From: Dan Minette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] From: "Andrew Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> I don't 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 definitely not support intervention, because it would violate >the most important principal held by the member nations of the UN: the >sovereign 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. I don't recall all the details of Rwanda or Bosnia, so I take your points as given. I would argue that there was sufficient warlike activity going in both places for the reasonable person to classify them as wars, but you raise a good point. When is it a war and when is it a country perusing its own legitimate internal security program. I would think we all agree that in both these cases what was going on was more then just internal security. But there will be cases where it is less clear. >> 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 >sovereign 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. I didn't know that. I have always wondered why they did not take him out. It highlights the current problems with the UN I guess. Who made Bush promise that? >>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 Yes, and there is the rub. I am thinking of a meaningful UN, cos yes, as it stands, there is too much politics. >> 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 arguments 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. >>Sovereign nations don't start wars with other sovereign 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. Again, my lack of history is showing here. But I thought that happened after war had been declared over Poland? They didn't start a war over the Rhine did they? Or am I barking up another tree? >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. Well, see, I don't call intervening to prevent genocide as in Rwanda is starting a war of aggression. And I don't want the US to be the one to have to fix it. I want the world community to agree genocide is happening, do all it can diplomatically to prevent it, and then, if needed, assemble a multi-national force, empowered by a UN mandate, to go in, stop it, and get out. Your example of the Rhine is an interesting one. Of itself it had nothing to do with genocide did it? The Nazi's may have been committing genocide but that had little to do with the Rhine did it? >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. No, I don't substantively disagree with your reading of recent history. I was arguing more from the point of view of what I would like the world to be, not how it currently is. And yes, there does have to be some acceptance of genocide, and some escalation of danger. It has to reach some point where the world community says enough. We are on tricky ground here. When is it a harsh prison system and legitimate internal security and when is it genocide? Some could argue that the reduced life expectancy of Australian Aboriginals is a form of genocide. Its why we need some body to decide these things, a world body, not individual nations that may have too much self-interest to be objective. OK, I want to live in LA LA Land, but its our world, and we can make it how we like. I stand by my original statement. Nations should not start wars of aggression. I would not classify Rwanda or Bosnia to be wars of aggression. Iraq is a different kettle of fish. Was genocide going on in Iraq? It wasn't pretty but was it genocide or civil war and total lack of civil order like Rwanda or Bosnia? I would say no. None of this is to condone what was going on Iraq, but it was a stable, if brutal regime. Even the Kurdish situation had stabilised to a degree. And it is a matter of degree's, as always. There are plenty of places with just as much horror and brutality as Iraq. I don't object to using force to change brutal regimes. I object to a country making unilateral decisions to do so, when its own self-interests are so tied up in the outcome. If nothing else it complicates the worlds acceptance of its intentions, which can be very damaging. I think it takes a world body, given the powers to do so, to make decisions such as this. One of the things that disappoints me so much about Iraq, vs say Afghanistan, is that the US seemed to go out of its way to diminish the legitimacy of the only mechanism we have for a concerted world approach to situations such as this. Instead of using the huge moral advantage that Terror had given them, they snubbed their nose at the UN cos it didn't roll over quickly enough to fit GWB's re-election plans (OK, call me a cynic but one can see it this way). The US under Clinton (and most Presidents since WW2) have worked to build global institutions to handle these things. The current US administration seems bent on destroying them, be it the UN, the World Court, or the Kyoto Protocol. I dont agree with all theses bodies do, far from it, but one can either work within them to change them, or snub and ignore them. I am sorry, but the US, big, strong and muscular as it is, is not actually capable of running the world. It needs a global mandate to use its force. And it should be using its power to improve and legitimize international bodies not trash them cos its all too hard. OK, the realities of politics means that for a while, we are going to put up with a lot of nasty stuff, but what else is new? There is a way forward, long, slow, complex it may be, but the end justifies the means in my eyes. Imagine a world where we are all one nation? Who will we fight then? I just think the precedent set in Iraq was a bad one. Its ok to invade a place that appears to have weapons of mass destruction, just cos they might use them? I still dont get the moral basis of the invasion. What was it? Not what is it now, not what spin is the flavour this month, but what was it? America has more weapons of mass destruction than any other country on earth. And more ways to deliver them, to threaten any nation on earth, in minutes. Does that make it OK for folks to invade America? The idea that the rest of the world, poor, uneducated, victims of years of propaganda and violence, jealous of the conspicuous wealth and in many cases gross excess that is beamed into the village TV each week, are supposed to blindly accept that America is inherently good and its therefore OK for them to have these weapons, but not for anyone else, displays a frightening insularity and, yes arrogance, by the US. Invading Iraq, wielding its power so blatantly probably just reinforces the idea that America is a dangerous nation. If I had to choose a nation to be the worlds policeman it would be America. Hands down. I trust America and Americans. But with this power goes all the more responsibility. I feel that Iraq was a mistake because it was a betrayal of a proud history of caution and balance by America. The US, who don't start wars, but come in to help finish them when it is clear, absolutely clear, that there is an evil enemy that needs to be defeated, started, of entirely their own volition, a war. For their own ends. A war of aggression. They were not threatened in any meaningful sense by Iraq. They chose to invade Iraq. It was a war of aggression, carried out for reasons I still fail to understand. I think that is a shame. And I think it was stupid. >> 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. :-) Yes, it does depend how you do it. Sadly Iraq is not going to just go away. Short of Mike's nuke option. I would love a democratic, secular Middle East I just find it odd that America, champion of democracy, could think that this was the best way to achieve it. Andrew PS I think the lack of moral clarity about this invasion lies at the root of some of the excess that the recent developments have exposed. Even soldiers don't live in a moral vacuum.
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
