Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bruce L who wrote (148243)	10/20/2004 2:39:52 AM
From: Michael Watkins	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I've never argued that Saddam had legitimacy in the ultimate, moral sense; nor have I argued that the international community would not have a right, and the responsibility to act against Iraq if the situation demanded action. I would never argue that preemption is always wrong. But... Iraq wasn't invaded for human rights abuses -- the most often cited abuses (killings in Kurd and Shia populations) occurred many years ago, although there is no doubt that Iraq was ruled by a despotic ruler and his family. If human rights are a concern in the Middle East, why are we not invading Saudi Arabia? Shia are oppressed there too; the justice system is a joke, beheadings popular, freedom of religion is certainly not available. Dissent - not allowed, the media is tightly controlled. Sound familiar? Perhaps a prettier face than Iraq presented, but still a far cry from a democracy. Should they be next? Iraq wasn't invaded for security reasons, that much is now quite clear. My argument is that the administrations excuses for going into Iraq completely fail any reasonable sniff test, and so, their rationale for going to war has been invalidated and therefore their goals must be questioned. This isn't like Sales 101, where a new sales person is often told "do what it takes, and ask for forgiveness after the deal is done instead of asking for permission first" -- but in essence, this is what Bush and gang have done. They went to war on false pretext - an impeachable offense if ever there was one - and make the call to invade with a completely naive view on what the outcome would bring.

To: Bruce L who wrote (148243)	10/20/2004 9:14:06 AM
From: Bruce L	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Re: Analysis of Political Developments in Zimbabwe I know this article from Stratfor has nothing to do with U.S. elections or Iraq. But it does have lot to do with TRANSFORMING A THRIVING ECONOMY THAT WAS A BREADBASKET FOR SOUTHERN AFRICA INTO A "FAILED STATE" WITH EVEN MUGABE'S FOLLOWERS FACING STARVATION. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Zimbabwe: Acquittal Could Lead to Bargaining October 15, 2004 Summary Morgan Tsvangirai, leader of Zimbabwean opposition group Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), was acquitted of treason Oct. 15 after a judge ruled charges that Tsvangirai had tried to kill President Robert Mugabe were unfounded. The acquittal comes as a surprise in Zimbabwe, where Mugabe rules with an iron fist and moves quickly to squelch perceived dissent. Mugabe, however, cannot afford a mass uprising by the MDC, the only group able to pose a significant threat to his power -- and whose inclusion in a coalition government could avert attempts by the international community to force Mugabe out of power. Analysis Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the major Zimbabwe opposition group Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), was found not guilty Oct. 15 on charges of conspiracy to assassinate Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe. The verdict was a surprise to everyone but Mugabe, who knows the danger a martyred Tsvangirai and an angry MDC pose to his power. Mugabe, Zimbabwe's ruler for more than two decades, held his opponent Tsvangirai's life in his hands. Though seemed a guilty verdict and death sentence were likely for Tsvangirai, the leader was acquitted, although he will face lesser treason charges in a November trial. Mugabe's decision to acquit Tsvangirai was based on his need to form a coalition to maintain his party's parliamentary majority in the next elections -- a goal that will be much easier to accomplish with a cooperative -- and live -- Tsvangirai along with the rest of the MDC. Facing a series of problems -- including widespread food shortages, high inflation rates, increased unemployment and condemnation from the international community -- Mugabe is aware of serious threats to his power. As recently as 2003, officials from the British government and the United States met to plan how to force Mugabe into "early" retirement. Washington has also reportedly offered money to South African President Thabo Mbeki to persuade Mugabe's Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) to rid Zimbabwe of the dictator. The Zimbabwe Post even reported allegations that Mugabe has not been successful in rationing food to give to his supporters in the ZANU-PF, causing waning support among those in his own party who are now starving. Mugabe has realized the best way to bring his country out of its economic crisis is to attract more foreign businesses into the country. He has engaged in economic development talks with the International Monetary Fund and the United States Agency for International Development, but the results have not come as quickly as expected; millions of Zimbabwe's citizens still face the perpetual threat of starvation. Mugabe then instituted price control policies, causing food shortages and exacerbating problems of black markets, making the economic and food situation even worse. Mugabe also faces continual political problems. The MDC poses a threat to Mugabe, mainly by creating instability that undermines his power. Launching massive protests in Zimbabwe, like one in March 2003 that essentially shut down Harare for two days, proved the MDC is capable of making Mugabe look weak. There are also concerns, especially from South Africa, that if Mugabe cannot control the MDC, Zimbabwe's violence and instability will spill over into neighboring countries. The balance of power in the Zimbabwean government has left Mugabe's ZANU-PF party in a tight spot. The ZANU-PF party leads Zimbabwe's 150-member parliament by a majority of 47 seats; however, it is two seats short of the two-thirds majority required for the party to amend the constitution. With parliamentary elections scheduled for March 2005, the MDC is threatening to boycott the elections because of its continued anger over the ZANU-PF party's alleged electoral fraud during both the 2000 parliamentary elections and the 2002 presidential election. A convicted Tsvangirai would have acted as a rallying point for the MDC in the upcoming elections, pushing the ZANU-PF further away from the necessary parliamentary majority. It appears Mugabe believes the best way to maintain his power is to form a coalition government with the leadership of the MDC. Talk of forming a coalition began in late 2003, after Mugabe first admitted there was a problem with the country's economy. Tsvangirai's acquittal takes the idea one step further. Mugabe has now allowed his strongest opposition rival to escape the death penalty, and -- even more astonishingly -- has granted him a total acquittal of his charges, signifying Mugabe's readiness to talk. Forming a coalition will obviously allow Mugabe to wield greater power in the parliament. Also, it will give the leader, who has ruled for nearly 25 years, the knowledge that he would someday have a secure retirement, as the MDC has promised if it comes to power or is included in a power-sharing agreement, Mugabe would not be tried for any crimes the opposition suggests he has committed since his rise to power in 1980. All of this is not to say that Tsvangirai is completely off the hook. He faces a second treason trial on lesser charges that he called for a mass march aimed at unseating Mugabe. However, Mugabe will recognize the importance of keeping the MDC relatively quiet and close-by in a coalition, and Tsvangirai is likely to be acquitted of those charges or given a light sentence in exchange for MDC cooperation. Considering Mugabe's level of court control -- the judge in Tsvangirai's first trial secretly married Mugabe to his wife, Grace, and also received a farm under the government's land redistribution scheme -- such a maneuver will be easy for Zimbabwe's leader to perform. Copyrights 2004 - Strategic Forecasting, Inc. All rights reserv

