FOLLOWING THE EUROPEAN UNION

nimh wrote:

So if the sanctions regime would have kept Saddam contained, and the mere threat of intervention by the US had proven enough to revive the UN Security Council's commitment to the sanctions, that's mission accomplished, no? Why nevertheless already go to war anyway?

At the very least that resort could have been kept, well, a last resort in case the Security Council would actually suspend the sanctions after all. (A moment that, despite much retroactive speculating about how it was "rapidly approaching" by conservatives on a quest to rephrase the war's justification, was neither preordained nor imminent.)

Verbal threats don't do much. It was the evident preparations for intervention that did the deed. One cannot indefinitely keep such things at the ready.

I have previously recited my own rationale for our intervention in Iraq - and at great length. I don't think that repeating them now would help or illuminate anything. I am not looking for yet another rationalization or justification for it. Rather my interest was in exposing the flaws in some of the counter arguments. Namely the one that goes - Saddam was effectively contained by the no fly and sanctions regimes, hence the intervention was unnecessary. My argument is (1) He was not effectively contained as the Oil for Food matter has revealed, and (2) The sanctions could not have been sustained indefinitely.

Moreover France and Russia were particularly interested in opening new trade relations with Iraq. France had recently signed a deal with Saddam for the future development of oil fields in Mosul - which strongly indicated an adverse future dynamic. (Interestingly the secret Sykes-Piquot treaty of 1915, between Britain and France, promised these same oil fields to France following the then-planned breakup of the Ottoman Empire.)

Perhaps the French reasoned that cooperation and coaxing would eventually solve the distemper of the states of the former Ottoman Empire and mitigate whatever threat the worst of them presented in the light of the new phenomenon of Islamist terrorism. Clearly the government of the United States judged differently. History may or may not reveal the answer to us. There are good examples of the dangers of both foolish action and equally foolish inaction in the recent history of the world. In WWI we were asked to bail France and Britain out of the consequences of foolish action: in WWII it was the consequences of foolish inaction that we were asked to remedy.

0 Replies

I agree, George, that it is probably of little use to repeat our respective takes on the war. I think mine can, in the context of your post, be summarised in the observation that I've never known "indications of an adverse future dynamic" to be a legitimate casus belli. Either in the good old days of the rules of war or in this new-fangled time of UN authorisations that just doesn't cut it, in terms of engaging in a full-out war with its tens of thousands of deaths.

0 Replies

You argue well nimh.

If I ever meet a nice looking single girl at a dinner party, i will use the stuff you write, to make a good impression!

0 Replies

Nimh,

I would be interested to know your views of the conduct of Britain and France vis a vis Hitler and Mussolini during the years preceding Munich in the 1930s. Most historians concede that decisive action by Britain and France at the reoccupation of the Rhineland or the takeover of Austria or even as late as the Sudetenland crisis might well have brought about Hitler's fall - before the horrors of WWII.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Nimh,

I would be interested to know your views of the conduct of Britain and France vis a vis Hitler and Mussolini during the years preceding Munich in the 1930s. Most historians concede that decisive action by Britain and France at the reoccupation of the Rhineland or the takeover of Austria or even as late as the Sudetenland crisis might well have brought about Hitler's fall - before the horrors of WWII.

Right.

And that brings us back to the question of from what moment onwards intervention is justified; what criterium can legitimately be used to justify one. I'd say the military occupation of (parts of) another country, whether wholly forcibly or under duress, as in the case of Sudetenland, would count as one, yes. Thats also why I would say the Gulf War I, which followed Iraq's occupation of Kuwait, was justified.

Now my question would be - how do your speculations about "indications of an adverse future dynamic" equate in whatsoever way with what, in the late thirties, was the actual annexation or (partial) occupation of other countries? Where does a comparison even enter the question here? On the one hand, you have the suspicion that one day, fellow Security Council members might no longer want to uphold the sanctions and that, if they should not, then the other country's ruler might just proceed to, well, not attack any other country himself, but pass along some weapons to some other bad people who might just use them to attack a third country. On the other you have Nazi Germany already actually annexing entire (parts of) other countries with military force or under duress. And one is supposed to say what about the other?

