Friday, February 28, 2003
posted by Mooraq at 10:11 PM
Winning The Peace, Part 4
The US has to be prepared to be in Iraq for the long run, and threading softly while doing it
As the inevitability of the war grows, it is not a bad idea to think about the post-war. Invariable optimist that I am, I believe the war will be relatively short and easy (as much as any war is “easy”). The real tough part will be the peace. In the words of Vice-President Cheney “Once you got Baghdad it’s not clear what government you put in. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime, a Kurdish regime? One that tilts towards Ba’athists or Islamists? How much credibility is that government going to have if it’s set up by the US military? How long does the US military have to stay to protect it, and what happens when we leave?”.
These were the words of then secretary of defense Cheney at the end of war on Iraq part 1 (according to Philip Stephens of the FT -subscription only). Besides, there will be a strong need to show immediate improvements to Iraqis’ welfare in the aftermath of the war. I am sure that the population will take the streets jubilantly after getting rid of Saddam. But neither the US nor the western world in general can afford an Iraq that later slips into anarchy or that doesn’t show any sign of socio-economical improvement after being “liberated”.
Iraq is not Afghanistan, where promises of economic help were soon forgotten by the US administration. Baghdad is one of the foremost centers of the Muslim world and a bad management of the post-war there could result in a political backlash of disastrous proportion. I am not sure this concept is clear yet to Rummy and co. From his last speeches, it sounds like the Secretary of Defense still hopes to get in and out of Iraq in a relatively short time span, maybe one or two years, hopefully less. I am afraid that, if this is really what he thinks, he will have a nasty surprise. Not only the US will have to be there for the long term, but it will have to do so in the most subtle of ways. It cannot certainly seize the Iraqi oil as war reparation or influence too openly the Government, without transforming itself in an occupying power, a big difference from the “deliverer of freedom” image that it wants to project.
The same goes for wishful thinking that removing Saddam from the chessboard will bring peace to the Middle East. The real thorn there is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and Saddam is a marginal player there, even
less than Syria. By delaying twice already the publication of a “road-map” for peace the US has shown a lack of understanding of what is needed to calm the region. A US military occupation of Iraq together with continuous
support for Sharon’s expansion of Israeli settlements would be the perfect scenario for the likes of Bin Laden to get new and expanded support for his mad cause.
posted by Mooraq at 9:43 AM
Collateral Damage
Instead a clash of civilizations between the West and Islam, we are looking at a US vs. Europe match
Another analysis by Sergio Romano on the Italian Corriere della Sera. Trying to go beyond the stereotypes (American cowboys and European surrender monkeys) Romano explains why Europe - even when some Governments have adopted a different position for tactical reasons – is overwhelmingly against this war.
In his opinion French, Germans and all others don’t have any doubt that Saddam is a bloodthirsty dictator, but they don’t believe he represents an immediate threat. They believe that terrorism must be fought but that there is no real link between Saddam and Osama. But the biggest European worry is another, between Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian war, Europeans have no doubt which one is the crisis with the biggest impact on the future of the Middle-East (the second one), and that an Iraqi war, far from helping, would actually destabilize the powder keg that the region already is.
Other reasons have to do with the geography. For Europe, the Middle East is a next-door neighbor, which supplies three things: oil, immigrants and terrorists. On all three counts the war on Iraq could produce negative effects that will be felt first and foremost in Europe. If there will be a million Kurds, for instance, displaced by the aftermath of the war and they decide to emigrate, they will not go to New York for the most part but come to Europe (Germany and France first). If northern African terrorism gets a militant boost, Europe will be hit hardest. Europeans have some justification for being worried that they will end up paying the price for the American war on Iraq.
There are counterarguments for all these points, obviously, but what Americans have to understand is that the majority of Europeans are not prejudiced against America or friends of Saddam (as some commentators with the brain the size of a peanut have said) but they have genuine and rational concerns about this war. Addressing them needs to go beyond reciprocal name-calling and mud-slinging.