To: Bruce L who wrote (148243)	10/20/2004 1:01:12 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Respond to of 281500

Hi Bruce. Your article states that, "Some people like to draw a sharp distinction between interventions for the sake of promoting human rights within a country and interventions to prevent security threats to other countries, and say that only the former are legitimate grounds for the violation of sovereignty. THIS DISTINCTION IS QUESTIONABLE BECAUSE IT PRESUMES THAT SELF_DEFENSE IS SOMEHOW LESS LEGITIMATE THAN THE DEFENSE OF OTHERS...." I believe that statement makes too little of an important distinction. In self defense the issues are clear and well understood in the world. Is the threatening nation an imminent threat to the invading or attacking nation? That requires both present intent and the means to cause serious harm. The guidelines for the use of force to "protect" those within a sovereign nation, in contrast, have never been clearly defined in the international community. It's true that there are some examples that are so egregious that no one would dispute the need for the WORLD to act, however, in cases like those that existed in Iraq, the issue is less clear. You say, "This then is the theoretical basis for our violation of Saddam's Iraq." Note first that in Iraq we did not ask the United Nations to vote for the use of force to "protect Iraqi citizens from Iraqi abuse." I wonder whether you think the nations of the world would have gotten on board based on this rationale for invading? I think it's clear we would have been laughed out of the U.N. meeting if we'd tried that tact. Iraq was simply not one of those cases where it was clear that the world had a duty to intervene for humanitarian purposes. Secondly, note that we did not tell Hussein; "Stop killing your people or we'll be forced to use military force to overthrow your government and establish one that we like better." I wonder why that never occurred to us as a way of diplomatically "solving" that supposedly terrible humanitarian crisis? As a final point, why do you think the world generally opposed our use of deadly force to invade and occupy Iraq? Could it have been because we hadn't really explored, much less exhausted, our diplomatic remedies, could it have been because they saw it as a power grab for oil as the true underlying reason, could it be because they thought, rightly, that Iraq posed no threat in the region and certainly not to the U.S., could it be because they saw no international law basis for the invasion, or could it be because they knew that a worse "failed state" was the likely ultimate outcome of our invasion? Likely it was a combination of the above, and it turns out that our "friends" who refused to stamp their approval on our actions were a lot more "right" than we were. So while we can struggle to find some legitimate basis for our violation of the forming rules of nations, the fact is that there is no defensible basis for our actions except one; might makes right. To the extent we've now undermined the U.N. and established that principle, (or is it non-principle,) we'll pay some price in the future as the power of nations ebbs and flows. The better question is why you struggle so hard to try to find a supportable basis for what we're doing in Iraq? Why not just admit that it was, at best, a bad mistake, and at worst a deliberate power grab in violation of recognized international rules of sovereignty?