According to the EU fact-finding mission there is no evidence of genocide in the Sudan. See here, here and here.
After returning from western Sudan, Pieter Feith, an adviser to the EU’s foreign policy chief Javier Solana, told reporters in Brussels that “it is clear there is widespread, silent and slow killing going on, and village burning of a fairly large scale”.
But this did not amount to genocide, Reuters reported him as saying.
As many as 30,000 people have reportedly been killed, and one million people have been forced to flee their homes in the region.
The US Congress and some humanitarian groups have accused Sudan of genocide, and a July 30 UN resolution threatens economic and diplomatic action against Sudan if it fails to act within 30 days to rein in the militias, known as Janjaweed, which operate in Darfur.
Khartoum has denied backing the militias.
Widespread, systematic killing, but fortunately no genocide. Whew, we dodged a bullet on that one. 30,000 or so peasants killed but no genocide. Genocide is defined as a calculated effort to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. Unless the villages are being razed for the fun of it, which I suppose is possible, it would seem obvious that these people are not being killed for any military objective. Which suggests that they are being targeted for national, ethnic, racial or religious reasons. Is the problem that the EU can’t find evidence as yet for calculated effort to completely destroy?
But really that is looking at it from the wrong direction. This isn’t semantic confusion, this South African paper nails it as lack of political will:
The European Union said on Monday there was widespread violence in the Darfur region of Sudan but the killings were not genocidal, a potentially crucial distinction which underlined its reluctance to intervene.
…The genocide convention, adopted by the UN in 1948, calls on signatories to “prevent” and “punish” genocide. If governments accept events in Darfur amount to genocide they would be obliged to intervene.
Given the risk of such a logistical and military challenge, that is something few governments are willing to contemplate.
Instead of sending troops the EU and US have called for support from the African Union, a pan-African body which Khartoum could not so easily brand imperialist.
Documents from the Clinton administration show that soon after Rwanda’s slaughter started in 1994, officials were privately calling it genocide but refrained from doing so publicly lest pressure grow for a US deployment which the administration did not want.
The problem is not that EU cannot see genocide, it is that it does not want to act and therefore refuses to label this large-scale targeted killing as genocide.
These are the very same countries that Kerry believes will take over for us in Iraq. If they aren’t willing to get involved a less politically controversial undertaking such as the Sudan, I see no reason to believe that they are going to want to get deeply involved in Iraq. This suggests, yet again, that Kerry’s ‘plan’ to remove a significant number of US troops from Iraq in the near future is either too naive in its expectations of European help or a calculated misdirection attempting to hide the fact that he is willing to abandon Iraq to its fate.
Heh. Those pesky Europeans. Always evil and self-serving.
James – I had a longer response in mind, but really, yours sums it up. 😉
Colin Powell had a presser aout a month ago where he insisted that what was happening in Sudan is <>not genocide. Is Colin Powell European?
Powell is a diplomat, where it is considered bad form to undercut your allies, no.
Sebastion is absolutely right when he says that it is genocide and the European countries are playing with the meaning of the word in order to not have to intervene because of signing that pesky convention. I say God bless the US for jumping in and saving all those poor people in Darfour. Some of us who have been following this story for months are wondering what the correct course of action is and have been debating for a long time whether or not to petition the UN or petition the US for armed response. The problem is, UN forces would be made up of people from neighboring countries who probably have some sort of agenda in the conflict. According to what I have heard Darfour has a really complicated history and in fact used to be its own country with its own sultan before it was annexed to Sudan by the British in the early 20th century. Chad seems to be politically motivated in this regard, and I have no idea what Egypt wants but assume it wants something, and there are not easy answers to this. The US has shot its credibility for sending armed forces since it invaded Iraq and might do more harm than good. Who’s left? Israel? Sebastian might have a good suggestion on this. I would just love to hear it as the problem IS serious and needs a workable solution.
Can we expect to see this type of projected criticism of Kerry’s future foreign policy (as opposed to placing blame where it actually belongs, on Bush’s current foreign policy) as the campaign progresses?
I mean, here you have a clear cut opportunity to criticize the man currently in the White House for NOT leading on an issue, and your response is to criticize his opponent.
So, maybe I missed the news item where we (the US) had committed to deploy troops to stop the genocide. If we’re not doing that, then what’s the difference between us and the Europeans in this case?
–John
…Kerry’s ‘plan’ to remove a significant number of US troops from Iraq…
For what it’s worth, Kerry’s spokespeople are saying it is not a “plan” but rather a “goal”.
While we are pointing out interesting cognitive dissonance I’m going to mention that it is odd for those who have spent more than a year making it politically difficult for the US to get involved in an invasion–especially without European permission to try to get me to bash Bush about it.
My point remains that the European hedging on the Sudan suggests that a foreign policy relying on them to do much of anything isn’t going to be successful. Kerry has been been hyping such a policy. If you want to turn that into a criticism of Bush for not acting unilaterally against European advice I will be happy to respond–right after you are explicit about it.
My point remains that the European hedging on the Sudan suggests that a foreign policy relying on them to do much of anything isn’t going to be successful.
There’s a leap from Europe’s reluctance to declare what’s happening in Sudan as genocide to the idea that they will not continue to help the US in efforts like Afghanistan that betrays history and logic.
For what it’s worth, Kerry’s spokespeople are saying it is not a “plan” but rather a “goal”.
Just curious: is anyone suggesting that getting our troops out of Iraq isn’t a goal of President Bush?
Just curious: is anyone suggesting that getting our troops out of Iraq isn’t a goal of President Bush?
I’m reminded of that classic line in Joyce’s The Dubliners:
Seriously though, which troops? I suspect Bush has every intention of leaving as many US troops in Iraq for as long as serves the US’s interests (stated or otherwise).
Just curious: is anyone suggesting that getting our troops out of Iraq isn’t a goal of President Bush?
This really gets at the heart of the matter. Bush and Kerry have the same exact goals for Iraq at this point, from everything I can tell. The difference is (1) that is took Bush over a year to decide he needed to seriously reach out to our major allies for help, and (2) Kerry’s supporters think Kerry can get the job done better and Bush’s supporters think he can get the job done better. After seeing three and a half years of Bush in action, I’m willing to bet on Kerry.
Now, I have no idea where all the “Kerry’s gonna bug out” crap on Redstate comes from, other than goofy Republican prejudices about Democrats being “weak” (this despite the foreign policy bungling of Bush I, Reagan, Nixon’s tortured withdrawal from Vietnam, and oh yeah, our current “strong leader”). In all likelihood, here’s the things I expect will happen under a Kerry administration’s Iraq:
– Just like under Bush, I’m betting that very few real major allies will end up coming aboard Iraq. Why should they get on that sinking ship?
– Just like under Bush, I expect Iraq will not turn into a democracy, but, at best, into a pro-American, pro-Western dictatorship headed up by Allawi or some confederate of his.
– And just like under Bush, I expect the Kerry administration’s priority will be to extricate itself from this godawful nightmare of a mess before it gets any worse, rather than turning it into a magical rosy Democracy-promotion scheme. When we do leave, under Kerry or Bush, it will be (1) much sooner than the neocons hoped for, and (2) still a pretty nasty place.
The difference lies in how badly each administration f##ks things up. I expect Kerry to have a lesser propensity for f##king things up than Bush, simply because Bush has had a truly incredible talent in that area that I believe is truly unrivaled. For example, I don’t expect anyone in Kerry’s administration to go advocating we handle Iran with a harebrained CIA coup.
I suspect Bush has every intention of leaving as many US troops in Iraq for as long as serves the US’s interests (stated or otherwise).
Well, that was mighty nonspecific. You might be considered a prognosticator if, for instance, we wound up having a permanent military base in Iraq, by their own request. Ditto for if we have even one soldier in Iraq four years from now.
On the other hand, if you’re that good at reading his mind, typing this response is a waste of time.
Anna in Cairo:
According to what I have heard Darfour has a really complicated history and in fact used to be its own country with its own sultan before it was annexed to Sudan by the British in the early 20th century.
It was independent (or at least semi-independent)until 1917 and its politics and peoples have been intertwined with those of Ouadai (the region immediately across the border on the Chad side) for centuries. I posted some historical background last November; like most Sudanese conflicts, this one has been going on since well before there was a state (although it has escalated dramatically in the past year).
Chad seems to be politically motivated in this regard, and I have no idea what Egypt wants but assume it wants something, and there are not easy answers to this.
Issandr el-Amrani, a journalist in Cairo, speculates on Egypt’s motivations here. The current Chadian government is torn; it has historically supported Khartoum, but there is growing impatience with janjaweed violations of Chadian territory and increasing agitation by leaders in eastern Chad who want to support their coethnics. Most of the other countries in the region also have connections to at least one side and sometimes both, so I’m not sure that regional peacekeeping is a solution.
The US has shot its credibility for sending armed forces since it invaded Iraq and might do more harm than good. Who’s left? Israel?
Well, the Sudanese government has accused Israel of helping the rebels, although I suspect that’s more a last-minute ploy than a serious charge.
In any event, I think there’s a difference between an invited humanitarian intervention by the US and a unilateral invasion such as Iraq. Right now, the United States is the only country with both the will and the capability to intervene, and given that there unquestionably is a genocide in progress, the most important thing is to put a stop to it right away. In the medium term, a shift to a neutral force with Western logistical support might work.
In the long term, I don’t think anything other than development will solve the conflict. The war is at bottom a dispute over land between pastoralists and farmers; right now there isn’t enough to share, but if more efficient use is made of the land, both sides’ need to expand will be reduced.
Sebastian,
What genocide? How can there be genocide in Sudan if there are no Zionists/Americans there?
I suspect Bush has every intention of leaving as many US troops in Iraq for as long as serves the US’s interests (stated or otherwise).
Well, that was mighty nonspecific. You might be considered a prognosticator if, for instance, we wound up having a permanent military base in Iraq, by their own request. Ditto for if we have even one soldier in Iraq four years from now.
I’m in danger of threadjacking here, but let me note briefly that I believe Bush’s ultimate goal in invading Iraq was having a US presence there (regardless of whether the new Iraqi government wants one or not). I don’t believe Kerry shares that neocon vision.
I believe Bush’s ultimate goal in invading Iraq was having a US presence there (regardless of whether the new Iraqi government wants one or not).
I believe in the healing power of crystals!
I believe in the healing power of crystals!
Well, you wait for your crystals to heal you, and I’ll wait for the day there are no American troops in Iraq, should Bush win re-elected. I suspect, though, I’ll be waiting longer…
Allow me to chip in to agree with Edward on Bush wanting an American military presence in Iraq. Aside from the fact that this very thing was promoted by the PNAC and Wolfowitz crowd it’s the only thing that ever made sense, given the cost and effort involved.
Really? PNAC advocated American presence in the ME against the wishes of the populace? We’d better cut the puppet strings while we can!
Jonathan,
Right now, the United States is the only country with both the will and the capability to intervene, and given that there unquestionably is a genocide in progress, the most important thing is to put a stop to it right away.
Right on! If anything stops this genocide it will be a unilateral action. As for multilateralism.. Well, read this:
The United Nations has failed to organize a special force in Iraq with the limited mission of securing its own headquarters.
UN officials said member states refused to contribute to a proposed force that would protect a UN mission in Baghdad. The mission was meant to mark the return of the UN presence in Iraq after a year’s absence and help organize and monitor national elections in January 2005.
The UN left Iraq in August 2003 in wake of an Al Qaida-inspired bombing of UN headquarters in Baghdad. A UN report later blamed poor security for the success of the insurgency strike, which destroyed UN headquarters in Iraq.
Over the last few weeks, UN secretary-general Kofi Annan sought to establish a security force to protect the UN mission in Baghdad, Middle East Newsline reported. But Annan said nobody has pledged to commit troops.
“We haven’t had much success attracting governments to sign up for the dedicated force to protect the UN personnel in Iraq and our property,” Annan said. “So for the time being, for practical measures, we have no other choice but to rely on the multinational force.”
That about sums it up.
Some Young Republican acquaintances of mine liked to talk about how the occupation of Iraq was really a grand geopolitical strategic move to have a base in the Middle East closer to Iran, which could….I forget all the intricacies. China was involved somehow too.
Whether this was standard neocon thinking, or these people just felt cool talking about all this like it was a game of Risk, I don’t know. One of them did work in the White House at one point, but they were not exactly on the PNAC board.
“There’s a leap from Europe’s reluctance to declare what’s happening in Sudan as genocide to the idea that they will not continue to help the US in efforts like Afghanistan that betrays history and logic.”
Not much of leap since Europe’s reluctance to declare it genocide is because they don’t want to do anything. And it isn’t like I’m just grabbing that interpretation from nowhere, the freaking GUARDIAN thinks so too. And it isn’t as if they are known for being pro-intervention. Why do you think tens of thousands of people are being killed and millions driven from their homes? Is it for fun? Or are they being targeted for their cultural differences?
And you are the first one to mention Afghanistan, I mentioned Kerry’s silly ‘plan’ for Iraq. But as I’ve said before, I’m not particularly impressed with the fewer than 8,000 troops and very little money coming from Europe for Afghanistan.
But back to the topic at hand–Kerry’s ‘plan’ to get US troops out of Iraq. It involves massive European help for troop replacement in Iraq. Iraq is a harder case to justify from the European perspective than either the Sudan or Afghanistan. They have sent less than 8,000 troops to Afghanistan and resist acting in the Sudan. Why should we believe they will act in Iraq any time in the near future?
Oddly enough, Sebastian is absolutely right. The US is the only country with the military power to enforce a no-fly zone in Darfur, to create militias among the refugees and to force the Sudanese government to stop arming the rebels.
The European reaction to genocide/ethnic cleansing in the last several years has been largely to look to the US and say: “Let’s you and him fight.”
