[Futurework] Yamani on Iraqi oil
From today's Sunday Telegraph Business Supplement: Yamani: US wants to privatise Iraqi oilfields by Mary Fagan The US is examining ways of privatising the Iraqi oilfields, according to Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani, the former Saudi oil minister. Speaking to The Sunday Telegraph, Yamani also said that oil prices could soar beyond $50 per barrell, wreaking havoc with the world economy, if Saddam Hussein burns the oilfeidls during the expected war. We know that oil is very important and already the Americans have started to dispose of Iraqi oil [by offering it to others]. It is said that Iraqi oil will be kept in custody for the Iraqi nation but they have even started studies of how to privatise the oil industry in Iraq. What does that tell you? The majority of people everywhere say this is a war which is about oil, Yamani said. He said burning the Iraqi oilfeilds could destroy them, creating a disastrous lack of crude. Whether it's $50 or $80, any price abouve $50 is extremely harmful to the world economy. The damage would be done, he said. . . . . KSH Keith Hudson, General Editor, Handlo Music, http://www.handlo.com 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff!
Keith, What a nice set-up you've provided for a gentle proposal by a woman! Thanks! Gail You wrote: From: Keith Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Harry Pollard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 2:00 AM Subject: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff! It's the testosterone that's doing it! At this stage of the war, all sorts of otherwise reasonable male politicians (as well as the male editor and mainly male staff of the Economist) are becoming turned on and turning into rabid supporters. ... Shame on them for forsaking their rationality. Here's the proposal: March 16, 2003 The time has come for the Security Council to do something bold... Article 1, Chapter 1 of the UN Charter states that the first purpose of the United Nations is to maintain international peace and security, and to that end, to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace... A member country of the United Nations -- Iraq under Saddam Hussein -- possesses weapons of mass destruction and has not disarmed as demanded by the UN Security Council. This behavior is destroying international peace and undermining a general sense of security. Some member states, in a coalition of the willing, are threatening war against Iraq in the absence of effective early action by the Security Council. The Security Council is not simply empowered but is obligated to take action to maintain or restore international peace and security. Member states of the UN are committed, if asked, to contribute forces and resources through negotiated agreements with the UN. Accepting its obligation and immediately calling upon member states to contribute toward effective collective measures, the Security Council establishes itself as the responsible enforcement agency in the situation, not just a forum. The initiative by the Security Council to mobilize its own forces and resources changes the structure and character of the discussion. In the process of negotiation between the Security Council and those providing assistance (many nations, including the coalition of the willing ), an early timetable for the effective disarmament of Iraq, with only necessary use of force, is established. An illegitimate war threatening international peace and security is averted in favour of a legitimate UN police action strengthening international peace and security. THE UNITED NATIONS. A great idea. A grand agreement. The time has come to do something bold [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff!
Nice idea, Gail, but I don't think that the Security Council really matters much any more except in terms of giving us some insights into the current great game. It is most unlikely that it will ever again provide a forum for collective action, if it ever did that. I don't really understand the game, but I do believe it has a lot to do with America expanding and consolidating its powers globally, and other major players - France, Russia, Germany and China in particular - attempting to counteract it because it threatens their own visions of the future. If the countries of eastern Europe and Japan appear to be supporting the Americans, you can bet they are thinking of their own interests, not those of Iraqi women and children or the tyrant Saddam. All one can hope for in all of this is some kind of prolonged stalemate - sort of a political cold war in which there is continuous jockeying but no real conflagration. And it's not about testosterone. The globalized and now multi-polar world has become a very tight place with little room to maneuver. There's no free space left, and the major European powers rightly sense that America's ascendancy is their decline. Ed Weick - Original Message - From: G. Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Keith Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 7:45 AM Subject: Re: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff! Keith, What a nice set-up you've provided for a gentle proposal by a woman! Thanks! Gail You wrote: From: Keith Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Harry Pollard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 2:00 AM Subject: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff! It's the testosterone that's doing it! At this stage of the war, all sorts of otherwise reasonable male politicians (as well as the male editor and mainly male staff of the Economist) are becoming turned on and turning into rabid supporters. ... Shame on them for forsaking their rationality. Here's the proposal: March 16, 2003 The time has come for the Security Council to do something bold... Article 1, Chapter 1 of the UN Charter states that the first purpose of the United Nations is to maintain international peace and security, and to that end, to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace... A member country of the United Nations -- Iraq under Saddam Hussein -- possesses weapons of mass destruction and has not disarmed as demanded by the UN Security Council. This behavior is destroying international peace and undermining a general sense of security. Some member states, in a coalition of the willing, are threatening war against Iraq in the absence of effective early action by the Security Council. The Security Council is not simply empowered but is obligated to take action to maintain or restore international peace and security. Member states of the UN are committed, if asked, to contribute forces and resources through negotiated agreements with the UN. Accepting its obligation and immediately calling upon member states to contribute toward effective collective measures, the Security Council establishes itself as the responsible enforcement agency in the situation, not just a forum. The initiative by the Security Council to mobilize its own forces and resources changes the structure and character of the discussion. In the process of negotiation between the Security Council and those providing assistance (many nations, including the coalition of the willing ), an early timetable for the effective disarmament of Iraq, with only necessary use of force, is established. An illegitimate war threatening international peace and security is averted in favour of a legitimate UN police action strengthening international peace and security. THE UNITED NATIONS. A great idea. A grand agreement. The time has come to do something bold [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework ___ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
RE: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff!
H.interesting. 1) What provides any country, or the United Nations Security Council, with the 'right' to disarm Iraq? 2) What, specifically, are the resources you mention that the UNSC can 'mobilize'? L -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of G. Stewart Sent: Sun, March 16, 2003 7:46 AM To: Keith Hudson Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff! Keith, What a nice set-up you've provided for a gentle proposal by a woman! Thanks! Gail You wrote: From: Keith Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Harry Pollard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 2:00 AM Subject: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff! It's the testosterone that's doing it! At this stage of the war, all sorts of otherwise reasonable male politicians (as well as the male editor and mainly male staff of the Economist) are becoming turned on and turning into rabid supporters. ... Shame on them for forsaking their rationality. Here's the proposal: March 16, 2003 The time has come for the Security Council to do something bold... Article 1, Chapter 1 of the UN Charter states that the first purpose of the United Nations is to maintain international peace and security, and to that end, to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace... A member country of the United Nations -- Iraq under Saddam Hussein -- possesses weapons of mass destruction and has not disarmed as demanded by the UN Security Council. This behavior is destroying international peace and undermining a general sense of security. Some member states, in a coalition of the willing, are threatening war against Iraq in the absence of effective early action by the Security Council. The Security Council is not simply empowered but is obligated to take action to maintain or restore international peace and security. Member states of the UN are committed, if asked, to contribute forces and resources through negotiated agreements with the UN. Accepting its obligation and immediately calling upon member states to contribute toward effective collective measures, the Security Council establishes itself as the responsible enforcement agency in the situation, not just a forum. The initiative by the Security Council to mobilize its own forces and resources changes the structure and character of the discussion. In the process of negotiation between the Security Council and those providing assistance (many nations, including the coalition of the willing ), an early timetable for the effective disarmament of Iraq, with only necessary use of force, is established. An illegitimate war threatening international peace and security is averted in favour of a legitimate UN police action strengthening international peace and security. THE UNITED NATIONS. A great idea. A grand agreement. The time has come to do something bold [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework ___ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
[Futurework] Rome is burning
While Nero fiddles, an issue emerges amid all the others on fire. Also see the National Academies report, The Future of the Public's Health in the 21st Century, which can be ordered through their Web site www.nap.edu. The 18 page Executive Summary is available in Open Book printable format, as is the rest of the 500 page report. Chapter (3) The Governmental Health Care Structure, confirms that the bioterrorism threats to the public made apparent after 9/11 are a casus belli for political reconsideration of universal health care, as public health officials, intelligence agencies and others charged with protecting the public learned how difficult it was to coordinate communication among the disparate, separate and not equal health care systems under duress. Karen Watters Cole Health Insurance Back as Key Issue Campaign by Unlikely Allies for Universal Coverage Reflects Big Shift in Public Opinion By Ceci Connolly and Amy Goldstein, Washington Post Staff Writers, Sunday, March 16, 2003; Page A05 A decade after the collapse of President Bill Clinton's attempt to redesign the nation's health care system, an unlikely alliance of consumer advocates, business leaders and policymakers across the political spectrum has coalesced into a new movement that seeks health insurance for every American. In statehouses, presidential campaigns and corporate boardrooms, calls for universal coverage have surfaced in recent months. The issue is regaining a prominent spot on the national agenda as a result of skyrocketing insurance premiums, rising medical bills, the stalled economy -- and a widening belief that piecemeal government efforts to expand health insurance coverage in recent years have not reduced the number of people who get no help paying for medical care. Already, the chief executive officer of Blue Shield of California, leading members of Congress, and legislative leaders in Maryland, Illinois and Maine have drafted detailed proposals that would extend health coverage to everyone who lacks it. This week, a coalition of unions, insurers, medical societies and business groups is staging events in 28 cities across the country to dramatize the plight of the uninsured. My brother, a conservative small businessman, is saying maybe it's time for the government to take over health insurance, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said. The one change I've noticed in the last few months is that businesspeople for the first time are questioning whether private health insurance can survive. It is just an extraordinary thing. Collins is not prepared to embrace a universal coverage plan just yet, but her experience reflects a dramatic shift in public attitudes. In the early 1990s, the discussion was dominated largely by liberal advocates who promoted the idea of a single payer system of government-run insurance. This time, the