Re Game theory:
Excellent discussion overall ..............
<<<< The United States stands in an ambivalent position when faced with this equation. The
US, more than any other nation, stands to gain from the establishment of some degree
of order in the world. Our business interests span the globe; trade is our lifeblood,
millions of our citizens live abroad. The order that we require can only exist through the
voluntary adoption by responsible nations of a basic framework of rules governing
relations among states>>>>
Confining this to the immediate problem of Iraq, there is nearly complete agreement
even among Arab nations that Saddam should be displaced as the soul voice and for the reasons stated.
The French , however have the most to lose per capita if he is displaced because they would probably lose the sole right and present agreements to develop one of Iraq's most important oil regions.
The US could also argue that our trade is more important to other nations than it is to us
When Russia has a bad growing season , access to our wheat or corn can save much starvation
Africa is in desperate shape without access to our Aids drugs and so on.
However it is very easy for other Nations, preferring not to admit to the usefulness of trade
with the US, to look upon it as profiteering, something we do internally in regard to fuel prices
and electric costs in California
<<<. Such rules cannot be unilaterally imposed, even by a superpower: any attempt to impose them would not only fail to achieve the goal of an of an ordered world community, but would cause disorder on an epic scale.
And that, for the US, is the quandary. We have more to gain than anyone, in the long term, from the existence of an orderly framework for conflict resolution. Yet many Americans refuse to accept even the possibility of submitting to a set of rules that we did not create, and which might at some point bind us when we do not wish to be bound. The rules must bind all, or they bind none. If they bind none, we will ultimately
have chaos The manner in which we choose to resolve this conflict will largely define our future as a nation, and may be the single most significant factor defining the medium-term future of the world. That’s a responsibility that some among us take rather lightly, in my opinion.>>>
The general rules of conduct for humanity have been agreed to by the Geneva Convention and by the United Nations. Which state among other things, that leaders should not torture, starve or kill their own citizens or captured soldiers of another nation. The UN has no way to directly enforce its own "rules" and apparently can only make recommendations to those Nations who have enough capability or desire to enforce the rules.
Iraq has broken those rules for over ten years and through 18 Resolutions and the UN is still in a quandary as to what should be done about it, even while being 100% in agreement Iraq has violated and still is violation the rules
If they object to the US voluntering to enforce the rules they should either change the rules to make them non-applicable to rogue nations or set up an enforcement agency to carry out military action when that is the
only action which would force obedience to their rules.
And that of course, would establish a World Leader who would have to appoint some nation to execute the
proper military action for which they would have set up another set of rules.
So now we have N Korea resigning from the UN and threatening the world with nuclear confrontation.
Which country would the UN appoint to handle the problem?. I would suggest France- who has proposed evoking their unilateral right to veto and prevent the US from taking any (un appproved) military action to handle Iraq. They will not succeed in doing that, but can say "I told you so" if things go wrong.
Althgether this a stinking merrygound of debate as to who is going to get the blame if Saddam uses those
banned weapons which he denies having but which seem to be intact and buried somewhere the inpectors have not looked yet
This is one reason the US has reserved to itself the right to take unilateral action- because the UN has no enforcement capability.
Alternately. we can take a back seat in the matters of defense, let nuclear and WMD powers develop and
then call upon the UN to take care of the problem. Yet who except the US has the power to resist or respond
to future nuclear threats - would France or Russia or China take care of the problem ? Or would they cast their veto and assign to Spain to take out N Korea, while guaranteeing to protect them?.
In summary:
There has been too much talk and not enough action, new global agreements are badly needed.
Arab nations near Iraq are not afraid of the US proposed action ( we have been there before without harming them and even gave Kuwait back to the Kuwaitis) - they are afraid that Saddam will use his banned weapons on their country.
Sig |