The real question is, though, so what? Throughout human history, invading armies have raped, pillaged and occupied their way around the world. For the first time in human history, one and only one country (ours) has the power, if it is so inclined to exercise it, to prevent genocide.
So the real role of the UN and Europe is not to provide combat power, but to provide international legitimacy. Many americans don’t seem to care much about that idea, but I think it’s a terrible mistake to do so. After combat comes nation-building, and the rest of the world, whether we like it or not, plays an important role in nation-building. Where do police forces come from? or financing? or trade agreements?
I suspect that the Europeans understand full well that the US must take the lead in declaring a particular disaster as a genocide, because US military power will be the first responders. So their reluctance to declare anything a genocide is probably appropriate deference to the US (and a way of avoiding embarassment when their own declaration of genocide is not followed by any effective military response.)
For now, I haven’t seen any leadership from the Bush admin on Sudan. Cheap shots are easy, though, and the situation is hard. It would be nice if we had some extra combat power lying around to fly into Chad and stop the killing. But I have no idea about the logistics or politics necessary to do so. So I’ll refrain from taking any cheap shots and simply express frustration at the lack of leadership. If Kerry is elected and the situation continues into January, then I’ll continue to express frustration and disappointment if the new admin does not come up with a response.
As far as Iraq goes, my beliefs haven’t changed. We have lost any initiative we may once have had. So long as we remain in-country, our actions in that country will be directed by the decisions made by the government and the various opposition groups. In terms of seizing the initiative, I think we have two choices: complete withdrawal to, say, Kuwait, or partition. Of course, the Turks would probably have some issues about our military creating an effective Kurdistan controlling the northern oil fields. And the rest of the world might get a little peeved if unrestrained civil war breaks out in the rest of the country.
There are no good options, and both candidates are lying to us when they say they have a plan. We are now infidel occupiers, and we will remain such so long as one american soldier is in Iraq. But withdrawal doesn’t appear to be an option.
cheers
Francis
(Could the threadjack be spun off? I feel bad asking Slart his position re the permanent military bases [6? 14? 18?] we’re supposedly constructing in Iraq.)
Jonathan Edelstein: “and given that there unquestionably is a genocide in progress” – I can see calling it ethnic cleansing or one’s favorite synonym for “unbearable”, but is it the govt’s policy to kill the entire population or just displace them? I don’t much care to weigh great evils against each other but I think it’s important to use words precisely. (Though I don’t know whether “genocide” should be so strictly defined that only the Holocaust and perhaps the Young Turk slaughter of Armenians and the Hutu slaughter of Tutsis count.)
I feel bad asking Slart his position re the permanent military bases [6? 14? 18?] we’re supposedly constructing in Iraq.
I think we can threadjack until someone asks us to stop.
I wonder, are you talking about these bases?
Took me all of thirty seconds to Google that up. If you skip the commondreams.org and similar froth, and stick with somewhat more…reliable sources, ones that actually ask the question, you’ll see much in the way of the above response.
fdl,
So the real role of the UN and Europe is not to provide combat power, but to provide international legitimacy.
So, Americans will be spending $, contributing forces and dying in this missions, while UN/Europe will be issuing us orders from the safety of their offices?
Just curious: is anyone suggesting that getting our troops out of Iraq isn’t a goal of President Bush?
Lemme chime in, Slart, and say that yeah, I’ve seen thoughtful war supporters, people I respect, suggest that the ultimate point of the war was to establish a permanent base in the Middle East. As for “against the wishes of the populace”, they don’t seem to think that the populace will ever ask us to leave. (Which is usually the Administration’s response when reporters ask if the U.S. will withdraw its troops if the newly-sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave.)
“I suspect that the Europeans understand full well that the US must take the lead in declaring a particular disaster as a genocide, because US military power will be the first responders.”
The US has already called it genocide and has repeatedly submitted the matter to the Security Council. So, I think you are completely wrong about the European motivation for ducking the genocide label.
Be warned, I’m saving this thread on your estimation of European power. 🙂
“The European reaction to genocide/ethnic cleansing in the last several years has been largely to look to the US and say: “Let’s you and him fight.””
I didn’t say it, but boy are you right about that.
BTW, I certainly don’t care about hyper-technical thread-jacking so long as you are sticking to the general topic. (Considering how often I do it myself, I ought to have some understanding). The bases issue is close enough, not to mention interesting. Maybe not ‘on-topic’ but certainly near-topic. 🙂
Slart, my point was that there’s an argument to be made for a permanent US presence in Iraq – a swap for the Saudi bases (I’ve always thought this was a large reason we went into Iraq, and not a bad one if it could be pulled off). Which I would guess you’d agree with. And it wasn’t clear to me how that’s consistent with “getting our troops out of Iraq”.
If there’s a statement from the admin saying those bases are not intended as permanent, then I’ll probably agree with your earlier point. (Sadly I don’t know Kerry’s position on the bases.)
Having been granted provisional weapons release in re the whole bases discussion, I have this to say:
Josh, acquaintances of yours saying so doesn’t make it policy. If we entered Iraq primarily to set up shop there, long-term, then we entered illegitimately. There needs to be a distinction made, however, between obtaining a military foothold as a means to exact full separation of Iraq from its previous government, and obtaining a military foothold as an achievement of primary purpose. Lastly, I wish to go on record as saying that if we do establish a presence there on a timeframe that extends beyond, say, two years from now, that presence needs to be at the…whim, although that seems a little inappropriate, of the Iraqi people.
rilkefan, I don’t dispute there are good reasons for having bases in Iraq, but good reasons aren’t enough to warrant invasion. We have, after all, good reasons for having a base in, say, Sudan, too.
Hmmm…wonder if that’s going to turn out to be a bad example.
And you are the first one to mention Afghanistan, I mentioned Kerry’s silly ‘plan’ for Iraq.
I mentioned Afghanistan to indicate Europe doesn’t hesitate to send troops to some conflicts. I think Francis makes a good point that they look to the US to lead (and, well, we’re apparently all to happy to insist we do so if we’re involved at all), but I don’t object to your observation that Europe seems to have dropped the ball in Sudan, simply that if Bush was able to assemble a coalition for Afghanistan, it’s not as unlikely as you’re making it sound that Kerry would be able to assemble a bigger coalition for Iraq. I’m convinced part of why France, Germany, and Russia still refuse is Bush doesn’t know how to ask.
Have to say I’m surprized that many here on the right don’t recognise the strategic reason for invading Iraq is to have a permanent, centralized (within Middle East) bases there. It’s the only thing that is worth the effort. The guys that pushed this thing aren’t the type to risk everything to do a good deed for a far off people. It should be clear to everybody that if your battle is against terrorism there are more fruitful targets elsewhere. I don’t mean to go Michael Moore on anyone but having bases in the middle of the Middle East oil fields is the thing. Puts us in a good negociating position with surrounding nation-states.
Now I was and am against this war. But if bases in Iraq were not part of the calculation I would think the neo-cons are crazier than I already do.
And Kerry might see the value of this, as well. He never said he would withdraw all the troops. He has said that he wants there to be less troops.
Edward,
Looks like Annan doesn’t know how to ask, either.
He knew how to ask well enough for:
UK
Italy
Poland
Ukraine
Netherlands
Romania
South Korea
Japan
.
.
.
And a host of others. But I guess their presidents speak Cowboy, eh?
It’s the only thing that is worth the effort.
So, the removing-Saddam thing, that was just a side issue? Somehow, I’m not convinced.
Looks like Annan doesn’t know how to ask, either.
Maybe he slipped and rather than “volunteers” asked for “sitting ducks.”
Edward,
I get it! Member states will send troops only when it’s safe (and thus, they are no longer needed). Makes sense.
Josh, acquaintances of yours saying so doesn’t make it policy.
Well, that’s kind of beside the point, isn’t it Slart? I was specifically responding to “is anyone suggesting that getting our troops out of Iraq isn’t a goal of President Bush?”
And the answer to that is yes. Now, if you want to argue that my acquaintances are *wrong*, that’s a separate issue, and one I’m perfectly happy to debate. But it’s not what I was responding to in the first place.
If we entered Iraq primarily to set up shop there, long-term, then we entered illegitimately. There needs to be a distinction made, however, between obtaining a military foothold as a means to exact full separation of Iraq from its previous government, and obtaining a military foothold as an achievement of primary purpose.
Well, if we’re trying to exact full separation from the previous government, can’t we pretty much go home now? It doesn’t seem to me that many of the insurgents/terrorists at this point are Baathists (although I could be wrong), and given that Saddam is in custody it doesn’t seem too likely that he’ll be taking over again any time soon. (Note that I am *not* arguing that we should be leaving anytime soon.)
Lastly, I wish to go on record as saying that if we do establish a presence there on a timeframe that extends beyond, say, two years from now, that presence needs to be at the…whim, although that seems a little inappropriate, of the Iraqi people.
Honest question: how would we know?
Actually, Stan, I misread that article (it had this annoying pop-up message asking me to approve a plug-in. I thought was about re-opening a civilian UN mission and that’s who turned Annan down.
You might be right, Slarti, and the removing Saddam thing was the cause of the whole adventure. At that point I take the alternative position of my above post that these guys are crazier than I thought. Why invest hundreds of billions of dollars and thoughts of lives to take out somebody that is already neutralized? These guys in the DoD are educated, trained and spend their careers for strategic thinking. This war is a big risk, to our country and to their careers. Saddam is awful small fish to risk it on.
I thoughts I was typing thousands, above.
I wish to go on record as saying that if we do establish a presence there on a timeframe that extends beyond, say, two years from now, that presence needs to be at the…whim, although that seems a little inappropriate, of the Iraqi people.
Or a long-term lease at Um Qasr…which I’d imagine is already being negotiated.
But it’s not what I was responding to in the first place.
You’re right.
can’t we pretty much go home now?
That’d be wrong, IMO, if we did so without giving the new government both the authority to rule and the means to keep the peace. We pretty much took both of those away, so giving them back is required. Again, IMO.
Honest question: how would we know?
I think the representative government would be making a bit of noise, if there were objections.
Apparently, the EU is not alone in opposing intervention to stop whatever it is we’re calling what’s going on in Darfur. The Arab League is against it, too.
Why invest hundreds of billions of dollars and thoughts of lives to take out somebody that is already neutralized? These guys in the DoD are educated, trained and spend their careers for strategic thinking. This war is a big risk, to our country and to their careers. Saddam is awful small fish to risk it on.
Hmmm…well, I’m going to have to suggest you ask that question of Congress. Obviously, much of Congress didn’t share that opinion. Cop-out, I know, but when the only people that are allowed to look at the classified evidence think that Saddam was dangerous, I’m inclined to go along. Mooooo.
“if Bush was able to assemble a coalition for Afghanistan, it’s not as unlikely as you’re making it sound that Kerry would be able to assemble a bigger coalition for Iraq. I’m convinced part of why France, Germany, and Russia still refuse is Bush doesn’t know how to ask.”
And this is the whole crux of the problem. European contigent in Afghanistan was pretty much for show. It peaked at less than 8,000 troops. And you act as if it was some huge contribution.
If that is what we are getting for Iraq, that hardly counts. You believe completely on faith that Europe wants to contribute more, but the Bush screwed it all up by invading Iraq. Yet when there is a clear case for humanitarian intervention in the Sudan, Europeans aren’t interested. They were barely interested in Afghanistan, not interested in Iraq and not interested in the Sudan. Those three countries represent a broad range of reasons to put troops on the ground. But there is a common thread of European response–pretty much not interested.
“I think Francis makes a good point that they look to the US to lead”
No they look at the US to spend the money and the US to have its soldiers die, THEY want to lead. They want to choose where we intervene. They want to choose where we don’t intervene. But it is our money and our soldiers. They want more than a free ride. They want executive-level control with little or no commitment of actual resources. And that doesn’t sound like a good deal to me.
Sebastian,
Exactly.
Excellent, Sebastian.
No they look at the US to spend the money and the US to have its soldiers die, THEY want to lead. They want to choose where we intervene. They want to choose where we don’t intervene. But it is our money and our soldiers. They want more than a free ride. They want executive-level control with little or no commitment of actual resources.
Yikes.
Nevermind. You have such a low opinion of Europeans, its surprising you’d condescend to allow them to collect our trash. I suspect the truth is somewhere between your opinion and mine, but I have to believe its closer to mine.
By the way, has the US asked Europe to contribute more than 8000 troops in Afghanistan?
Rilkefan:
I can see calling it ethnic cleansing or one’s favorite synonym for “unbearable”, but is it the govt’s policy to kill the entire population or just displace them? I don’t much care to weigh great evils against each other but I think it’s important to use words precisely.
I agree that it’s important to use words precisely, and I think “genocide” applies to what’s going on in Darfur. According to the legal definition that has been in effect since 1948, the crime of genocide requires that the perpetrators (1) commit one of five prohibited acts (e.g., murder), and (2) act “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.” The Fur are unquestionably being murdered, and the sheer scale of the mass murder combined with eliminationist rhetoric suggests that at least some of the janjaweed want to destroy the Fur rather than “merely” expelling them. I’d argue that there is, at the very least, a plausible case for genocide.
Edward or anyone else,
What are we doing in Balkans? It’s their back yard, no?
Nevermind. You have such a low opinion of Europeans, its surprising you’d condescend to allow them to collect our trash. I suspect the truth is somewhere between your opinion and mine, but I have to believe its closer to mine.
Seems like a pretty high opinion to me. Such a deal for them…if we’ll play along. I think I understand why you have to believe the truth is closer to your opinon. I’d like that to be true and wish it were, but I just don’t see it.