constituencies -- and the solutions being proposed -- are far more diverse. There is a cry something big needs to be done, said Neil Trautwein, director of employment policy for the National Association of Manufacturers, a business group that opposed Clinton's health plan of the early 1990s. While such new voices are giving the movement for health insurance substantial political impetus, it remains unclear whether any solution will emerge quickly at the federal level or in the states. Beneath the agreement over the need for more insurance lie philosophical differences over how to provide coverage and how to pay for it. Some of the new proposals would require employers to take more responsibility to cover workers, some envision new state insurance-purchasing plans, and others -- favored by business interests and the Bush administration -- rely on private market approaches. For the first time, I think you have throughout the ideological spectrum people saying this needs to be a priority, said Ron Pollack, executive director of the left-leaning Families USA. But they have not been able to agree on how this priority should be channeled. Still, there is little doubt that the issue has assumed a prominence it has not had for years. As the 2004 presidential field takes shape, two Democratic aspirants -- Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.) and former Vermont governor Howard Dean -- have made universal health coverage a central theme of their campaigns, although their plans differ markedly. In Maine, Gov. John E. Baldacci (D) issued an executive order on his first day in office in January establishing a new state agency responsible for making health insurance available to everyone in the state. And on Capitol Hill, centrist Sen. John Breaux (D-La.) has issued a plan that would guarantee all Americans a basic insurance plan. Low- and middle-income people would receive federal subsidies through tax credits, and each state would be required to oversee insurance-purchasing pools. If the plight of the uninsured sounds familiar, it is. Aside from a brief dip during the boom years of the mid-1990s, the
[Futurework] It's the testosterone (was Powerful Stuff)
The Washington Post demonstrates that it, too is struggling. I would summarize this as Yes, but- KWC WP Editorial: Damage Control Sunday, March 16, 2003; Page B06 We hope the summit today in the Azores will offer a way out of the impasse on Iraq at the United Nations Security Council. But the flurry of activity at the White House on Friday, when President Bush's meeting with the British and Spanish prime ministers was abruptly confirmed, looked more like damage control than serious diplomacy. Even while announcing the summit, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer flatly ruled out the most plausible compromise formula for a U.N. resolution, which would involve a 30- to 45-day postponement of any military campaign. Mr. Bush, meanwhile, shifted the focus toward his postwar strategy, announcing his support of a road map for Israeli-Palestinian peace. Hours later, the White House summoned reporters for a briefing on plans for an interim Iraqi administration. It appears the stage is being set not for more diplomacy but for war -- a war the United States will enter with less support than it should have. Military action to disarm Iraq appears to us both inevitable and necessary, because of Saddam Hussein's refusal to comply with repeated U.N. disarmament orders. Still, we have argued that the United States would do well to agree to a delay if it seemed likely to lead to greater international support, including most of the countries on the Security Council. The Bush administration appears inclined to act with a considerably narrower alliance -- thereby exposing key allies such as British Prime Minister Tony Blair to grave political peril -- rather than hold off for a few weeks. That increases the risks and potential costs of an Iraq campaign, as well as those of the postwar reconstruction. Mr. Bush deserves credit for insisting since last summer that Iraq's intransigence was an issue that could no longer be ducked. In the intervening months, it has become clear that some countries, including France and Russia, would oppose meaningful action against Saddam Hussein no matter what. These countries have defended Iraq for years, and they see containment of U.S. power as more important than the disarmament of rogue states. Yet with more diplomatic suppleness, more flexibility on timing and less arrogant tactics and rhetoric, the administration might have won the backing of long-standing friends such as Turkey, Mexico and Chile. In effect, Mr. Bush and some of his top aides, most notably Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, have managed to convince much of the world that French President Jacques Chirac is right and that America's unrivaled power is a danger that somehow must be checked -- ideally by the votes of other nations on the Security Council. The United States has never accepted such a constraint, and it cannot do so now. On the contrary, the Iraq crisis should make clear to France and its sympathizers that after the catastrophe of Sept. 11, the United States is ready to use its strength to face threats to world peace that it tried to contain or ignore in the first decade after the Cold War. For all the bitterness and diplomatic turmoil, that is an important and necessary outcome -- which is one reason why, even without another Security Council vote, Iraq must be disarmed. Yet the quagmire at the United Nations, and the now-massive opposition in countries around the world to the removal of a murderous dictator, ought to offer some lessons to the Bush administration. If it is to succeed in its hugely ambitious agenda of combating terrorism and spreading democratic values, it must repair the rift among the Western democracies and build broad and effective coalitions. That, in turn, will require listening more to allies, showing flexibility in strategies and timetables, and speaking to the world in a voice that sounds more reasonable than arrogant. The right place to start is with the issues the White House raised Friday: the Arab-Israeli peace process and the postwar administration of Iraq. In both areas, the Bush administration could try to go its own way -- or it could pursue policies that would enlist the support of a broad front of allies. Given the very small circle of friends that will gather in the Azores today, recruiting allies will only become more important in the coming months. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31110-2003Mar15.html
[Futurework] Re: Security Council's responsibility [was Futurework] It's the testosterone (was Powerful Stuff)
Karen, There is also this: BETWEEN THE LINES - ONLINE - BY JONATHAN ALTER A Hail-Mary Peace Plan Here's a last-minute idea for how to avert war with Iraq Newsweek Web Exclusive: March 15 - I'm not a dove, but if I were, I'd be looking for a 'Hail Mary' pass just about now. Signing petitions and marching in the streets isn't going to stop this war or even delay it. Nor will beating the United States in the United Nations Security Council. Prayers for a coup in Baghdad or a change of heart in Washington are useless. SO IT'S TIME for a little out-of-the-box (or even off-the-wall) thinking. The first question is whether there' s anyone with the stature to spearhead a creative alternative, and the answer is yes. His name is Kofi Annan. If the Secretary General decided to step forward and lead the U.N., not rhetorically but literally, the status quo in Iraq could be transformed quickly, and, most likely, peacefully. So far, the Security Council has been obstructing and dithering, but not acting (He goes on, with his own plan) http://www.msnbc.com/news/885729.asp?0cv=KB10#BODY Gail Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Karen Watters Cole To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Keith Hudson Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 11:42 AM Subject: [Futurework] It's the testosterone (was Powerful Stuff) The Washington Post demonstrates that it, too is struggling. I would summarize this as Yes, but.- KWC WP Editorial: Damage Control Sunday, March 16, 2003; Page B06 We hope the summit today in the Azores will offer a way out of the impasse on Iraq at the United Nations Security Council. But the flurry of activity at the White House on Friday, when President Bush's meeting with the British and Spanish prime ministers was abruptly confirmed, looked more like damage control than serious diplomacy. ... ___ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
[Futurework] RE: Security Councils Responsibility
Gail - Yes, Alters Hail Mary Pass is interesting reading but he does close by saying most are resigned to the conclusion that the die is cast; however he adds that only those who have presented workable solutions should be in the complaining business. The legal question, condensed for we lowly layman, seems to be WHO gets to determine WHAT the serious consequences are and WHO gets to enforce them? Religious groups, such as the Sojourners, and others are promoting a Six Point Plan which emphasizes prosecuting Hussein as a war criminal in an international tribunal, citing Milosovichs Wanted Alive posters, eventual capture and trial demonstrating that this can work to topple a dictator. Pscyh Ops may have more success than military Ops in some nations more than others. Timing and finesse are a beautiful thing, nest pas? See http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action="">. It also appeared in the following Op-Ed, and essentially follows what former Pres. Carter and others proposed earlier. Regards, Karen Watters Cole Op-Ed: There Is a Third Way By Jim Wallis and John Bryson Chane @ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23271-2003Mar13.html Friday, March 14, 2003; Page A27 It is the eleventh hour, and the world is poised on the edge of war. Church leaders have warned of the unpredictable and potentially disastrous consequences of war against Iraq -- massive civilian casualties, a precedent for preemptive war, further destabilization of the Middle East and the fueling of more terrorism. Yet the failure to effectively disarm Saddam Hussein and his brutal regime could also have catastrophic consequences. The potential nexus between weapons of mass destruction and terrorism is the leading security issue in the world today. This is the moral dilemma: a decision between the terrible nature of that threat and the terrible nature of war as a solution. The world is desperate for a third way between war and ineffectual responses -- and it must be strong enough to be a serious alternative to war. The threat of military force has been decisive in building an international consensus for the disarming of Iraq, for the return of inspectors and for pressuring Hussein to comply. The serious consequences threatened by the Security Council need not mean war. They should mean further and more decisive actions against Hussein and his regime, rather than a devastating attack on the people of Iraq. On Feb. 18 a group of U.S. church leaders, accompanied by colleagues from the United Kingdom and the Anglican communion, met with Prime Minister Tony Blair and his secretary of state for international development, Clare Short, to discuss alternatives to war. The following elements of a third way -- an alternative to war -- were developed from those discussions and subsequent conversations within our U.S. delegation: Remove Hussein and the Baath Party from power. The Bush administration and the antiwar movement are agreed on one thing -- Hussein is a brutal and dangerous dictator. Virtually nobody has any sympathy for him, either in the West or in the Arab world, but everybody has great sympathy for the Iraqi people, who have already suffered greatly from war, a decade of sanctions and the corrupt and violent regime of Hussein. So let's separate Hussein from the Iraqi people. Target him, but protect them. As urged by Human Rights Watch and others, the Security Council should establish an international tribunal to indict Hussein and his top officials for war crimes and crimes against humanity. This would send a clear signal to the world that he has no future. It would set into motion both internal and external forces that might remove him from power. It would make clear that no solution to this conflict will include Hussein or his supporters staying in power. Morton Halperin has pointed out: As we have seen in Yugoslavia and Rwanda, such tribunals can discredit and even destroy criminal regimes. Pursue coercive disarmament. Removing Hussein must be coupled with greatly intensified inspections. This would mean not just more inspectors but inspections conducted more aggressively and on a much broader scale. The existing U.S. military deployment should be restructured as a multinational force with a U.N. mandate to support and enforce inspections. The force would accompany inspectors to conduct extremely intrusive inspections, retaliate against any interference and destroy any weapons of mass destruction it found. There should be unrestricted use of spy planes and expanded no-fly and no-drive zones. Foster a democratic Iraq. The United Nations should begin immediately to plan for a post-Hussein Iraq, administered temporarily by the United Nations and backed by an international armed force, rather than a U.S. military occupation. An American viceroy in an occupied Iraq is the wrong solution. An internationally directed post-Hussein administration could assist Iraqis in initiating a constitutional process
