The US, UN & Iraq II

perception, there is something there, I am confident. Just as there was something there with the Agent Orange issue of my generation's soldiers. I believe, however, more is made of very weakly founded "evidence", and that woefully inadequate attention is being paid the notion of actually fing out just which "Something: is "There". An awful lot of hysteria, and damned little hard information, swirls about such matters. There are serious questions which remain unanswered. As are there serious issues unresolved regarding US troops who, as matter of training, were exposed to a "Nuclear environment" back in the 'fifties. All of these items merit far more rigorous examination than they have received to date, IMHO. My son agrees. So do most folks I have talked with regarding the matter.

I also think the last-minute menu items, particularly the "Apology Demand" were for consumption outside Iraq.


And, damn ... this thread does leap right along.


timber

Timber
Thanks for the update on the "Syndrome"----- Seems to me that in todays world of science some tangible evidence could be provided if there really was a connection with things like "exposure to some toxic chemical" like sarin, or some such................

It is my understanding that many independent researchers have investigated it with no conclusive findings.

Since your son is back over there I think he would know.

Regarding the 6 last minute demands----they seemed irrational especially the one about the tv acknowledgement of possession of WMD. As you say----for spectators outside Iraq.

U.S. officials fear that once President Bush signals the U.S. is headed to war, Saddam Hussein will strike pre-emptively, administration sources told ABCNEWS.

But if the United States takes action to stop an Iraqi first strike, especially if they try to seize and protect the oil fields, U.S. officials admit they may end up starting the war itself.

This new level of concern about Iraq is caused by an accumulation of intelligence including troubling new details that focus on three areas:

--Specific new evidence indicates that Iraqi activity in the Western desert shows the strong likelihood Scud missiles are hidden there. These missiles could easily reach Israel carrying chemical or biological warheads which could draw Israel into any war.

--Detailed new intelligence from the southern Iraqi oil fields shows that many of the 700 wells have now been wired with explosives. These explosives appear to be connected to a central command post, so Saddam could easily set the wells ablaze.

--Near the border with Kuwait, where 135,000 U.S. troops are now stationed, recent surveillance indicates Iraqi artillery batteries have been moved dangerously close. The artillery is capable of firing shells filled with poison gas.

ABCNews

Mr Blix can be really proud that he found "ALL" those SCUDS and Artillery shells-----What a farce that has been.

Mr Blix has also caused us to miss our window of opportunity and now it is too late to worry about securing the oil wells----we can only hope the "Shock and Awe" is successful in forcing the surrender of most of the Iraqi troops.

Thanks Mr Blix.

Peter Freundlich's comments -- from NPR's All Things Considered 3/13 -- transcribed, as promised: --

All right. Let me see if I understand the logic of this correctly: We are going to ignore the United Nations in order to make clear to Saddam Hussein that the United Nations cannot be ignored. We're going to wage war to preserve the UN's ability to avert war.

The paramount principle is that the UN's word must be taken seriously, and, if we have to subvert its word to guarantee that it is, then by gum we will! Peace is too important not to take up arms to defend. Am I getting this right?

Further, if the only way to bring democracy to Iraq is to vitiate the democracy of the Security Council then we're honor bound to do that too -- because democracy, as we define it, is too important to be stopped by a little thing like democracy as they define it. Also, in dealing with a man who brooks no dissension at home, we cannot afford dissension among ourselves. We must speak with one voice against Saddam Hussein's failure to allow opposing voices to be heard.

We are sending our gathered might to the Persian Gulf to make the point that might does not make right, as Saddam Hussein seems to think it does. And we are twisting the arms of the opposition until they agree to let us oust a regime that twists the arms of the opposition. We cannot leave in power a dictator who ignores his own people. And if our people, and people elsewhere in the world fail to understand that, then we have no choice but to ignore them.

Listen, don't misunderstand: I think it is a good thing that members of the Bush administration seem to have been reading Lewis Carroll. I only wish someone had pointed out that "Alice in Wonderland" and "Through the Looking Glass" are meditations on paradox and puzzle and illogic, and on the strangeness of things, not templates for foreign policy. It is amusing for the Mad Hatter to say something like "We must make war on them because he is a threat to peace," but not amusing for someone who actually commands an army to say that.