FWIW, polled my liberal European friends at lunch. Personal opinions ranged from “how could a bunch of scattered villages be guarded?” to “Africa is hopeless without a full-time UN army of 100k” to “we should go in with what we can scrape together”. Re the countries, the Dutch want to intervene in Sudan, but already have troops in Afg. and Iraq. The Germans are still hamstrung by WWII. The French are engaged in Afg. and elsewhere in Africa already. The Russians aren’t invited. The available Italian troops are engaged. Ditto the Brits. The missing countries are poor or small or not at lunch. Various countries probably wouldn’t be welcomed warmly in the area. There’s no political will available to coordinate the EU. If the US wasn’t in Iraq the Americans could lead a force.
Stan, I’ll answer your question if you answer mine:
[H]as the US asked Europe to contribute more than 8000 troops in Afghanistan?
Really? PNAC advocated American presence in the ME against the wishes of the populace? We’d better cut the puppet strings while we can!
I’m confused, Slarti. Are you asserting that a) PNAC did not advocate this response, or that b) PNAC (more precisely, past and present high-ups within PNAC) has no influence within this Administration?
“By the way, has the US asked Europe to contribute more than 8000 troops in Afghanistan?”
Actually yes.
Around June 30, 2004 there was a minor diplomatic spat when the US tried to move the issue of NATO troop levels to a committee which France could not participate in because France had spent almost six months making it impossible to increase NATO troops in Afghanistan.
And I don’t have a low opinion of Europeans. If I could be in charge yet be forced to commit almost none of my resources I would certainly try to do it too. Nothing wrong with trying. I just don’t see what is in it for the US.
Your disagreement with my assessment is difficult to understand. Who was doing the vast majority of the work in Kosovo while France and Germany retained vetos over individual targets? Where is the dangerous location with 30,000 non-US NATO troops? 20,000? 10,000?
And you could ask the people in Srebrenica how much force non-US UN players use. Well you could if they hadn’t been murdered while the Dutch literally looked on.
rilkefan,
Re the countries, the Dutch want to intervene in Sudan, but already have troops in Afg. and Iraq. The Germans are still hamstrung by WWII. The French are engaged in Afg. and elsewhere in Africa already. The Russians aren’t invited. The available Italian troops are engaged. Ditto the Brits.
So, the Dutch, the French, Italians and Brits are already over extended? Wow.
And I don’t have a low opinion of Europeans.
I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
And I know it’s become code for “Europe” but France does not equal Europe. My question is were more European troops requested for Afghanistan, but to be more precise, were more troops needed in Afghanistan when that conflict started? Or had European nations sent as many troops as the US said it needed?
Oh, and as I mentioned over on Kevin Drum’s site: yes, this is a pretty shocking abdication of responsibility on the part of Europe. [And yes, I mean more than just France or Germany here.] Regardless of whether or not the US will have to do most of the heavy lifting, what’s important is to get troops over there right now to at least try to stanch the bleeding.
I’m hoping they’ll get their thumbs out of their asses and start doing the right thing, but I’m sadly unconvinced they’re going to do it, or at least within any reasonable time-frame.
Edward,
The Afghan government, the UN and other humanitarian organisations have repeatedly called for the peacekeeping force to be extended and more troops deployed here as Afghanistan enters a critical phase in development ahead of elections.
The slow expansion of NATO outside the capital “is a source of frustration for the Afghans, for us, and, I’m sure, for ISAF itself,” UN spokesman Manoel de Almeida e Silva said in late May.
Yet so far NATO and non-NATO nations have been slow to commit troops and dollars to this quest.
“A failure for NATO is unimaginable but this is something that faces us unless the 26 countries think very seriously, very quickly about their mission in Afghanistan,” the head of NATO’s parliamentary assembly, Doug Bereuter warned last month.
According to one Kabul-based western diplomat, NATO wanted to install a quick reaction force of 2,000 to 3,000 men in Afghanistan.
“But NATO didn’t get sufficient resources… so they will have to content themselves with a sprinkling of micro-PRTs,” the man, who asked not to be named, said.
All these issues will be discussed at the upcoming summit.
“This will be a summit designed to allow NATO to save face,” said one European diplomat, who asked not to be named.
Here. Seems like all these multilateral organizations are not all that effective.
“If I could be in charge yet be forced to commit almost none of my resources I would certainly try to do it too.”
Not a reasonable view of the European situation in my opinion. I wish that Europe would build a self-sufficient military but it’s not going to happen until it’s a country instead of a super-free trade zone or until someone rewrites the history books and gives warfare some PR. In the meantime Europe is mostly happy to be led in consensus-necessary efforts (Gulf I, Afg.) to the extent they can coordinate/keep up with the US military (getting harder all the time as we advance and they don’t) – and to donate to the third world at a much higher rate than we do.
I wish the UN had an army, for that matter. Perhaps we’d like to donate a few brigades.
I wish the UN had an army, for that matter.
Yea, it would mostly consist of US soldiers and US money, while euros would be the one issuing orders… What a great deal!
Seems like all these multilateral organizations are not all that effective.
I’m not sure that the emphasis on multilateralism is warranted here; say, perhaps, that European multeralism absent significant US involvement is ineffective. Which doesn’t really tell us anything we didn’t know.
Added in proof: Rilkefan is exactly right that part of the problem is that Europe is a conglomeration of independent nations, not a superstate unto itself. There’s a reason that executive power in the US is vested in an individual…
Yea, it would mostly consist of US soldiers and US money, while euros would be the one issuing orders… What a great deal!
Running with this idea, command over the UN Army could be arranged so as to be proportionate (in some sense) to the member nation’s support of it. For example, give all UN nations one vote on matters of military deployment; one additional vote for each hundred troops they contribute; one additional vote for each $100,000 they contribute; and so forth. The trick would be to pick the numbers (and the system) so as to incentivize contributions from both small and large countries.
It’s probably an inordinately difficult task, but it certainly strikes me, on first blush, as worth further exploration.
“And I know it’s become code for “Europe” but France does not equal Europe. My question is were more European troops requested for Afghanistan, but to be more precise, were more troops needed in Afghanistan when that conflict started?”
But France blocked NATO from increasing troop levels in Afghanistan, so even though ‘Europe’ does not equal ‘France’, France is still able to stop NATO from acting. And most of the other European countries are not interested in acting outside of NATO. Therefore France gets its way, and Europe isn’t very involved.
What are you trying to say about when it started? When it started France sent an aircraft carrier that didn’t have the range to effect the conflict. Most of the European troops didn’t have the equipment to fight in the real battles anyway because they couldn’t ship it there. But they are at least supposed to be good at ‘peacekeeping’, so the post-invasion scenario is the important one. And they aren’t doing much, despite repeated efforts on the part of the US and Afghanistan governments.
and to donate to the third world at a much higher rate than we do.
Actually that’s not quite true. When you add all sources of aid public and private you get a significantly different picture as pointed out here. European and American societies are quite different. When they say donation they mean government. When we say donation we mean individuals.
If the Europeans were so interested in leading, they’d be the ones making the motions at the UN for an international intervention force.
No, what the Europeans want, as best I can tell, is (a) to restrain unilateral US action which destabilizes their world; and (b) to maintain the status quo. (I guess I just said the same thing twice?) After all, most European countries (not to mention Russia) have Muslim populations which are far more militant than Muslims in the US.
Having a whole flock of french relatives, I have personal experience in just how prickly, arrogant and just plain old difficult the french can be. It’s worth pointing out that they say the same thing about dealing with the US.
But i return to the point i made above: alliances are valuable. from trade to intelligence sharing to aid packages to the occasional troop or two, the alliances that the US has are a tremendous force multiplier. We’re the big dog on the block, so that means dealing with the ankle-biters. But I’d rather be a big dog in a pack with some ankle-biters than a big dog alone.
Cheers
Francis
Nice link there, Dave.
Dave, I admit I had in the back of my mind that my statement might be vulnerable to your argument – however after a cursory check I’m not impressed by the accounting in your source, which relies on a Tech Central Station estimate (an overly optimistic one to my pessimitic eye – $3.4 billion/year in missionary relief?) and doesn’t seem to compare foreign equivalents (plus how does one account for say Médecins Sans Frontières or the Papacy? What about Germany’s absorbtion of the DDR and its weak economy and infrastructure?)
I should have noted above that the integration of Europe is a good thing for those of us who hope for an EU military, but has the drawback of some turning inward. The rates of giving cited above for Europe are worse than I expected.
This argument is unproductive.
What we’re all sitting here arguing about boils down to whether or not the EU, as a conglomerate whole, are poo-poo heads or not when it comes to international intervention. Can we stipulate that 1) Europe, as a whole, tends to be shortsighted and cowardly when it comes to intervening to stop atrocities, 2) something must be done to stop what is going on in Sudan, and 3) what we need right now are solutions rather than using this as a convenient excuse to flog the ferret on your pre-existing biases towards Europe? They lack the world leadership to take action and contribute decisively when people are dying. We get it. Now what can we do?
I tried to start a dialogue about this on Dan Drezner’s site, but the clowns there were more interested in leaping on my opposition to the Iraq war and scoring points by denouncing me as a hypocrite than engaging in discussion about Sudan. So let me toss this out here and see if I have any better luck.
Bush says he wants to promote democracy and freedom abroad, and that doing so will have the side effect of making the world safer. I agree, although I have grave doubts about his ability to execute this competently. Sudan would seem an opportunity that is /begging/ for US intervention under the human rights justifications Bush cited for Iraq, and the fact that he’s making barely any noise at all about it is not heartening, and nor does it restore any confidence in Bush’s sincerity about using American power to promote freedom.
For liberals: Europe is clearly not going to take decisive action. If Bush decides to do so, can you get over the knee-jerk opposition and cynicism to give him credit where credit is due, and support us intervening in Sudan? I’m not asking for a free pass from criticism if he screws it up or pays it lip service, but if I hear anyone talking about Bush’s imperialism or unilateralism in reference to Sudan, I’m going to go postal. By the same token, can we get some specific assurances and commitments from Kerry that while UN authorization is all well and good and sends a message to the Sudanese government, we’re not going to let UN and EU inaction stall us into pulling another Rwanda? He says some of the right things, but I’m not sanguine about his actual determination to do anything, particularly if we continue to get the run-around from the UN and EU.
For conservatives: If Bush continues to give the genocide in Sudan lip service and token efforts, can we put an end once and for all to the notion that Bush is unwaveringly committed to using American power to protect human rights abroad, while his opponents are not similarly committed?
—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—–
Hash: SHA1
“Apparently, the EU is not alone in opposing intervention to stop whatever it is we’re calling what’s going on in Darfur. The Arab League is against it, too.”
Ah, yes, the Arab League, that paragon of concern for civil liberties and human suffering across the world …
—–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—–
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) – GPGshell v3.10
Comment: My Public Key is at the following URL:
Comment: http://www.alapite.net/pgp/AbiolaLapite.txt
iD8DBQFBGVuCOgWD1ZKzuwkRAk0oAJ0cW4aguYOfIJfVwGGOK2Qfg7bAnACghGy9
lCbugYNz9wF98aPE85YvD3s=
=B48m
—–END PGP SIGNATURE—–
Catsy, if Bush cleans up Sudan before the election I will consider voting for him (well, for a few seconds) and will consider his admin to have done two things well – and I will torment my European friends. But with what troops? Yet another good argument against the Iraq war imo.
Geez, I go off to do an honest day’s work and look what happens!
Sebastian wrote: “The US has already called it genocide and has repeatedly submitted the matter to the Security Council.” As best I can tell, the US Congress has called it genocide. However, “despite the congressional resolution in July, the administration of President Bush, who is running for re-election in November, has said it does not have proof of genocide in Darfur.” (From today’s NYT And it is the administration, not the Congress, whose determination that genocide is occurring would trigger the Convention on Genocide.
As was noted above, the Convention defines genocide as performing any of a number of actions, including killing, “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group” It is hard for me to see how one could say, with a straight face, that we lack such proof. That neither the Europeans nor the Bush administration is willing to describe what’s going on in Darfur as genocide is, I think, shameful. Nonetheless, if one accepts the claim that no government which has not been willing to call what’s going there genocide would be willing to go into Iraq, we wouldn’t be there today. (Note: I do not want to get into an argument about whether the Europeans would or not — all I feel confident of is that the odds would be better with Kerry. It’s just that I don’t think that this is a good reason not to think so.)
Sebastian also wrote: “it is odd for those who have spent more than a year making it politically difficult for the US to get involved in an invasion–especially without European permission to try to get me to bash Bush about it.” I can only speak for myself, but: I opposed the war in Iraq. I didn’t do this because we didn’t have permission from Europe, though I do think that our lack of international support is relevant. Nor did I oppose it because I have some sort of general opposition to invasions that would carry over directly from Iraq to the Sudan. (I mean: I suppose I do oppose “invasions in general”, if that means thinking that other things being equal, we shouldn’t invade other countries. But since other things are never equal, this is more or less meaningless.) The situation in Iraq before we invaded and the situation in the Sudan differ in a number of relevant respects, including the fact that genocide is now ongoing in the Sudan, but was not ongoing in Iraq in 2003.
In any case, the question whether we should or should not invade the Sudan is largely moot, since as far as I can tell our troops are fully committed at the moment. Had we not invaded Iraq, we might argue about whether to send significant numbers of troops to the Sudan. As things are, that’s not really an option.
Yet another good argument against the Iraq war imo.
What’s the argument? So we have troops to attack a country that has no WMD’s and poses no threat to our security? Heh…
………….but wouldn’t that detract us from the war on terror….?
The situation in Iraq before we invaded and the situation in the Sudan differ in a number of relevant respects, including the fact that genocide is now ongoing in the Sudan, but was not ongoing in Iraq in 2003.
Right, let’s also include the fact that Sudan has even less to do with our national security then Iraq. Its interesting to note the ease with which people, who opposed the war in Iraq, talk about invading other countries.
