.

I like their language, and their food in fabulous.

I do think we should always be grateful for the French support during our battle for independence but that was actually driven by selfish interests. They really just wanted the English wounded or even destroyed.

But this really only points out that every country behaves a certain way purely because of what it perceives as in it's long term interests.

The "rapid collapse" had more to do with poor military planning adn the failed world economy in the 1930s. Do you fault the resistance effort too?


What intransigence and duplicity? France is a sovereign nation and is under no obligation to fall in line behind the US, especially if the US is proposing an action that is both illegal and immoral.

Glad to see people still asking for the info on the "coalition" that's contributing in Iraq. Here's the link. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.-led_coalition_against_Iraq
Don't get too excited: this administration keeps overplaying how many countries are contributing. The numbers tell the real story. c.i.

The current coalition:
A list of countries among the willing include, accurate as of March 28, 2003, (1991 participants are in italics): Afghanistan [1], Albania [2], Australia [3], Azerbaijan, Bahrain [4], Bulgaria [5], Colombia [6], Costa Rica [7], Denmark [8], the Dominican Republic [9], El Salvador [10], Eritrea [11], Estonia [12], Ethiopia [13], Georgia [14], United Kingdom [15], Honduras, Hungary [16], Iceland, Israel, Italy [17], Japan [18], Kazakhstan [19], Kuwait [20], Latvia, Lithuania [21], Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, the Netherlands [22], Nicaragua [23], Palau [24], the Philippines [25], Poland [26], Portugal (but parliament may censure the PM)[27], Qatar [28], Romania [29], Rwanda, Slovakia [30], South Korea (but Parliament won't vote on whether to send troops) [31], Spain [32], Republic of China (on Taiwan) [33], Turkey [34], Uganda [35][36], the United States [37], Uzbekistan [38]. Total: 37 confirmed; 10 not confirmed.

THe unwilling:perhaps the next members of the "axis'o'evil?"
Nations unwilling include (1991 participants are in italics): Algeria [39][40], Angola [41][42], Armenia [43], Bangladesh [44], Belarus [45], Belgium [46], Brazil [47], Canada (but some Canadian troops on exchange programs are involved)[48], Cape Verde [49], People's Republic of China [50], Comoros [51], Croatia (but is providing airspace) [52][53], Cuba [54], the Czech Republic (but is supplying anti-chemical specialists) [55][56], Djibouti [57], Ecuador [58], Egypt [59], France [60], Germany (airspace use) [61], Greece (airspace use) [62], Guinea-Bissau [63], India [64], Iran [65], Iraq, Jordan [66], Lebanon [67], Malaysia [68], Mauritania [69], Morocco [70], Mozambique [71], Namibia [72], New Zealand [73], Nicaragua [74], Nigeria [75], North Korea [76], Norway (but will provide humanitarian aid) [77], Oman [78], Pakistan, Palestinian Authority [79], Russia [80], Sao Tome and Principe [81], Saudi Arabia [82], Slovenia (providing air space) [83][84], Solomon Islands [85][86], Somalia [87], Sri Lanka [88], Sweden (but will provide humanitarian aid) [89], Switzerland [90], Sudan [91], Syria [92], Tunisia [93], Ukraine (providing anti-chemical weapon troops to Kuwait) [94], United Arab Emirates [95], the Vatican [96], Venezuela [97], Yemen [98], Zimbabwe [99]. Total: 57 confirmed.

hobit, The problem with that 37 number is the question of how much and how many troops they are contributing to the cause? If you look at most of those countries, they are contributing zilch. c.i.

Just lending their name...

And collecting the dough.

Highly amusing and frightening at the same time:


Published on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 by the Globe and Mail/Canada
Bush's War Goes Global
The US President Has Created a Tool Kit for Any Mini-empire Looking to Get Rid of the Opposition
by Naomi Klein


The Marriott Hotel in Jakarta was still burning when Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, Indonesia's Co-ordinating Minister for Political and Security Affairs, explained the implications of the day's attack.

"Those who criticize about human rights being breached must understand that all the bombing victims are more important than any human-rights issue."

In a sentence, we got the best summary yet of the philosophy underlying President George W. Bush's so-called war on terrorism. Terrorism doesn't just blow up buildings; it blasts every other issue off the political map. The specter of terrorism, real and exaggerated, has become a shield of impunity, protecting governments around the world from scrutiny for their human-rights abuses.

Many have argued that the WoTtm is the U.S. government's thinly veiled excuse for constructing a classic empire, in the model of Rome or Britain. Two years into the crusade, it's clear that this is a mistake: The Bush gang doesn't have the stick-to-it-ness to successfully occupy one country, let alone a dozen.

Mr. Bush and the gang do, however, have the hustle of good marketers, and they know how to contract out. What Mr. Bush has created in the war on terrorism is less a doctrine for world domination than an easy-to-assemble tool kit for any mini-empire looking to get rid of the opposition and expand its power.

The war on terrorism was never a war in the traditional sense, it lacked a clear target or a fixed location. It is, instead, a kind of brand, an idea that can be easily franchised by any government in the market for an all-purpose opposition cleanser.

We already know that the WoTtm works on domestic groups that use terrorist tactics, such as Hamas or the Armed Revolutionary Forces of Colombia (FARC). That's only its most basic application. WoTtm can be used on any liberation or opposition movement. It can be applied liberally to unwanted immigrants, pesky human-rights activists and even on hard-to-get-out investigative journalists.

