Archiv der Kategorie: Iraq

Iraq, US Politics

John Brady Kiesling,

is – or rather, has been – an American career diplomat who has written an open letter to Colin Powell to inform him as well as the rest of the world [ via NYTimes, or Sueddeutsche Zeitung , link in German ] of his resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from his position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7. You might have read his open letter somewhere during the last two days. If not, read it, it is quite interesting.

My initial reaction was “wow, where can I sign this” and “My God, courageous guy. He is surely going to be lynched for alleged treason should he ever return to the US”.

His letter of resignation is a reminder that there is a “Bush, the Cowboy”-perception similar to that in many European Capitals even within the US State Department (which, if I am informed correctly, has always been regarded by “real” hawks as a breeding ground for multilateral weasels anyway…), and that Colin Powell has not been able to successfully “contain” George W. Bush –

“Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and ability. You have preserved more international credibility for us than our policy deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses of an ideological and self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to the President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an international system we built with such toil and treasure, a web of laws, treaties, organizations, and shared values that sets limits on our foes far more effectively than it ever constrained America’s ability to defend its interests.”

But then again, I don’t know John Brady Kiesling. So I take his own words as a useful reminder –

“It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State Department I would become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature is what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human nature.”

So now, after the appropriate motive scepticism disclaimer, I would like to quote some more parts of his letter.

“… until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer. The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests.”

“… this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to so to ourselves. …”

“The loyalty of many of our friends is impressive, a tribute to American moral capital built up over a century. But our closest allies are persuaded less that war is justified than that it would be perilous to allow the U.S. to drift into complete solipsism. Loyalty should be reciprocal. Why does our President condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this Administration is fostering, including among its most senior officials. …”

“When our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it is time to worry. And now they are afraid. Who will tell them convincingly that the United States is as it was, a beacon of liberty, security, and justice for the planet? …”

“I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration. “

In related news, I find it quite interesting that it appears as if the letter is only reaching those parts of the public which already agree with the points made, if the blogdex-trackback should actually be a useful indicator of public perception. It seems, pro war blogs are not too active linking Mr Kiesling’s criticism of the current administration’s policy. So, again, everybody is talking to his home market and no real interaction and discussion occurs. Too bad. I think, Mr. Kiesling’s remarks deserve to be taken seriously.

Does anybody know if he got some big media attention in the US – apart from the NYTimes printing the letter?

Is he still alive?

Standard
Iraq

High Noon?

Josef Joffe, editor of Die Zeit called this week’s main OpEd column “The Showdown” [link in German].

Well, in my opinion, it’s not yet “High Noon”. Hans Blix will get some more time to look for the guys holding smoking guns. He will get at least as long as there will not be a second resolution, or as long as Tony Blair needs to make up his mind whether to go to war without a neither a second resolution nor a proper majority of his own in Parliament. Last Wednesday night, 121 out of 413 Labour MPs told Blair in the House to go back to Downing Street and read some more student papers in order to make a better case for war. And more seem poised to defy their government on this issue.

Given that a government office is the only real political (and financial, too, by the way) payoff for politicians the British political system has to offer, and that these positions are to a large extent Prime ministerial appointments, 121 votes against a government-proposed motion become even more impressive. Labour’s majority in the Commons is 83 seats. You do the math.

On Wednesday, the motion was approved by the British lower house only because it was supported by Members of the opposition.

At least legally, things don’t look too bleak for the British Prime Minister. This is what the Guardian’s news dispatch said –

Labour’s Graham Allen asked: “Under what legal or statutory authority will you commit British forces to war in the Gulf?” Very precise questioning there, and Mr Blair, who is a lawyer, knew exactly what he meant. Under British constitutional law and tradition, what is called the royal prerogative is still used to declare war in this country. It’s one of those untidy hangovers from medieval and early modern Britain. What the king used to do, the prime minister now does, and he doesn’t have to get the permission of parliament or anybody else. Mr Blair was evasive – the words “royal” and “prerogative” did not cross his lips. Instead, he said: “We act on precedent, and whatever we do will be consistent with the constitution and with international law.”

But let’s face it – politically, it would clearly be bizarre and possibly suicidal for Her Majesty’s New Labour Premier, who in his earliers days set out to fundamentally modernise the British political system, to rely on a questionable legal construct called “royal prerogative” to order British troops to fight a war not even a his own Parliamentary party is willing to back. Period.

But as Blair has committed himself so uncompromisingly to the “war now!” camp, he does not have too much space to manoeuver, just as Schröder on the other bank.

However, now the British influence in Washington really shows – I seriously doubt Washington would invade without British backing. The political difference between a war that is fought without proper legal justification by the UN and a war that is literally fought unilaterally is so big even those American hawks whose horizon is the Beltway must be able to see it.