Why not let the moral voice of Europe handle Sudan? France. They have plenty of troops. They certainly had no problems deploying on the Ivory Coast when they had to protect their economic interests…
Stan:I wasn’t advocating invading Sudan; just responding to specific points. And one of them was that if you treat questions about whether to go to war by considering the specifics of each case, then there’s a lot of room for being opposed to one invasion and not to another, and thus that there is no reason at all to assume that someone’s views on Iraq carry over to Sudan. For what it’s worth, I don’t have a clear view on whether, if we had the troops available, we should deploy them in Sudan, partly because I am completely unclear about what a long-term solution that didn’t involve replacing the current government would look like, and we are clearly not in a position to undertake that. And figuring out what we should do if we were in a position to act involves too many counterfactuals whose details would be important.
Of course it’s relevant that Sudan doesn’t threaten our national interests. But it’s not decisive unless you think that that’s the only ground on which a country can legitimately be invaded, which I don’t. For instance, I supported going into Rwanda, which makes the Sudan look downright menacing.
Right, let’s also include the fact that Sudan has even less to do with our national security then Iraq.
The difference here is that nobody is saying Sudan has anything to do with our national security–except in the most roundabout way, insofar as that failed states and human rights violations abroad do provide havens for terrorism and create the conditions for its growth. Before the Iraq war, we were /bludgeoned/ with repeated, often hysterical messages about what a threat Iraq was–a matter that is deeply questionable.
Had Bush made the case for invading Iraq purely on humanitarian grounds, instead of hyping the dire and imminent threat of Iraqi WMDs, no doubt a fair number on both the left and right would’ve objected. But at least we could’ve had an honest debate about whether humanitarian reasons were justification enough to invade Iraq, rather than having the subject come up as a goalpost move when finding WMDs started to look increasingly unlikely.
Bush has engaged in a great deal of high-minded and idealistic rhetoric about protecting human rights and promoting democracy. You may find it interesting to see those who opposed the Iraq war supporting a military response to the genocide in Darfur–I, for one, find it revealing how many of those who lined up behind Bush on Iraq are reluctant to apply the same standards to Sudan, where atrocities are unquestionably occurring on a daily basis but the United States has no clear vested interest.
It causes one to question whether their commitment to preserving and spreading freedom and human rights abroad is genuine, or a cynical stance to be used and discarded when politically expedient.
Stan, I don’t think you understand the position(s) of (many of) those of us who opposed the Iraq war. We felt the war degraded our national interests – by interfering with our efforts in Afghanistan (siphoning away troops, special forces, translators, high-level military attention), by playing into the power-mad-anti-Islam-pro-Zionist-thirsty-for-oil -America caricature, by creating a terrorist staging ground in Iraq, by encouraging the Iranian/NK/rogue state nuke programs, by costing $100 billions, by costing the lives of our troops, by straining our relationships with the world. The only downside I can see for engaging in Sudan would be the expense (mostly in dollars, hopefully << 1000s of lives), and for most of the above points it would have been positive. Many people opposed to the Iraq war didn't do so on "national interests only" grounds - I for one am proud we intervened in Bosnia/Kosovo and think it's a black mark on Europe that they didn't.
Catsy, rilkefan, hilzoy
I, for one, find it revealing how many of those who lined up behind Bush on Iraq are reluctant to apply the same standards to Sudan…
I, personally, haven’t met these people you speak of.
We got our hands full at the moment. Why not shame the world into doing something? After all, who cares about being “respected in the world”, if that world doesn’t practice what it preaches? Seriously, since we got our hands full, why isn’t it fair for us to expect others to fill in the gaps?
Why can’t France and Germany do something with Sudan? Or the Arab League which has been opposed to our intervention in Iraq purely on the humanetarian grounds (heh)? They are all pretty good at criticizing, so let’s let them show us how its done. That would be mutually beneficial.
This is a long comment thread, and I’m not going to read the whole thing before commenting; please forgive me.
Sebastian, I’ve posted a great many more times, for a great longer time, on Darfur, than you, so I don’t think I can be accused of not paying attention to the issue.
And I find it astonishing that you can attack the EU for not calling not calling what’s going in Darfur “genocide” when neither does the President, the White House, the State Department, or the Defense Department,or, in fact, any branch of the U.S. government save Congress (who only did that within the couple of weeks).
Neither has NATO, to be redundant.
I’ll wait for your long post denouncing the President now.
Stan: Why can’t France and Germany do something with Sudan?
Germany has effectively no military following events some 60 years ago – and anyway no stomach for dead troops. Also, shamefully, no interest in Africa. And afaik feels no special interest in genocides, despite their history.
France sucks. Well, they do have peacekeepers engaged elsewhere across the globe and would find it difficult politically to intervene unilaterally in Sudan, and anyway argue that Africa should take the lead.
The Arabs of course you can forget for now.
Fact is, the US leads the world. On practically everything of general interest, if we’re not actively involved it won’t get done.
“You might be considered a prognosticator if, for instance, we wound up having a permanent military base in Iraq, by their own request. Ditto for if we have even one soldier in Iraq four years from now.”
Respectfully, Slart, I gather from this that you’ve not been reading the strategic papers written by the people who provided the impetus for the war have been writing for the past decade on the need to establish an Iraq aligned with us so we can move our bases there, and out of Saudi Arabia, and be available for use in the Mideast.
This is not a leftist conspiracy theory; this has been written about in various journals for many years before the war.
If we don’t have bases still there in four years it will only be because events in Iraq have made us unable to keep them.
Josh, on the other hand, asks: “Well, if we’re trying to exact full separation from the previous government, can’t we pretty much go home now? It doesn’t seem to me that many of the insurgents/terrorists at this point are Baathists (although I could be wrong), and given that Saddam is in custody it doesn’t seem too likely that he’ll be taking over again any time soon.”
Well, if we’d like the Iraqi government to collapse within weeks, sure. I don’t think that that, either, would do the Iraqi people good, to leave them to chaos and civil war, not to mention their neighbors; do you?
Sebastian again: “Not much of leap since Europe’s reluctance to declare it genocide is because they don’t want to do anything.”
And this differs from President Bush how? (I do approve of the diplomatic efforts so far, but that’s not what you’re arguing about.)
“The US has already called it genocide….” Unless you are referring to the U.S. Congress, this is flatly untrue. I ask you to provide a cite from the Executive, knowing full well you cannot. I ask, however, nonetheless.
Hilzoy, thank you for being the only person to post to this thread who bothers to check on the basic facts of this thread. It’s difficult to believe so many people can post 70+ messages without a single person caring, until you did that the U.S. hasn’t called this genocide any more than the EU has.
Sheesh! Why let facts interfere in a good argument?
“Germany has effectively no military following events some 60 years ago – and anyway no stomach for dead troops.”
The first part is a huge exaggeration. The second part is what’s relevant, along with no stomach for fight, and no ability to transport troops, as well (although if they wanted to, we could take care of that for them, so that’s not a key point in this case).
The Bundeswehr:
$30.08 billion a year is spent on the Bundeswehr.
The orientation, until recently, of course, was to defend against the Warsaw Pact. While it’s true that absent use of nuclear weapons by NATO, that would have quite possibly been ultimately impossible, they were trained to make for a considerably long delay, at the least. Even given changes and cutbacks in the past decade, this is a far cry from “effectively no military.”
Well, if we’d like the Iraqi government to collapse within weeks, sure. I don’t think that that, either, would do the Iraqi people good, to leave them to chaos and civil war, not to mention their neighbors; do you?
Did you somehow fail to read the very next sentence in the paragraph of mine you quoted, Gary? You certainly must have read it on some level, since you snipped it from your quote.
But let me restate it again: I AM NOT ADVOCATING PULLING OUT OF IRAQ. I was responding to a specific comment that Slartibartfast made, not making a more general argument about what we should be doing in Iraq.
rilkefan,
Fact is, the US leads the world. On practically everything of general interest, if we’re not actively involved it won’t get done.
Ah! We are getting somewhere. Next question.
Why bother with the UN?
“Did you somehow fail to read the very next sentence in the paragraph of mine you quoted, Gary? You certainly must have read it on some level, since you snipped it from your quote.”
I did just (a while ago, when commenting) read through the entire thread, so I apologize, Josh, that I did read your comment over-hastily and out of context.
LS asks “Ah! We are getting somewhere. Next question.
Why bother with the UN?” and I’d answer with the question: to do what and in what context?
Gary,
Why bother with the UN when it comes to military action? Their contributions are always symbolic, anyway.
“$30.08 billion a year is spent on the Bundeswehr.”
Just curious, Gary, is this the entirety of the info you’re basing your argument on? I’m not insistent on this point, since the second point certainly bears up my claim, but from my time in West Germany and my acquaintance with Germans, “effectively no military” (by US or Israeli or even British standards) seems reasonable. Note that over a quarter of the troops are conscripts of the least useful sort; the rest have more experience fighting floods than people; and the force, recently configured for tank warfare, has been missionless for almost a generation (or for several generations, depending on one’s viewpoint).
Stan, don’t know what your position here is, but from my point of view the lesson is that Europe should become more militarily capable and that the US military should become more able to undertake sustained peace-keeping/nation-building missions. And that we should work to reform and strengthen the UN so they can take up some of the leadership burden.
rilkefan,
but from my point of view the lesson is that Europe should become more militarily capable
No argument there, but that will never happen unless we stop letting them use our troops for international “duties”.
Why bother with the UN?
I think that a strong reason for reticence with regard to putting a stop to internal conflicts is the aftermath. So, I’ll call again for the UN to create a “Constitution for the Developing Country”.
The UN can then vote on whether or not a country fits that description. I’d say a country that can’t stop a genocide in progress qualifies. The country(s) that go in, do so to implement the Constitution militarily and peace-keepers remain to ensure the Constitution is adhered to. This ensures that the forces are not seen as taking sides in a war, rather they are there to implement a framework of government in a place whose current system has failed miserably.
“Just curious, Gary, is this the entirety of the info you’re basing your argument on?”
What argument? I wasn’t aware I was making one. Could you let me know which argument I’m making that I didn’t notice I was making?
“Why bother with the UN when it comes to military action? Their contributions are always symbolic, anyway.”
Thanks for clarifying. How familiar are you with the Korean War?
I’d certainly agree that there are times it’s necessary to take military action without the blessing of the UN. As President, I pledge that I will never let the UN have a veto over the national security of the United– oh, sorry.
However, if it can be gotten, military aid and contributions from others in the world are by no means always insignificant. Even the not huge NATO forces in Afghanistan save keeping about a division (out of only ten we have, mind) tied up either on station, in training, or recovering.
Plus, material and financial support can be huge. Who, do you recall, paid the nearly $100 billion dollars for the Gulf War in 1991? The U.S.? Look it up.
Plus, we actually live and trade in the world, it turns out. If we alienate alies and neutrals sufficiently, we lose trade, we lose ability to influence politics around the world. The losses involved can be incalcuably huge.
That’s why. The world’s a complex place, we’d be goddammed poor without the rest of it, and we’d have vastly less power and influence. Military power is hardly the only important power in the world, and for all our might, it’s quite limited, as witness the fact that we presently have more or less no Army left, and won’t for some years now. Some want to take invade Iran to prevent it going nuclear, now. Not an option any more.
“So, I’ll call again for the UN to create a ‘Constitution for the Developing Country’.”
I can’t imagine a cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all Constitution that is sensible and workable. Does Palau have the same needs and culture as Canada as Russia as Nigeria?
“This ensures that the forces are not seen as taking sides in a war, rather they are there to implement a framework of government in a place whose current system has failed miserably.”
Respectfully, I think this is a complete fantasy. It’s as reasonable as it is to assert that Iraqis, the Arab world, the Muslim world, and most of the world, must all see us as there only for the Iraqi’s own good, because we say so.
“We’re here to impose a foreign Constitution on you for your own good, because you’re not capable of running your own country.”
No, no one could possible object to that, or decide there are ulterior motives. After all, nobody ever sees ulterior motives that don’t exist.
Hey, we went into Lebanon under Reagan intending to be neutral. And that ensured no one saw us that way. Remember that?
Gary,
Right, you listed reasons for why we need diplomacy. But why do we need UN per se? Surely diplomacy existed long before UN was born.
The general assembly can only issue non binding resolutions, so even UN, in its design, doesn’t want to be binded by the majority of its members.
What’s more, the UN blue hats were accused by Israel (few years ago) of complicit in the kidnapping of its soldiers by Hezbollah. So, its not like the UN is operating purely on ideals and is neutral. Isn’t it just window dressing?
“But why do we need UN per se? Surely diplomacy existed long before UN was born.
The general assembly can only issue non binding resolutions, so even UN, in its design, doesn’t want to be binded by the majority of its members.
What’s more, the UN blue hats were accused by Israel (few years ago) of complicit in the kidnapping of its soldiers by Hezbollah. So, its not like the UN is operating purely on ideals and is neutral. Isn’t it just window dressing?”
Well, I’d highly recommend looking into the history of the 20th Century, with particular attention to the Versaille Treaty, Wilson’s rationale for the League of Nations, what went wrong with it and Roosevelt and Churchill’s rationale for the UN.
The UN certainly is highly flawed, I must make clear, I agree, and badly needs drastic reform. There’s a very long list of critical problems which make it dysfunctional in certain ways and areas, and corruption is also a major problem. I’ll just leave that there for now, since I don’t intend to write a treatise.
But on the positive side, there’s a tremendous amount of critical work done by the UN agencies, and hundreds of billions of dollars of critical spending around the world on everything from children’s health to development in poor countries (of which we pay only 1/4, or in some cases, less or nothing), as well as in establishing international law or settling standards.