RE: [Futurework] Security Council's responsibility (was Re: It's the testosterone)
Thank you for your answer...let's examine the matter a little deeper. Does any resolution of the UNSC carry the force of law? If not, why interpret 1441 in this particular way? If so, why not enforce the many other UNSC resolutions that get ignored? What evidence is there that Iraq possesses 'weapons of mass destruction'? If Iraq possess them, what evidence is there that they threaten international peace? Should all countries possessing WMD be disarmed? If not, why not? Concerning resources 'of the UNSC' -- the UNSC does not control nor own the resources of UN members. Are you suggesting that the UNSC commandeer them in some way? Does it worry you that some members of the UNSC have veto power over UNSC actions? Do you trust these members to faithfully themselves implement international law? Leaving the UN aside, are there not principles of international law more relevant to the US and Iraq then the UN Charter? If the UNSC has the power that you attribute to it, why has it not done as you suggest? If the UN Charter allows the 'disarming on Iraq', as you suggest, why is it that the US doesn't let the UNSC get on with it? Leaving the UN aside, do you, personally, advocate the 'disarming' of Iraq? If so, would support the disarming, say, of North Korea? Iran? Ukraine? Israel? The USA? Spain? Canada? Switzerland? If not any or all of them, why not? How do YOU make the distinctions? Best regards, L -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of G. Stewart Sent: Sun, March 16, 2003 12:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Futurework] Security Council's responsibility (was Re: It's the testosterone) Larry, (I should preface this by saying that, almost whatever the statement issued from the Azores in a few minutes, I think my proposal for action by the Security Council will still be relevant and it will not be too late for it to be implemented. But I'll post again to this list if I feel the need to change this statement.) In a world desperately trying to protect its peace and security I think there are some pretty good answers to your questions. There is of course no firm bottom to the present situation, no international law that can be relied upon, no court to which we can all turn for a final answer beyond appeal. The international situation isn't like the situation within a single country where there may be close to an agreed-upon monopoly for the legitimate use of force. Thus the game (desperately being played at the moment by the diplomats)is to try to construct a set of stepping stones over this soggy international ground, stepping stones rational and plausible enough that they will constitute a widely accepted (court of world opinion) path through the situation so that we don't all set out to kill each other over our differences. It was such a set of stepping stones, procedural moves, that I was trying to offer -- that I hoped might do the trick. I don't like the current situation: the centre (at least the best one we have at the moment, the Security Council, isn't holding) and without some such shared dialogue we could really be in trouble. So your questions are very relevant: is the ground of assumptions on which my proposal is based sufficiently firm that it stands a chance of maintaining its credibility? I think it is, and here's why. You ask: 1) What provides any country, or the United Nations Security Council, with the 'right' to disarm Iraq? I would answer: Iraq has made itself a member nation of the United Nations, and thus is under some obligation to respect its primary purpose: Article 1 The Purposes of the United Nations are: 1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace; Within the UN, the Security Council bears responsibility for the fulfillment of this purpose: Chapter V Article 24: 1. In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf. The Security Council has resolved that the possession of weapons of mass destruction by Iraq threatens the maintenance of international peace and security and Iraq must disarm itself of such weapons. You can go behind this, if you like, and say what authority has the United Nations but one can ask this of any institution. All are socially constructed and
RE: [Futurework] It's the testosterone (was Powerful Stuff)
Hi, Karen, There is a growing opposition to the invasion of Iraq among many who in the past unquestioningly supported it, and this includes the Washington Post and many of its writers. Increasingly, Bush is seen as wrong and isolated, with the theories of his advisors falling into disrepute. Oddly, some argue that opposition leaves Bush with fewer alternatives to going ahead, anyway, that he is 'too far in' to 'pull back.' I guess the implication is that public opinion as well as expert opinion should not influence foreign policy -- I don't quite follow the logic, I admit. Interestingly, many of his advisors who were seemingly happy to take to the airwaves to extol the policy are now nowhere to be heard: Cheney, Ashcroft, Rove, and, less and less, Rice, Wolfowitz,and even Rumsfeld. Only Powell seems to be willing to shoulder the load, and that seems strange, given Powell's apparent position earlier ofproactively creatingalternatives to invasion. As the policy comes to be seen as more and more ill-fated, I can see why the former would start looking for the exits, but Powell remains a mystery for me. Will he be the 'tragic figure' of the Bush administration? The wheels came off the Bush bus some time ago, as I have been reporting to some of you for some time. But, careening as it is out control down the road, it still has great momentum, and is, if anything, more dangerous than a bus that still has its wheels. There is a still a chance, I hope,that Bush will figure out that the game is over and find a way to back down that is graceful enough to meet his personal needs. I continue to be more optimistic than just about everyone else I know here, and even my friends are characterizing me as 'deluded' for holding out this estimate that the war will not occur, that Bush will find a way out of a box he has put himself in. Consensus has emerged publicly here in Washington that if the US goes in, nothing but bad consequences will occur, and you've all heard the list sufficiently that I won't repeat it here. One new element that concerns me is the growing perception that pro-Israeli American Jews are behind the President's ill-fated course of action, and that they have sacrificed the interests of the US in favor of those of Israel. They point to the strong links between the neoconservatives in the Bush administration and Israel. My great concern is that this issue may mutate into a general anti-Semitic reaction in the US, and perhaps elsewhere. Jim Moran, a local congressman, suggested that it were not for American Jewish support for the war that Bush would never have gone down this road has triggered a major attack on Moran by Jewish groups, and the aggressiveness of their attacks is being taken as confirmation of the very accusation that triggered their wrath in the first place. So my concern is no longer a conceptual one, but now is bolstered by events that are currently happening. Sadly, and in haste, L -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Karen Watters ColeSent: Sun, March 16, 2003 11:43 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Cc: Keith HudsonSubject: [Futurework] It's the testosterone (was Powerful Stuff) The Washington Post demonstrates that it, too is struggling. I would summarize this as Yes, but - KWC WP Editorial: Damage Control Sunday, March 16, 2003; Page B06 We hope the summit today in the Azores will offer a way out of the impasse on Iraq at the United Nations Security Council. But the flurry of activity at the White House on Friday, when President Bush's meeting with the British and Spanish prime ministers was abruptly confirmed, looked more like damage control than serious diplomacy. Even while announcing the summit, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer flatly ruled out the most plausible compromise formula for a U.N. resolution, which would involve a 30- to 45-day postponement of any military campaign. Mr. Bush, meanwhile, shifted the focus toward his postwar strategy, announcing his support of a "road map" for Israeli-Palestinian peace. Hours later, the White House summoned reporters for a briefing on plans for an interim Iraqi administration. It appears the stage is being set not for more diplomacy but for war -- a war the United States will enter with less support than it should have. Military action to disarm Iraq appears to us both inevitable and necessary, because of Saddam Hussein's refusal to comply with repeated U.N. disarmament orders. Still, we have argued that the United States would do well to agree to a delay if it seemed likely to lead to greater international support, including most of the countries on the Security Council. The Bush administration appears inclined to act with a considerably narrower alliance -- thereby exposing key allies such as British Prime Minister Tony Blair to
Re: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff!
Hi Gail, You've hit upon what must inevitably happen, either within the UN or a successor organisation. It must have a Security Council that is independent of nation-states and has the resources to carry out effective action as soon as it is decided that a nation-state is dangerous to others. How that can come about is quite another matter. However, there are two interesting developments of the last twenty years or so which, if they continue, give some promise that a better Security Council will occur over the longer term future. One is the development of what is called segregative diplomacy. That is, nations in dispute with others over particularly tricky issues are learning to keep negotiations on these quite separate from other less tricky issues and not to conflate them into comprehensive confrontation. The second is that nation-states are increasingly realising that they are having to yield parts of their hitherto jealously guarded sovereignty to some larger specialised agency or governance -- e.g. the WTO, North Sea fishing rights, control over water extraction from rivers or aquifers which stretch across national boundaries, etc. But we're a long way from a new sort of UN yet. Perhaps it shouldn't be called the United Nations, because nation-states never will be united. However, the UK ambassador to the UN between 1986 and 1998, while arguing with Perle yesterday on ITV, said that he thought that the UN could be either strengthened or weakened by the way the war is fought. Either way, America has already realised that the world won't tolerate the way it is trying to browbeat the UN and that present membership and rules of the Security Council will have to be radically reformed. Keith Hudson At 07:45 16/03/03 -0500, you wrote: Keith, What a nice set-up you've provided for a gentle proposal by a woman! Thanks! Gail You wrote: From: Keith Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Harry Pollard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 2:00 AM Subject: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff! It's the testosterone that's doing it! At this stage of the war, all sorts of otherwise reasonable male politicians (as well as the male editor and mainly male staff of the Economist) are becoming turned on and turning into rabid supporters. ... Shame on them for forsaking their rationality. Here's the proposal: March 16, 2003 The time has come for the Security Council to do something bold... Article 1, Chapter 1 of the UN Charter states that the first purpose of the United Nations is to maintain international peace and security, and to that end, to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace... A member country of the United Nations -- Iraq under Saddam Hussein -- possesses weapons of mass destruction and has not disarmed as demanded by the UN Security Council. This behavior is destroying international peace and undermining a general sense of security. Some member states, in a coalition of the willing, are threatening war against Iraq in the absence of effective early action by the Security Council. The Security Council is not simply empowered but is obligated to take action to maintain or restore international peace and security. Member states of the UN are committed, if asked, to contribute forces and resources through negotiated agreements with the UN. Accepting its obligation and immediately calling upon member states to contribute toward effective collective measures, the Security Council establishes itself as the responsible enforcement agency in the situation, not just a forum. The initiative by the Security Council to mobilize its own forces and resources changes the structure and character of the discussion. In the process of negotiation between the Security Council and those providing assistance (many nations, including the coalition of the willing ), an early timetable for the effective disarmament of Iraq, with only necessary use of force, is established. An illegitimate war threatening international peace and security is averted in favour of a legitimate UN police action strengthening international peace and security. THE UNITED NATIONS. A great idea. A grand agreement. The time has come to do something bold [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework Keith Hudson, General Editor, Handlo Music, http://www.handlo.com 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff!
