Archiv der Kategorie: Iraq

German Politics, Iraq, US Politics

News From Brussels.

So the EU Council has issued a new joint foreign policy declaration on the Iraq question. The core element reads as follows:

“We want to achieve this peacefully. It is clear that this is what the people of Europe want. War is not inevitable. Force should be used only as a last resort. It is for the Iraqi regime to end this crisis by complying with the demands of the Security Council. We reiterate our full support for the ongoing work of U.N. inspectors. They must be given the time and resources that the U.N. Security Council believes they need. However, inspections cannot continue indefinitely in the absence of full Iraqi cooperation.”

Amiland, as well as many others, including Spiegel online[link in German], think Schroeder is the loser of the day.

I don’t. I think he is the big winner.

Following last Friday’s UN Security Council meeting he has been able to rather quietly modify his irresponsible and entirely inflexible adamant “no-to-everything-whatever-new-information-may-become-available” by hiding behind a common EU position. Moreover, he can argue that it was more important to save the idea of a common European foreign policy than to – explicitly – stick to his former position.

I think it was a wise move. Sure, there will be people to claim he just “weaseled out”. But I guess he had realised that weaseling to some extent had become inevitable in order to regain some kind of diplomatic flexibility. So the most important problems were the reasons to explain such a move as well as its perceived salience in the “march to war”. Saving the idea of a common European foreign policy was most certainly the right reason – a motive that even the most ardent anti-warriors will likely swallow. And now that so many people have indeed again started to hope for a peaceful solution to the problem – think of the worlds stock markets as an indicator -, after the anti-war demonstrations last weekend and given the hawks sudden, and probably rather unexpected, difficulties in the UN Security Council, the perceived salience of his concession is likely much lower than it would have been should Germany have been forced to modify Schroeder’s aggressive “no” in the light of any new information convincing other doveish Security Council members of the necessity to make use of the means of last resort.

So this EU foreign policy declaration allowed Schroeder a relatively cheap way to unbind himself. And he used it. This semi-disguised semi-acceptance of the theoretical possibilty of war on Iraq as well as of Germany supporting a possible second UN resolution legitimising it could have indeed saved himself the chancellorship, should such a vote become unavoidable. In my interpretation, this makes Schroeder the big winner of this EU summit.

So what’s the current situation? Chirac seemingly holds the keys to the Security Council’s support now – assuming that Russia and China won’t veto a second resolution should France favour one and thus probably to war. I doubt Blair would send troops without a second resolution – he has consistently said he needs a second one for the British public. He may have proven some of his critics wrong about his poll-led governmental style. He may well support war against the British polls. But he’s not suicidal, in my opinion. He would most certainly not order the Britsh military to attack Iraq without a straightforward resolution supporting military action.

So now the big question is – would the US actually go to war without even the British? Militarily, why not. Politically, the “Coalition Of The Willing” looks even less impressive without the British.

Too hard to tell.

Standard
Iraq, US Politics

Stand still so I can shoot you.

International signaling is a very complicated language sometimes. I have wondered for a long time about a European good-cop, bad-cop strategy behind the different approaches to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. And reading the following excerpt (pp 7-8) from a policy proposal by the conservative/libertarian US think tank CATO Institute you might well come to the conclusion that the European “NO” is not weakening the world’s threat concerning Hussein’s use of WMDs but actually strengthening it – while at the same time allowing both parties involved to speak loudly in their home markets’ preferred rhetoric. With a US government clearly signaling that the issue is much less disarmament than getting rid of Saddam, it might well be the more balanced European position to regime change – in conjunction with the American military build-up – that could prompt the Iraqi dictator into cooperation with the UN. In this interpretation, even the extreme German position does make at least some sense.

“On the other hand, the signals that the current administration has been sending may have dire ramifications. By holding meetings with the Iraqi opposition groups, by leaking plans for conducting an invasion, and by the strident rhetoric in which his administration has engaged, President Bush has strongly communicated his intent to get rid of Hussein. A recent issue of The Economist quoted John Bolton, under secretary of state for arms control and international security affairs, as saying, ‘Our policy at the same insists on regime change in Baghdad and that policy will not be altered whether inspectors go in or not.’ So the message to Hussein is, no matter what you do, the U.S. government is coming to eliminate you. That only gives Hussein more incentive to plan a counterattack – in the event of a U.S. invasion – using WMD against U.S. forces, Israel, or Saudi oil fields, or perhaps even smuggling such a weapon onto U.S. soil. In the face of a threat to his own survival, Hussein will have little incentive to do anything but lash out.

