SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : America Under Siege: The End of Innocence -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: calgal who wrote (21443)2/12/2003 10:55:06 AM
From: calgal  Respond to of 27760
 
Terry Eastland

URL:http://jewishworldreview.com/0203/eastland.html







France and Germany need to be reminded of the necessity of a strong, even predominant America

newsandopinion.com | Tod Lindberg knew he had something big. Mr. Lindberg is editor of Policy Review, a publication of the Hoover Institution. More than a year ago, he had commissioned several articles on the subject of American power. The one Robert Kagan wrote caught his eye. "It was quite apparent on first reading that it was going to be huge," Mr. Lindberg says. "People were going to agree or disagree, but the article was going to shape debate."



"Power and Weakness," appearing in the June-July issue, drew notice throughout Europe. It was reprinted in every important European city, its themes taken up in learned conferences and symposiums across the continent.

Mr. Kagan, a senior associate for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a resident of Brussels, turned his 11,000-word essay into a book, which has just been published. "Of Paradise and Power" is compelling reading, not least because it aids understanding as to why Europe and America are at odds over going to war against Iraq.

Mr. Kagan's basic argument is that American and European perspectives on "the all-important question of power" - its efficacy, morality and desirability - are diverging. The Europeans have moved "beyond power," as Mr. Kagan puts it, "into a self-contained world of laws and rules and transnational negotiation and cooperation," a "post-historical paradise of peace and relative prosperity."

In history, or before paradise, of course, Europe used power, over and over. We Americans, Mr. Kagan says, are the ones who still live in history, an often nasty, brutish place where international law and rules are unreliable and where security and indeed the defense of liberal values ultimately may have to depend on an order from our commander in chief.


Purchasing this book
-- linked in 3rd paragraph --
helps fund JWR

Mr. Kagan shows that "the trans-Atlantic divide" isn't momentary but has deep historical roots and is likely to endure. Europe experienced so much war on its own soil, including the great world wars, that it came to want no more of it. Defense budgets of European countries are tiny and declining - America's remains significantly higher - and the European Union, while economically a success, noticeably has failed to develop a military capacity. Europe has little ability to use force beyond its borders, while America can project power to all points on the globe.

In sum, Europe is weak, and America is strong. And each is that way not by accident but by design. Each, if you will, believes in being the way it is. And being what they are, Europe and America "measure risks and threats differently, define security differently and ... have different levels of tolerance for insecurity."

Iraq is the current case in point. Being strong and therefore able to do something about it, Mr. Kagan writes, America is less willing to tolerate Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. But a weak Europe regards the threat posed by Saddam Hussein to be more tolerable than the risk of removing him. Europe would use peaceful means to try to bring him into the community of nations. Europe also would use the United Nations to try to constrain any American effort to use force against Iraq.

Very soon, we could see such an attempt: France, which responded to Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N. Security Council by calling for stronger inspections, could veto any resolution that might be taken as an authorization for the United States to commence an invasion of Iraq.

There can be little doubt that America would refuse to feel obligated by any such veto. As Mr. Kagan explains, America sees itself - and Sept. 11 only has confirmed this perception - as "the indispensable nation," the one country that must assert itself if there is to be an stable international order and if liberty is to be advanced.

That isn't the way Europe regards America. Europeans, Mr. Kagan writes, see America as a danger, even more of one than Iraq. America is so regarded precisely because its power and its willingness to use it threaten Europe's new sense of mission.

The question Of Power and Paradise raises is whether some European countries - France and Germany in particular - might "become positively estranged" from America. The war in Iraq could lead to that unfortunate outcome. Yet one must hope the war would remind Europe of "the vital necessity," as Mr. Kagan puts it, "of having a strong, even predominant America."



To: calgal who wrote (21443)2/12/2003 10:56:06 AM
From: calgal  Respond to of 27760
 
France Circulates Alternative to U.S. Plans for Disarming Iraq







Wednesday, February 12, 2003

UNITED NATIONS — France, hoping to provide the U.N. Security Council with an alternative to imminent military action against Iraq, is circulating a plan that calls for extended and more aggressive weapons inspections.





The move marks another step toward what is shaping up as a showdown on Friday among Security Council nations -- between those in favor of extending inspections, which include France, Russia and Germany, and those pushing for disarmament of Iraq by force, namely, the United States and Great Britain.

The United States is expected to seek U.N. authorization to go to war against Iraq, and council diplomats said Britain might introduce a second similar resolution as early as Friday. But London and Washington may also decide to wait, the diplomats said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The crisis with Iraq has already brought the world's most powerful diplomats to the Security Council twice this year, and the foreign ministers of China, France and Russia are all planning to return again Friday to hear a crucial report from the chief weapons inspectors that will likely set the tone for a heated debate about war.

It was not clear whether Secretary of State Colin Powell would attend the meeting.

France, China and Russia have all said they want to see Iraq disarmed peacefully through inspections. The United States and Britain say Saddam Hussein has failed to cooperate with the process and must be disarmed by force, if necessary.

In Paris, the French foreign ministry said Dominique de Villepin was expected to attend Friday's meeting. Russian news agencies said Igor Ivanov would also attend. And in Beijing, the Xinhua news agency said Chinese Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan would attend the Feb. 14 meeting to set forth China's position on Iraq.

In Berlin, officials said German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer was expected to attend Friday's Security Council session.

The high-level attendance comes as France, backed by Russia and Germany, went on the offensive against the United States, unveiling its plan to strengthen weapons inspections to counter the expected U.S. push for military action.