So, in my opinion, it’s not too much of a surprise to hear a bit more conciliatory words from Washington these days. [Link in German]

Standard
German Politics, Iraq, US Politics

A New World Symphony

When I woke up today, SWR3 radio was broadcasting a piece about the non-event that Angela Merkel’s visit is for the US media despite the “royal treatment” – she has been given by the US government, according to the NYTimes – thanks to Amiland for pointing to the article.

There’s much truth in what is said about her visit in the article, in my opinion rather accurately summarised by the following quote from Senator Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican –

“Obviously, she’s the leader of the opposition party, but I do think the real objective here is to put back together and repair the damage that’s been done between these two countries, … Don’t allow America to define Germany by what the chancellor said, or don’t allow Germany to define America by using anti-American sentiments for political purposes.”

But what the article does not even allude to is how the price for her “royal treatment” is perceived over here. SWR3 was unusually harsh in its wording. The price for meeting with all those “you’re either for or against us”-officials is to renounce to a public opinion of one’s own – “a kowtow”.

Well, let’s just say that this is one possible interpretation. And should the NY Times article be read by some more journalists over here than usual, she might well get the some more press coverage after her return, for Angie apparently said that Rumsfeld was right to describe Germany and France as ‘old Europe” –

“… the Defense Department official who described her meeting with Mr. Rumsfeld said she had told him that, whatever his motivation, he had hit an accurate chord in his comments about Germany and France as “old Europe.” The official added that she had also commented that there “was a lot of truth in what he had said and that the discussion had served some good.”

– while she felt –

“… she has a little bit of new Europe in her…”

Lovely. I can already see the vultures. Last Friday, a friend described Merkel’s current political behavior with the following remark – “… she’s just not up to the job.”

Looks like she wants to prove him right.

Standard
German Politics, Iraq, oddly enough, US Politics

Axis And Alliance… We’re Soooooooo Willing.

Politicians are such a crazy bunch sometimes. If you read Ari Fleischer’s [White House spokesman] statements regarding Germany at the White House Press Briefing [search for Germany] last Friday you could indeed think that Germany is now part of the “Alliance of the Willing”. I guess he just wants to confuse the German media ;-) – remember, two weeks ago we were on par with Lybia and Cuba, remember the Axis of Weasel?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, I don’t think that’s the case at all. In fact, take a look — Germany is an example. Germany, we already anticipate, will vote no on any resolution at the Security Council. Yet in the end, Germany played a constructive role in NATO to make certain that our ally, Turkey, could be defended. If you recall, Germany supported the position of the military divisions within NATO, the Defense Planning Committee, to protect Turkey, which indeed is receiving the AWAX and the chemical weapon defenses and other supplies that NATO is now on the ground providing to Turkey. That’s an example of a nation that intends to vote no at the Security Council is still a member of the Alliance and is still helpful in certain regards.

I really wonder what made them change the tune… could it be that Blair’s problems within his parliamentary party are the key? I suppose it’s been a long time since British backbenchers had such a power over war and peace. Maybe W started to count the members of the “Alliance of the Willing” and realised that there aren’t too many that a larger part of the American public would be able to locate on a map should Blair indeed be forced to weasel out, in case the French veto a second resolution.

So the enrollment criteria for the Alliance seem to have become a little more inclusive… Hmm, I wonder what the Schroodle thinks about this development.

Standard
Iraq, oddly enough

Stupidity, Inc., press release

So “Miss Deutschland” (who apparently is not “Miss Germany”, but don’t ask me about these subtle differences…) has begun her new job as weapon inspector in Iraq, Spiegel online tells us. And they have pictures, too. The following quote is, in my opinion, the most telling part of the article –

“Dutzende Schulmädchen lagern auf dem Parkplatz und malen Bilder gegen den Krieg. Auch Alexsandra nimmt Platz und lässt sich einen Bleistift reichen. ‘Don’t make war’ schreibt sie auf ein Blatt Papier. Die Schulmädchen schauen verlegen, weil sie kein Englisch verstehen. Die meisten von ihnen haben irakische Panzer gemalt, die feindliche Flugzeuge vom Himmel holen.”

Translation (my own) –

“Dozens of girls are sitting on a parking lot and are painting pictures against the war. Aleksandra [Miss Deutschland] sits down, too, and is given a pen. ‘Don’t make war’, she writes on a sheet of paper. The little girls look puzzled, for they don’t understand English. Most of them had painted Iraqi tanks shooting enemy planes from the sky.”

She also received a bouquet from Saddam’s son Uday. Not bad. Not bad at all. Well, at least my mum thinks she’s brave…

Standard
German Politics, Iraq

No War Today…

The Gerhard Schroodlewell, maybe later.