As a collector of laughable arguments, I'd be enjoying all this were it not for the fact that I know -- we all know -- that lives are going to be lost in what amounts to a freak, circular reasoning accident. http://discover.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.jhtml?prgId=2&prgDate=current


Amen

here i go again all confused, the official position of the White House has consistently been that it was NOT Mr. Blixx's job to FIND WoMD.

March 14, 2003
George W. Queeg
By PAUL KRUGMAN



And to what end has Mr. Bush alienated all our most valuable allies? (And I mean all: Tony Blair may be with us, but British public opinion is now virulently anti-Bush.) The original reasons given for making Iraq an immediate priority have collapsed. No evidence has ever surfaced of the supposed link with Al Qaeda, or of an active nuclear program. And the administration's eagerness to believe that an Iraqi nuclear program does exist has led to a series of embarrassing debacles, capped by the case of the forged Niger papers, which supposedly supported that claim. At this point it is clear that deposing Saddam has become an obsession, detached from any real rationale.

What really has the insiders panicked, however, is the irresponsibility of Mr. Bush and his team, their almost childish unwillingness to face up to problems that they don't feel like dealing with right now.

I've talked in this column about the administration's eerie passivity in the face of a stalling economy and an exploding budget deficit: reality isn't allowed to intrude on the obsession with long-run tax cuts. That same "don't bother me, I'm busy" attitude is driving foreign policy experts, inside and outside the government, to despair.

Need I point out that North Korea, not Iraq, is the clear and present danger? Kim Jong Il's nuclear program isn't a rumor or a forgery; it's an incipient bomb assembly line. Yet the administration insists that it's a mere "regional" crisis, and refuses even to talk to Mr. Kim.

The Nelson Report, an influential foreign policy newsletter, says: "It would be difficult to exaggerate the growing mixture of anger, despair, disgust and fear actuating the foreign policy community in Washington as the attack on Iraq moves closer, and the North Korea crisis festers with no coherent U.S. policy. . . . We are at the point now where foreign policy generally, and Korea policy specifically, may become George Bush's `Waco.' . .

Tartarin - thanks, I missed that one (the Peter Freundlich comments).

Peter Freundlich seems to have his logic right, but trying to attach logic to politics - especially to this crisis with Iraq, I'm afraid, is an oxymoron. You see, in a real democracy (okay, democratic republic) like ours, money is the primary mover. The honchos of the major party picks the candidate of 'their' choice, not the people's choice. Sometimes, even the SC can select our president; maybe, maybe not. The UN was developed as a 'democratic' organization, where each permanent member has veto power. Since the US is the superpower of this world, we can ignore the UN at will - and we have. Right or wrong, who's to say? I am certain of only one thing, this war is gonna cost the US citizens billions of dollars that could be better spent at home. c.i.

An interesting article from Australia. c.i.
***********************************
Former Prime Minister Bob Hawke AC, in a letter to the editor of The Australian today:

Are you not struck by the stark hypocrisy conveyed by the concluding paragraphs of your front page story (13/3)? "The US had only Britain, Spain and Bulgaria on its side, but would consider getting nine votes a 'moral victory' " ... "USA Today says the US has threatened to reduce Angola's $US20 million ($33 million) in annual humanitarian aid, warned Chile there could be a delay in congressional approval of a pending free-trade agreement with Washington, and suggested to Guinea and Cameroon the US
might not support loans the nations need from international lenders." What price morality?

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/sectionindex2/0,5746,ausletters1^^TEXT,00.html

I suppose Mr. Hawke thinks it is the function of the US to hand out aid to any and every country regardless of whether or not that country behaves as an ally.

"here i go again all confused, the official position of the White House has consistently been that it was NOT Mr. Blixx's job to FIND WoMD".


Perhaps if he had been there instead of making biased comments every time someone shoved a microphone in his face----he might have stumbled over something.

His former boss(A Swedish diplomat) made reference to the poor Iraqi who tried to surrender to the UN team with a note book clutched to his chest. Seems Mr.Blix thought that was a very "inelegant" way to approach the inspection team. The guy was never seen again.