The Security Council never worked out as intended due to the Cold War, but was sporadically effective at times nonetheless, and has been more so since the end of the Cold War; the GA is a bow to the fact that the Five Powers can’t simply rule the world; the rest of the world needs a voice, flawed as that is. If you want to call it “window-dressing” in the sense that the GA is not the ultimate power, you’d certainly find much of the world agreeing with you, but I really don’t think you want to agree with their solution of making the GA the determinative power.
So, why we need the UN or something like it — preferably something better — short answer: Security Council still accomplishes things at times, and even when it doesn’t, it does, because it provides the place of multilateral discussion and communication, which is essential to understanding each other; the agencies do tremendous good we have no interest in administering or paying for all by ourselves, nor would the world accept us as the sole authority for settling international disputes, establishing international scientific standards, or any other kind of standards. The GA is a necessary irritating, but largely harmless, part.
“And that ensured no one saw us that way.”
That should have been “and that ensured everyone saw us that way.”
Yes I know enough about the Korean War to remember that the only reason the UN was involved was because the USSR was having a fit and couldn’t veto. Unfortunately France doesn’t seem likely to follow suit anytime soon.
My point in writing the post is that the European disinterest in the Sudan shines light on the chances that Kerry could get sufficient help from Europe to withdraw significantly from Iraq.
Gary, would you say that 50,000 troops from Europe in Iraq is likely? Even more than a remote possibility?
Also, the US Congress called it genocide quite recently. Has a major European parliament followed suit? I expect a Democratic authorization for military action to be proposed quite soon. Well maybe not the third sentence.
Gary, do you believe that “As President, I pledge that I will never let the UN have a veto over the national security of the United” has any relevance whatsoever to the case in the Sudan? Does the Sudan represent an imminent threat to the United States?
And as for the recent portions of this thread, I’m thrilled so many people are coming to the realization that many European countries aren’t as interested as has recently been pretended by a certain Democratic presidential candidate.
And if we want to start from the premise that an invasion without the support of the international community and with no security threat posed to the United States is appropriate, I’m thrilled to see the change in heart. For some reason I thought I had to argue against that premise first.
“And if we want to start from the premise that an invasion without the support of the international community and with no security threat posed to the United States is appropriate”
Not the case being made on the other side (though I happen to agree with Kerry we should act alone if we need to). I believe there would be great (at least popular) support in Europe for a US-led intervention in Sudan under a banner of “No More Rwandas” – esp. if the US were led by someone Europe trusted. Or would have been, but for Iraq.
“I’m thrilled so many people are coming to the realization that many European countries aren’t as interested as as recently been pretended by a certain Democratic presidential candidate.”
There’s been too much conflation of the Iraq and Sudan situations here. And you’re confusing mostly lack of ability and will for lack of interest. And of course we’re not going to achieve a 1-1 swap of US soldiers for Europeans, but more world participation would be useful in many ways. It would have been much more useful earlier – in my view piece of evidence #217 of the admin’s mismanagement of the war.
“Yes I know enough about the Korean War to remember that the only reason the UN was involved was because the USSR was having a fit and couldn’t veto. Unfortunately France doesn’t seem likely to follow suit anytime soon.”
Sebastian, that’s nice, but why are you telling this to me?
“My point in writing the post is that the European disinterest in the Sudan shines light on the chances that Kerry could get sufficient help from Europe to withdraw significantly from Iraq.”
Fair enough, but what you wrote — need I quote? — applies precisely as accurately to President Bush. What one writes, and what one’s intentions are, happen to be two entirely separate things.
Is the problem that the President can’t find evidence as yet for calculated effort to completely destroy? Or is it lack of political will?
Is it the case that the problem is not that the President cannot see genocide, it is that he does not want to act and therefore refuses to label this large-scale targeted killing as genocide?
What say you?
“Gary, would you say that 50,000 troops from Europe in Iraq is likely? Even more than a remote possibility?”
Nope. But why are you asking me this? Have I suggested otherwise? Or said anything in this thread about this?
Sebastian, I pointed out and observed the following:
I repeat my request — and that’s all it is, of course — asking if you might please respond on this question.
You stated something that is flatly untrue; wouldn’t you like to, you know, address that?
You’re not going to contend that the Congress makes foreign policy and speaks as the voice of the U.S. to the world, rather than the State Department and the President, surely?
I direct your attention to the last paragraph of my original post. What I wrote and what my intentions happen to be are happily in line with each other if you would bother reading. I don’t mind snarky, but at go through the trouble to be accurate.
Hmm, you bring up the Korean War and the UN yourself and then you can’t even remember the context? I begin to see why you thought I didn’t make a point about Kerry’s foreign policy delusions that couldn’t be equally applied to Bush.
And I’m mystified about your U.S. calls it genocide argument. My original post which you clearly didn’t bother to read, specifically says “The US Congress and some humanitarian groups have accused Sudan of genocide”. It also provides three links to stories which say that the US Congress has voted to call it genocide. One of the articles says that the EU finding puts it in opposition to the findings of the US Congress. Which by the way is an excellent parallel–US Congressional findings (not executive) EU fact-finding mission (at best pseudo-executive). The executive branch has asked that the matter go before the security council, which has refused. I see no reason for the US to do so if it were not going to pursue the Congressional call to action. But I’m not as imaginative as some, perhaps the US wanted security council action in the Sudan to involve donations of mint tea so that Wilson could visit in comfort. Certain other countries, who will remain either nameless or France, have resisted security council review. Furthermore, I believe the power to declare war resides in Congress, so in the US system a Congressional finding of genocide must certainly be given great weight.
You have some gall to accuse me of engaging in untruth by saying “unless you mean the US Congress” when I !@#$ well say the US CONGRESS in the very post which started this entire thread.
I think part of the problem, Sebastian, is that the part of your post that cites the US Congress is not actually written by you.
One of your cites in the post mentions that the White House has not called it genocide, but you didn’t quote that bit. You quoted five paragraphs from it, but not the following:
Do you see how this could be seen as a problem?
Gary,
Well, I’d highly recommend looking into the history of the 20th Century, with particular attention to the Versaille Treaty, Wilson’s rationale for the League of Nations, what went wrong with it and Roosevelt and Churchill’s rationale for the UN.
Yea, I’ve used the Versaille Treaty all over Tacitus when arguing for this war. Europeans still haven’t learned their lesson.
Europeans still haven’t learned their lesson
Those European jokers, eh, Stan? Always imposing restrictions on countries, thereby enabling the conditions for dictators whose names begin with H to invade Poland!
European jokers like Albania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, [Turkey,] and the very, very wacky United Kingdom.
Gary:
Respectfully, Slart, I gather from this that you’ve not been reading the strategic papers written by the people who provided the impetus for the war have been writing for the past decade on the need to establish an Iraq aligned with us so we can move our bases there, and out of Saudi Arabia, and be available for use in the Mideast.
Respectfully, Gary, I suggest that you’ve neglected to consider that those plans and the actual impetus for the war just MIGHT be a bit different, that you’ve neglected to consider the difference between wishful thinking and reality, and that you’ve neglected to consider the difference between what lefty mags are screaming about permanent bases, and what we’re actually building over there.
If we don’t have bases still there in four years it will only be because events in Iraq have made us unable to keep them.
I’m not sure what you mean by unable. Clarify, please? My thinking is that we have the ability to establish one or more military bases in Iraq, should we choose to do so, and there’s little that anyone could do to stop us. If, as some seem to think, we’re of a mind to invade Iraq for the primary purpose of establishing bases there, what on earth could possibly keep us from achieving that end?
Sorry it took so long to respond, Anarch. Life is busier than normal of late.
Actually, the answer is none of the above. It’d be unmindful of reality to suggest that members of PNAC have zero influence, but it’d be also unmindful of reality to suggest that they have enough to ensure that even political opponents of Bush continue to agree that Saddam was a threat. Unless the conspiracy is much deeper and wider than we thought, and PNAC is just the tip of the iceberg.
It is barely possible, though, that this situation arose as an intersection between the desires of the PNAC crowd and the desires of most others to rid Iraq of Saddam.
“Hmm, you bring up the Korean War and the UN yourself and then you can’t even remember the context?”
That’s because that’s a false statement. I didn’t “bring up” the UN, “myself.”
Stan LS @ August 10, 2004 10:11 PM asked me (specifically) “Why bother with the UN?” He followed up with another post clarifying the question directly put to me. The Korean War came up when Stan LS asked in that followup question “Why bother with the UN when it comes to military action? Their contributions are always symbolic, anyway.”
None of which had anything to do with anything you’ve said, Sebastian. Thus my wondering at why you are asking me non sequitur questions.
“What I wrote and what my intentions happen to be are happily in line with each other if you would bother reading.”
What you wrote, condemning the EU for not calling Darfur “genocide” applies precisely equally to the President of the U.S. If that is your intention, it would be clearer if you stated that directly.
When you wrote “The US has already called it genocide…,” either it was your intent, therefore, to state that only Congress speaks for the U.S. in foreign policy — which is mistaken, and I’m quite sure you know that — or it was a mistaken statement in the mistaken belief that the President/State Deptment had made such a declaration, or it was some sort of garble or sloppy statement, which is simply perfectly human; none of these is a big deal if you might simply bother to address the issue.
Now you say “the executive branch has asked that the matter go before the security council, which has refused” which is entirely wrong. The Council has been discussing it for weeks, and addressed the topic several times, and passed another resolution on Friday. See here. This resolution was endorsed by the Council in June. Sudan has denounced the Council for “moving so quickly.”
What are you talking about regarding the Security Council?
And I didn’t say you were “engaging in untruth.” I said you said something that was false, which is that “The US has already called it genocide…”
For pete’s sake, I didn’t impugn your honor; I pointed out that you had made an error; there’s no reason to take that as a personal assault that you must continue to deny because of the shame, the shame, the terrible shame. So you made an error of fact, or mispoke, or wrote sloppily, or whatever, (and now another time regarding the UN SecCouncil). So what? We all do. It’s nothing to get furious with denial about. I’m not making a personal attack on you, Sebastian; I respect you, and agree with you more than not.
“I think part of the problem, Sebastian, is that the part of your post that cites the US Congress is not actually written by you.”
I can see how that would be a serious problem for those who think that I select quotes at random.
So let’s review. I correctly cite that the US Congress has called the situation genocidal. The US Congress is the branch with the ability to declare war. I correctly point to a citation which shows that the Administration itself has thusfar not called it genocidal. I correctly note that a European fact finding mission declined to use the term genocide even though it outlined facts that appear to fit under genocide. I correctly note that whatever you call it, it involves marking tens of thousands of peasants for death and millions for intentional dislocation while their villages burn. I correctly note that Europe doesn’t appear to be interested in doing much about it. I correctly note that Kerry’s Iraq plan involves huge amounts of European military help. I suggest that European unwillingness to be deeply involved in stopping an ongoing (insert your personal term of choice for intentionally murdering tens of thousands of a particular ethnic group) might shed some light on their potential willingness to be deeply involved in Iraq.
After all that, multiple people jump on the idea that I have been misleading when in a later comment I say that the US has called it genocide.
A) I am correct.
B) I can’t be held accountable for your lack of interest in context. If I say in my orignal post that the US Congress has called it a genocide, I think you can safely assume I’m refering to that when I say the US has called it genocide. Especially since I specifically direct the reader to cites outlining the fact that the Administration has avoided doing so.
C) The distinction has absolutely nothing to do with my argument anyway. I argue that European non-interest in dealing with (insert your personal term of choice for intentionally murdering tens of thousands of a particular ethnic group here) might suggest something about willingness to be deeply involved in Iraq–especially when there is not (insert your personal term of choice for intentionally murdering tens of thousands of a particular ethnic group).
I don’t mind if the thread wants to talk about larger issues of international responsibility regarding (insert your personal term of choice for intentionally murdering tens of thousands of a particular ethnic group). I don’t mind if the thread wants to talk about larger issues of US and European engagement or US military might and European non-military might. I love that kind of discussion, and I think it is very useful. But I do mind the suggestion that I have been untruthful in my argument–especially when I have pointed out the very thing you are complaining about in the very first post on the topic and even more so when the point wouldn’t effect my argument one bit even if I had gotten it wrong–which I did not.
You seem to be getting a lot of people’s backs up these days, Gary. Not saying it’s your fault or anything.
I wrote the above post having not seen Gary’s reply.
Slart asks: “I’m not sure what you mean by unable. Clarify, please?”
Various combinations of factors are possible, which is why I was vague, but the primary one would be if the Iraqi government felt sufficient able to be non-dependent upon us, desired us to get out (whether for nationalistic reasons of their own, or under pressure from fellow Arabs), and demanded we get out. Obviously we would then have to leave (obviously we would have exhausted our available leverage against them, which under any likely circumstances is apt to be extraordinarily powerful).
A very loose couple of parallels would be when we gave up our Phillipines bases, or the Panama Canal. (Neither of which did we obtain the rights to build out of noble desire to liberate the native peoples, despite that being what we asserted when we fought the Spanish-American War, and then the Phillipine guerillas, and when we “liberated” Panama from Nicaragua, I note in passing — emphasis in passing — don’t get too distracted by this observation — though times were a bit different.)
Let me re-emphasize that I don’t give credence to the sort of lefty conspiracy sites you have in mind, Slart; I find them laughable.
“It is barely possible, though, that this situation arose as an intersection between the desires of the PNAC crowd and the desires of most others to rid Iraq of Saddam.”
That’s a fair statement. It’s not as if “the PNAC crowd” has orbital mind-control lasers, despite popular rumor.
Heh. Sounds as if we’re in agreement.
My tinfoil hat reflects 99.97% of orbital mind-control laser radiation. Which is good for me, but bad for people standing around me.
One last thing: anyone who thought that our deposing Saddam would automatically mean that we could have bases in Iraq for all time should be beheaded. It’s not as if they were using it, or anything. There’s really only a few ways we can accomplish that end, and none of them are acceptable to me, even though I’m a high-ranking member of the VRWC.