In the policy paper distributed to council members, France said it intends to implement its proposals to strengthen inspections in close consultation with U.N. inspectors. It did not call for any kind of U.N. force to accompany inspectors -- so a new resolution would not be needed.

The French plan calls for an immediate doubling of the number of inspectors, and a quick tripling to make inspections more targeted and intrusive, thereby increasing their effectiveness. There are currently about 110 inspectors examining Iraq's chemical, biological and long-range missile programs, and nine nuclear inspectors.

France also called for significant reinforcement of security units, presumably U.N. security officers, to monitor suspicious sites. France also seeks more Arabic translators and mobile customs teams and stepped up aerial surveillance.

"Our approach is based on the need to compel Iraq to cooperate by taking the peaceful approach of intrusive inspections," the paper said.

France said U.N. inspectors should draw up a complete list of unresolved disarmament issues in order of importance, and set a time frame to find the answers.

"It is important to push the Iraqis up against a wall and not leave them any way out regarding the questions which they must answer and on which really active cooperation is expected," the paper said. "Such an exercise would also be useful in evaluating the nature of the threat Iraq represents."

Russia, Germany and other council members support stepped-up inspections. But Richard Grenell, spokesman for the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, dismissed the French proposal for more inspectors.

"If the Iraqis would cooperate with the Security Council's latest resolution, then that's exactly what we would have -- tougher inspections," he said.

Blix said the number of inspectors could be increased "but it still remains vital that you have ... good cooperation from the Iraqis on substance."

He urged two Iraqi commissions searching for banned weapons material and new documents to "produce results" before he reports to the Security Council on Friday.

"We are of the view that they need to work very fast, very prompt, to come forward and put matters on the table to be helpful," he told reporters after briefing Australian Prime Minister John Howard on his weekend trip to Baghdad.

Blix also discussed his Baghdad trip during an hour-long meeting Tuesday with U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice at the U.S. Mission.

The two inspection chiefs have said their Baghdad trip produced the beginning of a change in Iraq's attitude -- but no breakthrough. "There is some cooperation on substance but I'd like to have more," Blix said Tuesday.

Asked what he would like to see Iraq do before Friday's report to the council, Blix said: "I hope these commissions will produce results very promptly. That will be helpful."

In Baghdad over the weekend, the Iraqis gave the chief inspectors documents said to clarify lingering questions about 1980s chemical and biological weapons.

Blix said there were some "interesting" results that he would report to the council on Friday. Iraq also provided "some more focused explanations on central issues" like VX nerve agent and anthrax, and handed over "one original document," he said.

The Iraqis have accepted three types of surveillance flights -- by American U-2 aircraft, French Mirages, and Russian planes, Blix said.

But a U.S. official said the Iraqis have imposed unacceptable conditions on U-2 flights -- demanding the time and point of entry of all flights, their speed and the plane's call signal to ensure communication with the pilot when necessary.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.



To: calgal who wrote (21443)2/12/2003 10:57:20 AM
From: calgal  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 27760
 
NATO Debates New Compromise on Turkey



URL:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,78345,00.html



Wednesday, February 12, 2003

BRUSSELS, Belgium — With the United States warning the credibility of the alliance was at risk, NATO sought a compromise Wednesday that would persuade France, Germany and Belgium to drop their veto of plans to boost Turkey's defenses against an Iraqi missile attack.





After intensive overnight negotiations between capitals, NATO diplomats said the United States had agreed to eliminate two elements from its original proposal for prewar planning: a request that European troops fill in for U.S. forces moved from the Balkans to the Persian Gulf, and a request that European forces step up guard duties at U.S. bases in Europe.

Alliance officials said both those issues were being dealt with at a bilateral level — Germany, for example, deployed hundreds of soldiers at U.S. bases last month.

"We believe that we now have elements which can help up bring the discussion forward," NATO spokesman Yves Brodeur said. "The proposal now specifically addresses the defensive needs of Turkey."

The compromise proposal was presented to the 19 ambassadors Wednesday morning. Talks were then suspended after about 90 minutes to allow further consultations with capitals. They were to reconvene at 6 p.m. (noon EST).

The proposed change would leave the options on the table focused entirely on Turkey's request for help through the dispatch of AWACS radar planes, Patriot anti-missile batteries and specialized units to counter poison gas or germ warfare attacks.

NATO Secretary-General Lord Robertson was hoping that would persuade the French, Germans and Belgians to drop their objections and start to patch up the alliance's worst internal dispute in years.

For almost a month, the holdouts have blocked the start of military planning to help Turkey, saying the move would send a signal that NATO is engaged on an irreversible path of war and would undermine U.N. efforts to end the Iraq crisis peacefully.

"The alliance is breaking itself up because it will not meet its responsibilities," U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell warned in Washington Tuesday as the stalemate dragged on.

The division in the alliance threatens U.S. efforts to rally support in the U.N. Security Council for military action against Iraq. France and Germany, joined by Russia and China, are seeking more time for stronger U.N. inspections in a proposal opposed by Washington and London.

NATO's dispute intensified Monday when Turkey invoked the alliance's mutual defense treaty to ask for assistance, but was rebuffed by the three. Critics on both sides of the Atlantic said the holdouts sent a dangerous message of disunity to the Iraqi leadership.

"You cannot say Turkey doesn't feel threatened," said Dutch Foreign Minister Jaap de Hoop Scheffer in The Hague, Netherlands. "There is one man and one regime that can profit from this (division): Saddam Hussein."