Imagine that a burglar breaks into a house and, while he is rooting through a closet, the owner of the house pulls a gun on him. He is startled and caught off guard. The owner might say, ‘Don’t move or I’ll shoot.’ That is a deterrence message, and it is likely the criminal will heed it because he can avoid an extremely undesirable outcome by doing something that is much less objectionable. He is likely to disobey only if he questions the credibility of the owner’s commitment, believes the owner will shoot him regardless of his obedience, or is suicidal. Alternatively, the owner might say, ‘Put your hands on your head or I’ll shoot.’ That is a message of coercion, and it will also probably be followed, unless the same set of conditions as before applies. Instead, what if the owner said, ‘Stand still so I can shoot you’ – the burglar is likely to fight, or try to get away, because he has nothing to lose by doing so. At least if he takes action, he might have slim odds of survival; if he stands still he has no odds of survival whatsoever. That is the position in which Hussein is being put by the Bush administration. There is no ‘less painful’ option that he can follow to avoid the thing he dreads most – the loss of control of his political regime and maybe his life. Under those circumstances, Hussein is very dangerous.”

However, such an interpretation does not help to clarify the deeper issues – regarding different visions of common security as well as the international system – that have emerged more clearly than ever on both sides of the pond in recent months.

Standard
compulsory reading, Iraq, US Politics

It’s A Fine Line…

between gratefulness and subservience as well as between provoking journalism and tasteless propaganda.

Yesterday, Gentry Lane told me about this report from Normandy, published in the New York Post. The article tells the story of Howard Manoian, an American who participated in the D-day liberation of France in 1944, and has settled there 18 years ago.

On the one hand, the article is telling Mr. Manoian’s personal D-day story – and as so many personal war stories, his story, too, is a reminder of the horrors of war. On the other hand, the author, Steve Dunleavy, is using this powerful tale to denounce France as ungrateful traitor. Unfortunately, Mr. Manoian’s story is not even really representative of Mr. Dunleavy’s ranting – if you read the article, you will realize that almost all of the jingoist rethoric is not between speechmarks. It has leaked out of Mr Dunleavy’s pen.

Today, I find an instapundit.com link to the comment section of Mr. Dunleavy’s article, which features an interesting, and intense discussion of the subjects I mentioned above – the fine lines. Europe will always be grateful for D-day. But the very success of the American attempt to help the torn continent back to its enlightenment roots logically excludes thoughtless subservience.

When it comes to more than words, the difference between gratefulness and subservience becomes a fine line indeed. As for the other fine line, the one between provoking journalism and tasteless propaganda, I recommend you read the comments yourselves. Here are two that indicate the wide range of opinions concerning the article.

February 11, 2003 — As I opened my Post this morning, the anger I’ve felt over these past few weeks reached a total rage when I read Steve Dunleavy’s column from Normandy (“Sacrifice,” Feb. 10). I was born in France, married my wonderful American husband of 41 years in Paris, came to the United States in 1963 and became an American citizen. France can now disappear into the ocean as far as I’m concerned.

Claudette Davison, Brick, N.J.

The twisted logic and blatant antagonism of using the Normandy cemetery as an indictment against French reluctance on Iraq is worthy of Joseph Goebbels. Rather than exploit the dead of a just cause like WWII, why don’t you run a piece about the massive folly of Vietnam? You could show a French military graveyard with the headline: “The French warned us, and we were too arrogant to listen.”

Mark McCarthy, Manhattan

Standard
almost a diary, compulsory reading, Iraq, USA

Ever Lasting Love?

PapaScott translates a a blog entry from WorldWideKlein Live –

“Before they were impossible to find, now the German embassy is giving them out by the handful: the German-American friendship pins with the German and American flags side by side. These days they’re probably no longer needed.”

I don’t think so. Sure, there are people who boycot Camembert and Chrysler (hehe) these days. So what? They will start buying again pretty soon after CNN has stopped broadcasting “Axis of Weasel” advertisements. Moreover, “Die Zeit” mentioned last week (could not find the article online) that Germany has become extraordinary popular in NON-CNN-US, a country in which people carry Schröder-portraits during anti-war demonstrations.

