Den Beste on the US and the UN (US out of UN)
<<<<I think that France and Germany gave up hope of preventing us from actually going to war quite a while ago. What they've been angling for in the recent past is to avoid any kind of straight up-or-down vote about the subject in the UNSC. Maybe a month ago, there were leaks out of the State Department that we'd go to the UN for another resolution but only if we really thought it would pass.
Of course, that forces all the members of the UNSC to actually go on record on the subject, and a lot of them don't want to be in that position. France, certainly, doesn't and neither really do a lot of the non-permanent members such as Chile. So we're getting repeated condemnations and threats about refusal to go along with another resolution, all in hopes of convincing us to not even bother asking.
The US and UK have now squashed that hope. In his press conference last night, Bush made absolutely clear that he was ready to order the attack whether the UN approved or not. He also made clear that he wanted a UNSC vote whether it was expected to pass or not; he wanted "people to show their cards". He isn't going to let the members of the UNSC duck the question; he's determined to get a vote no matter how it will go. And yesterday Blair said that he was ready to go to war even if there were multiple vetos.
Today the UK circulated a proposal for an amendment to their previous resolution. The wording of it is interesting. If it passes, then what it says is that the game ends on March 17 unless the UNSC passes another resolution which says that it finds Iraq's cooperation to be acceptably good. Since there's no chance in hell of that happening, then if this were to pass it would mean that the diplomatic game would end on Monday week.
And there indications that the military preparations are mature. Now that it's clear there's no hope for a northern front, there's nothing left to wait for. Enough forces are in the region and they've had enough time to prepare; they're ready to go. And further delays at this point could be very dangerous. So it looks like a date has finally been set.
The Germans and the French hate this amendment. They read it correctly; Fischer says it would lead to war. He's right. That is exactly what it's supposed to do.
Or rather, there's going to be war no matter what. But what this amendment does is force Fischer and Schröder and Chirac and Putin and the Chinese to go on record as to whether they want to defend and protect a murderous dictator.
It's worse than that. There's an article in The Telegraph which claims to be based on a lot of inside information. As always with articles like this, there's no way to know how much of it is true, but what it does say sounds very convincing. And if it is true, then the "transatlantic alliance" is headed for complete breach. Bush is fed up; he's "mad as hell and he's not going to take it anymore."
What becomes clear is that there really is a big strategy, and it's a world strategy and not just an Iraq strategy. The maneuverings with the UN were intended to smoke out the weasels and to try to manipulate the balance of power in Europe, while doing everything possible to make sure Tony Blair remains Prime Minister, because he is essential in the next act of the play, the one that comes after Iraq.
The US always had the ability to take care of Iraq all by itself. The force which will do the fighting will contain a significant contribution from the UK, far more than a token contingent. 35,000 men is no small force, but it's dwarfed by the US force which will be involved, and on a straight military basis the US could have done it even without the British contribution. But this article says that for the next step, when the time comes to take on Iran, British support will become vital. A combination of American presence on Iran's border, the simple fact of momentum, and British contacts inside Iran would then be used to bring about revolution there and boot the mullahs. Iran's been ripe for revolution for a long time now; the vast majority of the people chafe at the restrictions placed on them by the mullahs and violate them at every opportunity.
But there's also the entire question of Europe itself. Some there are attempting to design the new government of the EU in a fashion such that its true centers of power would be largely disconnected from voter influence. They're also trying to codify a lot of other rather pernicious principles, and the result could well end up being what one of my readers referred to as the "European Soviet Socialist Republics", whose declared foreign policy was to oppose and obstruct the US, and to create what would amount to a new Comintern to spread the enlightened socialist message to the world (in opposition to American "globalist" capitalism).
Austin Bay has been writing that one of the side benefits, perhaps even intentional, of this period of slow buildup has been that it has put intolerable pressure on the remnants of al Qaeda to break cover and act. If they did not in any way respond to an American conquest of Arab/Islamic Iraq, their credibility with the "Arab Street" would be zero. So this has forced al Qaeda into activity which has made it easier for our shadow warriors to find and eliminate them.
By the same token, this period has also forced anti-American Europeans to break cover and come out into the open. They, too, are not able to remain silent while the US exercises its unmatched military power, no matter who it's being used against.