Keith, Can the development you point to be accelerated? Is there any hope that the Security Council, tomorrow, would assume responsibility for the use of force-if-necessary, calling upon member nations to contribute and then setting out its own effective timetable (and incidently converting a potential illegal war between nations into a legal international police action). I can see no other speedy move that would re-structure the situation in such a way as to satisfy both the growing alliance for peace and the Azores alliance, while doing the job of ensuring the Iraqi regime is effectively disarmed. Regards, Gail Gail Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Keith Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: G. Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 3:27 PM Subject: Re: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff! Hi Gail, You've hit upon what must inevitably happen, either within the UN or a successor organisation. It must have a Security Council that is independent of nation-states and has the resources to carry out effective action as soon as it is decided that a nation-state is dangerous to others. How that can come about is quite another matter. However, there are two interesting developments of the last twenty years or so which, if they continue, give some promise that a better Security Council will occur over the longer term future. One is the development of what is called segregative diplomacy. That is, nations in dispute with others over particularly tricky issues are learning to keep negotiations on these quite separate from other less tricky issues and not to conflate them into comprehensive confrontation. The second is that nation-states are increasingly realising that they are having to yield parts of their hitherto jealously guarded sovereignty to some larger specialised agency or governance -- e.g. the WTO, North Sea fishing rights, control over water extraction from rivers or aquifers which stretch across national boundaries, etc. But we're a long way from a new sort of UN yet. Perhaps it shouldn't be called the United Nations, because nation-states never will be united. However, the UK ambassador to the UN between 1986 and 1998, while arguing with Perle yesterday on ITV, said that he thought that the UN could be either strengthened or weakened by the way the war is fought. Either way, America has already realised that the world won't tolerate the way it is trying to browbeat the UN and that present membership and rules of the Security Council will have to be radically reformed. Keith Hudson At 07:45 16/03/03 -0500, you wrote: Keith, What a nice set-up you've provided for a gentle proposal by a woman! Thanks! Gail You wrote: From: Keith Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Harry Pollard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 2:00 AM Subject: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff! It's the testosterone that's doing it! At this stage of the war, all sorts of otherwise reasonable male politicians (as well as the male editor and mainly male staff of the Economist) are becoming turned on and turning into rabid supporters. ... Shame on them for forsaking their rationality. Here's the proposal: March 16, 2003 The time has come for the Security Council to do something bold... Article 1, Chapter 1 of the UN Charter states that the first purpose of the United Nations is to maintain international peace and security, and to that end, to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace... A member country of the United Nations -- Iraq under Saddam Hussein -- possesses weapons of mass destruction and has not disarmed as demanded by the UN Security Council. This behavior is destroying international peace and undermining a general sense of security. Some member states, in a coalition of the willing, are threatening war against Iraq in the absence of effective early action by the Security Council. The Security Council is not simply empowered but is obligated to take action to maintain or restore international peace and security. Member states of the UN are committed, if asked, to contribute forces and resources through negotiated agreements with the UN. Accepting its obligation and immediately calling upon member states to contribute toward effective collective measures, the Security Council establishes itself as the responsible enforcement agency in the situation, not just a forum. The initiative by the Security Council to mobilize its own forces and resources changes the structure and character of the discussion. In the process of negotiation between the Security Council and those providing assistance (many nations, including the coalition of the willing ), an early timetable for the effective disarmament of Iraq,
Re: [Futurework] Security Council's responsibility
Lawry, Thanks. I've been hoping to see such discussion on this list. I'd like to take your points in turn. Gail Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Lawrence DeBivort [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 2:12 PM Subject: RE: [Futurework] Security Council's responsibility (was Re: It's the testosterone) Thank you for your answer...let's examine the matter a little deeper. Does any resolution of the UNSC carry the force of law? As will all questions about international law, it seems to depend. There are some areas where international law is fairly well established, others where it is not. The UN Security Council has I think probably been careless over the years in trying to ensure the effect of its resolutions. The degree to which any decisions carry the force of law depends on whether people obey them and precedents that are felt to be binding become established. I worry a bit that your question seems to imply a world where the force of law is objectively determined by the issuer, rather than how it functions. Any of us can issue laws: their force is what happens in consequence. Thus some see 1441 as If not, why interpret 1441 in this particular way? Any resolution of the UNSC is able to carry the force of law: whether it does or not is another matter. The purpose of interpreting it as carrying the force of law is that the actions of the Security Council are meant for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security. This being so, we would surely be foolish to dismiss them, ab initio, as not being at least intended to carry the force of law? If so, why not enforce the many other UNSC resolutions that get ignored? A good question: this is where the Security Council needs to be careful not to get into the condition of some legislatures that have what has been called, the disease of hyperlexia! What evidence is there that Iraq possesses 'weapons of mass destruction'? Apart from the evidence that they are already destroying, at UN command, some longer-range missiles than they were authorized to have, the reports of earlier inspections showed the presence of WMD for which plausible evidence of destruction has not been provided. The UN resolution put the onus on Iraq to show what has happened to them. If Iraq possess them, what evidence is there that they threaten international peace? The mere possession of WMD by anyone or any nation is surely a threat to international peace, which is why the world is trying to get rid of them. Should all countries possessing WMD be disarmed? In my view yes, starting with non-proliferation and moving to disarmament as fast as we can put effective global monitoring institutions, and an effective international architecture for peace-keeping, into place. I see it as a global learning process in which the last few months will prove very helpful. It is immensely heartening to see so many people concerned with peace. If we can now learn as well how to set up mechanisms that will effectively enforce peace it will be a big step forward from the cold war balance of power days of mutually assured destruction. If not, why not? Answered above: I think they should disarm, and we should, as the international peacekeeping mechanisms are developed and strengthen, be concerned about those that don't. This is one reason why Iraq is a concern: it does not need WMD and its possession of them (or failure credibly to demonstrate that it has disposed of them) puts it at more rather than less threat of external threat. This is surely one reason that the Iraq regime may be regarded as dangerous: it is unnecessaarily putting its own population at risk. It would be interesting to know how the dictionary of mental disorders would view such behaviour. Concerning resources 'of the UNSC' -- the UNSC does not control nor own the resources of UN members. Are you suggesting that the UNSC commandeer them in some way? Commandeer is an odd word in the circumstances: it has been given authority to acquire such resources so by the member nations of the UN and has previously called upon the member nations for such resources when needed. (Some think it should have a standing police force but for the present I think the arrangement that it is able to call upon member countries, as needed, is about as far as we would want to go. The UN General Assembly is, after all, not an elected body and we haven't yet worked out ways in which it can be held accountable by the world's people. Does it worry you that some members of the UNSC have veto power over UNSC actions? Good question. No, I don't think it worries me. There was some reason for it when it was first established. There might be some question now as to which nations should hold this power but I think diplomacy has done pretty well in working about it where needed, e.g. by abstentions. Do you trust these members to faithfully themselves implement international
[Futurework] RE: It's the testosterone (was Powerful stuff!)
Likewise, Madeline Albright and the current French Ambassador to the US appeared together Thursday in a public forum and both answered questions, made diplomatic gestures repeating that we had far more interests in common besides the current dispute. I just saw this on CSpan. Albright went so far as to say that as a private citizen she thought both the presidents of the US and France had begun acting like schoolboys determined to do whatever it took to irritate or oppose the other in competition, not grownups. There were remarks about veto powers in the Security Council and questions from the floor about past French unilateralism, for example, that the Ambassador deftly declared were Old France, not new France, eliciting some laugher. I agree that a UN version 2 might come out of the recognition that one superpower can overcome the majority rule, but something tells me it will be a long time before the public understands the real issues. The foreign policy (expert) community may see the writing on the wall, and their may already be discussions about how to counteract the hemorrhaging but if there were any doubt where Pres. Bush would take it right now, all you had to do was watch his impatience with the one question he had about the UN at the Azores press conference. One hour of meeting, one very brief scripted press conference where each nation allowed one journalist to pose a question, and the US President interrupted to answer in front of the PM of Britain, so annoyed was he by the question about Res. 1441. His answer clearly shows that he holds very clear black and white ideas about what happened, what should happen, and what is going to happen. A Pres. Gore would have taken another route, as would have a Pres. McCain. Today, I would answer the old history class question, Does man make history or history make men? with the answer Man does. Karen Hi Gail, You've hit upon what must inevitably happen, either within the UN or a successor organisation. It must have a Security Council that is independent of nation-states and has the resources to carry out effective action as soon as it is decided that a nation-state is dangerous to others. How that can come about is quite another matter. However, there are two interesting developments of the last twenty years or so which, if they continue, give some promise that a better Security Council will occur over the longer term future. One is the development of what is called segregative diplomacy. That is, nations in dispute with others over particularly tricky issues are learning to keep negotiations on these quite separate from other less tricky issues and not to conflate them into comprehensive confrontation. The second is that nation-states are increasingly realising that they are having to yield parts of their hitherto jealously guarded sovereignty to some larger specialised agency or governance -- e.g. the WTO, North Sea fishing rights, control over water extraction from rivers or aquifers which stretch across national boundaries, etc. But we're a long way from a new sort of UN yet. Perhaps it shouldn't be called the United Nations, because nation-states never will be united. However, the UK ambassador to the UN between 1986 and 1998, while arguing with Perle yesterday on ITV, said that he thought that the UN could be either strengthened or weakened by the way the war is fought. Either way, America has already realised that the world won't tolerate the way it is trying to browbeat the UN and that present membership and rules of the Security Council will have to be radically reformed. Keith Hudson At 07:45 16/03/03 -0500, you wrote: Keith, What a nice set-up you've provided for a gentle proposal by a woman! Thanks! Gail You wrote: From: Keith Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Harry Pollard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 2:00 AM Subject: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff! It's the testosterone that's doing it! At this stage of the war, all sorts of otherwise reasonable male politicians (as well as the male editor and mainly male staff of the Economist) are becoming turned on and turning into rabid supporters. ... Shame on them for forsaking their rationality. Here's the proposal: March 16, 2003 The time has come for the Security Council to do something bold... Article 1, Chapter 1 of the UN Charter states that the first purpose of the United Nations is to maintain international peace and security, and to that end, to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace... A member country of the United Nations -- Iraq under Saddam Hussein -- possesses weapons of mass destruction and has not disarmed as demanded by the UN Security Council. This behavior is destroying international peace and undermining a general sense of security. Some member states, in a coalition of the willing, are threatening war against Iraq in the
RE: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff!