I am neither an isolationist nor a pacifist; that there might be a time when intervention is legitimate is no question for me. What I'm questioning is whether the arguments the US or individuals like you are suggesting for this particular war hold up to any kind of traditional or common sense standard of what a legitimate casus belli would be. Now it might just be me, but speculation about "possible future adverse dynamics" in which one hypothetical diplomatic development (the possible suspension of sanctions) might over time just lead to a domestic military development (Iraq developing WMD for the first time in over a decade again) which in turn might perhaps lead to an actual attack on someone else (if the hypothesis of Saddam passing those WMD along to his Islamist enemies for the first time should actually hold up), of we dont know what scope (no terrorist attack thus far cost the number of deaths involved in a regularly-sized war) ... does somehow not strike me as enough reason to already start a war in advance, with the tens of thousands of deaths it entails.

0 Replies

Nimh,

OK you have offered a self-consistent argument. There is no doubt that our intervention in Iraq was in keeping with "traditional standards" developed over the last several centuries by European and other powers. The question is only, does it meet contemporary standards? - And, if so, whose? A follow-on question might be - in the light of history, do "contemporary standards" make sense?

I am less inclined than you to value theorizing about abstract rules of the strategic game. History and the unfolding of human events is a very pragmatic process with winners and losers. The winners write the new rules that prevail for a while - until they are overcome by new winners who write new rules. There are no enduring rules that govern the actions of men, tribes, or nations - as history has amply shown. .

The many principles of the UN charter and other of its organs are observed, to varying degrees by the nations of the world - none perfectly, and some very badly. Indeed they are the rules proclaimed by the winners of WWII - rules than none of them observed perfectly when they were adopted. It would be presumptuous indeed to suppose that they are any more permanent than were the rules of feudal warfare proclaimed by the Christian Church in Medieval Europe. In the main they are ideals towards which we strive, but which none consistently attains with anything close to perfection. They are not, as an observable fact, practical rules, which consistently govern the real actions of real nations facing real problems and real dangers. They did not prevail in the world when they were so boldly proclaimed in 1945. And they are not perfectly observed now. We shall see if we can sustain a world in which they can prevail to a tolerable degree.

The relationship between international outrage over violations of those principles bears very little correlation to the degrees of the violation. One doesn't expect much of Zimbabwe, but applies a higher standard to (say) Belgium - or the United States. Nations vary a great deal in their ability to deal with external events, wisely or unwisely, as the case may be. Nations with the greatest ability to influence external events, such as the United States, are understandably watched very carefully by others and, when convenient to the observers, held to a much higher standard. However the strategic game continues without much regard to the rules. Moreover some of our opponents don't hold to these rules at all - either in their methods or their aspirations, If they win a new and far worse set of rules will prevail.

That is the real situation we face, and I don't believe the approach you offered is adequate to deal with it.

0 Replies

The US has failed to prove any "higher standard" for our preemptive attack on Iraq. This administration used too many different justifications from WMDs, Saddam's connection to terrorists, humanitarian cause, bring democracy to the middle east, fear of what Saddam might have done in the future, Saddam's noncompliance with UN Resolutions, and bring security and freedom for Iraqis. When a superpower can't justify their initial cause for the preemptive attack, there is definitely something wrong with the "higher standard." Higher standards cannot include "we made many mistakes."

0 Replies

nimh's and George's posts were quite thought-provoking for me.

Thanks to both of you.

0 Replies

Nimh,

History strongly suggests that firm action by France and Britain when Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland would almost certainly have moved the conspirators under General Beck to stage the coup they had been (perhaps timidly) plotting. Even through the absorption of Austria and up to the threats over the Sudetenland there was a likelihood that resolve and action on the part of the architects of Versailles might have prevented what followed. However once the Czechs were betrayed and forced to give up their defensable perimeter, the issue was lost for good. Application of your standard would likely have left the world with a lost opportunity to prevent something far worse. Accepting this for the moment as an hypothesis, would you then alter your theoretical standard? If so, then what remains of your logic or principles?

0 Replies

Quote:

Chirac backs Turkish EU entry bid

French President Jacques Chirac has spoken out in favour of Turkey joining the EU ahead of a summit on Thursday to decide when membership talks can begin.