The recent falling out about Europe speaking "with a single voice" on foreign policy was part of that: it wasn't just that some claimed there needed to be a single voice, but also that the single European voice had to speak against the United States. (In French.)
We got mutterings about US opposition in the UN, too. There were leaks from "diplomats close to the situation" about anti-American sentiments, and about how these anonymous sources saw the US as being the issue, not Saddam. But now there are names and faces. For instance, there's Pierre Lellouche, who said in an interview:
"This is not about Saddam Hussein, and this is not even about regime change in Iraq or even the million people killed by Saddam Hussein or missiles or chemical weapons," Pierre Lellouche, a legislator who is close to Chirac, said in an interview. "It is about what has become two conflicting views of the world.
"It's about whether the United States is allowed to run world affairs and battle terrorism and weapons proliferation essentially with a small group of trusted allies," or whether many nations should have a say, he said.
Since France has no other place where it has any kind of effective power, on a practical level, it's been using the threat of its veto in the UNSC as a way of trying to force the US to not do anything. The international diplomatic squabble has never really been about Iraq. It's always been about the US. And for many people in the world, including many government leaders, the function of the UN has changed. It used to be about maintaining peace and order in the world. Now it's about shackling America.
Which is probably why Pollard reports the following:
But it is proving difficult enough to get the UN to support action against Iraq. Mr Bush's most fundamental belief is that actions have consequences. If the UN behaves irresponsibly, it will pay the price. A phrase is doing the rounds: the US out of the UN, and the UN out of the US.
Well-connected advisers tell me that if, as now seems likely, the UN refuses to back action against terror, Mr Bush will announce a "temporary" suspension of America's membership, to be accompanied by an offer: if the UN gets its act together and carries out long-overdue reforms, America (and its money) will return. But if there is no reform, the temporary withdrawal will, de facto, become permanent.
Yes, actions have consequences, and it is apparently Bush's determination to force the UN to formally make its position clear. The overt case against Iraq is obvious, so if the UNSC still refuses to act then it will become clear that it's opposing America. If there were no hidden agenda, no ulterior motive, the resolution would pass easily. And if the UN sees its mission as opposing America, then there's no longer any good reason for America to be a member of it, let alone provide far more money to support it than any other nation. IIRC, the US provides 23% of the total budget of the organization, not to mention a lot of indirect spending associated with maintaining the UN itself in NYC. And if the US leaves there's a distinct possibility that other nations would follow us, further eroding the credibility of the UN, and further reducing its budget.
Coming out of this, with a complete break with the UN (whether involving a formal walkout or not), if we then go into Iraq and win easily and reveal the horrific situation there, which is the highest-probability outcome, it's going to make it obvious to anyone who isn't blinded by anti-American paranoia that the UK and America were right, and that the UN clearly wasn't able to fulfill its nominal role. Those who stood with us will look virtuous; those who opposed us will stand revealed as hypocrites and liars (and quite possibly as outright traitors and criminals) whose true agenda was always opposition to America at all costs and on all issues.
If this happens, there's going to be hell to pay in Weasel-occupied Europe. They've always underestimated Bush, and it's beginning to dawn on them that they've done it again, and this time the mistake will cost them dearly. For one thing, it's only beginning to dawn on them that Bush is a man of his word. For example, Anatole Kaletsky, writing in the London Times, says:
Why, then, do I suddenly believe that war is, after all, inevitable — and that the fighting will begin by the end of the month?
The simplest answer is that George Bush has said so. Since the day this crisis started, the best way to judge what would happen next has been simply to listen to the White House, ignoring all speculative comments and interpretations from media pundits, international leaders or even subordinate US politicians such as Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Colin Powell.
Weasels are confused when they run into things like "clarity of purpose" and "decisiveness", let alone "honesty". (It's so simplisme!) The weasels are starting to make noises about trying to repair the damage, but it's too late for that.
The US is facing a fundamental question, and Bush just answered it: Are we willing to compromise our national security if that's the only way we can gain approval from the world? Bush says "no".
Q Mr. President, are you worried that the United States might be viewed as defiant of the United Nations if you went ahead with military action without specific and explicit authorization from the U.N.?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I'm not worried about that. As a matter of fact, it's hard to say the United States is defiant about the United Nations, when I was the person that took the issue to the United Nations, September the 12th, 2002. We've been working with the United Nations. We've been working through the United Nations.