Thursday, February 27, 2003
posted by Carla Passino at 9:44 PM
Vox Populi 2
What bloggers round the world think of the war
American bloggers by and large appear to back war against Iraq. Some do so more forcefully, others more reluctantly, depending on their political alignment. But a quick look at international blogs suggests that the rest of the world is markedly less enthusiastic about it - even, or perhaps especially, in countries which have pledged to support Bush's policy.
In Italy, a blog hosted by award-winning journalist Claudio Sabelli Fioretti - a joint effort by him and his many readers - is remarkably pluralist in its views, despite featuring the Peace banner in its header. It carries postings both in favour ('I am all for the war,' writes Luciano Caldirola. 'Saddam is a bloodthirsty dictator who gassed his own subjects and killed a million Iraqis') and - somewhat more numerous - against the war ('A war waged like it is being planned to wage it would 1) not guarantee Saddam's death and 2) guarantee a mass slaughter of civilians,' responds Paolo Beretta). Individual blogs appear to be slightly more biased towards the anti-war front. One such is Looptrain's Osservatorio Guerra, who can't help but wonder: 'suppose Iraq's main product was broccoli....'
In Spain, popular weblog News from Spain laments that Saddam Hussein is proving Bush's staunchest ally when it comes to war against Iraq: 'The spectacle given by the Western powers, especially the United States, is lamentable. The thing nobody expected was that Saddam would turn into the closest ally of Bush's imperialist ambitions: he refuses to destroy the long-range missiles which the UN inspectors found a week ago...This has thrown overboard the efforts of France, Germany, Russia and others to stop the [war] drive of such an unyielding fascist as President W.'
Agonist (via Calpundit) offers a graphical view of the vox populi on war with maps showing which countries (in the sense of its people) and which governments in the world are in favour of waging war. Guess what? The majority aren't.
posted by Mooraq at 2:15 PM
The Third Generation Is Coming
Europe is going 3G, will it change the way we communicate?
Without much fanfare, the first 3G phones will soon hit the shelves of Italian and UK stores. Nobody has yet come up with a killer app for the bandwidth that 3G can offer, but I suspect consumers will soon find out the best way to make use for it. After all Tim Berners Lee never thought about multiplayer online gaming when he wrote the specs for HTML.
3G it’s a technological quantum leap forward and could herald a new era of mobile communication making the mobile Internet a reality. As a keen Internet user and frequent traveler, I cannot but hope to see this dream becoming true soon. Next year you could be reading International Sentinel from your mobile phone (what a great idea!).
Wednesday, February 26, 2003
posted by Carla Passino at 9:18 PM
The Bulldog Bites the Poodle
Blair's policy on Iraq sparks the biggest Parliamentary revolt in six years
Tony Blair faced the biggest Parliamentary defiance since he came to power on Wednesday as British Members of Parliament (MPs) revolted against his handling of the Iraqi crisis.
More than 120 Labour backbenchers voted against a Government motion asking them to back its strategy on Iraq. Over 190 MPs across all party lines proposed an amendment to the motion stating that ‘the case for war is not yet been proven.' Presenting the amendment, Labour MP and former Culture Minister, Chris Smith said that Bush – rather than logic or ethics – was really calling the shots on Iraq, whereas ‘we need to have the clearest possible reasons for [going to war] and I don’t believe we have them.’
Although Blair managed to secure the vote in the end, thanks to unusual backing from the Tory opposition, he knows rebellious MPs enjoy strong popular support. Now more than ever, he needs international consensus on Iraq to show his country and his voters that there is more to his foreign policy than just being America’s poodle.
posted by Carla Passino at 8:51 AM
Vox Populi, Vox Dei
Why it is in everybody's best interest to pass a UN resolution sanctioning war against Iraq
With the United States and Britain ready to wage war against Iraq by mid-March, opinion polls across the world suggest that - in Europe and America alike - support is low for unilateral military action. According to the latest Gallup poll, only 30% of Americans favour war no matter what, while 40% require that it be UN-sanctioned and 26% think that the US should not attack Iraq at all.