Let’s cut to the relevant point here. To trigger the Genocide Convention, the U.S. must officially declare what’s going on “genocide.” That’s the U.S., speaking as a “Contracting Party.” The only entity that speaks for the U.S. in foreign policy is the President of the United States. The only entity empowered to sign treaties is the President of the United States.
Not Congress. Congress does not sign treaties, nor enforce them. This is basic Constitutional law, Sebastian, which I’m sure you know. Regarding the Convention, as in all treaties, what Congress says triggers nothing; what the President says does. End of story.
See here:
“If I say in my orignal post that the US Congress has called it a genocide, I think you can safely assume I’m refering to that when I say the US has called it genocide.”
Okay, but it’s irrelevant in terms of what’s at issue. The President hasn’t made the declaration because it would obligate the U.S. to act. The EU hasn’t made the declaration because it would, practically speaking, obligate via political pressure (not directly by treaty; so far as I know the EU has not signed the Convention, and is not empowered to; there is still not an EU Foreign Minister in office — however, I’m vague on the former, so might be wrong; practically speaking, though, this is a crucial difference, as yet, between the EU and US) member countries to act.
Both motivations are precisely the same, and say the same thing about both political entities.
Unfortunately, this fact completely spoils the entire point of your anti-European rant, Sebastian, which I sympathize with — it’s always annoying to do a good rant, and than have it pointed out that an underlying thesis doesn’t hold — whoops — I’ve been there, done that, and I know it’s extremely irritating to have to climb down a bit — but there it is. The EU is acting no differently than President Bush — so far — and that’s all there is to it.
“I argue that European non-interest in dealing with (insert your personal term of choice for intentionally murdering tens of thousands of a particular ethnic group here) might suggest something about willingness to be deeply involved in Iraq….”
It’s a thesis that has some relevant points behind it, but it fails because it doesn’t deal with the primary point of parallel behavior between the EU and President Bush.
“But I do mind the suggestion that I have been untruthful in my argument….”
Entirely reasonable, but I’ve never said any such thing; however, when I said that you said something false, I should have emphasized that I was quite sure that this was unknowingly; I apologize for that; I never meant to imply any such thing, and hadn’t realized that what I said might be taken in any such way.
“You seem to be getting a lot of people’s backs up these days, Gary. Not saying it’s your fault or anything.”
Well, I can be quite relentless when something gets up my nose, I’m well aware.
And, as well, I have a very irritating quality of usually not speaking unless I know what I’m talking about; further, I usually am correct. This can be most unforgivable and annoying. And I get more relentless when someone dodges, rather than simply acknowledging error (hi, Edward!).
I expect, however, you are talking about the bozos on John Cole’s threads (thanks muchly for your comments, by the way), who apparently are six years-old, mentally and emotionally, and simply risible. I don’t recall getting up anyone else’s back lately (probably Trent Telenko’s last night at Winds of Change, but that was an extremely rare case of my doing so deliberately; he deserved it, IMO).
“One last thing: anyone who thought that our deposing Saddam would automatically mean that we could have bases in Iraq for all time should be beheaded.”
I’ll point out that it’s the same viewpoint (and people) who believed that the invasion would be almost universally viewed as a liberation by all save Saddamists, and we’d be greeted with sweets and flowers, and this view would stay the overwhelming view indefinitely, at least to the degree it has in Kuwait (which is not entirely, but sufficiently). Which is to say, the civilian (not the military) leadership in the Defense Department.
Which is just one of many reasons many feel that Rumsfeld — and personally I’ll grant the man has many virtues and admirable qualities, and I duly admire them — should have been fired quite some time ago, and hold the fact that the President has not done so as a huge black mark against the President’s competence.
Gary, I felt I was defending the idea of civilized discussion, more than I was defending you personally; I think you can defend yourself far more ably than I can. Unfortunately, and you may have seen this far earlier than I, reasonable discussion with them appears to have been a lost cause. I’m not quite sure what to say to people who think your case is diminished by you always being right.
As for the rest, only one quibble: the error in judgement in thinking we’d be welcomed with open arms and flowers by the Iraqi people is, IMO, small compared with the error in judgement in thinking that, plus they’d want us to hang around for several decades because they liked us so much.
“Gary, I felt I was defending the idea of civilized discussion, more than I was defending you personally; I think you can defend yourself far more ably than I can.”
It’s perfectly clear that they’re a bunch of children whose only interest is shouting insults, which apparently makes them feel better, and that they have accomplished something in the world. As I am uninterested in participating in this form of therapeutic relationship with them, I stopped commenting, tempting as it was to consider leaving one last message to the effect of how touched I was to have made such a difference in their lives, to have moved them so deeply, as to motivate them to go to my own site, do research on me, and study the details of my life, all so they can respond; truly, it is gratifying that one’s words and insights can so affect people. Alas that the reverse is untrue, and it is clearly a sign of a great emotional failing on my part that I have been so little moved by their remarks that within moments after posting to said thread, I have entirely forgotten what their pseudonyms are; I am sad that I am so emotionally inadequate in the face of their great sensitivity and care.
Something like that.
But it seemed like a pointless poking with a stick, so I declined.
😉
“As for the rest, only one quibble: the error in judgement in thinking we’d be welcomed with open arms and flowers by the Iraqi people is, IMO, small compared with the error in judgement in thinking that, plus they’d want us to hang around for several decades because they liked us so much.”
The reason I can’t agree on this is that if the former idea — that the gratitude would last through a couple of years of occupation and reformation — were true, the latter, that they’d at least put up with us being arouond for several decades, isn’t a stretch. It is, as I’ve noted, true of Kuwait. We were so greeted, not just for a matter of a few weeks, and while the shine has come off somewhat, the majority are still willing, for now, at least, to put with us for a while longer (not that popular feeling is quite as important in Kuwait as the Emir’s view — say, didn’t someone say something about us supporting democratic change in the Mideast?).
So, in my view, those views are close to being one-and-the-same, and the error in judgment in Iraq is similarly close, along with its attendants of declaring that 150,000 troops would be sufficient post-war, specifically against all military advice, such as from Tommy Franks, CINC of Central Command, who said 250,000 were necessary (this is in his new book, BTW), or General Shinseki, Army Chief of Staff, who testified to Congress that several hundred thousand would be necessary, and was immediately publically reprimanded by Paul Wolfowitz, and forced to retire thereafter.
In this sense, the post-war policy of Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz — and thus President Bush, who is responsible, of course — was based upon ideological fantasy that ignored all professional advice — and also threw out all the professional post-war planning by the State Department — and that’s why it all went to hell, and that’s the great failing of the Administration in its Iraq policy, in the view of so many of us. Not the original decision to invade: the complete failure of competently executing the crucial post-invasion in disregard of our professional military and diplomatis who knew how to do the job and tried to.
But there can be different reasons why different parties might want to avoid action, correct?
Bush might want to avoid action because it would obligate the US to involve itself in yet another country where the international community is not interested in acting and in yet another case where the US would have to be the bad guy and force things through the UN. (See for example French resistance to UN sanctions less than a month ago.) Unless you believe the crap about Bush being completely insensitive to diplomatic concerns, you can realize that he might want to pick his battles. The Sudan has near-zero security implications for the US–certainly far less than Iraq, so he could choose not to fight with the international community over this issue.
European countries might have different reasons for failing to get involved. And these different reasons might have some bearing on Kerry’s ridiculous claim that he will be able to significantly draw down US troops in Iraq because he will get Europe to pitch in. (Note the BECAUSE–Kerry could certainly draw down US troops in Iraq without European help if he were abandoning it to its fate). These reasons might include a lack of projectable military might. That would certainly bear on Kerry’s plan. They might include lack of political will to risk troops. That would certainly bear on Kerry’s plan. It might include worries about stirring up Muslim populations in Europe. That would certainly bear on Kerry’s plan. None of those reasons have anything to do with Bush. Bush could declare the situation in the Sudan ‘genocide’ or not without changing that argument even one little bit.
It could effect your view of Bush, but it wouldn’t change my argument about Kerry’s misplaced reliance on Europe.
You are free to argue that “it’s irrelevant in terms of what’s at issue” what was at issue was merely a strict question of “Has the Genocide Convention been Effectively Invoked with respect to the Sudan”. That isn’t a question that I raised, and it really wasn’t raised throughout much of the discussion. Probably because the answer is a simple ‘no’, but it is a ‘no’ fraught with difficult issues. And we have been discussing those issues.
This also reminds me of another issue which we have recently discussed. (This isn’t being snarky but notice that I put right out in front that this is a different issue than the one being discussed.) I have the same problem with “The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide” that I have with the NPT. These treaties let countries engage in fact-finding missions and serious sounding discussions about ‘prevention of genocide’ and ‘prevention of nuclear proliferation’, but because the international community does not have the will to do much about it the things which are supposed to be prevented are not prevented. Maybe I’m being idealistically foolish, but I really think that the pretense of doing something might be preventing real action from taking place.
So, I’ll call again for the UN to create a ‘Constitution for the Developing Country’.”
I can’t imagine a cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all Constitution that is sensible and workable. Does Palau have the same needs and culture as Canada as Russia as Nigeria?
Hmm, I’d say 1) that people in Palau do have the same basic needs as people in Canada and 2) if their culture is that which causes, propagates or allows to continue genocidal acts, then it is a culture that has no place in determining a constitution. It’s not like I demand it be the US constitution. Take the best parts from countries that haven’t killed their own people and build one.
“This ensures that the forces are not seen as taking sides in a war, rather they are there to implement a framework of government in a place whose current system has failed miserably.”
Respectfully, I think this is a complete fantasy. It’s as reasonable as it is to assert that Iraqis, the Arab world, the Muslim world, and most of the world, must all see us as there only for the Iraqi’s own good, because we say so.
No, it would be because the world, as represented by the UN, says so. And isn’t that what many people here are calling for, UN approval of military actions?
“We’re here to impose a foreign Constitution on you for your own good, because you’re not capable of running your own country.”
No, no one could possible object to that, or decide there are ulterior motives. After all, nobody ever sees ulterior motives that don’t exist.
My answer is, Tough S**t. If you allow genocide and the world has to step in to stop it you give up your right to see ulterior motives in either those who vote for a military action to put a stop to it or those countries asked by the world to give up sons, daughters and treasure to actually stop it. Or, more accurately, the world ceases to care about your opinion until you’ve proven you can run your own country without killing each other on a mass scale.
Hey, we went into Lebanon under Reagan intending to be neutral. And that ensured no one saw us that way. Remember that?
Whatever. My point is that it seems pretty crazy for us to go in to a country, stop a genocidal government from killing off a minority group and then up and leave with no real plan for fixing what’s broken.
No worries on the lateness of the reply, Slarti; I’m keenly aware of the busyness of life too.
It is barely possible, though, that this situation arose as an intersection between the desires of the PNAC crowd and the desires of most others to rid Iraq of Saddam.
FWIW, this has always struck me as the most plausible scenario, although the relevant weighting is a matter for some debate. I think Wolfowitz let on far more than he realized (or maybe even knew) when he revealed that Saddam’s ouster was the confluence of many divergent — and, indeed, almost disparate — elements.
[Which raises an interesting question: if everyone agrees that a particular action should be taken, but no-one can agree why that action should be taken, is it right or wise to continue with that action absent agreement?]
And running with this notion: I think this is the fundamental source of the rift between conservative and liberal (or perhaps pro-war/anti-war) when talking about the Iraq War, and, indeed, the origin of the rift when regarding the Bush Presidency. There are so many differing elements within the Administration that, contrary to Conventional Wisdom concerning the famously on-message executive branch, we’ve been getting remarkably disjointed, incomplete responses to basic questions like “Why should we remove Saddam?” I suspect very strongly that one’s support of the Bush Administration is directly correlated to one’s belief that there is an underlying politico-ideological framework upon which all these elements can hang.
This explains somewhat why liberals are so ungodly frustrated at the Bush Administration: we see these disparate elements and, unable to discern a unified strategy underneath (beyond the trivialities like reelection), are forced into the lands of tinfoil to make sense of it. It also explains why conservatives are so frustrated with liberal frustration: when you look at the Bush Administration, you do see a coherent strategy — in fact, it’s apparently obvious to most of you — and you therefore can’t imagine why we’re bitching about their latest actions.
Why then do I think I’m right when I say that Bush has no coherent strategy? Well, it’s twofold. First, I have a good eye for patterns and I don’t discern such a strategy, only glorious rhetoric and hamfisted, avoidable cockups. This is first-order reasoning and, as such, it’s vulnerable in the usual ways. What’s more interesting, I think, is the second-order reasoning: the fact that it seems that there is no uniformity, left or right, on how to parse the individual actions of the Bush Administration in the larger context. Lefties come to blows over whether they’re motivated by “Blood For Oil”, a naked desire for reelection, or covering up their friends’ and cronies’ misdeeds; righties come to blows (though this is admittedly second-hand, so you conservatives will have to correct me here) over whether they’re necessary for national security, the promotion of democracy, or directly aimed at terroristic elements.
As an aside, I remember being flabbergasted when reading Tacitus shortly prior to the war and actually hearing a legitimate, well-articulated justification for the necessity of war in Iraq. It flabbergasted me not because I hadn’t heard these basic arguments before — there really wasn’t anything new there — but because I had never heard them put together in that manner before, and, I want to emphasize this, I had never heard the Bush Administration make this case. This wasn’t merely a case of poor rhetorical choices by the Administration; it was the total absence of the underlying conceptual framework that Tac and others brought to the table. I can only wonder how much better things would be in Iraq, and how much better we would be as a nation, had the Administration done the same.