Secondly, I'm confident the American people understand that when it comes to our security, if we need to act, we will act, and we really don't need United Nations approval to do so. I want to work -- I want the United Nations to be effective. It's important for it to be a robust, capable body. It's important for it's words to mean what they say, and as we head into the 21st century, Mark, when it comes to our security, we really don't need anybody's permission.
No, the US isn't going to let the UN stand in its way. And if it becomes crystal clear that the UN has ceased to be about guaranteeing world security and transformed into an organization whose goal is to oppose the US in all important matters, then I think that the possibility of an American walk-out is very real. Lellouche also said:
We are now headed for a clash, and it's going to be the worst possible war, which is a war outside the U.N. by one, two or three powers with the rest of democracies being divided.
Yes, from his point of view it will indeed be the worst possible war, but he didn't include all the reasons why. It will be a war by the US and a few nations who stand with the US, and the US will win it easily despite every effort by France to prevent it.
Which means that the world is now facing its own fundamental question: If there truly is to be one hyperpuissance on the planet, is it actually all that bad a thing that it's America? A Thai lawmaker is quoted as saying:
A Thai lawmaker warned a war would create a "great likelihood of terrorist retaliation," but said he would side with Washington if it decides to act against Iraq.
"There really is no other viable option," said Kobsak Chutikul, the deputy leader in one of the parties in Thailand's coalition government. "For all its flaws, I would feel safer to have my children grow up in a world dominated by the United States than by any other country."
Does reflexive anti-Americanism cause more harm than it prevents? Deep down, ignoring petty resentments and annoyances and hurt pride, is America really all that bad?
And even if it is, do you really want us angry at you?
Brian Tiemann just got through reading the classic comic collection, Watchmen. At one point, one of the main characters, Rorschach, is in prison and is involved in a struggle with other prisoners. And after winning a fight against another prisoner, he shouts, "None of you understand. I'm not locked up in here with you. You're locked up in here with me."
The US is not the cold brutal killer represented by Rorschach, though it sure seems that way when you listen to some of the Weasels' denunciations. Nonetheless, that point does apply. There seems to be so much obsession with analysis of how the world is reacting to the US that no one is paying attention to how the US is reacting.
President Bush is staking out a lonely position in forcing a U.N. vote on Iraq that he's likely to lose. It's an unusual strategy. And if he does lose and goes to war anyway, it could jeopardize America's dealings with other world powers for years to come.
He's gotten it exactly backwards: it could jeopardize other world powers' dealings with America for years to come.
The Weasels don't seem to understand: this is no longer about the US asking the world for approval. This is about the world asking the US for approval. The new proposal in the UN is not about deciding whether there will be war in Iraq. It's about the world deciding whether it's determined to totally alienate the US and force the US to proceed alone. We'd rather have help, but we're determined to act alone when our security is at stake.
A year ago in his State of the Union message, Bush said that for the other nations of the world, "you're either with us or you are with the terrorists". The vote on this amendment will force the members of the Security Council explicitly, and implicitly the other nations of the world, to formally choose sides. And the effects of this vote will last for decades.
Because actions do have consequences.
Update: Russell says that if the US, Japan, UK and Italy all pulled out of the UN, that would amount to about half its total income. Recently Japan announced it would be reducing its contribution anyway, basically because it can't afford it any more. The Japanese government has been standing politically beside us through this entire episode, though of course they can't actually get involved militarily. So the idea of a joint US/UK/Japanese walkout is not at all farfetched, and that cuts 47%.
It's also worth noting that we've done partial walkouts of the UN before. For instance, we ceased participating in, and financing, UNESCO for quite a long time.
If we were truly determined to annihilate the UN rather than merely castrating it, a significant pullout by the US and one or more friendly nations could be accompanied by an eviction notice. With reduced budget, it's hard to see how the UN could actually find and move to a new location (say, in Paris). Germany and France are both broke, and no one else is likely to be willing to kick in a couple of billion dollars to pay for it all.
There are UN agencies worth preserving. I would suspect that the WHO, UNICEF, and WFP would go independent and be directly financed. But it's hard to see how an organization like the UN could survive such a steep drop in revenue, or who would be willing to replace it.
>>>>>>>
denbeste.nu |