Unsurprisingly, figures are even lower in Europe, with just 23% of the British, 20% of the Spanish, and just 13% of Italians supporting war outside a UN-approved framework.
Therefore both Bush and, more urgently, his European allies need a second UN resolution for 'marketing' purposes.
Will they get it?
As the March 14 deadline approaches, Western governments are rushing into a last round of frenetic diplomatic convolutions to take advantage of the situation. Blair and Aznar continue to support Bush wholeheartedly while Berlusconi - although paying lip service to 'our American friends' - has taken steps to appease his Catholic voters at home by stating that of course any war must have a UN blessing, that 'everything must be done to reach a peaceful solution to the crisis' and that, in any case, Italy will not lend much more than air space and moral support.
Meanwhile France, Germany and Russia still maintain that there is no case for a second resolution (yet) but it will hardly come as a shock if, on March 14, Chirac does decide that inspections have been thorough enough, that Saddam is not complying with them, and that indeed the case is now strong to wage war on Iraq. This would make Blair, Aznar and Berlusconi happy, Bush (reluctantly) happy and Chirac himself very happy. Because he would have demonstrated his statesmanship and independence of judgement while managing, in the best tradition of French diplomacy, to land on the winning side in the end.
Tuesday, February 25, 2003
posted by Mooraq at 1:34 PM
Footing The Bill
Why the US needs the rest of the world
Many US commentators and bloggers are asking why should the US feel constrained in its actions by frog-eating surrender monkeys or obscure bureaucrats in the UN. After all the US possesses the most mighty military machine this world has ever seen adn it does not need any allies, right? Wrong. Winning a war and winning the subsequent peace takes a lot more than missiles and tanks, it takes money. The “cut-as-there-is-no-tomorrow” policies by Bush have already left the US strapped for cash and in deep deficit for the foreseeable future. On top of huge budget deficits, the US is already the biggest borrower in the world, it borrows about 200million USD every day from the rest of the world, especially from – you probably guessed it – good “old Europe”.
In the first Iraqi war there was a long list of countries (Germany, Japan, Saudi Arabia among them) queuing up to pay the bill, now it appears that the US has to offer hard cash even to get access to Turkey's bases, let alone to convince other countries like Angola (a current member of the UN Security Council) to support the war. The costs of it and of the potential post-war reconstruction will be huge and it appears clear to me that the Bush Administration has not given the issue a second thought so far.
If the US fails to address this situation, it may turn from being the growth engine of the world to a threat to global economic stability. The world irresponsible is too mild a description for the economic policies pursued so far by this administration. I sincerely hope that Mr. Bush will suddenly see the light (as his father did, when he was forced to raise the taxes despite his promises) but I am afraid he may be much more driven by ideology than his daddy was.
posted by Mooraq at 11:07 AM
Analogies
A Middle-East crisis that found the western world divided
I already made a couple of times the parallel between the Suez crisis and today’s situation. An article on the NYT does the same. At that time the positions were reversed, with old Europe (and Israel) intervening military against a middle-eastern dictator and the US reining them in and favouring a soft, diplomatic approach to solving the crisis.
I doubt Eisenhower could have been described a “surrender monkey” or a ”friend of Nasser” in the same way some commentators are doing with Chirac and co. but he was doing pretty much the same they are doing today. At that time the diplomatic way succeeded in containing and ultimately defeating the threat (eventually Nasser was to be the first Arab leader to make peace with Israel). Granted, today situation is not an exact replica of that scenario, but many of Chirac’s critics should start looking at things a bit more rationally (and it would not hurt if they read a little bit of history).
Monday, February 24, 2003
posted by Carla Passino at 9:26 PM
Blair Tweaks Bush’s Ears on Global Warming
The British Prime Minister proposes a radical plan to tackle climate change which he says is a serious threat to global security
Tony Blair committed today to tackling global warming well beyond the targets set by the Kyoto agreement in a speech which is seen by many to rebuff President Bush’s stance on the issue.