I don’t mean to imply that there can’t be synergies amongst those various threads — certainly, I can believe that the Bush Administration could simultaneously attempt to boost national security, kill terrorists, secure artificially cheapened Iraqi oil and cover up the latest Halliburton scandal in one act — but fundamentally, the problem is that the Bush Administration functions as an animate Rorschach test: you can find whatever you want, for better or for worse, so the only patterns scrawled there are the ones we bring to the table. [Consider this a variant of “Honi soit qui mal y pense” if you like.] Ultimately, I think this is why we’re so pissy and pissed-off at one another: absent an external declaration of pattern we’ve all had to rationalize events on our own. As such, we’re both afraid of the uncertainty underlying our theorizing and wedded to our own pet theories, resulting in forced surety, forced antagonism and forcible suppression of dissent.
Not that we can’t overcome these impulses — this site is a testament to that — but I think we’re in deeper trouble than we choose to admit. Here’s to hoping that in the next four years, regardless of who’s President, we can recover our equanimity.
PS: …wow. This has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, or really even about Slarti’s post. Sorry about the diversion there; this is just a pet theory I’ve been kicking around, and apparently it wanted to be told 🙂
PPS: Based on the amount of psychobabbling I’ve done, I’ll just penalize myself 10,000 yards for mind-reading and be done with it.
“But there can be different reasons why different parties might want to avoid action, correct?”
Surely. And to sum up my response to your explication of that, it’s obvious that there is a mix of reasons behind both the US and the EU’s responses, and each is somewhat different. In the end, though, they boil down to the same choice (for now).
“Maybe I’m being idealistically foolish, but I really think that the pretense of doing something might be preventing real action from taking place.”
I think there’s definitely something to that, yes.
Tangentially, on this: “The Sudan has near-zero security implications for the US….”
Are you familiar with this? Remember where Osama bin Laden was based before Afghanistan?
And if you’ve not read the two articles linked here, I commend them to your (and everyone’s) attention, including Lee Smith’s Sudan’s Osama: The Islamist roots of the Darfur genocide.
Any followup, by the way, about your statement that “the executive branch has asked that the matter go before the security council, which has refused,” or should we all just politely forget about that?
Really? Palau needs both a set of provinces and territories; a legal system based on English common law, except in one province, where civil law system based on French law prevails; an overseas Queen as head of State, represented by a Governor-General; a Federal Ministry chosen by the prime minister from among the members of his own party sitting in Parliament;a bicameral Parliament which consists of the Senate or (members appointed by the governor general with the advice of the prime minister and serve until reaching 75 years of age; its normal limit is 105 senators) and the House of Commons (301 seats; members elected by direct, popular vote to serve for up to five-year terms); and a Supreme Court of Palau (judges are appointed by the prime minister through the governor general); Federal Court of Palau; Federal Court of Appeal; Provincial Courts (these are named variously Court of Appeal, Court of Queens Bench, Superior Court, Supreme Court, and Court of Justice)?
Really? Why? Mightn’t their circumstances call for something a bit different?
And what about the Russian Constitution and the Nigeria Constitution? I’m quite unclear how we can apply all three Constitutions simultaneously to Palau; can you explain that to me, please?
Check. If “the world” says so, that “ensures that the forces are not seen as taking sides in a war.” I need to understand correctly, though: on which world would this be so “ensured,” again?
Whatever. Yes, well, that certainly refutes my point and example. Who could doubt that all it takes is a statement by the UN to eliminate violent resistance?
Heck, the bombing of the UN HQ in Iraq never happened, after all. Perhaps you might get Sergio Vieira de Mello’s views on the effectiveness of your proposed policy.
I was wrong about the Security Council obstruction. France did not obstruct the council from taking up the matter, they resisted the imposition of sanctions.
I’ll admit that I have pretty much given up on the utility of sanctions, but they seem to be a necessary first step in international action. Resistance to taking that step is suggestive.
Hmmm does this fix the italics overflow?
I’ll admit that I have pretty much given up on the utility of sanctions, but they seem to be a necessary first step in international action.
Not to be a pest, but weren’t there sanctions against Germany after WW1?
It all comes down to the same thing – who’s going to enforce these sanctions?
I’m not defending sanctions. Their history at causing change isn’t very exciting. I’m suggesting that the international community typcially tries to use them before considering military action.
Yea, I’ve used the Versaille Treaty all over Tacitus when arguing for this war. Europeans still haven’t learned their lesson.
What, exactly, is “their lesson”?
crionna, my response to you got eaten about half a dozen times so forgive the shortness of the (multiply-reconstructed) response: in what ways would a ‘Constitution for the Developing Country’ differ materially from, say, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
Anarch,
Your off-topic post on the confusion about the Iraq war is spot on. And to further push things off-topic, I’m curious – do you think that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a reasonable document? Because I’ve always found it to be an grossly flawed statement of principles, which makes me even more weary of your theoretical consitutional framework for developing nations than I otherwise would be.
“Their [sanctions] history at causing change isn’t very exciting.”
Their usefulness is limited, but not non-existent. They work best against countries where they truly affect the economy, and the rulers are subject to internal pressure because of that, and they are comparatively universally applied.
Thus, they were, in the end, a major, if not dominant, factor in ending apartheid in South Africa. That was hugely significant, was it not?
They were also the major factor in bringing Libya and Khaddfy to his knees; Libya was rapidly becoming impoverished after years of sanctions, and Khaddfy was in danger of losing control.
On the other hand, they were quite useless in Iraq, where Saddam Hussein was cheerfully willing to put the burden on his people, who were killed if they had a problem with that.
Similarly, they’ve been ineffective against Myanmar. They’ve had some effect upon North Korea, but China is their big loophole.
They’ve hurt Cuba, but pretty much only the US has them, insufficiently.
So it depends upon the circumstances; sanctions are neither a panacea nor always useless.
On another comment, I think Anarch’s comment of 01:35 PM was quite brilliant and spot-on.
Anarch,
What, exactly, is “their lesson”?
Appeasement sucks.
Appeasement sucks.
How was Versailles “appeasement”?
I’m curious – do you think that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a reasonable document? Because I’ve always found it to be an grossly flawed statement of principles, which makes me even more weary of your theoretical consitutional framework for developing nations than I otherwise would be.
First, it’s not really my theoretical framework; I just wanted to give crionna something concrete to hang her arguments on, around, or in contradistinction to.
Second, as a theoretical guarantor of rights I think it’s pretty darn good. There are some things in there I find a bit dubious — I’m not sure what “protection against unemployment” means, but I’m fairly sure I don’t have a right to it — but by and large, I like the rights explicitly enumerated, I don’t find there to be any unenumerated rights needing explicit mention, and I think that it forms a decent enough metric against which a society could (should?) be judged. I certainly don’t see any “gross flaws” in it and, since it seems to have been fairly directly modelled off the Bill of Rights, that doesn’t particularly surprise me.
[I’ll note that the one real flaw I find in the UDHR is that they take the notion of “right” to be axiomatic. Something that fundamental, and on which such fundamental disagreement will turn, needs to be more explicitly codified.]
Which brings us to the third issue: the UDHR is not, in any way, shape or form, a constitutional framework per se. It is, to repeat what I said above, a metric against which a society could be judged. Now, one way of interpreting crionna’s remarks was as asking for an actual juridico-political structure to be installed, sort of like a political Habitat for Humanity prebuild, and I’m not sure how that would work. [See Gary’s 2:24pm post for an example of the difficulties.] Another way to interpret it would be to say that, in order to qualify for aid, a nascent democracy must attempt to found a society based on these premises. It’s the difference between, say, plopping a sculpture in the middle of a lawn and putting up a trellis on which something can grow organically, although I wouldn’t push that metaphor too far.
The acid test, of course, is what kind of thing would grow on the UDHR (or rather, within its confines) and how would compliance be forced, both internally and externally. That’s where I perceive the difficulties to lie, but I suspect that’s further down the line than your query.
Could we be coming up to an “Emily Latila” moment?
…that people in Palau do have the same basic needs as people in Canada.
Really? Palau needs both a set of provinces and territories; […]Superior Court, Supreme Court, and Court of Justice)?
Really? Why? Mightn’t their circumstances call for something a bit different? And what about the Russian Constitution and the Nigeria Constitution? I’m quite unclear how we can apply all three Constitutions simultaneously to Palau; can you explain that to me, please?
Are the Palauians committing genocide? If not, then perhaps its unnecessary to ascribe this to them. But if they were, wouldn’t it be proof that it might be time to try something different there, after we stop the bloodbath and all? If so, shouldn’t we get some folks together at the UN to put some type of framework together that takes the best from what works elsewhere before committing troops?
This ensures that the forces are not seen as taking sides in a war, rather they are there to implement a framework of government in a place whose current system has failed miserably. […] No, it would be because the world, as represented by the UN, says so.
Check. If “the world” says so, that “ensures that the forces are not seen as taking sides in a war.” I need to understand correctly, though: on which world would this be so “ensured,” again
On the world where the UN must be on board in order to have “legitimacy”. Gary, my answer there is in response to your omitted response because we say so where I inferred we=US=we get into unilateralistic trouble. If I’m wrong in that equation, then I misunderstood your sarcasm. I think that those doing the killing will always have a problem with those sent to stop them. Don’t you?
Hey, we went into Lebanon under Reagan intending to be neutral. And that ensured no one saw us that way. Remember that?
Whatever.
Yes, well, that certainly refutes my point and example. Who could doubt that all it takes is a statement by the UN to eliminate violent resistance?
Gary, tell me, because I do not remember, did we go into Lebanon on our own initiative or at the request of the UN? Again, I’m not trying to eliminate violent resistance, that’s a given.
Heck, the bombing of the UN HQ in Iraq never happened, after all. Perhaps you might get Sergio Vieira de Mello’s views on the effectiveness of your proposed policy.
Gary, you’ve proven that you are fantastic at coming up with refutations (especially since I’m a rather easy target), so tell me, how do we ensure that if we go into Sudan we don’t end up with Somalia?
Thanks Anarch, and a political Habitat for Humanity prebuild is exactly what I’m thinking of here.
I agree that there would be difficulties, but once your culture and system is so out of whack that the government can’t stop and may indeed be perpetrating genocide, wouldn’t anything be better?
After having my earlier compliments eaten several times by dogs of unknown size&shape, I gave up. But, awesome post, Anarch. I don’t agree with all of it, but the general theme is intriguing. True? Untrue? It’s one of those try-it-on-and-see things.
Anarch,
Thanks for your fascinating explanation. The flaw you identify is the primary cause of my weariness towards the document.
I’d argue that perhaps your plan might be better implemented at the local (village, town, neighborhood) level as opposed to the national. I have no idea why everyone gets so obsessive about the national government, in let’s say, Afghanistan, when there is hardly rule of law of any kind at the local level. First things first, I say – local self-government that leads to building provincal government, and ultimately the national.
So, you’d actually have my support for your controversial idea if the guidelines were for the minimum of good local government (free elections; free speech, civilian control of police/military, and so on) that was actively supported and not interfered with the assumedly corrupt National powers-that-be. But how you’d do this through the UN without them throwing in the inalienable human right to warm puppies and sunshine everyday, I have no idea.
“Are the Palauians committing genocide? If not, then perhaps its unnecessary to ascribe this to them.”
The point is that you proposed that “the UN to create a ‘Constitution for the Developing Country'” that will fit every country. I pointed out this is a fantasy notion that can’t work. The question of where to apply the unworkable fantasy isn’t relevant.
“…shouldn’t we get some folks together at the UN to put some type of framework together that takes the best from what works elsewhere before committing troops?”
Is the UN magical? If there’s “some type of framework,” you have in mind, outline it. Then feel free to explain how you will convince people to live with a Constitution imposed by military force without first utterly conquering them, a la German and Japan.
But, meanwhile, my point is that there’s no one-size-fits-all Constitutional model; if there were, it wouldn’t take the year-plus for scholars called in to write Constitutions that have done so for the few countries that have needed them in recent years. Every country has unique aspects that necessitate significant differences in Constitional structures; this can’t be shrugged off as a matter of trivial add-ons to a basic DYI Constitution. A Constitution has to be built from the basic structure up.
Meanwhile, I’m still waiting to hear why the Palauians need Canada’s Constitution. Are you standing by that assertion?
I’m afraid I don’t understand what you were saying in your next paragraph, save for this sentence: “I think that those doing the killing will always have a problem with those sent to stop them. Don’t you?”
Yes. Kinda my point. Moreover, so will plenty of other people, for all sorts of reasons.
“Gary, you’ve proven that you are fantastic at coming up with refutations (especially since I’m a rather easy target), so tell me, how do we ensure that if we go into Sudan we don’t end up with Somalia?”
There are more assumptions packed into that than I care to untangle. I might digress into noting that we could have conquered Somalia with ease, but that wasn’t our goal; and keeping it pacified thereafter would have been as large a problem as it has been in Iraq, although we might not have had all that much trouble in Iraq if we’d poured in 350,000 troops instead of 150,000 — but that’s hard to say.
Meanwhile, I wasn’t aware I was arguing for invading Sudan, so what are you talking about?
Thanks for your fascinating explanation. The flaw you identify is the primary cause of my weariness towards the document.
Ah, that makes sense. Yeah, it’s sorely lacking in that department; I think it’s the kind of thing that, if the UDHR had any real power, would have been codified a long time ago.
I’d argue that perhaps your plan might be better implemented at the local (village, town, neighborhood) level as opposed to the national. I have no idea why everyone gets so obsessive about the national government, in let’s say, Afghanistan, when there is hardly rule of law of any kind at the local level.
Because officially, at least, the national government controls the army. There are a bunch of other major issues — taxation, appropriation of funds, loan status, international treaties, civil works projects and the like — that require a functioning national government. That’s my take at least.
That said, I think you’re absolutely right that more emphasis should be placed on the nuts-and-bolts mechanisms of democracy, specifically the local level juridico-political structures. [I so need a better phrase.] It needn’t be government in the formal sense of the word, but it should comprise at least the local manifestations of peacekeeping, legislation, enforcement and judgment, as well as a degree of intercommunication between localities.