Keith -- I missed the debate you refer to. Can you comment on how Perls handled himself? Energy and body language? Thanks, L However, the UK ambassador to the UN between 1986 and 1998, while arguing with Perle yesterday on ITV, said that he thought that the UN could be either strengthened or weakened by the way the war is fought. Either way, America has already realised that the world won't tolerate the way it is trying to browbeat the UN and that present membership and rules of the Security Council will have to be radically reformed. ___ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: [Futurework] RE: Security Councils Responsibility
I remember a passage when Odysseus was walking with a friend amongst the Islanders they were about the rape and pillage in the name of "opening minds and widening seas" which was their version of changing the world by spreading their semen around as much as possible. The more children, the more the "superior" seed of the Father would create "better people" and when everyone was a brother then family was supposed to make for more exceptional leaders of the sheep of the world. I was listening to the French Ambassador and Madeline Albright today on the Center for International something or other. What I found interesting was how much smarter thisInternational multi-lingualwoman was then all of these men. Also the French were definitely afraid of her intellect although they continually referred to her as Madelayne. Anyway these two dudes Odysseus and buddy observed children at play and remarked what a pity it was that they would not live out the next two days. Theyobserved a wedding party with bride and groom and also remarked uponthe loss of fecundity and of course Nikos took us through all of the other activities of this lovely Island with its despot that was about to be "liberated" by the thugs from the sea. This brings me to a question for the list. I've heard all of the stories about how bad a guy Sadaam is and about the children dying while he built his seven palaces etc. But could someone do a comparison between Iraqi society and the Islamic despots that we support? That would be information that was important for us to know since we will all defend this before our Maker whether we agree with it or not. Regards Ray Evans Harrell - Original Message - From: Karen Watters Cole To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 1:06 PM Subject: [Futurework] RE: Security Councils Responsibility Gail - Yes, Alters Hail Mary Pass is interesting reading but he does close by saying most are resigned to the conclusion that the die is cast; however he adds that only those who have presented workable solutions should be in the complaining business. The legal question, condensed for we lowly layman, seems to be WHO gets to determine WHAT the serious consequences are and WHO gets to enforce them? Religious groups, such as the Sojourners, and others are promoting a Six Point Plan which emphasizes prosecuting Hussein as a war criminal in an international tribunal, citing Milosovichs Wanted Alive posters, eventual capture and trial demonstrating that this can work to topple a dictator. Pscyh Ops may have more success than military Ops in some nations more than others. Timing and finesse are a beautiful thing, nest pas? See http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action="">. It also appeared in the following Op-Ed, and essentially follows what former Pres. Carter and others proposed earlier. Regards, Karen Watters Cole Op-Ed: There Is a Third Way By Jim Wallis and John Bryson Chane @ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23271-2003Mar13.htmlFriday, March 14, 2003; Page A27 It is the eleventh hour, and the world is poised on the edge of war. Church leaders have warned of the unpredictable and potentially disastrous consequences of war against Iraq -- massive civilian casualties, a precedent for preemptive war, further destabilization of the Middle East and the fueling of more terrorism. Yet the failure to effectively disarm Saddam Hussein and his brutal regime could also have catastrophic consequences. The potential nexus between weapons of mass destruction and terrorism is the leading security issue in the world today. This is the moral dilemma: a decision between the terrible nature of that threat and the terrible nature of war as a solution. The world is desperate for a "third way" between war and ineffectual responses -- and it must be strong enough to be a serious alternative to war. The threat of military force has been decisive in building an international consensus for the disarming of Iraq, for the return of inspectors and for pressuring Hussein to comply. The "serious consequences" threatened by the Security Council need not mean war. They should mean further and more decisive actions against Hussein and his regime, rather than a devastating attack on the people of Iraq. On Feb. 18 a group of U.S. church leaders, accompanied by colleagues from the United Kingdom and the Anglican communion, met with Prime Minister Tony Blair and his secretary of state for international development, Clare Short, to discuss alternatives to war. The following elements of a "third way" -- an alternative to war -- were developed from those discussions and subsequent conversations within our U.S. delegation: Remove Hussein and the Baath Party from power. The
RE: [Futurework] Security Council's responsibility
Hi Gail, I was just re-reading my tome to see if I had missed any key points that were on my mind, and saw my unfortunate use of the term 'gloss' in the first paragraph. I did not intend this in any mean way and apologize that it sounded so. I do appreciate our discussion and the effort we are putting into it. I respond not so much because I disagree with where you are trying to go, but because I am very interested in whether it is possible at all to get there from here, and if not. At a minimum, I will have deepened my own thinking, which, given the challenges we are facing these days, greatly needs it. And, I hope that all readers may have benefited too from the exchange. Again, my apologies for 'gloss.' Cheers, L -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Lawrence DeBivort Sent: Sun, March 16, 2003 5:34 PM To: G. Stewart; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Futurework] Security Council's responsibility Hi Gail, I'll answer the same questions, though I wish you hadn't glossed over the one about your views on which states should be disarmed, ranging from Iraq to the US, by way of Ukraine and Spain, if I remember my earlier email correctly. For in that questions lies the nub of the issue and a major challenge to the UN-based international law you assert. -Original Message- From: G. Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sun, March 16, 2003 3:45 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Futurework] Security Council's responsibility Lawry, Thanks. I've been hoping to see such discussion on this list. I'd like to take your points in turn. LdB: agreed, this has been interesting. Gail Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Lawrence DeBivort [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 2:12 PM Subject: RE: [Futurework] Security Council's responsibility (was Re: It's the testosterone) Thank you for your answer...let's examine the matter a little deeper. Does any resolution of the UNSC carry the force of law? As will all questions about international law, it seems to depend. There are some areas where international law is fairly well established, others where it is not. There is a body of international law that is clearer, more credible, and has more precedent than the law you are trying to attribute to the UN. Remember the UN tried to codify NEW norms and interpret old ones for the better. The UN Charter is an idealistic attempt to assert new international norms. If you go back to the basics of international law, and examine such fundamental principles as sovereignty, self-defense, belligerency, occupied territories, and the norms that were embedded in the Fourth Geneva Convention, I think you will find the legal ground you are seeking, and find that you can do much more with it in regards to the US and Iraq than the UN Charter provisions will allow. I leave aside Maritime Law, though if you can make the connection you suggest, I would be very interested in seeing your thinking. The UN Security Council has I think probably been careless over the years in trying to ensure the effect of its resolutions. The degree to which any decisions carry the force of law depends on whether people obey them and precedents that are felt to be binding become established. I worry a bit that your question seems to imply a world where the force of law is objectively determined by the issuer, rather than how it functions. Any of us can issue laws: their force is what happens in consequence. Thus some see 1441 as No, by definition law, to be 'law', has to be valid regardless of the 'issuer'. Given the penchant of the UNSC to a political paradigm, rather than a legal one, it is little surprise to me that UNSC resolutions are not looked to as sources of international law. At best, I would think, they serve as a vehicle through which the majority votes express their INTERPRETATION of law -- not as a source of law. Within the UN sphere, it is the Charter and other UN treaties that are the sources of law (to the extent they are), and not the UNSC. Indeed, and appropriately, many of the UNSC resolutions are merely advisory. If you look at the listings and texts on UNSC resolutions (see the UN site at domino, unsc res. you will see for the most part a rather dreary, futile, uninspiring and unhelpful resolutions that have rightly been ignored by anyone actually working on a conflict. For example, of the hundreds (thousands?) of UNSC resolutions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, only two or three have had any genuine doctrinal significance, and that has been, of course, largely ignored by both the international community and the parties, though the latter cite portions of the resolutions when it serves their purposes. You are very sweet to the UNSC when
Re: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff!
Keith, One of the best programs on American television is This Week on ABC in the Sunday morning television ghetto - when no-one is watching. However, it is good enough to have achieved a sizable audience over several decades. This morning we heard about 20 minutes of Colin Powell answering some provocative questions. The round table contains several people of different political believes who argue persuasively but without acrimony. George Will is the conservative and he made, I think, a good point. He said that compared with containment, war will reduce the loss of life in Iraq. The deaths happening now in Iraq over the next 10 years will be about 1 million - of whom 600,000 are likely to be children. Ending this situation even with casualties will in effect save the lives of those who are doomed to die if nothing violent happens. It is easily tossed around that US sanctions are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, yet this seems to me to be propaganda rather than reality. First, sanctions are the historical alternative to force. Mostly they don't seem to work - though they are supposed to have been successful with South Africa. They were not successful against Mussolini's quest for the Italian Imperium and supremacy in the Mediterranean. This, in spite of the ineffectual League of Nations' imposition of sanctions that didn't include oil. Musso later said that had oil been sanctioned, the invasion of what is now Ethiopia would have stopped. I have no idea why the League didn't sanction oil - perhaps because Italian families would be without heat in the winter - I don't know. The year after he had finished mustard gassing the Abyssinians, Musso announced the Rome-Berlin Axis - thereby coining a name that persisted. The US stayed out of this, stimulating condemnation that they had destroyed the League. There are eerie parallels between then and now - but certainly with a different outcome. The US sanctions are said to be responsible for the deaths of many children. But these are UN sanctions. Iraq has been able to export oil for most of the period since the Gulf War. It is sending out now about three quarters of the oil of the pre-war period. That should be sufficient to feed any children who are hungry. Except that it is being used for Saddam's purposes, which do not give high priority to feeding children. Constantly in the news is the issue to Iraqis of five months food supply in expectation of the coming conflict. Where did it come from? How can people be starving if there is that much food available? Well, it's probably propaganda anyway. On a point I rarely have heard mentioned in these discussions. The UN takes 28% of the oil revenue for its expenses. That's a large lump that could surely feed a lot of children. Another point, not often mentioned, is the economic condition of Iraq after the war with Iran. It was a basket case. Perhaps the invasion of Kuwait had no other purpose than to fill Saddam's piggy-bank. Now to make an awkward segue. Your other remark is of great interest to me. How responsible are the women and children for the activities of their government? Was Dresden just another part of Germany and were the people of Dresden as much responsible for those 65 million deaths as their rulers. How much liberated French art arrived in Dresden? Nothing seems more unnecessary than to have destroyed Dresden. Yet, should the people and their city be allowed to have a good war - relatively unaffected by the horrors that were suffered by so many scores of millions? Whether they like it or not, women are special. On them depends survival. Men are expendable - but women and children are protected. Their special position is why they come into the discussion, even though men are most likely to be killed. So, are they equally responsible with the men for how their country behaves? In a dictatorship, they don't have a lot of chance to protest. But, most don't anyway. One recalls at the German death camps when Americans gave the local townspeople a tour, they protested they knew nothing of what was going on. It was a lie. Keep your eyes averted and your nose clean and cover your ears. Does that make them responsible for the unleashed horrors? While they were enjoying their sylvan surroundings down the road from the concentration camp, more Brits were being killed than Americans, from a country one fifth the size of the US - plus another 100,000 Commonwealth deaths. I recall the horror and dismay when almost a thousand Canadians were lost at Dieppe. Not a good day. But, that wasn't the fault of the German women and children, was it? The Nazi philosophy prevented the use of women workers in their factories at first, but later they were forced to recruit them. As women turned out bombs, were they not resp0onsible for the casualties eventually caused by the explosives? British women had a choice - they could work in a
Re: [Futurework] RE: Security Councils Responsibility
Karen, Who are these Sojourners that they believe that the rules of evidence wouldn't implicate three US Presidents and Secretaries of State in the crimes of Sadaam Hussien who the whole world knows: 1. was helped into power in a coup aided and abetted by the US, 2. was encouraged and aided in the war on Iraq until he was nearing bankruptcy 3. invaded Kuwait with the tacit approval of the first Bush administration 4. has been operating within the cultural more's of his society and has even been considered a progressive on women's rights. Let me ask you all this: Are there other despots in the Middle East? Are there any despots who are not tough and hold life and death power over their subjects? What about Sharon and Asaad and those camps? Shall we truly be so stupid as to open the legal war crimes issues in this history? We say the Kurds are his people but does he? I get the feeling he feels about them the way a lot of Americans feel about us. That we are just squatting on land they need to exploit. Or do thesealleged Sojourner believethat the Great Leader will conquer the world for them and save America's compromised behind? What color is their shirts? And do any of them know the translation of Sieg Heil? I don't defend Sadaam's brutality or his sense of loyalty to the children of his national family i.e. built palaces rather than helping medicine for his children. HOWEVER; Given the duplicity of his partners in the above four actions could you imagine a patriotic American not trying everything he could to subvert such rules if America had lost and was invaded? Frankly, I think that is what the rest of the world sees. The First Bush called him Hitler after Reagan and Bush had supplied the chemical biological weapons used against Iran as well as the encouragement to use them. As for gassing the Kurds what do they think Sherman did to the South and to the unarmed Indian woman and children? America hung the attendant of Andersonville and then did the same thing to the Japanese POW camp Officer but no one examined the winner's record in theCivil War or the Pacific. Where are the good guys? The second Bush callsSadaam a Stalin. I thinkboth Bushesaredelusional and living in a medically drugged fantasy world and I didn't vote for either. Is this second Bushjust trying to gain his place in history by removing that "no new taxes" from the record books by giving away the bank? As for Iraq, that was another family "incomplete" that the son is damned to complete whether we all go down the drain or not. In short folks, this man is a nut! The interesting thing is that a Bush supporter wrote a book about Presidential Children. After serious work for fifteen years on the book, he said the same thing today on C-span. That George is making his mark by fixing what he thinks his father screwed up. When even your friends notice then it is time to pay attention unless you are unbalanced. He also said that the living Presidential children consider Chelsea to have both received the best parenting andbeen the best first daughter in living history. Your children are the mirrors of your soul. The problem is that this Media is so severely compromised from their treatment of Clinton and Gore that they are punch drunk and slow to be even seriously self protective. What a mess! And the children and young wives will die while the men ..well, we are beginning to look a lot more like Dinosaurs than the rulers of the planet. REH - Original Message - From: Karen Watters Cole To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 1:06 PM Subject: [Futurework] RE: Security Councils Responsibility Gail - Yes, Alters Hail Mary Pass is interesting reading but he does close by saying most are resigned to the conclusion that the die is cast; however he adds that only those who have presented workable solutions should be in the complaining business. The legal question, condensed for we lowly layman, seems to be WHO gets to determine WHAT the serious consequences are and WHO gets to enforce them? Religious groups, such as the Sojourners, and others are promoting a Six Point Plan which emphasizes prosecuting Hussein as a war criminal in an international tribunal, citing Milosovichs Wanted Alive posters, eventual capture and trial demonstrating that this can work to topple a dictator. Pscyh Ops may have more success than military Ops in some nations more than others. Timing and finesse are a beautiful thing, nest pas? See http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action="">. It also appeared in the following Op-Ed, and essentially follows what former Pres. Carter and others proposed earlier. Regards, Karen Watters Cole Op-Ed: There Is a Third Way By Jim Wallis and John Bryson Chane @
RE: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff!
