Eastern Europe...American Lackies, or Burned too Many Times?

[headscratcher4]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42845-2003Mar4.html

I am posting the above editorial from today's Washington Post. It is by the Czech amassador to the US. I found it ineresting for one particular point. In the discussions with Europeans who oppose US policy, the argument is often made that the oposition to war comes from a vast experience of war. In it's way it is both an interesting and often compelling argument -- who knows the cost of war in Europe better than the French? The Germans? etc.

However, the point the Czech amabassador makes, and it too -- it seems to me -- is a fair one, is that people who have lived for the last 50 years under repression also appreciate the importance of countering dictators and their murderous way.

Anyway, it is an interesting view, and I'd like to hear comments on it, especially from Europeans. Thanks.

[DanishDynamite]

headscratcher4:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42845-2003Mar4.html

I am posting the above editorial from today's Washington Post. It is by the Czech amassador to the US. I found it ineresting for one particular point. In the discussions with Europeans who oppose US policy, the argument is often made that the oposition to war comes from a vast experience of war. In it's way it is both an interesting and often compelling argument -- who knows the cost of war in Europe better than the French? The Germans? etc.I haven't seen a lot of people making this argument. Personally, I don't agree with it, at least not as it pertains to the current Iraq situation. Afterall, many wars have been fought by European nations since WWII.
However, the point the Czech amabassador makes, and it too -- it seems to me -- is a fair one, is that people who have lived for the last 50 years under repression also appreciate the importance of countering dictators and their murderous way. I can certainly appreciate this view. However, is it always (morally) right to change the government of a sovereign nation by force? If not, what are the minimum requirements for doing so?
Anyway, it is an interesting view, and I'd like to hear comments on it, especially from Europeans. Thanks. Well, you just got one. :)

[headscratcher4]

I haven't seen a lot of people making this argument.

Actually, the French Foriegn Minister, among others, have been making it frequently in the US Media.

I don't know how to deal with the regime change issue. On the one hand, I see US policy here as hypocritical and very short-sighted...if this regime, why not all regimes? Why this regime and not the Saudis? Why this regime and not Pakistan? Clearly, it presents a world of delima and contradictions -- especially when you call for regime change based on moral objections and the allegation that the regime you want to change is "evil."

On the other hand, I can't help but feel that the Iraqi people are forgotten in this argument. By this I mean, the only one who speaks for the Iraqi people is, essentially, Saddam. I note that in the peace rallies that are happening across the globe, where the US is accused of war crimes and Bush is labeled as a crazed war-monger and carry signs condemning Israel for its brutal treatment of the Palestinians, where are the signs condemning the brutal treatment of the Iraqis?

Indeed, and I am not the first to observe this, as hypocritical and misguided as I fear US policy is in this situation, I can't but help but feel there is a little bit of racism and anti-semitism in the anti-war movement as it is. NOt, mind you, because they oppose US policy, but specifically because they don't hold Saddam -- or any of the other arab leaders -- responsible for how they treat their own people -- their women, their dissenters, their minorities. And, there is a undercurrent of Israel is not only wrong but has not right to exist. I guess Arab lives are only important WHEN potentially it may be the US killing Them, as opposed to when they kill, torture, murder, bomb themselves and each other.

Palistinian lives are only valuable when it is Israel doing the oppressing, but the oppression of a corrupt government, badly lead, that lies to its people, etc. -- that is ok. It is, after all, just Arabs doing it to Arabs.

I don't propose any solution to the problem, only frustration -- both because I object to my government's actions here, but also because as blind as my government may be, it's blindness seems equally matched to reactionary elements in the peace movement for whom double standards are aspirational rather than condemnable. In the end, for both Europe and the US, third world lives -- whether Iraqi, Palestinian, Rowandan, Somali, West African, what have you are expendable so long as some boat isn't rocked....

Just some thoughs..