C.I.

What do you think France offered them or threatened them with?

It's called Global Power Politics.

An assertion that the US is less energetic than other nations re: foreign aid does not agree with this:


There are facts, and there are opinions. In the matter of Foreign Aid, both the US and Japan outspend all other individual nations by a margin of roughly 2-to-1 or greater. In otherwords, apart from Japan, no nation spends even half as much as does the US on Foreign Aid.

Personally, I think our Foreign Aid policy is, and pretty much always has been, pretty screwed up. I would be in much more favor of Foreign Investment than Foreign Handouts. But then, that's just me, I guess.

timber

perception, Where it concerns morality, it doesn't make any difference what any other country offered or didn't offer. We're talking about the morality of the US. A funny way to practice democracy. c.i.

timber, I agree that our foreign aid policies are all screwed up. However, if money is promised, then threatened with withdrawal on the basis of their vote in the UN, there's a moral question that needs to be addressed. c.i.

timber

Thanks, those are good stats. On the other side of the argument though is the relationship between totals given and GNP or other such measurements. The Netherlands gives one third of the US total, for example.

Governments Cutting Back on Promised Responsibilities

The U.S., especially during the Clinton Administration, has tried a different approach to the issue of poverty, aid, debt etc. The common phrase heard is that third world nations want trade, not aid. While this is an important point, that people would rather do things themselves than always rely on handouts, it is also criticized by many as an excuse for the US to cut back aid that has been agreed and promised at the United Nations.

When the world's governments met at the Earth summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, they adopted a programme for action under the auspices of the United Nations -- Agenda 21. Amongst other things, this included an Official Development Assistance (ODA) aid target of 0.7% of gross domestic product (GDP) for rich nations, roughly 22 members of the OECD (Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development), known as the Development Assistance Committee (DAC). (Side Note: ODA is basically aid from the governments of the wealthy nations, but doesn't include private contributions or private capital flows and investments. The main objective of ODA is to promote development. It is therefore a kind of measure on the priorities that governments themselves put on such matters. Whether that necessarily reflects their citizen's wishes and priorities is a different matter! Other aid, such as private capital flows may be for investment purposes, etc.)

Even though these targets and agendas may have been set, the following is interesting to note:
· Almost all rich nations have constantly failed to reach this 0.7% target.
· For example, USA's aid, in terms of percentage of their GDP is already lowest of any industrialized nation in the world. · Since 1992, Japan had been the largest donor of aid, in terms of raw dollars. That was until 2001 when the United States reclaimed that position, a year that also saw Japan's amount of aid drop by nearly 4 billion dollars (as tables and charts below will also show).
· Commenting on the change in trend in 2001, the OECD · noted that:
· "Most of the United States' increase in 2001 was due to a $600 million disbursement to Pakistan for economic support in the September 11 aftermath. · Japan's ODA fell by nearly $4 billion. A key factor accounting for this was a 12.7 per cent depreciation of the Yen, which fell from 108 yen to the dollar in 2000 to 122 in 2001. Other factors included the timing of Japan's disbursements to multilateral organisations and loan repayments from Asian countries that have recovered from the Asian financial crisis. In real terms, Japan's ODA fell by 18 per cent."
· This · OECD chart (also shown below, underneath the table) shows that for 2001 in terms of raw amount of dollars in aid, the U.S. is the largest donor, followed by Japan.
· When looked at in terms of · percentage of its GNP, it is the last of the 22 donors.
· At the same time one must note that most nations, not only the US, do not meet their agreed obligations. · According to the World Bank, the official development assistance worldwide has been · decreasing about 20% since 1990.
· According to the British paper, the Guardian, if all countries from the OECD were spending 0.7% of GDP on aid, · aid flows would be $114bn higher than current levels. (The World Bank say some $40 to $60 billion extra is needed, while the international development organization, Oxfam, say some $100 billion is needed. So, regardless of those numbers, meeting the 0.7% promise is therefore important.)

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp

Translation: "When comparing the US to other nations makes the US look bad, it is valid; when it makes the US look normal or good, we'll have none of it."