The problem with George Will's point is fundamental, Harry: it wasn't the UN that imposed the sanctions, it was the US, and it is the US who to this day keeps them in place and repulses all efforts by the international community and humanitarian aid organizations to lift them. Those deaths that Will shed his crocodile tears over are the result of the sanctions and the misallocation of national resources to palaces (if you want to focus on a relatively minor use of those incomes) -- and the sanctions are the result of US policy...so guess what? Though Will carefully skirted the issue, those deaths belong at least in part at our doorstep. At a minimum, we are co-responsible and have contributed to the liability for those deaths, and the many other forms of suffering that the sanctions have created. The US thinking was that if we squeeze the people, they will overthrow the dictator. Well, that was pretty stupid and careless thinking, wasn't it? I am sure that Will would like to find someone else to blame, but in this case he has no further to look that himself and others who have advocated the imposition and maintenance of those sanctions. Oh, did he forget to mention that he has himself been a long-term die-hard supporter of sanctions? Gosh, I wonder why he forgot to tell us that? Will covered up his careful deletion of this unpleasant truth by quoting solely and extensively by an article in the Washington Post by a CFR analyst -- fair enough, no one ever accused Will of being a working journalist or analyst -- but if you look at the article he so freely cribbed from you will see that the writer was himself much more careful and candid about this point. In any event, to blame the UN for the sanctions, and then to assert -- this was Will's contribution to his essay -- that therefore the Iraqi people would be better off if the US attacked the country is, at best, disingenuous. Will normally crafts the logic of his diatribes more carefully. I take this uncharacteristic sloppiness on his part as a sign that he is scraping the bottom of the barrel for rationalizations of the US policy to attack Iraq. As I said some time ago, the wheels have come off the bus, and no amount of nonsense such as this from Will is going to put them back on. But, what does it matter if the wheels have come off and the opponents of the US invasion are 'right', if the bus, out of control, is careening toward those innocent bystanders. Cheers, Lawry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Harry Pollard Sent: Sun, March 16, 2003 5:35 PM To: Keith Hudson Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff! Keith, One of the best programs on American television is This Week on ABC in the Sunday morning television ghetto - when no-one is watching. However, it is good enough to have achieved a sizable audience over several decades. This morning we heard about 20 minutes of Colin Powell answering some provocative questions. The round table contains several people of different political believes who argue persuasively but without acrimony. George Will is the conservative and he made, I think, a good point. He said that compared with containment, war will reduce the loss of life in Iraq. The deaths happening now in Iraq over the next 10 years will be about 1 million - of whom 600,000 are likely to be children. Ending this situation even with casualties will in effect save the lives of those who are doomed to die if nothing violent happens. It is easily tossed around that US sanctions are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, yet this seems to me to be propaganda rather than reality. First, sanctions are the historical alternative to force. Mostly they don't seem to work - though they are supposed to have been successful with South Africa. They were not successful against Mussolini's quest for the Italian Imperium and supremacy in the Mediterranean. This, in spite of the ineffectual League of Nations' imposition of sanctions that didn't include oil. Musso later said that had oil been sanctioned, the invasion of what is now Ethiopia would have stopped. I have no idea why the League didn't sanction oil - perhaps because Italian families would be without heat in the winter - I don't know. The year after he had finished mustard gassing the Abyssinians, Musso announced the Rome-Berlin Axis - thereby coining a name that persisted. The US stayed out of this, stimulating condemnation that they had destroyed the League. There are eerie parallels between then and now - but certainly with a different outcome. The US sanctions are said to be responsible for the deaths of many children. But these are UN sanctions. Iraq has been able to export oil for most of the period since the Gulf War. It is sending out now about three quarters of the oil of the pre-war period. That should be
RE: [Futurework] It's the testosterone (was Powerful Stuff)
Lawry, The problem that forces action by the US has nothing to do with it. If the US stands down and pulls back the troops, it would be an open invitation to others such as North Korea to do naughty things - including Saddam. If the troops go home, how long before Iraq is back in Kuwait? If he then took over the Saudi-Arabian oil fields, would there be any incentive to meddle with him - if he would destroy every oil well in sight? Of course the US would step in before that happened, but how? Americans wouldn't go for another immense mobilization Well, we do have MOAB and other obnoxious things. If we can do something horrible with little chance of casualties - great. But, don't worry, none of that will happen. The war is on. Harry --- Lawrence wrote: urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office xmlns:w = urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word Hi, Karen, There is a growing opposition to the invasion of Iraq among many who in the past unquestioningly supported it, and this includes the Washington Post and many of its writers. Increasingly, Bush is seen as wrong and isolated, with the theories of his advisors falling into disrepute. Oddly, some argue that opposition leaves Bush with fewer alternatives to going ahead, anyway, that he is 'too far in' to 'pull back.' I guess the implication is that public opinion as well as expert opinion should not influence foreign policy -- I don't quite follow the logic, I admit. Interestingly, many of his advisors who were seemingly happy to take to the airwaves to extol the policy are now nowhere to be heard: Cheney, Ashcroft, Rove, and, less and less, Rice, Wolfowitz, and even Rumsfeld. Only Powell seems to be willing to shoulder the load, and that seems strange, given Powell's apparent position earlier of proactively creating alternatives to invasion. As the policy comes to be seen as more and more ill-fated, I can see why the former would start looking for the exits, but Powell remains a mystery for me. Will he be the 'tragic figure' of the Bush administration? The wheels came off the Bush bus some time ago, as I have been reporting to some of you for some time. But, careening as it is out control down the road, it still has great momentum, and is, if anything, more dangerous than a bus that still has its wheels. There is a still a chance, I hope, that Bush will figure out that the game is over and find a way to back down that is graceful enough to meet his personal needs. I continue to be more optimistic than just about everyone else I know here, and even my friends are characterizing me as 'deluded' for holding out this estimate that the war will not occur, that Bush will find a way out of a box he has put himself in. Consensus has emerged publicly here in Washington that if the US goes in, nothing but bad consequences will occur, and you've all heard the list sufficiently that I won't repeat it here. One new element that concerns me is the growing perception that pro-Israeli American Jews are behind the President's ill-fated course of action, and that they have sacrificed the interests of the US in favor of those of Israel. They point to the strong links between the neoconservatives in the Bush administration and Israel. My great concern is that this issue may mutate into a general anti-Semitic reaction in the US, and perhaps elsewhere. Jim Moran, a local congressman, suggested that it were not for American Jewish support for the war that Bush would never have gone down this road has triggered a major attack on Moran by Jewish groups, and the aggressiveness of their attacks is being taken as confirmation of the very accusation that triggered their wrath in the first place. So my concern is no longer a conceptual one, but now is bolstered by events that are currently happening. Sadly, and in haste, L -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Karen Watters Cole Sent: Sun, March 16, 2003 11:43 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Keith Hudson Subject: [Futurework] It's the testosterone (was Powerful Stuff) The Washington Post demonstrates that it, too is struggling. I would summarize this as Yes, but - KWC WP Editorial: Damage Control Sunday, March 16, 2003; Page B06 We hope the summit today in the Azores will offer a way out of the impasse on Iraq at the United Nations Security Council. But the flurry of activity at the White House on Friday, when President Bush's meeting with the British and Spanish prime ministers was abruptly confirmed, looked more like damage control than serious diplomacy. Even while announcing the summit, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer flatly ruled out the most plausible compromise formula for a U.N. resolution, which would involve a 30- to 45-day postponement of any military campaign. Mr. Bush, meanwhile, shifted the focus toward his postwar strategy, announcing his support of a
Re: [Futurework] RE: Security Councils Responsibility
Ray, Here's a beginning comparison, Saudi first. Life Expectancy: 68.4 67.38 Death Rate: 5.86 6.02 Infant Mortality:49.59 57.61 Harry -- Ray wrote: urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office xmlns:w = urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word I remember a passage when Odysseus was walking with a friend amongst the Islanders they were about the rape and pillage in the name of opening minds and widening seas which was their version of changing the world by spreading their semen around as much as possible. The more children, the more the superior seed of the Father would create better people and when everyone was a brother then family was supposed to make for more exceptional leaders of the sheep of the world.I was listening to the French Ambassador and Madeline Albright today on the Center for International something or other. What I found interesting was how much smarter this International multi-lingual woman was then all of these men.Also the French were definitely afraid of her intellect although they continually referred to her as Madelayne. Anyway these two dudes Odysseus and buddy observed children at play and remarked what a pity it was that they would not live out the next two days. They observed a wedding party with bride and groom and also remarked upon the loss of fecundity and of course Nikos took us through all of the other activities of this lovely Island with its despot that was about to be liberated by the thugs from the sea. This brings me to a question for the list.I've heard all of the stories about how bad a guy Sadaam is and about the children dying while he built his seven palaces etc.But could someone do a comparison between Iraqi society and the Islamic despots that we support?That would be information that was important for us to know since we will all defend this before our Maker whether we agree with it or not. Regards Ray Evans Harrell - Original Message - From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Karen Watters Cole To: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 1:06 PM Subject: [Futurework] RE: Security Councils Responsibility Gail - Yes, Alter's Hail Mary Pass is interesting reading but he does close by saying most are resigned to the conclusion that the die is cast; however he adds that only those who have presented workable solutions should be in the complaining business. The legal question, condensed for we lowly layman, seems to be WHO gets to determine WHAT the 'serious consequences' are and WHO gets to enforce them? Religious groups, such as the Sojourners, and others are promoting a Six Point Plan which emphasizes prosecuting Hussein as a war criminal in an international tribunal, citing Milosovich's Wanted Alive posters, eventual capture and trial demonstrating that this can work to topple a dictator. Pscyh Ops may have more success than military Ops in some nations more than others. Timing and finesse are a beautiful thing, n'est pas? See http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=action.speak_outhttp://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=action.speak_out. It also appeared in the following Op-Ed, and essentially follows what former Pres. Carter and others proposed earlier. Regards, Karen Watters Cole Op-Ed: There Is a Third Way By Jim Wallis and John Bryson Chane @ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23271-2003Mar13.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23271-2003Mar13.html Friday, March 14, 2003; Page A27 It is the eleventh hour, and the world is poised on the edge of war. Church leaders have warned of the unpredictable and potentially disastrous consequences of war against Iraq -- massive civilian casualties, a precedent for preemptive war, further destabilization of the Middle East and the fueling of more terrorism. Yet the failure to effectively disarm Saddam Hussein and his brutal regime could also have catastrophic consequences. The potential nexus between weapons of mass destruction and terrorism is the leading security issue in the world today. This is the moral dilemma: a decision between the terrible nature of that threat and the terrible nature of war as a solution. The world is desperate for a third way between war and ineffectual responses -- and it must be strong enough to be a serious alternative to war. The threat of military force has been decisive in building an international consensus for the disarming of Iraq, for the return of inspectors and for pressuring Hussein to comply. The serious consequences threatened by the Security Council need not mean war. They should mean further and more decisive actions against Hussein and his regime, rather than a devastating attack on the people of Iraq. On Feb. 18 a group of U.S. church leaders, accompanied by colleagues from the United Kingdom and
RE: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff!