[DanishDynamite]

headscratcher4:Actually, the French Foriegn Minister, among others, have been making it frequently in the US Media. Yeah, well, they would, wouldn't they, those cheese eating ....uh....nevermind. ;) Anyway, I think it is a weak argument.
I don't know how to deal with the regime change issue. On the one hand, I see US policy here as hypocritical and very short-sighted...if this regime, why not all regimes? Why this regime and not the Saudis? Why this regime and not Pakistan? Clearly, it presents a world of delima and contradictions -- especially when you call for regime change based on moral objections and the allegation that the regime you want to change is "evil." I agree. Which is why I find the Czech ambassador's view sympathetic, but hardly convincing. Anyway, the "moral" case for invading Iraq is usually not stated as the main reason, but more of an add-on. The main reason, to my understanding, is that Iraq poses a threat to the Western world.
On the other hand, I can't help but feel that the Iraqi people are forgotten in this argument. By this I mean, the only one who speaks for the Iraqi people is, essentially, Saddam. I note that in the peace rallies that are happening across the globe, where the US is accused of war crimes and Bush is labeled as a crazed war-monger and carry signs condemning Israel for its brutal treatment of the Palestinians, where are the signs condemning the brutal treatment of the Iraqis?I agree. This is one of the reasons that my own stand has changed from "against war" to "neutral, leaning towards pro-war".
Indeed, and I am not the first to observe this, as hypocritical and misguided as I fear US policy is in this situation, I can't but help but feel there is a little bit of racism and anti-semitism in the anti-war movement as it is. NOt, mind you, because they oppose US policy, but specifically because they don't hold Saddam -- or any of the other arab leaders -- responsible for how they treat their own people -- their women, their dissenters, their minorities. And, there is a undercurrent of Israel is not only wrong but has not right to exist. I guess Arab lives are only important WHEN potentially it may be the US killing Them, as opposed to when they kill, torture, murder, bomb themselves and each other.Could be. The anti-war movement is made of up of a lot of different people, with different reasons.
Palistinian lives are only valuable when it is Israel doing the oppressing, but the oppression of a corrupt government, badly lead, that lies to its people, etc. -- that is ok. It is, after all, just Arabs doing it to Arabs.The dichotomy is clear.
I don't propose any solution to the problem, only frustration -- both because I object to my government's actions here, but also because as blind as my government may be, it's blindness seems equally matched to reactionary elements in the peace movement for whom double standards are aspirational rather than condemnable. In the end, for both Europe and the US, third world lives -- whether Iraqi, Palestinian, Rowandan, Somali, West African, what have you are expendable so long as some boat isn't rocked....I think I'll give you the reasons for my change of stance.

If one tries to seperate all the many, many "side-issues" which affect the case against Iraq, one is left with the following:

1) There is evidence that Iraq has (perhaps only technically) breached the 1441 resolution.

2) The 1441 resolution gives the right to UN members to react with "serious consequences", if Iraq is in breach.

3) Several UN members (notably the US and Britain) have the will and the ability to effect such consequences.

The above is, for me, the "legal" bit. The "moral" reason is that I see a "democratic" Iraq, re-entering into the world economy (i.e. without sanctions) to be the best thing for the Iraqi people.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
[...]they don't hold Saddam -- or any of the other arab leaders -- responsible for how they treat their own people -- their women, their dissenters, their minorities[...]

I carnt actually agree that this is the case; I'm anti-Gulf War II but anti-Saddam and have been ever since I saw reports on how he used chemical weapons on Kurdish villagers w-a-a-a-uy back when; and I'm aware of similar sentiments expressed by opponents of the war. I guess the worst you could accuse us of is not getting up off our butts and protesting against Saddam way back (although I know some did) and only signing petitions'n'stuff. But one of the things I try and resist is the way that the debate has been polarised that if you're anti-Saddam then invasion is the only solution, and therefore if you're anti-war then you're pro-Saddam.

Sorry for sidetracking. Back to the original topic--I think the ambassador makes some fair points and is probably genuine in his views. But if I was to be really cynical then I'd suggest a contributary factor to the Eastern European states' willingness to back the US is that they're in relatively dire financial states, and can hear the jingle of coins in the US coffers...

[DanishDynamite]

BillyTK:Back to the original topic--I think the ambassador makes some fair points and is probably genuine in his views. But if I was to be really cynical then I'd suggest a contributary factor to the Eastern European states' willingness to back the US is that they're in relatively dire financial states, and can hear the jingle of coins in the US coffers... As I've said, there are many, many side-issues, motives, etc. The bottom line, it now seems to me, is whether a war can be said to have "legitimacy" (i.e. via the UN) and whether it is ultimately for the best of the Iraqis.