It was Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon who was the first to adopt Mr. Bush's franchise, parroting the White House's pledges to "pull up these wild plants by the root, smash their infrastructure" as he sent bulldozers into the occupied territories to uproot olive trees, and tanks to raze civilian homes.

Soon enough, Mr. Sharon's wild plants included human-rights observers who were bearing witness to the attacks, as well as aid workers and journalists.

Another franchise soon opened in Spain with Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar extending his WoTtm from the Basque guerrilla group ETA to the Basque separatist movement as a whole, the vast majority of which is peaceful. Mr. Aznar has resisted calls to negotiate with the Basque Autonomous Government and banned the political party Batasuna (even though, as The New York Times noted in June, "no direct link has been established between Batasuna and terrorist acts"). He has also shut down Basque human-rights groups, magazines and the only entirely Basque-language newspaper. In February, the Spanish police raided the Association of Basque Middle Schools, accusing it of having terrorist ties.

This appears to be the true message of Mr. Bush's war franchise: Why negotiate with your political opponents when you can annihilate them? In the era of WoTtm, little concerns like war crimes and human rights just don't register.

Among those who have taken careful note of the new rules is Georgia's President Eduard Shevardnadze. In October, while extraditing five Chechens to Russia (without due process) for its WoTtm, he stated that "international human-rights commitments might become pale in comparison with the importance of the anti-terrorist campaign."

Indonesia's President Megawati Sukarnoputri got the same memo. She came to power pledging to clean up the notoriously corrupt and brutal military and to bring peace to the fractious country. Instead she has called off talks with the Free Aceh Movement and in May, invaded the province, the largest military offensive since the 1975 invasion of East Timor. The Indonesian human-rights organization Tapol describes the situation in the oil-rich province as "a living hell, a daily roundup of trauma and extreme fear, of sweeping villages, of the seizure of people at random and, hours later, their bodies left lying by the roadside."

Why did the Indonesian government think it could get away with the invasion after the international outrage that forced it out of East Timor? Easy: Post-Sept. 11, the government cast Aceh's movement for national liberation as "terrorist," which means human-rights concerns no longer apply. Rizal Mallarangeng, a senior adviser to Megawati, called it the "blessing of Sept. 11."

Philippines President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo appears to feel similarly blessed. Quick to cast her battle against Islamic separatists in the southern Moro region as part of WoTtm, Ms. Arroyo -- like Mr. Sharon, Mr. Aznar and Megawati -- abandoned peace negotiations and waged brutal civil war instead, displacing 90,000 people last year.

She didn't stop there. Last August, speaking to soldiers at a military academy, Ms. Arroyo extended the war beyond terrorists and armed separatists to include "those who terrorize factories that provide jobs," code for trade unions. Labor groups in Philippine free-trade zones report that union organizers are facing increased threats, and strikes are being broken up with extreme police violence.

In Colombia, the government's war against leftist guerrillas has long been used as cover to murder anyone with leftist ties, whether union activists or indigenous farmers. But even in Colombia, things have gotten worse since President Alvaro Uribe took office in August, 2002, on a WoTtm platform.

Last year, 150 union activists were murdered. Like Mr. Sharon, Mr. Uribe quickly moved to get rid of the witnesses, expelling foreign observers and playing down the importance of human rights. Only after "terrorist networks are dismantled . . . will we see full compliance with human rights," Mr. Uribe said in March.

Sometimes WoTtm is not an excuse to wage a war, but to keep one going. Mexican President Vicente Fox came to power in 2000 pledging to settle the Zapatista conflict "in 15 minutes" and to tackle rampant human-rights abuses committed by the military and police. Now, post-Sept. 11, Mr. Fox has abandoned both projects. The Mexican government has made no moves to reinitiate the Zapatista peace process and last week, Mr. Fox closed down the high-profile office of the Undersecretary of Human Rights.

This is the era ushered in by Sept. 11, war and repression unleashed not by a single empire, but a global franchise of them. In Indonesia, Israel, Spain, Colombia, the Philippines and China, governments have latched onto to Mr. Bush's deadly WoTtm and are using it to erase their opponents and tighten their grip on power.

Last week, another war was in the news. In Argentina, the senate voted to repeal two laws that granted immunity to the sadistic criminals of the 1976-1983 dictatorship. At the time, the generals called their campaign of extermination a "war on terror," using a series of kidnappings and violent attacks by leftist groups as an excuse to seize power.

The vast majority of the 30,000 people who were disappeared during the dictatorship weren't terrorists; they were union leaders, artists, teachers, psychiatrists. As with all wars on terrorism, terrorism wasn't the target -- it was the excuse to wage the real war on people who dared to dissent.

Naomi Klein is the author of 'No Logo' and 'Fences and Windows'.

© 2003 Bell Globemedia Interactive Inc.

This is where we part company, perception. Do you expect other countries to commit their troops to our BushGod-driven mission, which may be "possibly corrupt" in their view? Are we really the only nation in the world that has not only our own but everyone else's best interest at heart? I do not think that any future UN mission would lack our major involvement and influence, if we could only see our way to join rather than command. Our refusal to be a part of the ICC only shows that we think we are superior to universal law of any kind.

I heard a piece on NPR today interviewing two local men on the ground in Iraq who feel strongly that the resistance is nothing compared to what it would be if there were major anti-US factions still able to function in the country. They noted that such random killing as is occurring is due to the proliferation of weapons on the loose in the country, falling into the hands of the odd person or group here and there. With security still so poor in the country, all it takes is a weapon and a nutter to kill another US soldier.