----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 8:08 AM Subject: RE: What America Does with its Hegemony
> I dont think Bosnia or Rwanda were/would have been starting wars. > Both were civil wars as I see them, in which one, with the full support > of the UN, one could justify intervention to end them, not to start them. In Rwanda the tribal war was over. One side had won. After it won, it killed a significant fraction of the tribe that lost as well as those members of its own tribe that protested. So, there was no war to stop, just genocide. The UN would definately not support intervention, because it would violate the most important principal held by the member nations of the UN: the soverign nature of each state in the UN. In other words, the right of a nation to handle its own affairs in any way it seems fit is, practically, more important than stopping the evil of genocide. In Bosnia, it is true that there was some resistance to the Serbs, so you could say the war was still going on. But, the UN's position was crystal clear in the Dutchbat report...the UN was not to stop genocide. What is amazing about this report is that it chided Clinton for trying to work as an equal partner with the other nations of NATO instead of telling people what they would do. There was no way this would change at the UN. Supporting the supremacy of the Serbs was in the best interest of the government of Russia. Stopping the war and preventing genocide was clearly in the best interest of Western Europe. Yet, the US had to drag them into the only real solution kicking years after the mess started. At the time I thought Bosnia was a perfect opportunity for the EU to show its ability to take the lead in handling a crisis in its own back yard. It is clear that the countries of Europe had no stomach for it, and relied on the US to force a solution on them. Looking back, this seems to flow naturally from the tragedy of the commons. > There should be, in my opinion (and I think Doug discusses this above) > some sort of body to make these decisions. The UN is flawed, in many ways, > but it does have the only claim to being a world government. But, the reality of world politics is that this will only happen when other soverign states are threatened. The first Gulf War is a great example of how this works. The invasion of Kuwait by Iraq portented the possibility of Iraq taking over most of the oil production in the Middle East. If the US didn't stop it, there would be chance that Saudi Arabia and the UAE could stand for more than a few days. So, the US got the world's blessing to reverse the invasion, but only to reverse the invasion. They had to promise to leave Hussein in power in order to obtain the world's blessing. Bush Sr. took the gamble that Hussein would fall after a big defeat. It didn't happen. > And even it would > not "start wars", it would reluctantly undertake interventions in countries that > had gone beyond the limit of what was agreed by the world as being acceptable > behaviour. That would not be an easy judgement, and lots of stalling and politics > would go on, and lots of indecision, but thats how it should be. Rwanda, Bosnia > and a few others would fall into the category of places that one would intervene in. I understand how that is nice in theory, but it doesn't really happen. The UN just gave its tacit approval to the genocide that is developing in Sudan. The UN insisted that its forces should not stop genocide in Bosnia. The UN refused to consider > Perhaps, eventually, Iraq would have too, once all other avenues had been fully explored. France has a veto power and it specifically stated that there were no circumstances in which this would happen. Further, France and Russia worked hard between '98 and '01 to remove all restraints on Hussein. Gautam's senior thesis at Harvard gave a very good explaination for this. French comments have supported his thesis. Oversimplifying it, I would say it is nations strive to improve their relative position with the other nations of the world. Thus, since Hussein poses a difficult challange to the US, keeping Hussein in power weakens the US. If France gains commercial contracts with Hussein, France benefits. Thus, Hussein represents a benefit to France...and it is in France's best interest to keep Hussein in power. It is also in France's best interest for the US to check that power, since a nuclear armed Hussein would pose a danger to France. But, since France can count on Israel and the US to check these ambitions, it even behooves France to help Hussein become a nuclear power. Back to the Gulf War. Hussein started a new campaign of killing (which looked like the start of genocide) after recovering a bit from the first Gulf War. The US and GB intervened to stop it, maintaining a uneasy status quo. So, the Gulf War was more ongoing than the civil war in Rwanda during the genocide. Indeed, part of the arguements for going in was that this situation couldn't continue forever. Indeed, this situation was the main action of the west that contributed to the rise of AQ. > Soverign nations dont start wars with other soverign nations. Wars are forced upon you, > not undertaken cos it seems like a good idea at the time. Let me understand your point clearly then. Take Gautam's example of the advisability of the British and French stopping the remiliterization of the Rhine. By your standards, that would have been wrong. Now, you can hold this position and be intellectually consistant. But, I do feel that you will have to argue that accepting genocide, and accepting situations where the US will have to spend massive resources intervening after the rest of the nations of the world have decided that the actions of a country theaten them sufficiently to allow the US to act on a somewhat regular basis. In other words, local powers will have a green light to commit genocide at will, and situations like the Balkans will only be resolved after they become so bad that the powers that benefited from a low level conflict will be threatened enough by a higher level conflict to allow the US to intervene. I appreciate you answering straightforwardly here. But, I think we've come to a dividing point in possibilities, and I would like to see your response. Either you differ with my reading of recent history, and we can discuss that, or you'll generally accept it and hold to the principal that the acceptance of genocide and the escalation of danger before intervention are a necessary price to pay for the benefit of rule by international law. > Ohh, I got bitten by an insect ! Hey look there is a bee's nest, lets go and > poke a stick in it and swirl it about a bit, that will stop it happening again. > Sure.. great idea guys. Well, I've been bitten by hornets and then removed the hornets nest from my porch. They went away. It all depends on how you do it. :-) Dan M.
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