But I found the most convincing reason of all last September, one day after the infamous remarks by former German Justice Minister Herta Däubler Gmelin had made it to the frontpage of the NY Times – German brass players in New York’s Upper East side.

Steuben-Parade - German Brass Players in the Upper East Side

Talk about Weasels as much as you want – as long as this kind of musical pollution does not make Americans want to strangle the perpetrators, things are in pretty good shape.

Standard
German Politics, Iraq, US Politics

William Safire. Again.

William Safire does have a problem. He is seemingly fascinated with a country he does not have a real clue about – Germany. However, as opposed to his recent rantings about Franco-German attempts to dominate the world, in today’s NYTimes column he does make two real points.

Firstly, he is talking about last week’s PR campaign by 8-10 European leaders and the problem of “representing Europe”, secondly, he thinks about the necessity of basing US troops in Germany following teh end of the Cold War and a thought-experiment by a US general.

First things first. Mr Safire writes –

“Leaders of eight European nations – not just Britain, but Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Denmark – had signed an op-ed statement supporting the U.S. stand on Saddam and in effect asserting that Germany and France did not speak for Europe. Schröder was flabbergasted; he had no idea that this rejection of his anti-U.S. crusade was in the works. Think about that: a Wall Street Journal request started the round-robin letter; eight nations weighed in on its drafting and redrafting for days; but Germany’s chancellor, with his vast intelligence system and diplomatic corps, was totally in the dark.”

There’s a lot in this paragraph: Firstly, Schroeder in all likelihood knew about the letter, as Welt am Sonntag reported yesterday. However, that does not make much of a difference in any political sense – he did not sign the letter, which, by the way, does not even really differ from the German position. Did you read it? It is a call for peaceful disarmement and expression of gratitude for US involvement in Europe since WW2.

Schroeder could have signed it without factually compromising his position on Iraq. But, obviously, the world’s (and worse, the German) media would have framed it differently. So he did not do i – days before important by-elections which his party seemed bound to lose (and lose it did, big time). On the other hand, the fact that Schroeder could have signed indicates that the letter’s content is not too controversial in Europe.

Secondly, there’s the question of “speaking for Europe”. However much I am personally disappointed by the way Schroeder is doing everything he can to make things worse – don’t get me started on last weekend’s “proposal” -, he would never claim to speak for Europe. I believe that it was the US media which created a rift between “Europe” and the “US” which then led to a perception in which “the Weasels” represent “Europe”. Donny complicated things with his “age”-qualifiers. However, the opinion of European peoples is in all likelihood a lot closer to the rethoric of Chirac and Schroeder than it is to the one of the likes of Richard Perle. Even though no British person would ever admit it, according to most polls I see, even British opinion (including that of Blair’s backbenchers) is better represented by Schroeder or Chirac than by their own Prime Minister. Also, thinking about representation, here’s a nice extract written by Charles Utwater II in a comment to a post in Brad DeLong’s blog. I could not have stated it better myself..

While the Wall Street Journal, with the connivance of Tony Blair and the Prime Minister of Spain managed to get the signatures of eight European leaders, those signatures do not represent the will of the people of those countries. Indeed, Vaclav Havel resigned the day after signing, and the Czech government repudiated his signature. The Spanish Prime Minister was taken to task by the president. Silvio Berlusconi of Italy is under threat of indictment as a mafioso and is not a particularly popular figure at the moment. Italy has had some of the largest anti-war demonstrations in Europe. And so on down the list. About 70% of Europeans oppose war in Iraq under current conditions, and even if the UN produces a resolution, about 40-50% oppose.

I think that says it all. Surely, the will of the people is not as important in a democracy as the will of their leaders if it comes to deploying troops. But it still is of minor importance every now and then in elections. Ask W., he should know about the intricacies of electoral systems.

The point being? Even though Schroeder is handling the current situation as badly as Richard Perle must have hoped for, he is not totally out of tune with the European public.

Then, Mr Safire goes on to tell us straight to the face how little he knows about Germany –

“Germany’s new opposition leader, the Thatcheresque Angela Merkel, joined the defining issue as her conservative party’s past candidate had failed to do. She said of the anti-Saddam op-ed: “if we had been in government, Germany would have signed that letter.”