Lawry, I didn't see the articles you mention. His remark about it led me to the bit I wrote. However, you spent more time on Will than you did on the subject. Let's stop the ad hominems and stay with the subject. Why does the UN get 28% of Iraqi oil for expenses? Shouldn't the US get that? The palaces are mentioned, but the bulk of the infants' money, I would think, goes to maintain his army. Once again, he's exporting 75% of the pre-war oil (less the UN's 28% cut). Shouldn't that feed the children? Or is it going to feed soldiers? Tell me more about the US sanctions that aren't supported by the UN. Also, aren't sanctions the alternative to war? Harry -- Lawrence wrote: The problem with George Will's point is fundamental, Harry: it wasn't the UN that imposed the sanctions, it was the US, and it is the US who to this day keeps them in place and repulses all efforts by the international community and humanitarian aid organizations to lift them. Those deaths that Will shed his crocodile tears over are the result of the sanctions and the misallocation of national resources to palaces (if you want to focus on a relatively minor use of those incomes) -- and the sanctions are the result of US policy...so guess what? Though Will carefully skirted the issue, those deaths belong at least in part at our doorstep. At a minimum, we are co-responsible and have contributed to the liability for those deaths, and the many other forms of suffering that the sanctions have created. The US thinking was that if we squeeze the people, they will overthrow the dictator. Well, that was pretty stupid and careless thinking, wasn't it? I am sure that Will would like to find someone else to blame, but in this case he has no further to look that himself and others who have advocated the imposition and maintenance of those sanctions. Oh, did he forget to mention that he has himself been a long-term die-hard supporter of sanctions? Gosh, I wonder why he forgot to tell us that? Will covered up his careful deletion of this unpleasant truth by quoting solely and extensively by an article in the Washington Post by a CFR analyst -- fair enough, no one ever accused Will of being a working journalist or analyst -- but if you look at the article he so freely cribbed from you will see that the writer was himself much more careful and candid about this point. In any event, to blame the UN for the sanctions, and then to assert -- this was Will's contribution to his essay -- that therefore the Iraqi people would be better off if the US attacked the country is, at best, disingenuous. Will normally crafts the logic of his diatribes more carefully. I take this uncharacteristic sloppiness on his part as a sign that he is scraping the bottom of the barrel for rationalizations of the US policy to attack Iraq. As I said some time ago, the wheels have come off the bus, and no amount of nonsense such as this from Will is going to put them back on. But, what does it matter if the wheels have come off and the opponents of the US invasion are 'right', if the bus, out of control, is careening toward those innocent bystanders. Cheers, Lawry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Harry Pollard Sent: Sun, March 16, 2003 5:35 PM To: Keith Hudson Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff! Keith, One of the best programs on American television is This Week on ABC in the Sunday morning television ghetto - when no-one is watching. However, it is good enough to have achieved a sizable audience over several decades. This morning we heard about 20 minutes of Colin Powell answering some provocative questions. The round table contains several people of different political believes who argue persuasively but without acrimony. George Will is the conservative and he made, I think, a good point. He said that compared with containment, war will reduce the loss of life in Iraq. The deaths happening now in Iraq over the next 10 years will be about 1 million - of whom 600,000 are likely to be children. Ending this situation even with casualties will in effect save the lives of those who are doomed to die if nothing violent happens. It is easily tossed around that US sanctions are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, yet this seems to me to be propaganda rather than reality. First, sanctions are the historical alternative to force. Mostly they don't seem to work - though they are supposed to have been successful with South Africa. They were not successful against Mussolini's quest for the Italian Imperium and supremacy in the Mediterranean. This, in spite of the ineffectual League of Nations' imposition of sanctions that didn't include oil. Musso later said that had oil been sanctioned, the invasion of what is now Ethiopia would
RE: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff!
Harry, Where do you get your numbers on where the oil revenues are going (e.g. the '75%') This does not jibe with the numbers I have seen. Ad hominem criticism is when the individual is attacked, rather than his content. I cheerily do both when warranted. There ARE idiots out there, and it doesn't hurt to identify them as such. Calling an idiot an idiot is one of the few fun things one can do amidst all the cacophony, misinformation and plain old dumb thinking that swamps the media and the Net. It is my quick way of indicating to everyone that I don't intend to waste my time chattering with them or their surrogates. I do value my time, Harry, and that is the best I can do. Anyway, it would be easy for you to check out why the UN gets monies -- think of the work that the UN is doing there and you will see where the money goes. Iraqi oil itself is paying for the arms inspections, the sanctions administration, and so forth. Why are you suggesting that would the US should get money from Iraq from the sanctions/oil program??? Other than the fact that by the time Bush gets done the US will need all the handouts it can get. To pay for our invasion of their country? Now there's a novel idea. Is it not traditional to invade and seize a country BEFORE plundering it? smile Of course, the US could just say to Iraq: Give us all your money and we won't invade, and save everyone the hassle of an invasion. What prospects this scenario conjures up. I think we have to go after the Crown Jewels next, don't you think. And the beef farms in Kobe. And there is one hell of a great museum in Florence that we could add to the Smithsonian. I'm sure the Italians would be happy to give it to us if we just don't invade them Keith, if I remember correctly, WAS right -- it IS the testosterone! The Eiffel Tower -- doesn't that really belong in Milwaukee? In fact, US congressmen, ideologues, and pundits who support the invasion could all claim choice bits and pieces of things in the world to bring home to their districts. San Diego gets the Taj Mahal! We critics might be allowed to claim some of Russia's toxic waste dumps, or, if we publicly repented our short-sightedness, a Swiss chocolate bar. Back to being serious: I do believe the Kuwaitis are getting reparations for the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, but don't have any specifics on that. I think the reparations account is separate from the oil revenues. The web probably has several sites that report on the Kuwaiti reparations. Cheers, Lawry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Harry Pollard Sent: Sun, March 16, 2003 7:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff! Lawry, I didn't see the articles you mention. His remark about it led me to the bit I wrote. However, you spent more time on Will than you did on the subject. Let's stop the ad hominems and stay with the subject. Why does the UN get 28% of Iraqi oil for expenses? Shouldn't the US get that? The palaces are mentioned, but the bulk of the infants' money, I would think, goes to maintain his army. Once again, he's exporting 75% of the pre-war oil (less the UN's 28% cut). Shouldn't that feed the children? Or is it going to feed soldiers? Tell me more about the US sanctions that aren't supported by the UN. Also, aren't sanctions the alternative to war? Harry -- Lawrence wrote: The problem with George Will's point is fundamental, Harry: it wasn't the UN that imposed the sanctions, it was the US, and it is the US who to this day keeps them in place and repulses all efforts by the international community and humanitarian aid organizations to lift them. Those deaths that Will shed his crocodile tears over are the result of the sanctions and the misallocation of national resources to palaces (if you want to focus on a relatively minor use of those incomes) -- and the sanctions are the result of US policy...so guess what? Though Will carefully skirted the issue, those deaths belong at least in part at our doorstep. At a minimum, we are co-responsible and have contributed to the liability for those deaths, and the many other forms of suffering that the sanctions have created. The US thinking was that if we squeeze the people, they will overthrow the dictator. Well, that was pretty stupid and careless thinking, wasn't it? I am sure that Will would like to find someone else to blame, but in this case he has no further to look that himself and others who have advocated the imposition and maintenance of those sanctions. Oh, did he forget to mention that he has himself been a long-term die-hard supporter of sanctions? Gosh, I wonder why he forgot to tell us that? Will covered up his careful deletion of this unpleasant truth by quoting solely and
RE: [Futurework] RE: Drums of War (was Security Councils Responsibility)
I do love the oddity of the 'line in the sand' metaphor. Anyone who has spent any time in sandy environments where the wind blows (as it does in kuwait and Iraq) will know immediately what I mean grin L Some people are drawing lines in the sand, trying to differentiate friend vs foe, and we are right to worry that the days ahead may be worse in that regard if people abandon learned lessons of tolerance, patience and respect and take up war paint and dance to war drums. At times it feels to some of us that we are just shy of wearing yellow stars or tribal colors to distinguish one group from another. Its beginning to feel a little bit like the Dark Ages all over again. We seem to be reacting to a primordial shift in our collective security and expectations about the future, which we had painted as always getting better, not worse. The pessimists are gloating and the uber warriors celebrating their new converts. Karen
RE: [Futurework] RE: Drums of War (was Security Councils Responsibility)
Im sorry, I am so used to that Alamo story as a metaphor for choosing sides/making commitments that I use it without any sense of literalism. It was another linguistic moment when Pres. Bush chose to explain the phrase show your cards today from the Azores, as a Texan expression as if Texas is another foreign country and no one else plays poker. Oh, well, a few amusing moments today. - Karen I do love the oddity of the 'line in the sand' metaphor. Anyone who has spent any time in sandy environments where the wind blows (as it does in kuwait and Iraq) will know immediately what I mean grin L Some people are drawing lines in the sand, trying to differentiate friend vs foe, and we are right to worry that the days ahead may be worse in that regard if people abandon learned lessons of tolerance, patience and respect and take up war paint and dance to war drums. At times it feels to some of us that we are just shy of wearing yellow stars or tribal colors to distinguish one group from another. Its beginning to feel a little bit like the Dark Ages all over again. We seem to be reacting to a primordial shift in our collective security and expectations about the future, which we had painted as always getting better, not worse. The pessimists are gloating and the uber warriors celebrating their new converts.