Yes, Machiavelli did not live in vain.

[headscratcher4]

But if I was to be really cynical ...

Yes, and if I were to be, I would think that maybe the French and the Russians are opposed to confronting Saddam because for the French it is a way to assert European leadership using the US as a whipping boy, and for both a way to win the hearts and wallets of Arabs and Iraqi's in oil business deals. THis, BTW, I don't believe. It is more complicated certainly. We, here in the US, don't give much thought to legitimate Franco/German concerns about the war...

I just wish the French and the Germans would be more active as well in raising MiddleEast democracy issues...I realize that for the US, democracy issues may be a smoke screen for the war, but if enough nations begin to talk loudly about it, maybe some of the hypocracy over democracy, justice, rights, etc. in the middle east would begin to melt and it just might become a real, moral cause.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by headscratcher4


Yes, and if I were to be, I would think that maybe the French and the Russians are opposed to confronting Saddam because for the French it is a way to assert European leadership using the US as a whipping boy, and for both a way to win the hearts and wallets of Arabs and Iraqi's in oil business deals.
And for France and Russia to protect their existant Iraqi oil interests, no?

THis, BTW, I don't believe. It is more complicated certainly. We, here in the US, don't give much thought to legitimate Franco/German concerns about the war...
It is more complicated, certainly--but I'm sure it's a contributory factor on *all* sides.

I just wish the French and the Germans would be more active as well in raising MiddleEast democracy issues...I realize that for the US, democracy issues may be a smoke screen for the war, but if enough nations begin to talk loudly about it, maybe some of the hypocracy over democracy, justice, rights, etc. in the middle east would begin to melt and it just might become a real, moral cause.
I think the French and Germans are, and have been, but I'd have to do some background research before I'd commit to that view for certain. But to be fair, I'm in agreement with you; there's a certain amount of collusion by a number of European countries in continuing the reprehensible state of affairs in both the Arab world and Africa, which makes a certain amount of finger-pointing at the US ever so slightly hypocritical. And from me, that's one helluva admission! ;)

[OBgac]

Originally posted by BillyTK


Sorry for sidetracking. Back to the original topic--I think the ambassador makes some fair points and is probably genuine in his views. But if I was to be really cynical then I'd suggest a contributary factor to the Eastern European states' willingness to back the US is that they're in relatively dire financial states, and can hear the jingle of coins in the US coffers...


I think you could have a point there BillyTK. One or two bases moved from (West) Germany to the eastern part of Poland for example would add an estimated $1-$2 billion p.a. to the impoverished part of the country. The lobbying has already begun. They have already lined up the EU for a whack of money when they enter in May 2004 so politically its astute to try and tap the other source of cash - the US.

Link (not in English) for General James L Jones who says it will be decided in 2004.
http://arch.rp.pl/a/rz/2003/03/20030304/200303040091.html?k=on;t=2003010420030306

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by BillyTK:
But if I was to be really cynical then I'd suggest a contributary factor to the Eastern European states' willingness to back the US is that they're in relatively dire financial states, and can hear the jingle of coins in the US coffers...

France and Germany (especially) are also in dire economic straits. You could be equally cynical and suggest that French and German hardline attitudes against military action are a way of diverting attention from economic crises at home. Schroeder seems to have swung the German election in this way.

Originally posted by Danish Dynamite:
I can certainly appreciate this view. However, is it always (morally) right to change the government of a sovereign nation by force? If not, what are the minimum requirements for doing so?

In the case of Iraq, didn't the current "sovereign government" come to power after deposing the previous regime using force?

And didn't the European council of ministers try and force regime change in Austria?

Originally psoted by Headscratcher4:
On the other hand, I can't help but feel that the Iraqi people are forgotten in this argument. By this I mean, the only one who speaks for the Iraqi people is, essentially, Saddam. I note that in the peace rallies that are happening across the globe, where the US is accused of war crimes and Bush is labeled as a crazed war-monger and carry signs condemning Israel for its brutal treatment of the Palestinians, where are the signs condemning the brutal treatment of the Iraqis?

Some exiled Iraqis have been expressing opinions, and their views vary quite a bit. Some have condemned peace protestors as dupes, while others give them tacit support by claiming that while Saddam is undeniably evil, war against Iraq is not the best way to depose him.