Mr Chirac, in a bid to sway a sceptical public, said on French TV that Turkey should be able to join the EU if it meets entry requirements in full.

He stressed that any of the EU's 25 members could veto Turkish entry and that France reserved "the last word".

However, he said that the EU would benefit from having Turkey aboard.

"Does Europe, and particularly France, have an interest in Turkey joining it?" he asked in a live interview on French TV.

"My answer is... 'Yes, if Turkey totally meets the conditions we impose on any candidate for our union'."

Turkey is aiming to become the largest country ever admitted to the EU, and the first nation with a majority Muslim population.

But the negotiations are expected to be protracted - possibly lasting up to 15 years.

If Turkey's application is successful, the EU's frontier would extend deep into the Middle East.

'Meaningful'

Mr Chirac's comments came hours after the European Parliament approved a non-binding resolution calling on EU leaders to open entry talks with Turkey "without undue delay".

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan welcomed the vote as "very meaningful" but warned that his country would walk away if confronted by any "unacceptable conditions".

The EU summit in Brussels on Thursday and Friday will decide whether, when and under what conditions to give Turkey a start date for membership negotiations.

Mr Chirac said that partial membership for Turkey - as suggested by some of his own supporters in France - was not an option.

"To ask a country like Turkey, a great country with a rich and long history, to make a considerable effort to reach a risky or partial result is not reasonable," he said.

If Ankara met all its accession obligations, he continued, it should not be turned away at the last moment.

"We will take a very heavy responsibility for history if, faced with a people who tell us 'We have adopted all your values, all your rules, all your objectives', we tell them, 'No thanks'," the French leader said.

A poll published earlier this week by the Le Figaro newspaper suggests that two thirds of French people oppose bringing Turkey into the 25-nation club.

'Red lines'

The MEPs' resolution - passed by 407 votes to 262 - also called for close monitoring of Turkey's progress in improving human rights, religious freedom and women's rights and said talks should be suspended at any time if Ankara wavers in these areas.
Amendments suggesting Turkey should be offered a special partnership instead of full membership, or that it should be rejected altogether, were defeated.

The BBC's Chris Morris says the number of votes against the motion reflects considerable misgivings in parts of Europe about starting membership talks with such a large, poor and overwhelmingly Muslim country.

While Turkish officials welcomed Mr Chirac's statement, they have their own conditions for entering the body.

Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul has outlined four "red lines" his country will not cross, including the imposition of permanent conditions on eventual membership.

There are concerns within the EU over the impact on EU labour markets of Turkey's 71 million-strong population, which is predicted to rise to over 80 million by 2015.

Source

0 Replies

It makes me vomit reading that article!

0 Replies

You weren't forced to.

If you're so sensible, you should consult your local pharmacy or better your doctor.

0 Replies

No, it is good to read your articles. Thanks for posting them.

0 Replies

australia wrote:

It makes me vomit reading that article!

This kind of response is incomprehensible to me.

You can agree or disagree that it's a good idea - but WHY should you be revolted by the suggestion that talks may open between the EU and Turkey?

KP

0 Replies

I think he just doesn't want to see Europe contaminated by any Turks. (He isn't too keen on what he described as the "trash" from Eastern Europe as well.).

The ensuing debate over the admission of Turkey will be interesting. I infer that the real decision is likely a decade or so away. This will add an interesting flavor to the unfolding of events and the new alignments of nations that may emerge under various alternatives yet to come. In the case at hand the result will likely yield a Turkey that is either a part of Europe, or aligned with forces that oppose it.

0 Replies

Thanks, George

I suspected much the same thing.

I agree that it will be very interesting to see what happens in respect of Turkey.

We must not forget that Turkey is already a member of NATO.

KP

0 Replies

Pete,

I agree with you, and believe, in this matter at least, that Chirac is right.

However I fear that, in ten years time, NATO may no longer exist, at least in its present form. I don't advocate this or take pleasure in its demise, but believe it is happening. The 20th century is over: Europe & America may be divorcing and reverting to their 19th century relationship.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I infer that the real decision is likely a decade or so away. This will add an interesting flavor to the unfolding of events and the new alignments of nations that may emerge under various alternatives yet to come. In the case at hand the result will likely yield a Turkey that is either a part of Europe, or aligned with forces that oppose it.

