Here's most of the transcript off Hoffman and Zakaria. I think they agreed more than they disagreed; that this administration has blown 50 years of respect for the U.S. with their complete lack of diplomacy in their handling of Iraq. And there are no good solutions.
I missed the very beginning.
Stanley Hoffman: If there is a war, there will be a lot of damage and casualties, because of the amount of bombs they plan on dumping. The US will be faced with an enormous reconstruction tasks that very few countries would be willing to share, if there isn’t a United Nations cover.
I was struck by the fact that the British just suggested a second resolution where the entire job of reconstruction would be on the UN authority. Washington didn’t pick it up. To minimize opposition and terrorism it would be much better for the US to delay and have the cover of a UN resolution. The sticking point is the deadline: It is ridiculous to think inspections could succeed in ten days.
I do not see any enthusiasm for regime change anywhere now. Not that anybody has any sympathies for this rather murderous regime. But it would set the precedent of preventive war AND It involves the issue of what right do Nations have to change the government when it is not caught redhanded with it's hand in the cookie jar; when it is not in the middle of violating human rights like Indonesia in Timor.
And there is considerable doubt as to what will take Saddam's place after.
The deadline is the biggest obstacle now if the US insists that it cannot go beyond 10 days.
Charlie Rose: Fareed, Is the deadline the biggest obstacle?
Fareed Zakaria: No. At this point, the diplomatic game is lost, in my view. The French and the Russians aren’t going to change their view at this point. I don’t even know if the US will get the majority they are looking for.
The diplomatic game has largely been lost because of the administration’s handling of this from the start.
They had decided to go to war, and then they said: "Oh, maybe we should get diplomatic approval. It will be very difficult to get even the majority. I hate to say this, but at this point, the only thing that may legitimize the opposition, would be war itself. If the war goes well, and I think it probably will, then all will see if he really was a murderous tyrant; there will be stories, there will be evidence and the war will look better in history than it does today.
But a war won’t solve what is motivating the opposition; which is the fear of the arbitrary exercise of American power. This is not a debate about Iraq. It is a debate about American power. The war may solve the legitimacy problem about Iraq. It will not solve the problem about America.
Rose: Can the US deal with the issue of the legitimacy of its power?
Fareed Zakaria: The US is more powerful than any other nation in the world; militarily, politically, and economically. Historically this kind of power has provoked opposition and has provoked balancing behavior from other nations. So other countries gang up on you, and it is somewhat of a puzzle why it has not happened for the last ten years. It is because we spent an enormous amount of time reassuring other countries that we took their interests into account. We took the time.
There was a sense we were not a predatory empire but a benevolent empire. If we aren’t careful...people are always suspicious of this kind of concentrated power. The rest of the world sees a country that has increased its defense spending in a few monthsby $50 billion, more than the entire defense budget of the UK or Germany. Other countries see that and say, My God, America is so powerful. How do we restrain them?
Charlie Rose: What is the risk, with the perception in the world that the US will use its power arbitrarily. What will it cause? Has your support for the use of force diminished?
Fareed Zakaria: This will lead to rising anti-Americanism. It will make it more dangerous and politically unviable for other governments to support us in the war on Terror, or to be pro-American and to support us in diplomatic matters.
Hoffman: I agree with every word Fareed said, unfortunately. I wish it were not so. I think the lack of diplomacy of this government and the way it has behaved like an elephant in a china shop, has suggested to other countries whatever their regimes; that the United States doesn’t hesitate to destroy all the very fragile restraints on power, all the frameworks of order; and it was the US itself that put them in place after WWII:
International law, the UN, also NATO, also help to the EU
All this has been sacrificed for a war whose motives or purposes one could defend (maybe) but one problem is that we have no idea of what happens after the war; unless we get cooperation from countries that are less resented and more trusted than this particular administration is..
It was a terrible mistake (of the U.S.) to treat others with the brutality and with the lack of diplomacy about which one reads about in the papers every day.
Charlie Rose: why did they they do it? Why Iraq? Because they want to spread democracy?
