--- Dan Minette wrote: <snip> [I quoted and wrote:] > > > Washington Post Editorial > > > > > > "NEARLY SIX weeks have passed since...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... <snippage> Yes, Powell and Bush must have been doing some serious work 'behind the green curtain.' For such delicate manuvering, I do see the need for momentary opacity; I suspect we'll find out more after it's over. > > <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... <smiles> The point is this: that when it comes to oil, US policy often seems inconsistent with what most of us believe 'we,' as America, should be promoting around the globe. (Others have already noted this with respect to the Saudis, frex.) I suppose I could have toned down the sarcasm... :) > ...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. Can't disagree with you there. > 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. Yes, the actions of those two are certainly not admirable with respect to Iraq. Sanctions only work if all stick to the set policy until the desired outcome occurs. <snipped much of this> > > > "...Paris [re: the Ivory Coast] > > > never dreamed of forging an international > coalition or consulting the Security Council." > > > > [me] ...and I believe there was > > talk of active US support for said action. > > The actions were quite reasonable...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> <snip> > > 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... <snipped further exploration of the above sentence> I think that a major problem with the Iraqi question is defining just what the US' best interests are, or perhaps rather, how to best serve 'our' interests. Given that eliminating Saddam's WoMD capacity is most desirable from the US' standpoint (and nearly everyone else's, for that matter), I have two questions and several correllaries (sp!?): Who? How? If the US alone is Who, many have pointed out that the Arab and Muslim (let us not forget Indonesia) street will most likely become violent. Would that be a direct threat to the US? Of course not. To our allies, or potential allies (frex India)? I think so. While I don't think hundreds of snipers or bombers could destabilize our government, can the same be said of many Middle Eastern countries? Pakistan? Indonesia? I need only say "Bali" or "theater" for examples of single acts by Muslim extremists that may yet have severe consequences. On the other hand, if the UN states that unless SH complies with all prior resolutions, he will be made to comply by force, cries of "American imperialists" will have much less credibility; I think the chance of widespread street uprisings will be much less. (Even though we all know that the bulk of forces/material in a UN-led action would be American.) If instead of diplomatic coercion to 'declaw Saddam', the focus instead is 'regime change' by military force, what will restrain SH from using all weapons at hand? _Nothing_at_all_. > ...The US, as the most powerful country in the world, > tends to have unique > responsibilities for stability. To first order, > if it is tough and the > US doesn't do it, it doesn't get done... <snippage of specific examples of this, ie. S Korea, Kosovo, etc.> > Or, to put it more accurately, if something is in > the interest of the big > five [UNSC], then it will get the UN blessing. <snippage> > ...However, after a while it ceased to be in > Russia's and France's interests to support the > sanctions [against Iraq]. 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. I think Israel is a much more likely target, as it is closer; a hit on Israel would also be extremely inflammatory - do you foresee Sharon asking the US to retaliate _for_ him? What will happen when Israeli fighters and bombs are launched - even though in national self-defense - at an Arab state? > ...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. As outlined above, I disagree with unilateral US action - although, as I mentioned before, if definite proof could be found of SH's involvement with the Oklahoma City bombing or the Towers attacks, we'd be justified in hunting him to his death. > 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. If it takes behind-the-scenes arm-twisting or public shaming, I think getting official UN condenmation of Iraq is worth doing. Even if the US is left with the lioness's share of the hunt. :) Debbi Well, given that it's a hyena-hunt, 'lion' would be just as accurate... ;P __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