Only for those, who weren't interested before and/or forgot the facts:

Facts and figures
1959: Turkey applies for EEC membership
1963: Turkey and the EEC sign the Association Agreement (Ankara Agreement) on the liberalisation of markets for goods and financial aid; Turkey is promissed that it can apply for membership within a short time
1980 to 1983: Relationship stalls owing to Turkey's military dictatorship
1987: Turkey officially applies for EC membership
1996: EU-Turkey Customs Union takes effect
1999: Turkey is recognised as an official accession candidate
February 2002: The European Convention commences operations; Turkey is represented on the Convention
August 2002: Turkey abolishes the death penalty
December 2002: The European Council resolves that it will decide whether or not to commence accession negotiations with Turkey by the end of 2004
April 2003: Revised EU-Turkey Accession Partnership

0 Replies

Walter,

I readily agree and acknowledge the concrete actions taken so far and the momentum that implies. I also note the recent statements of several European notables, including Giscard d'Estang, highlighting the supposed cultural differences between Turkey and Europe. I will readily defer to your more intimate knowledge of these affairs. However, I have the strong impression that the issue has become rather more problematic in the Europeqan public mind (if you will permit that expression) during the last year or so, and that looking ahead there is some doubt about the matter of European acceptance of it. I also have the impression that it was in part at least concern over the matter that motivated Chirac's recent statements in support of Turkey's accession. (There is always the problem of the Greeks. If I had to choose I would take the Turks first.)

0 Replies

Words of a true democrat and defender of the free world:

Quote:

Gadhafi warns Turkey threatens EU
Thursday, December 16, 2004
ROME, Italy (Reuters) -- Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi has said it would be dangerous for the European Union to admit Turkey as a member state, calling the accession bid a "Trojan horse" for Islamic militants like Osama bin Laden.

"As far as the Islamic world is concerned -- including the Islamic extremists, even bin Laden -- they're rejoicing over the entry of Turkey in the European Union. This is their Trojan horse," he was quoted as saying by the Italian media.

"I'm saying only what will happen with the entry of the horse into Troy," he added in comments published on the day EU leaders met in Brussels to discuss whether to begin accession talks with the secular but overwhelmingly Muslim Turkey.

Gadhafi made his comments in an interview with RAI television, which is due to be aired on Friday. A transcript was printed on Thursday in Italy's La Repubblica daily.

The Libyan leader said that he did not care whether Turkey was admitted, explaining that he was "only saying what will be the consequences."

In a broad interview, also covering subjects from Afghanistan to the Arab-Israeli conflict, Gadhafi said he hoped to begin joint work with EU leaders soon on the issue of combating illegal immigration.

He said he would invite "interested" European heads of state for a summit in Tripoli, as his country ends decades of isolation. "The date is not yet established, but we are working seriously," he said.

Libya pledged to abandon its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs last year, prompting the United States to agree to lift its trade embargo earlier this year.

The United States has not, however, dropped Libya from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism, which bars Tripoli from receiving U.S. arms exports, controls sales to Libya of items with military and civilian uses and limits U.S. aid.

Gadhafi complained that Libya had still been poorly compensated for abandoning the weapons programs, and appeared to request assistance from the international community in setting up a civilian nuclear power program.

"Their reaction has been good, in terms of words, but there's been nothing concrete," Gadhafi said.

When asked what kind of compensation he was looking for Gadhafi said: "Transforming atomic (programs) to civilian use, after we decided to abandon military (program)."

He did not necessarily see new hope for the Middle East peace process following the death of Yasser Arafat, who Gadhafi called by his nom de guerre, Abu Ammar.

"I know the Americans and the Israelis said that Abu Ammar was the problem when he was alive. Ammar is dead. Will peace be realized?" Gadhafi asked.

"No. I turn the question to those who said the problem was Abu Ammar. Now the ball is in their court."

source Reuters via CNN

0 Replies

FOLLOWING THE EUROPEAN UNION

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know