Hoffman: Well, their goals for democracy came kind of late; We have no idea how to democratize the region. And the idea that it will spread like an oil slick is preposterous. We may be bogged down in Iraq exactly the way that Bush I and Powell said would have happened if we went to Baghdad in 1991..
When one listens to the different concepts for aftermath; it is not very reassuring; not in the least. We have made so many promises to the Kurds and the Turks. We had talks about keeping the present bureaucracy without Saddam, which is not exactly democracy and it is not ideal.
To really create democracy in a country as complex and divided as this one, means stationing troops to be there so long, and I don't think the public would tolerate it.
It is a reckless gamble entirely predicated on a pie in the sky best case hypotheses. Imprudent.
Charlie Rose; The US is making the assumption that the war will go well, and they will prevail, therefore all the concerns and fears about wrecking international coalitions and unbridled force will not come to bear.
Fareed Zakaria: Precisely. The way this administration views it, if you read the Woodward book on “Bush at War”
Bush says "You have to lead, and that sometimes what you are doing is not very popular, but then people will follow. They see it as the Machiavellian line that “It is better to be feared than loved.”
What they don't realize is that we already are so powerful, we don’t need to do anything to make people fear us.
What we need to do is make people fear us a little less and respect us a little more.
The danger is that “they” do believe this is like the Persian missile crisis, that if you persevere, and hold your course, then everything will be fine.
I do believe we are in such a novel situation now with American power as unprecedented and vast as it is, that these resentments will not go away, that every international crisis is going to be a crisis about American. power"
Rose: Do you still support war?
Fareed Zakaria: I wouldn’t kid you and say, as these costs pile up, “Is it worth it? Any foreign policy is juggling between cost and benefits. But I’m still in favor of war; just because the alternative: sanctions and containment, is worse; Sanctions are clearly bankrupt and failing; there are claims there are active programs; There is an enormous cost to us and the Iraqis of sanctions. More people have died as a result of that regime and sanctions than during the war.
Hoffman: I don’t agree with Fareed about containment. Saddam does not have a nuclear program. Iraq is not a threat. We deterred much greater countries, like Russia and China. There are other ways of tightening controls of what enters Iraq without starving children.
Zakaria: The support for targeted sanctions doesn’t exist. France and Russia will not go along with it.
Hoffman: I think this idea that inspections are for the dogs is mistaken. Iraq today is weaker now than it was 10 years ago. I don’t buy the notion that if one just keeps this up, it will lead to disaster. There are the no fly zones, and the Kurds are protected. It seems to me that there are bigger dangers, North Korea, which I heard the president refer to a few days ago as a ‘regional problem!”
Have an embargo, keep them a pariah country as long as they have this leader.
And there is the danger of sinking the American economy with the costs of war and reconstruction.
It is not good to succeed with the invasion, and then fail politically after. The War on Terrorism is a priority now. Not Iraq. my concern is that it is not a necessity now.
Fareed Zakeria: You can’t leave inspections forever nor have 250 inspectors running around; nor embargoes.
The French position in some sense is internally consistent. They don’t support military invasion and they don’t support sanctions; they just want to welcome Iraq into the community of nations and trade with it freely. That makes sense in terms of being a viable policy.
Hoffman: I think there is a considerable misrepresentation of the French position by the media. What they are saying is very clear. If he does not disarm voluntarily, at the end there will have to be the use of force.
Zakeria: The French have been gutting sanctions and trading with Saddam for the last ten years (so has the United States). The French always say they don’t want to use force ‘yet.' They will always say, 'not yet'.
Hoffman: I don’t agree.
Charlie Rose: Great powers in history have to be very wise but they also have to be respected. If you are not a wise player, you lose respect and the other countries coalesce against you. They also coalesce against you if you don’t use your power, and they lose their belief that you will use your power.
Zakeria: That is the fundamental problem. You do have to have a certain level of respect. And you do have to get things done. Other countries believe that by allying with you, they will be part of successful projects. No one wants to ally with ‘a loser.”
You also have to balance that with the possibility that you scare the daylights out of people. And that is what is happening. A majority of the British and German public think that Bush is a greater threat to security than Saddam. You are doing something wrong.
