Friday, February 21, 2003
posted by Mooraq at 4:49 PM
Sending The Wrong Message
War on Iraq will send a message to other dictators, which one?
In a recent speech, President Bush has said “The disarmament of Iraq will also demonstrate that free nations have the will and resolve to defend the peace. By defeating this threat, we will show other dictators that the path of aggression will lead to their own ruin. By defeating the threat of Iraq we will show the world -- we will show that the world is able and prepared to meet future dangers wherever they arise.“
I am not entirely sure that’s the message dictators will get. Another way of looking at the recent crisis is the different treatment that N. Korea and Iraq are receiving. Iraq is going to be punished for trying to develop WMD, N. Korea will be appeased for possessing them. So, if I were a dictator, the message I’d get is: rush to develop WMD as soon as possible as they are the best insurance against being invaded. This is exactly the philosophy that Iran seems to be following at the moment. I hope dictators and would-bes are reading from the same page President Bush is, otherwise they could get a completely different message than what he want them to get.
posted by Mooraq at 4:20 PM
Winning The Peace 2
Some more discussion on the post war
Paul Krugman from the NYT adds his voice to the debate about the need for a proper post-war plan and commitment. It is a subject to which the US Administration is not giving much thought at the moment.
Thursday, February 20, 2003
posted by Mooraq at 2:52 PM
Winning The Peace
The US should think about the future
The FT agrees with me about the need for more planning on the future of Iraq.
Keeping my fingers crossed, I believe the war will be fairly easy to win; it’s the post war that will challenge the US (and the rest of the world) much more. Even in a best-case scenario, Iraq will have to be rebuilt from scratch with massive investments in infrastructures, health and education, to say nothing of the massive socio-cultural effort needed to create the basis for democracy. I don’t want to think about the worst-case.
Wednesday, February 19, 2003
posted by Mooraq at 5:33 PM
posted by Mooraq at 5:22 PM
From Our Intelligence Department
Two guides to threats you and I should worry about
If you are interested in global threats, WMD, rogue states and other like-minded subjects, please read the director of the CIA and the director of the DIA reports to the US Senate and Congress. They make for a sobering read and they agree on one thing: the main threat to global security is not Iraq but Al Qaeda.
posted by Mooraq at 12:24 PM
Dispatches From The War
US is losing the war for the world’s public opinion, it should ask why
A strong majority of people around the world (not only in “old Europe”) appears against the war on Iraq in the current situation. It would be a good idea for the US to ask why. It is easy, as many Americans do, to dismiss everything as few lefty loonies or French weasels doing their usual anti-American dance. Maybe this shallow level of analysis is due to the poor – to say the least - media coverage in the US. I personally think that many people prefer the ostrich technique of burying their heads in the sand to confronting tough realities.
With few exceptions, the US is embarking not in a war but in a long term strategy without having fully understood the consequences. Sadly it reminds me of the build up to the Vietnam War. Even those (including me) who are in favour of intervening in Iraq are dismayed by the incompetence and apparent lack of strategic planning demonstrated so far by this US Administration.
If the Afghanistan experience is anything to go by, the US does not have very clear ideas on what to do after removing Saddam. Apart from the rather naïve belief that a democracy in Iraq can be conjured out of thin air and provide a domino effect on the whole region – now, where did I hear the domino analogy before? – I have heard no serious strategic planning beyond “let’s kick Saddam’s ass”.
At the risk of being repetitive, Saddam is NOT the primary threat to the US or to the world. The war on Iraq, its consequences, aftermath and implications have to be considered fully and carefully. At present I cannot see it being done, I just see some childish name-dropping and high-school level analysis.
Tuesday, February 18, 2003
posted by Carla Passino at 9:18 AM
The EU Wakes Up At Last
After weeks of disagreement, the European Union produced a common, if bland, statement on the Iraqi crisis
The European Union has been the biggest loser so far in the whole war against Iraq fiasco. No matter that it has two foreign affairs representatives, Javier Solana and Chris Patten, who have been babbling about a supposed common foreign policy for years. When push did come to shove, the common policy melted faster than snow under Moroccan sun and each EU country went on to adopt the stance that best served its own national interests. So the UK, Italy and Spain went on to side with – some would say under – the United States, while France and Germany played the reluctant ally.
Last night, however, European presidents and prime ministers finally remembered that there is such a thing as a European Union and managed to express a joint view in the Council.
Unsurprisingly, it defines war as a "last resort" and reasserts "full support" for the work of UN inspectors, who "must be given the time and resources that the UN Security Council believes they need". But, it said, "inspections cannot continue indefinitely in the absence of full Iraqi cooperation." Therefore, the EU is committed to working with its allies, "especially the United States", for the disarmament of Iraq.
In a passage dear to European hearts, which will hardly prove popular with the Likudniks within the Bush administration, the document also reiterates the need to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which Europe has long seen as a key to stabilising the Middle East.
The fruit of a laborious diplomatic process, the Council document is by necessity fairly bland and open to interpretation (see the reports on The New York Times and The Washington Post for proof). Each camp – White House and war-hawks on one side and war-sceptics on the other – can see enough of its positions in it to express satisfaction, as they have all promptly done. Whether this will be enough to heal the rift within the EU, however, remains to be seen.
Monday, February 17, 2003
posted by Mooraq at 9:48 PM
What Now?
After a bad week for the war hawks, this is how the situation looks (and some lessons for the future)
It was not a good week for the US. After an ineffective show at the UN, a lot of people around the world took to the streets to demonstrate their revulsion for the war on Iraq. Even in countries that are supporting the US (like UK, Italy or Australia), public opinion has clearly shown itself to be against the war. On top of this, the major stock exchanges are voting for peace with their latest results.
Now the US is in a quandary: on one hand it still want to get rid of Saddam, on the other a solitary war, fought against the will of the international community and the people of all the democratic countries in the world is certainly not what the US Administration had in mind. The last war based on these premises was Vietnam and all remember how that ended. This is not to say that Saddam will have any chance. Just that the REAL war, the one against Al Quaeda, will still be long and hard, and winning that will take much more than tanks and laser guided missiles.
So where does this all leave us? I still believe that war is inevitable. Chances are that Saddam will overplay his hand and a second UN resolution will pass, maybe in the second half of March. France will be happy to have had a central role; Germany will be able to say that all avenues have been explored before resorting to war. Bush and Rumsfeld will claim their new Middle-Eastern base. I hope a few lessons will be learned from all this. The US should realise that diplomacy means not unleashing Donald “the mouth” Rumsfeld and pissing everybody off, that grinding teeth might please the local constituency but internationally is considered very bad manners and, finally, that in the long term operating within the boundaries of international law pays off. Europeans should learn that they could expect to be relevant only if they are able to stick together and that it’s in their long-term interest to work with the US and not against it.
Despite sceptics on both sides, US and Europe have to work together if they want to win this war. Saddam is, in relative terms, a small fry, an easy prey to the superior US military. The real enemy is Al Quaeda, let’s not forget that; fighting it and winning will take the joint efforts of all the democratic world.
posted by Carla Passino at 8:43 AM
Where Are You From?
The traffic logs say one thing, the comments another and we are curious to find out where you come from. So here is a little poll...
 |
|