But how you’d do this through the UN without them throwing in the inalienable human right to warm puppies and sunshine everyday, I have no idea.
There’s the rub, isn’t it? I mean, I understand their position — it’d be awfully nice to just remove all badness in the world by fiat — but this is one case where perfect isn’t just the enemy of the good, it hunted good’s family down, killed its cat and made a mess in its parking place. Or something like that.
The other facet of this problem, incidentally, and one which periodically manifests in the US as well, is the over-expansion of the concept of rights. Inasmuch as “right” means anything, it should be something immutable and inalienable that can be abrograted only when in conflict with other rights or national security. Sunshine and puppies, to use your example, are something to be desired for, and something we should wish for all people; they are not, however, a right. I suspect that I have a much larger notion of what should count as a fundamental right as compared with you, but I think we both agree that the UDHR goes too far.
[Although, here’s a fun game: one can argue that some rights are more fundamental than others… so maybe we could multi-tier in some way. You’re a nascent democracy if you pass hurdles 1-6; you’re a democracy if you pass hurdles 7-12; and so forth. Of course, the ugly question of incentivization raises its head again…]
The point is that you proposed that “the UN to create a ‘Constitution for the Developing Country'” that will fit every country. I pointed out this is a fantasy notion that can’t work.
Actually, you haven’t. You’ve demonstrated quite capably that importing a developed country’s constitution wholesale into a developing country would be a disaster, but I don’t think that’s the issue at hand. The question is more properly: can one create a basic democratic — technically, representative — government and political system that will function adequately for some transitional time period while the nation, en masse, acclimates to democracy? In other words, can one create a “political Habitat for Humanity prebuild” that you can drop in as a temporary measure that will provide all the necessary guarantees?
I want to emphasize the temporary nature of this government because I think that’s what you’re missing. Canada’s system has had, as have the US and the UK, several centuries to evolve to the specific nature of that nation and its problems. Of course one can’t graft a mature political system onto a nascent democracy, any more than one could teach a two-year old graduate-level physics. But might there be some common seed from which a mature system might spring? The seed doesn’t stay constant through this: amended, maybe rewritten via a Constitutional Convention, it will grow and flourish (and, perhaps, perish) according to the local conditions. Remember, in other words, that a difference in the ultimate shape of the system does not preclude an initial commonality.
Now I have to be honest: I don’t see how this could be done, but the problem is procedural, not accidental or incidental. Do you want a parliamentarian system or a majoritarian one? Unicameral or bicameral legislature? Something more complicated? How should the powers separate? Should judges be allowed to make laws? How should executive power emanate outwards? What degree of federalism should be employed? How much local autonomy should be employed? Are there natural resources or geographical issues to consider and, if so, should these be Constitutional matters? What about transitional issues involving race or religion? Every democratic country has taken its own approach and, while the end result is essentially the same in re the rights and liberties granted, I don’t see enough procedural commonality to make this work.* I’m all ears should others (especially crionna) have ideas, though.
* More accurately, the developing country would be offered so many choices that it would be functionally equivalent to just writing the Constitution from scratch.
I suspect that I have a much larger notion of what should count as a fundamental right as compared with you, but I think we both agree that the UDHR goes too far.
Well, yes, but it’s not like I don’t approve of the benefits outlined, I just don’t think they are rights. As far as I’m concerned, no ones rights are violated when a tornado destroys their shelter or a drought wipes out all their food. Still a tragedy, of course, one a government should endeavor to remedy, but let’s be sensible. I guess a good outline of my simple rule would be – does this “right” require the government to be well-funded enough to provide it? If yes, not a right. No budget crunch interferes with my free speech rights, for instance.
…the ugly question of incentivization raises its head again…
Were foreign aid conditional on it, you have your carrot. As for the stick, well, that was the original point wasn’t it? A war in the Sudan to stop the genocide?
This presumes, however, that the states that make up the UN have the will to enforce such policies to begin with, let alone agree with the various premises we’ve all been hashing over here.
What is stunning is that the universally recognized failures of the UN in the 1990s (unable to take action in Yugoslavia; not stopping the genocide in Rwanda) are for the same reasons and in the same way happening again. So even when something is agreed upon multilaterally (i.e. the UN should stop genocides) making it happen is not something that anyone can count on. So even if you were to get your wish for a democracy promoting doctrine and apparatus at the UN, on what basis do you expect results?
Anarch,
How was Versailles “appeasement”?
Was it enforced?
In a tremendous number of ways, from payments to land withdrawl to confiscated colonies, and on and on and on.
I suspect you are thinking about events many many years later, such as the remilitarization of the Rhineland, but that’s scarcely the same as making an overall declaration that there was no enforcement of the Treaty. “Eventually let things slide” is not “none.”
Of course, this sort of thing is part of why the UN was created.
“On another comment, I think Anarch’s comment of 01:35 PM was quite brilliant and spot-on.”
Indeed. Sufficiently so that if I were to get a suitably revised version I might be persuaded to make it a guest post.
Meanwhile, I’m still waiting to hear why the Palauians need Canada’s Constitution. Are you standing by that assertion?
I never said that. I said that the people had the same basic needs, many of which are identified in the UDHR Anarch points out.
I don’t know what such a “starter constitution” would look like, otherwise I would spell it out. Having said that, I realize that I sound like a biodiesel proponent arguing energy policy with Den Beste, so I’ll stop.
However, I’m still waiting for you to tell me, because I do not remember, did we go into Lebanon on our own initiative or at the request of the UN?.
Indeed. Sufficiently so that if I were to get a suitably revised version I might be persuaded to make it a guest post.
Now I’m wondering how to make it known that I’m highly in favor of Anarch doing so, without the flavor of asking someone else to do work that they might not ordinarily be inclined to do. Well, this’ll have to serve. Consider my hand raised skyward, Horshack-esque.
“Eventually let things slide” is not “none.”
How’s letting things slide not appeasement?
Of course, this sort of thing is part of why the UN was created.
Right. And why was the League of Nations created?
Was [the Treaty of Versailles] enforced?
I’m going to presume, perhaps erroneously, that you don’t know much about the interwar period in Europe. [If I’m mistaken and you’ve merely been attempting a Socratic dialogue, my apologies.] With that in mind, this History Learning Site is a decent enough overview of Versailles and, rummaging around in the Modern World History index, its aftermath. In particular, note the following:
[Slight caveat there: the American economy probably fell further, since they’d started so much higher, but the effects of the Depression weren’t even close to as severe in the US as they were in Europe. Why is a matter of enormous debate.]
Long story short, the Treaty of Versailles was mercilessly enforced — the continuing obligations as well as the initial terms — for 14 years, ending only when Hitler came to power (and really, only two years later when he made the public announcement, so it’s more like 16 years). You’re free to argue that at that time Versailles was inadequately enforced (and I doubt you’d get much disagreement), but remember: the enforcement had encompassed the seizure of German colonies, the outright invasion and occupation of native German lands and the financial destruction of Germany; and even then, the enforcement continued apace until six years after the worst financial crisis in modern history had wrecked the economies (and, in France’s case, the politics) of the enforcing powers.
All in all, the answer to your question is “Oh my word, yes.”
[The reason I queried your “learn their lesson” is that there is (or at least was, back when I was studying this) virtually unanimous agreement that “The Lesson Of Versailles” was not to make the terms of a peace treaty so harsh as to cripple the vanquished nation, thus allowing the rise of extremist elements. Hitler simply couldn’t have come to power without Clause 231, the economic devastation of 1922-23 (see The Beer Hall Putsch, for example), and the Depression.]
Right. And why was the League of Nations created?
It depends on who you ask — Clemenceau’s rationale was different from Lloyd George’s, and nobody really bought Wilson’s utopianism — but the usual succinct answer is “To prevent the Great War from happening again by providing an open forum in which nations could air their alliances and grievances.” I’m not sure what point you’re trying to prove here, but I suspect this ain’t it.
Consider my hand raised skyward, Horshack-esque.
*raises hand too*
*blinks*
Drat. Now I’ll actually have to write the damn thing.
In 1935, clauses of Versailles were officially set aside when Hitler announced the German remilitarization to the world. No-one cared; in fact, Britain outright supported this with the 1935 Anglo-German Naval Agreement. [This in conflict with the Stresa Agreement (?), which sought to reaffirm German demilitarization.] This is sometimes taken to be the beginning of the formal strategy of appeasement, although I usually date it a little later with the remilitarization of the Rhine in 1936.
Given to which it lead, this is the part that interests me most.
[The reason I queried your “learn their lesson” is that there is (or at least was, back when I was studying this) virtually unanimous agreement that “The Lesson Of Versailles” was not to make the terms of a peace treaty so harsh as to cripple the vanquished nation, thus allowing the rise of extremist elements.
Eh? Let’s not confuse intent and capability. It’s the appeasement that gave Germany the ability to launch a world war.
No, Stan, it’s the treaty that gave Germany the conditions to start the war. And rejecting the treaty wasn’t appeasement, because the treaty was too harsh. It was allowing Germany to go too far in its reaction to the treaty that was on the side of appeasement.
But this is different to Iraq in that appeasement of Germany was partially out of a feeling of guilt in having been too heavy-handed on Germany after a war which was no more Germany’s fault than it was France’s or Britain’s or Russia’s.
Btw, Anarch’s comment shouldn’t be a post. Revised, it should be a Declaration.
No, Stan, it’s the treaty that gave Germany the conditions to start the war.
Right. “Conditions meaning” military ability.
So… my point, again, was that it wasn’t appeasement, but the Treaty, which came before the appeasement, that gave Germany the ability to start the war.
Ok. I am missing something here. What was the state of Germany’s military prior to:
In 1935, clauses of Versailles were officially set aside when Hitler announced the German remilitarization to the world. No-one cared; in fact, Britain outright supported this with the 1935 Anglo-German Naval Agreement. [This in conflict with the Stresa Agreement (?), which sought to reaffirm German demilitarization.]
Given to which it lead, this is the part that interests me most.
Clearly, but that doesn’t allow you to forget the intervening 16 years. If you’d wanted to say “the lessons of appeasement” we’d have been done five pages ago; if you’re going to specify the “the lessons of Versailles” (which, implicitly, is what you did), well, you have to deal with all the lessons, not just the ones that you like.
Eh? Let’s not confuse intent and capability. It’s the appeasement that gave Germany the ability to launch a world war.
You’ll note that I didn’t say anything about launching a world war, I said “rise of extremist elements”. The Nazi Party came to power because of the sociopolitical conditions brought about by the Treaty of Versailles (and the nature of its enforcement), enabled by the Great Depression and the death of Streseman. I hope you’ll agree that, with or without remilitarization, this was a Very Bad Thing.
[Yes, it was an Even Worse Thing when Germany remilitarized — and there are many who think the Holocaust was The Worst Thing Ever, although I’d qualify that as The Worst Thing We’ve Done Yet (never underestimate the human spirit) — but the point remains that Hitler in power was already a Very Bad Thing: Reichstag fire, destruction of the Communist Party, Night of the Long Knives, Nuremberg Laws &c.]
Let me oversimplify to drive this point home: enforcing Versailles gave us Hitler. See, once again, the Beer Hall Putsch of 1923 — long, long before Germany was ever in violation of Versailles. By the time appeasement came to be a factor, Versailles had already failed. There really isn’t much argument there.
[In fact, I’d go further: If Versailles hadn’t been so mercilessly enforced in the ’20s, there would have been no need to enforce it in the ’30s, and thus, no need for appeasement. Another lesson of Versailles is therefore that appeasement only exists at the tail end of a failed strategy; if you’re worried about appeasing, you screwed up decades before — probably by imposing excessively harsh conditions on another country. Again, I doubt this is what you intended.]
What’s much more contentious is what Hitler would have been had Germany not been appeased. What if the British don’t sign the Naval Agreement? What if French troops challenge the remilitarization of the Rhine? What if the League blocks the Anschluss? What if Germany doesn’t get the Sudetenland for free? An infinite variety of questions, and damned if I know the answers — or which of them you’re asking.
PS: Can we (collectively) also be more careful to distinguish between “Appeasement”, the strategy used by Chamberlain and others to attempt to satiate Hitler’s lust for power by giving him bite-sized pieces of what he wanted, and “appeasement”, a generic strategy which is apparently Very Bad but which has an annoying tendency to go both undefined and unexamined? It’s a long, long step from saying that, since Appeasement was wrong, appeasement is therefore wrong, and one that deserves far greater scrutiny.
PPS: Remember, on a historical note, that hindsight is 20/20, and never more so than when discussing the Nazis. It’s a trivial matter to look back now and say, “We should have stopped Hitler when”. It’s a hell of a different matter to say, knowing only what was known in 1933 (or ’35 or ’37 or whenever), that a preventative strike — in the middle of the Great Depression, with the dead of the Great War still echoing in their minds — was the right call to make. This applies doubly when trying to apply “the lessons of appeasement” to the modern era, sans both Hitler and predetermination.
Ok. I am missing something here. What was the state of Germany’s military prior to [1935]?
Hitler began the secret remilitarization in 1933 with the creation of an air force (in direct contravention to Versailles), as well as an increase in the size of the army and the building of new ships (more or less directly against Versailles, although people were inclined to look on this as less violative as the original terms were felt somewhat unfair). He didn’t publicly announce the remilitarization until 1935, however.
The big X factor — and the one that I simply don’t know, I’m afraid — is when the Allies knew that the remilitarization had begun. Everything I’ve read indicates that, at best, they sort of chose not to know what was happening in Germany from 1933 to 1935 because they were so busy trying to save themselves from the Depression; I’d be delighted if someone had citations to clear that up.
i want some more information