The Economist’s cover is just too tempting to comment. Also, I am working on a longer piece that is summarizing my personal stance in the Iraq question. I’ll hopefully be done at some point later this weekend. For now, my gentle readers, I would like to recommend Gentry Lane’s thoughts on canine evolution for a pleasant Saturday afternoon reading –

“Let us not eschew our Prometheus-Nietzschean tendencies, but go with the canine eugenics flow and make the most useful dog in the world.”

I particulaly like the poodle-like “Gerhard Schroodle” breed (see image), although Gentry correctly points out this breed’s unfortunate weakness –
“A cunning political dog with much media presence, but not a lot of economic sense.”

Standard
Iraq

Stupidity, Inc.

It seems some people feel the eternal need to prove clichés right.

Maybe, the management of Alexandra Vodjanikova, a former Ukrainian Yves St. Laurent model and current “Miss Deutschland”, should have spent more time in the “Derek Zoolander Centre For Kids Who Can’t Read Good And Wanna Learn How To Do Other Stuff Good, Too”, given that this poster (for dentists…) is not the worst idea they ever had. Her management’s worst idea clearly was to send her on a peace mission to Iraq – as Spiegel online [scroll down to her name] reported last week – to meet Saddam and convince him of the inherent danger of WMDs.

So far, Saddam has not yet decided whether to participate in such a blatant PR scam or not (dpa). I suppose, even dictators of his ilk do have some standards…

While thinking about the final fronteer of stupidity, why not check out “USA über Alles” for a chuckle.

Standard
German Politics, Iraq, US Politics

The Rationale Behind Open Opposition

Joshua Micah Marshall offers one more reason behind the unusual open and vocal Old European resistance to the Bush administration’s policy on Iraq.

“… The fact that Brent Scowcroft, the president’s father’s foreign policy guru, keeps on having to resort to the opinion pages to warn the president away from some new foreign policy disaster? (These public missives, of course, are widely and I think correctly seen as veiled messages from former President Bush.)”

Now if even Bush senior is going through the media to talk to his son, I think the conclusion becomes unavoidable that talking to W does not really help to influence his policy decisions. So which option remains for those sceptical of his course? They have to take their opinion out to the street… and there we are.

Standard
Iraq, media, US Politics, USA

Unfortunately, We Can’t Tell You…

what the Matrix is. You have to find out for youself. Today, Paul Krugman is handing out green pills by looking at tv screens on both sides of the rift.

I’m not mainly talking about the print media. […] Most people, though, get their news from TV – and there the difference is immense. The coverage of Saturday’s antiwar rallies was a reminder of the extent to which U.S. cable news, in particular, seems to be reporting about a different planet than the one covered by foreign media.

… On Saturday, news anchors on Fox described the demonstrators in New York as “the usual protesters” or “serial protesters.” …

So it’s not surprising that the target audience is a bit blurry about the distinction between the Iraqi regime and Al Qaeda. Surveys show that a majority of Americans think that some or all of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi, while many believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11, a claim even the Bush administration has never made. And since many Americans think that the need for a war against Saddam is obvious, they think that Europeans who won’t go along are cowards.

Europeans, who don’t see the same things on TV, are far more inclined to wonder why Iraq – rather than North Korea, or for that matter Al Qaeda – has become the focus of U.S. policy. That’s why so many of them question American motives, suspecting that it’s all about oil or that the administration is simply picking on a convenient enemy it knows it can defeat. They don’t see opposition to an Iraq war as cowardice; they see it as courage, a matter of standing up to the bullying Bush administration.

There are two possible explanations for the great trans-Atlantic media divide. One is that European media have a pervasive anti-American bias that leads them to distort the news, even in countries like the U.K. where the leaders of both major parties are pro-Bush and support an attack on Iraq. The other is that some U.S. media outlets – operating in an environment in which anyone who questions the administration’s foreign policy is accused of being unpatriotic – have taken it as their assignment to sell the war, not to present a mix of information that might call the justification for war into question.

So which is it? I’ve reported, you decide.

Standard
Iraq

Geography.

Glenn Reynolds is mad at Jaques Chirac for being mad at “New Europe” –

“‘It is not really responsible behavior,’ [Chirac] told a news conference. ‘It is not well brought-up behavior. They missed a good opportunity to keep quiet.’ […] ‘Romania and Bulgaria were particularly irresponsible to [sign the letter] when their position is really delicate. If they wanted to diminish their chances of joining Europe they could not have found a better way.”

A bit over the top, I agree. As are so many statements these days. However, the advice Reynolds has for President Bush in light of Chiracs Rumsfeldian remarks is either revealing a mysterious sense of humour or an unexpected degree of ignorance exemplified by the following quote – Axis And Alliance… We’re Soooooooo Willing.

Thus warned, Romania and Bulgaria might want to consider abandoning the EU entirely and asking to join the North American Free Trade Agreement instead. […] If I were President Bush, I’d start making oises about being willing to consider just that.

It just does not seem funny to me – but then again – I’m German, what do I know about humour ;-).

Standard