RE: [Futurework] RE: Drums of War (was Security Councils Responsibility)
Hi Karen, That 'line in the sand' thing came from the Alamo? Well, no wonder Bush plays into the hands of people who view America as a degenerate brothel of gamblers and hedonists. Oh, ooops, that is ad hominem. What I meant was, President Bush is sure reliable. Cheers, L -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Karen Watters ColeSent: Sun, March 16, 2003 9:42 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [Futurework] RE: Drums of War (was Security Councils Responsibility) Im sorry, I am so used to that Alamo story as a metaphor for choosing sides/making commitments that I use it without any sense of literalism. It was another linguistic moment when Pres. Bush chose to explain the phrase show your cards today from the Azores, as a Texan expression as if Texas is another foreign country and no one else plays poker. Oh, well, a few amusing moments today. - Karen I do love the oddity of the 'line in the sand' metaphor. Anyone who has spent any time in sandy environments where the wind blows (as it does in kuwait and Iraq) will know immediately what I mean grin L Some people are drawing lines in the sand, trying to differentiate friend vs foe, and we are right to worry that the days ahead may be worse in that regard if people abandon learned lessons of tolerance, patience and respect and take up war paint and dance to war drums. At times it feels to some of us that we are just shy of wearing yellow stars or tribal colors to distinguish one group from another. Its beginning to feel a little bit like the Dark Ages all over again. We seem to be reacting to a primordial shift in our collective security and expectations about the future, which we had painted as always getting better, not worse. The pessimists are gloating and the uber warriors celebrating their new converts.
Re: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff!
Good questions Harry but your knowledge of one element throws doubt on your whole argument. It is a well documented fact and I have posted to the list documentation from several news sources that Sadaam invaded Kuwait BECAUSE he had been driven bankrupt by the war with Iran where he served as a surrogate for the US. Also he asked the US Ambassador to explore the US policy with regard to invading Kuwait BEFORE he did it. The Ambassador said that America would have no problem with it. Once again, a careful look shows Saddam was neither mindlessly aggressive nor particularly reckless. If anything, the evidence supports the opposite conclusion. Saddams decision to invade Kuwait was primarily an attempt to deal with Iraqs continued vulnerability. Iraqs economy, badly damaged by its war with Iran, continued to decline after that war ended. An important cause of Iraqs difficulties was Kuwaits refusal both to loan Iraq $10 billion and to write off debts Iraq had incurred during the Iran-Iraq War. Saddam believed Iraq was entitled to additional aid because the country helped protect Kuwait and other Gulf states from Iranian expansionism. To make matters worse, Kuwait was overproducing the quotas set by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which drove down world oil prices and reduced Iraqi oil profits. Saddam tried using diplomacy to solve the problem, but Kuwait hardly budged. As Karsh and fellow Hussein biographer Inari Rautsi note, the Kuwaitis suspected that some concessions might be necessary, but were determined to reduce them to the barest minimum. Saddam reportedly decided on war sometime in July 1990, but before sending his army into Kuwait, he approached the United States to find out how it would react. In a now famous interview with the Iraqi leader, U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie told Saddam, [W]e have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. The U.S. State Department had earlier told Saddam that Washington had no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait. The United States may not have intended to give Iraq a green light, but that is effectively what it did. Saddam invaded Kuwait in early August 1990. This act was an obvious violation of international law, and the United States was justified in opposing the invasion and organizing a coalition against it. But Saddams decision to invade was hardly irrational or reckless. Deterrence did not fail in this case; it was never tried. The answer is no. Once again, a careful look shows Saddam was neither mindlessly aggressive nor particularly reckless. If anything, the evidence supports the opposite conclusion. Saddams decision to invade Kuwait was primarily an attempt to deal with Iraqs continued vulnerability. Iraqs economy, badly damaged by its war with Iran, continued to decline after that war ended. An important cause of Iraqs difficulties was Kuwaits refusal both to loan Iraq $10 billion and to write off debts Iraq had incurred during the Iran-Iraq War. Saddam believed Iraq was entitled to additional aid because the country helped protect Kuwait and other Gulf states from Iranian expansionism. To make matters worse, Kuwait was overproducing the quotas set by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which drove down world oil prices and reduced Iraqi oil profits. Saddam tried using diplomacy to solve the problem, but Kuwait hardly budged. As Karsh and fellow Hussein biographer Inari Rautsi note, the Kuwaitis suspected that some concessions might be necessary, but were determined to reduce them to the barest minimum. Saddam reportedly decided on war sometime in July 1990, but before sending his army into Kuwait, he approached the United States to find out how it would react. In a now famous interview with the Iraqi leader, U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie told Saddam, [W]e have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. The U.S. State Department had earlier told Saddam that Washington had no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait. The United States may not have intended to give Iraq a green light, but that is effectively what it did. Saddam invaded Kuwait in early August 1990. This act was an obvious violation of international law, and the United States was justified in opposing the invasion and organizing a coalition against it. But Saddams decision to invade was hardly irrational or reckless. Deterrence did not fail in this case; it was never tried. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/ An Unnecessary War By John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt Jan/Feb 2003 Foreign Policy Magazine So Harry, I think you can never truly know an enemy until you understand the rational and the best that he has done.
[Futurework] Re: Drums of War (was Security Councils Responsibility)
Still ask the same question. But another way. When did theaccomplice who assisted the person who pulled the trigger get off as being the police? It doesn't matter if the accomplice shoots the killer when the police arrive. He is not the police and we were a part of the problem according to the history that I have cited to both you and Harry on this. Foreign Policy Mag. Jan/Feb. Bush is not the police and neither was his father. The Elder Bush with Carter and Reagan were a part of the creation of the problem. If you want I have copied the article and you can have it. We were accomplices in Sadaam's ventures. America playing the virgin now isn't very dignified. REH - Original Message - From: Karen Watters Cole To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Ray Evans Harrell Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 9:09 PM Subject: RE: Drums of War (was Security Councils Responsibility) Ray, the Sojourners are a left of center religious organization (originally had a residential community) who promote peace through spiritual common cause. To my knowledge they are not overtly political; however, they have taken up an activist position with other denominational leaders in this country opposing preemptive war. Pres. Bush has yet to meet with any religious leaders in this country on the issue of war with Iraq. I wonder why not? One of the other myths that 9/11 shattered was that America was a multicultural society that had moved beyond cultural, racial and religious stereotypes. Apparently that was a charade for many. We are having to go back a few pages in the book of evolution to recover lost ground. The ugly lessons of the past are being forgotten as the focus is directed at avenging a current attack and reinforcing the fortress. Some people are drawing lines in the sand, trying to differentiate friend vs foe, and we are right to worry that the days ahead may be worse in that regard if people abandon learned lessons of tolerance, patience and respect and take up war paint and dance to war drums. At times it feels to some of us that we are just shy of wearing yellow stars or tribal colors to distinguish one group from another. Its beginning to feel a little bit like the Dark Ages all over again. We seem to be reacting to a primordial shift in our collective security and expectations about the future, which we had painted as always getting better, not worse. The pessimists are gloating and the uber warriors celebrating their new converts. Karen Ray wrote: Who are these Sojourners that they believe that the rules of evidence wouldn't implicate three US Presidents and Secretaries of State in the crimes of Sadaam Hussien who the whole world knows: 1. was helped into power in a coup aided and abetted by the US, 2. was encouraged and aided in the war on Iraq until he was nearing bankruptcy 3. invaded Kuwait with the tacit approval of the first Bush administration 4. has been operating within the cultural more's of his society and has even been considered a progressive on women's rights. Let me ask you all this: Are there other despots in the Middle East? Are there any despots who are not tough and hold life and death power over their subjects? What about Sharon and Asaad and those camps? Shall we truly be so stupid as to open the legal war crimes issues in this history? We say the Kurds are his people but does he? I get the feeling he feels about them the way a lot of Americans feel about us. That we are just squatting on land they need to exploit. Or do thesealleged Sojourner believethat the Great Leader will conquer the world for them and save America's compromised behind? What color is their shirts? And do any of them know the translation of Sieg Heil? I don't defend Sadaam's brutality or his sense of loyalty to the children of his national family i.e. built palaces rather than helping medicine for his children. HOWEVER; Given the duplicity of his partners in the above four actions could you imagine a patriotic American not trying everything he could to subvert such rules if America had lost and was invaded? Frankly, I think that is what the rest of the world sees. The First Bush called him Hitler after Reagan and Bush had supplied the chemical biological weapons used against Iran as well as the encouragement to use them. As for gassing the Kurds what do they think Sherman did to the South and to the unarmed Indian woman and children? America hung the attendant of Andersonville and then did the same thing to the Japanese POW camp Officer but no one examined the winner's record in theCivil War or the Pacific. Where are the good guys? The second Bush callsSadaam a Stalin. I thinkboth Bushesaredelusional and