Speaking at the Sustainable Development Conference at the London Canal Museum, the British Prime Minister said that climate change ‘remains unquestionably the most urgent environmental challenge’ which the world has to face and that international consensus is needed to contrast its ‘devastating impact.’ He compared the effects of global warming to the threat posed by rogue states and Islamic terrorism.
‘The world is in danger of polarising around two different agendas,’ he said. ‘On the one hand there are the very clear and dangerous threats of unstable states developing or proliferating weapons of mass destruction, and the evil of terrorism exemplified by September 11. These are the issues, if you like, of immediate security.
‘On the other hand, there are issues that affect us over time. They are just as devastating in their potential impact, but they require reflection and strategy geared to the long term. Within this category are the issues of global poverty, relations between the Muslim world and the West, and environmental degradation, most particularly climate change. There will be no lasting peace while there is appalling injustice and poverty. There will be no genuine security if the planet is ravaged by climate change.’
To prevent this happening, the climate change containment strategy needs to go far beyond the targets set at Kyoto. ‘While Kyoto was an enormous agreement, it is simply not enough…We know now, from further research and evidence, that to stop further damage to the environment we need a reduction of 60% in emissions worldwide.’ Unlike the war against Iraq scenario, plans to fight climate change find much support in Europe and very little in the United States, and Blair is fully aware that even the limited Kyoto targets ‘have proved controversial with some countries, notably America.’
His recipe is the same to solve both sets of issues: to build a ‘covenant of nations’ with a common agenda that spans from tackling terror to addressing global warming. ‘We need a new international consensus to protect our environment and combat the devastating impacts of climate change,’ he said. ‘As a first step, we are working intensively with our European partners to agree a 60% [reduction in emissions] target for the EU as a whole. We will continue to work also with our new partners from Central, Southern and Eastern Europe. And we will continue to make the case to the United States and to others that climate change is a serious threat that we must address together as an international community.’
Blair’s words have had a mixed response the UK, where some critics, such as the Green Party’s Principal Speaker, Margaret Wright dismissed his tough stance on global warming as empty rhetoric aimed at convincing the home front that ‘he is not just the US lapdog.’
His plans are likely to meet a frostier reception in Washington, where the Bush administration has made it very clear that it will not ratify Kyoto – let alone embark on a more ambitious programme.
The British Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Agriculture, Margaret Beckett said today that building a coalition of the willing to fight climate change ‘is not easy but it is doable, given the effort and the political will.’ However, neither appears to be in abundant supply over the pond.
What Blair and his Government may discover with climate change is that America never listens to its allies when what they have to say makes for an uncomfortable truth.
posted by Mooraq at 6:05 PM
Les Jeux Sont (Presque) Fait
With the presentation of the new UN resolution, the war on Iraq is closer than ever
Tonight (Old Europe time), the US and UK will present the UN Security Council with a new resolution (in Spanish, to do something different), to be voted in mid-March. The message for Saddam is clear, disarm or be bombed out of existence. Unless Blix and co. come back with some amazing news (which I doubt) in the next couple of weeks, the dice of war will be thrown. France and Russia will probably abstain (as may do China) unless there is a majority of votes against the resolution.
The only way I see to avoid a war is for Saddam to remove itself or disband completely his military structure, as I don’t see either of the two happening, let’s brace ourselves for a war beginning at a CNN screen near you on March 15th.
posted by Mooraq at 1:33 PM
Different Angles
Moral certainty is not for Old Europe
An article on the IHT by Regis Debray captures very well the different viewpoint that old Europe has on the Iraq issue.
While I don’t agree with all its conclusions –there is more in the US position than just a mystical and religious fervour – the article explains very well the doubts that Europeans at any level have with the war on Iraq. Many Americans accuse Europe of not having memory, of forgetting the struggle of WWII and the fight against communism. Europeans, on the other hand, say that it is exactly because of those memories that they have doubts on the merit of the war.
On one issue I entirely agree with Debray: “Not having any training as a satellite state, unlike the countries of Eastern Europe, France has assumed the right to judge for itself”. If this means being “old Europe” than I am an old European too.
 |
|