I'm responding to Debbie's post first because it deals more with the question at hand and less with list conflict than another poster that I'll respond to. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Deborah Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 9:24 PM Subject: Re: Call the UNSC's Bluff
> >From a posted article; just a couple of nitpicks that > I have - Debbi, who snipped a lot > > > Let the U.N. Vote > > > > Wednesday, October 23, 2002; Page A26 > > Washington Post Editorial > > > > NEARLY SIX weeks have passed since President Bush > > challenged the United > > Nations to act to enforce its resolutions on Iraq. > > Yet there has been no > > action. Instead, in its attempt to build support in > > the U.N. Security > > Council, the Bush administration has made a series > > of significant concessions. > > Which I think is both concilatory and prudent; such > flexibility subtly demands of allies that they also > make some concessions. I just wish that this had been > the initial approach, not the latest one. I"m curious to see what has been going on behind the sceen. I'm guessing that there had been unpublicized negociations over the last 6 weeks. Since I voted for GWB to be the Texas governor in 2000 (I was thinking about getting a bumper sticker that said "Keep Bush our governor), I do have a tendency to downplay his ability to work with other nations. However, since Powell is in charge of that, and, by all accounts, he is masterful in 1 on 1, there is a real chance that it isn't just a matter of his skill. > <raises eyebrows> > Something the like of which the US has, of course, > _never_ done... Certainly no American company has any > interest in Iraqi resources. I'm not quite sure what the point of this statement is. I'm not saying this to diss your statement, rather to point out that it is open to a number of alternatives. It is certainly true that commercial interests has affected US foreign policy. The response to China's capture of a US plane was partially influenced by the hue and cry from the Chamber of Commerce types to not jepordize 100 billion in trade. Since they are, by and large, conservatives, I attributed this to their desire for profits overwhelming their natural political inclinations. And, to some extent, they suceeded, there was no real attempt to threaten China with a trade embargo. But, I think it is fair to say that the US foreign policy towards China and the Middle East tends to be less trade influenced than European foreign policy towards the same area. In both cases, the US has set policy that presents a significant trade disadvantage with respect to these areas: support of Israel and support of Tawain, than does Europe. Do US companies have interests in trading with Iraq? Certainly. Is Bush's actions the most cost effective way for the US to set up such trade? Definately not. If trade were the prime concern, then the best course of action would be to drop the embargo as soon as it was determined that France and Russia were working to finesse it. > > ...In fact, even as Mr. Chirac was > > proclaiming the sanctity of the > > United Nations' authority over war-making, some > > 1,000 French troops were > > intervening unilaterally to protect French interests > > in Ivory Coast; Paris > > never dreamed of forging an international coalition > > or consulting the Security Council. > > Now wait just a minute: they went in to protect not > only French nationals, but other foreigners - > including American citizens - and I believe there was > talk of active US support for said action. The actions were quite reasonable. To first order, the people protected were French. I think the valid point is that France feels free to act, for reasons of compelling national interest, outside of the framework of the UN. The US was right in supporting France in doing this; they actions were justified. However, their actions were inconsistant with the concept that any violation of national soverenity, such as the French action, must go through the UN. > > U.N. Mr. Bush has challenged that body to live up to its principles by > > enforcing its own Iraq resolutions... > > As indeed it ought to do. <sigh> > Repeat the bass-ackwards sentiment here. Of course, > if it turns out that Saddam had anything to do with > the Oklahoma City bombing, as implied in another > recently posted article, his regime is toast. The real question is how constrained should the US feel by a lack of a supporting resolution from the UN Security Council. On the whole, a reasonable assumption is that nations do not act for the greater good, rather they act in their own self interest. The greater good for the world is often in most nations self interest, so things often do work out. But, sometimes the tragedy of the commons rears its ugly head. While it is best for every mouse to bell the cat, it is best for each mouse if the cat is belled by another mouse. There are a variety of ways to get around the tragedy of the commons in international affairs; treaties and what not. However, one should not be surprised if countries find ways to finesse agreements when it benefits that particular country. The US, as the most powerful country in the world, tends to have unique responsibilities for stability. A To first order, if it is tough and the US doesn't do it, it doesn't get done. So, the US fulfills all of the UN's sworn responsibility for defending S. Korea, the US goes into Kosova after other countries find it too messy, the US goes after Hussein after everyone gets nervous. In some cases, when doing something is clearly in the interest of virtually every nation in the world, there is a UN mandate. Or, to put it more accurately, if something is in the interest of the big five, then it will get the UN blessing. In short, every country but the US is in the position of asking the question of whether it would be best for them if the US did it without their support instead of with their support. The US is only in the position of asking if it is best for the US if it does something. Such were the sections in Iraq. However, after a while it ceased to be in Russia's and France's interests to support the sanctions. So, they pushed for watering them down to the point of uselessness. Now, that's not realistic, so they are supporting the old way of dancing with Hussein after repudiating it as cruel to the people of Iraq 2 years ago. There is another feature now. If France and Russia help Iraq, not only do they get money, but they lower their position on Hussein's list of bad guys. If Hussein gets a deliverable WMD, its much more likely to hit the US than France or Russia. Then, France and Russia can look the other way while the US takes care of Iraq, having made their profit, and incurring little risk. The US has no such options. It is a prime target. Thus, it cannot wait for others to act. So, stripping JDG's arguments of its fervor, one gets the argument that the basis of France's and Russia's arguments needs to be considered. If they are thoughtful arguments based on better alternatives, then they should be taken very seriously. However, if they contradict their points of 2 years ago, and are based on interests that strongly conflict with the US's prime interests, they need not be weighed heavily. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