Charlie rose. What about the notion that great nations have to be feared and they won’t tolerate those
challenging its will?
Hoffman. So did Hitler. It didn’t work. Machiavellia was writing about the princes and the public didn’t matter much. I think a great power in this century, especially a country whose motto is democracy, has to take into account the fears and the sense of honor of others. If one sees a ganging up 50 years after it became a super power; it is because this administration has been proclaiming its total indifference to the feelings, policies, and desires of others.
Fareed Zakaria: Stanley’s point about a more democratic world is very important. Sometimes the tactics of this administration like the “Shock and Awe” is not just a military strategy, it is a political one. While it is useful to arm twist governments, it alienates the publics in many of the countries whose governments support us.
So we take great pride in dividing Europe into new and old; but old Europe is 75% opposed to this invasion as well.
Charlie rose: any suggestions..
Hoffman: Zakaria may be right, It may be late for diplomatic game; but the US should make a genuine effort to find a compromise. On dates in particular. But the minute anyone suggests a genuine delay, they are shut down by the White House. They won’t compromise, that makes it impossible to get an agreement, which makes it a very difficult position for the British. This administration will not play the diplomatic game anymore, and that is a genuine tragedy for this enormous power as far as the future is concerned.
Fareed Zakaria: The diplomatic game is over. We are going to war in the face of international opposition, more isolated than we have ever been. Whatever the US does: Do it well. At the end of the war, get the UN back in, but do it under UN auspices. Stun the French with our gratitude by asking them to help with the reconstruction. Ask the Russians. Demonstrate that many of the fears of our intentions are misplaced.
But it will still leave open the fundamental problem of what to do about American power; and how to not make the world feel that they are in the presence of an 800 pound gorilla and they have nowhere to hide.
----------
As far as Fareed Zakaria's suggestion that the US go to war AND THEN get the UN to come in will not work. The US will probably not want help after. And No one will want to help, and The UN can not be involved after, if there was no resolution. Bresinski was on Rose after. Brezinski spoke to Larsen at the United Nations. Larsen has said if the US goes without a resolution; the UN will not be involved after. Why would they? It would be a violation of the UN charter, which prohibits aggressive war, and sets very rigorous rules for avoiding the use of force. The US never had any intention to negotiate or settle; Bush Senior had no intention in 1990 either. They may have gone through the motions, but they avoided any attempts to settle differences peacefully.
The US skipped Chapter VI of the UN Charter Article 33: (just like the first Gulf War)
"The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice."
"The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means."
un.org
The US is ignoring International Law, the treaties or charters that they themselves have signed, like the Geneva Convention or the UN charter. They never had any intentions of avoiding war. They want a war. so did Bush I.
Brezinski doesn’t think it is too late to avoid the war. He doesn’t think we should go to war now. Inspections are working. Iraq is not a threat. There are other more important priorities. North Korea. He thinks it is better to disarm Iraq than to go to war. Too much risk with war.
Brezinski says if we go to war, Saddam will be replaced and Iraq will be pulverized. (Do Americans know of this genocide to come? or of what happened in the last gulf war?)
Zakaria and Hoffman were not opposed to the French position. There is nothing wrong with the French position. I am glad someone finally stood up to US aggression. Of course the French have interests. The US doesn't? gimme a break. This is not about democracy. I don't like the French anti semitism either, but look what Bush is doing now. Worse. Israel is Czechslovakia now. The US and UK will sell Israel out, to appease the world. Why don't they give the Kurds a state instead? They deserve one a lot more than the Palestinians.
International Law and War Crimes
deoxy.org
excerpts from the last paragraph.
" The United States must be isolated (they are)... . "I hope that America's remaining allies will be forced to desert the alliances which bind them together. I hope that the American people will repudiate resolutely the abject course on which their rulers have embarked." join. ... It is the attempt to create empires that produces war crimes because, as the Nazis also reminded us, empires are founded on a self-righteous and deep-rooted belief in racial superiority and God-given mission. Once one believes colonial peoples to be untermenschen - 'gooks' is the American term - one has destroyed the basis of all civilized codes of conduct." |
