The US, UN & Iraq II

<It is nimh, perception, with an 'h'. otherwise, no comment.>

well, according to common sense, the perpetrator is responsible for the post-war reconstruction. blair seems to understand this and the tension between him and bush will be interesting. the un has warned the u.s. in this sense too, albeit promising to continue the humanitarian aid and boost it up after the war (referring to kofi annan speech). i am very curious to hear the result of the blair-bush debate, a lot will depend on it in the days after the war.

A report has just come over NPR news/talk that Putin has announced he will not accept the US's word on a WMD find in Iraq if there is one. Independent verification required.

Dag -- I'd like to listen to that discussion between Blair and Bush, wouldn't you? That is the relationship which I find the most interesting, by far.

NPR said it will be a 'behind the closed doors' discussion. hmmm, i wonder why? nemmind, nothing against that, at least they will get to talk 'heart to heart'. i hope blair's heart will be more persuasive.

'behind the closed doors' -

The "world" would never get the real scoop!

dagmaraka, regarding your post of Wed Mar 26, 2003 1:25 pm in which you state:

" well, according to common sense, the perpetrator is responsible for the post-war reconstruction. "

This is a fairly recently established precedent set by the U.S. at the end of WWII. Up until that time the loser of a war paid "reparations to the winner. Indeed many wars were fought exactly for this reason, to steal another's treasure (some go as far as to say this was a major contributing factor in the start of WWII). This is also why the U.S. has taken great care to safe guard Iraq's oil wells. It is essential the revenue from these wells form a large portion of resources needed for the rebuilding of Iraq. It is also essential than the Iraqi people oversee the rebuilding of their own country, not because we are nice guys, but because that is the only way this is going to really work in this volatile area.

Respectfully,

JM

I'd like to hear any meaningful debate about reconstruction between Bush and Blair also, but something tells me we won't really be privy to such a discussion if it happens at all. United front and all, y'know.

JM

Thanks for your comments on the GRU site. I must admit I was extremely sceptical at first. [And I still dont think its bone fide GRU material]

But whatever it is and wherever it comes from, its packed with the sort of detail that is so obviously missing from many sources. Its certainly interesting.

snood, I'd like to hear anything "meaningful" out of Bush - now that my friend, would be news!

JM, surely, it is the principle of the last half a century (although it was not established by the US only, it was a much wider consensus). The principle came about from the historical lessons you mention - the Versailles mechanism backfired, the League of Nations, composed as a victors' club was a failure, for both contributed to increasing tensions rather than to sustaining peace.
International law reflects this development. But the U.S. policies do not have high regard for international law, they have the power to do so. Britain does not. Hence the Blair-Bush tension.

I don't know if this story is true or not however the essence of what
Colin Powell is alleged to have said is true.

When in England at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of empire building by George Bush.

He answered by saying that, "Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return."

It became very quiet in the room.

Powell is really good at BS, isn't he! (Surprising for a member of the Bush administration...)

Several posters keep repeating about Basra, in particular, that "Saddam cut off the water". I thought this had been put with the myths by now. As BBC just again concluded: water had been shut off because of power cuts, that were the result of the damage incurred during fighting. It's back on in 50% of Basra now (some good news, finally)

Ehm, I though the beef with France was that it wouldn't "stand shoulder to shoulder" with the US in approving a resolution that would grant the US the right to start this war? So - if the beef with France is that it "cowardly" refused to join the war, how can you claim that the war wouldn't have happened if France had co-operated? The thing you were asking France to co-operate with was this war!

dagmaraka,

It is interesting you mention The League of Nations. I am not an authority on this subject but wasn't this the brainchild of Woodrow Wilson and others in an attempt to set up a United Nation type of institution after WWI? Can one equate the UN Security council with similar terminology of victors' club and instead call the 5 P members of the Security Council the nuclear club? Is there any difference between the League of Nation's relevancy then and that of the UN today when it comes to solving problems of Harsh regimes such as North Korea or Iraq that threaten other nations?

It is interesting to note that the organization that our own President, Woodrow Wilson, was so instrumental in creating was ultimately rejected by the U.S. mainly because it felt the League of Nations could not protect our national security and also had no legitimate right to tell us where and when to deploy our armed services.

JM

nimh,

My source that Baghdad had cut the electricity (Which runs the water treatment plant) was from a representative of the ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) on PBS's News Hour of 23 March 2003.

Irrespective of the reason for the cut in electricity is the fact that the coalition was concerned enough to invest Basra for humanitarian reasons. Normally forces would be satisfied to fix enemy troops in this situation. If the tables were turned would Saddams troops risk capture and death for a Sunni population?

JM

JM, no, i don't think that the league of nation is all too comparable with the united nations. united nations was contrary to LoN, based on collective security, including the losers in the war and abandoning the punitive policies of the interwar period. wilson may have meant well, but the league of nations was undermined from the beginning by the non-participation of the country of this very originator of the idea - the u.s. besides, the league has also hurt its reputation in its controversial policies managing the 'mandate regions' or colonies. it advocated group rights, as the right to self-determination, but only in select cases, when suitable to its interests.
that does not go to say the UN is free of problems, surely not. And as I said the Security COuncil especially is designed in the most unfortunate manner, some sort of an elite club that lacks transparency and accountability. but i would still claim that the un is a whole another story than the league, a much more successful one. (again, let's remember that the un is not only peacekeeping, but a vast number of other programs. which league was not.)

The UN embodies the idea that where and when a major power "deploys its armed services" in the world should no longer be up to that major power in question alone. Call it the lesson learned from the 20th century.

Of course it has only worked, and will only work, in as much as countries voluntarily accept this lesson and adhere to the UN mechanisms. Many did so because they realised that the disadvantage of no longer being able to choose all by oneself where to send one's troops next was outweighed by the advantage that no rival power could do so anymore either.

Perhaps the US now feels it is so powerful that the safeguard from others' arbitrary behaviour no longer outweighs having to limit itself. It is true that in an age where the danger it faces comes from individual terrorists in planes rather than rival states with nukes, that safeguard may seem momentarily secondary. For the other countries of the world, however, the war on Iraq has shown up the danger of another state's unchecked self-assertion clearer than ever again.

The fact that the US now seems to have opted out of the checks and balances of the UN order bodes ill for their security. What it means for US security, as it facilitates aggressive, even pre-emptive self-defence, but turns allies into sceptics, sceptics into enemies, and enemies into folk heroes of resistance, is still to be shown.

<nods>. Fair enough. That makes it an open-ended Q again, then. Perhaps I was too rash.



I think avoiding the despair that would be caused in Basra by the "humanitarian crisis" that the Red Cross was warning about, when the large population of this strategically important town could well have held the US/British troops responsible for it and acted accordingly - and when its reflection on the TV screens could well have sunk public support for the war at home - was a strategic rather than a humanitarian consideration.

In that sense I'm sure Saddam would have his troops undertake equivalent risks if the strategic stakes were high enough. He sends thousands of dollars to the family of each dead Palestinian in a grand humanitarian gesture that I'm sure reflects no humanitarian intention whatsoever.

I'm not trying to establish some kind of moral equation between Saddam and Bush here; I just think it would be dangerously naive to present the course of this war in idealistic liberation'n'aid terms.

Some may like this site [I don't drink since more than 20 years]:

the gulf war two drinking game