Thatcherite (isn’t it?) Angela Merkel. I am in stitches. She will love it, too. I bet she has alreay printed a copy of the column and hung next to the Helmut Kohl portrait in her office. I’m kidding. But let’s remember – Margaret Thatcher was a tough British Prime Minister. Angela Merkel is a rather weak German opposition leader. She’s not even uncontested in her own party. And she’s the leader of an opposition that is continuously embarrassing itself by not being able and/or willing to take any real stance in the Iraq issue. Let’s face it – Angela Merkel is as thatcherite as W is a Democrat. She does not have a firm (published) opinion on Iraq and neither has her party. She probably would not have signed the letter as party-leader as it was published before the by-elections in Hessen and Lower-Saxony. And I bet she would not have signed the letter as a chancellor. But as opposition leader without a firm opinion, after the by-elections, and without having been asked to sign in first place, she can now say whatever she wants without the fear of having to act on it later on.

The point being? Mr. Safire entirely misrepresents the mood and the leadership of the CDU/CSU conservative opposition (which is now, after the by elections, via the upper chamber, the Bundesrat, effectively a part of the federal government for all important legislative initiatives).

The last part of the article is concerned with the “European free riding” argument I made several times before. Even though Mr. Safire admits that proposed plans for deployment reductions in Germany are not some sort of punishment for the German chancellor, I suppose it’s not entirely coincidental that the US are starting to think about their continental European bases right now – this is what he refers to.

“a briefing in Brussels Friday of a U.S. Congressional delegation led by McCain and Lieberman by the new NATO supreme commander, U.S. Marine Gen. James Jones,
revealed a developing U.S. strategy. It holds that the 70,000 U.S. troops garrisoned in Germany, accompanied by their 70,000 dependents, make up too many forces with too outdated a mission stationed too far from potential trouble at too high a cost.”

Concerning this potentially crucial development, there are two main political issues which will have to be decided rather quickly following the Iraq war – will the imperialists remain the dominating force of the Republican party or can the libertarians regain some ground, especially in foreign policy? The former faction will not be too interested in closing bases. The latter likely will. Secondly, realizing this, what will Germany’s and Europe’s reaction be? Backing down for free security? Not an unlikely possibility given the budgetary situation of many European countries, especially Germany. Or will Europe begin to invest more into its own security? The last alternative will likely mean more distributive battles and less political stability in the medium run, with an uncertain long run.

Difficult alternatives. But no one said being Chancellor would be easy.

Standard
compulsory reading, German Politics, Iraq, US Politics

Further Right.

An article published by Doug Bandow, a senior fellow at Washington’s libertarian Cato Institute and former advisor to Ronald Reagon, indicates to me that the real rift concerning foreign policy could be neither the Atlantic nor the middle aisles in the chambers of the US Congress. It indicates to me that there seems to be a deep divide between socially conservative Republicans and Libertarian Reoublicans in the US.

The conservative, traditional, hierarchical model of social coordination favoured by the former is usually abhorred by the latter’s assertion that laisser-faire is the only just way to organise a society/economy. Of course, a two party system does not offer too many alternatives if you want to “make votes count” (Gary W. Cox’ book is really brilliant!), so both faction have teamed-up due to their even stronger disgust of the plans for social and! economic reengineering proposed by those who sit on the other side of the aisles. But from time to time, the internal divisions surface. Current US foreign policy is an example thereof.

In this article, which appeared in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung last Friday (link in English), Bandow pratically asks France and Germany to stand firm in their opposition to a US led war on Iraq –

“If Berlin and Paris back down after publicly avowing their opposition to war in such strong terms, they will reinforce the justifiable contempt in which they are held in Washington. And U.S. administrations will continue to ignore them in foreign crises. The credibility of European and other critics of Washington is at stake. Giving in will feed Washington’s conviction that it can impose its will without constraint.”

Bandow’s opinion does not look too isolated if you have a look at this page, which is listing the body of work Cato scholars have done since 911 regarding a potential U.S. war with Iraq.

However, if you compare Bandow’s view (or even the piece by Eric Alterman I already linked some days ago) to this interpretation of the US-European problems by the Carnegy Endowment’s (neoconservative) Robert Kagan, you’ll clearly sense a difference not only in style, but in content, too.

Kagan is a vocal proponent of what he calls “American benevolent hegemony“. And it seems, those who share his opinion are willing to pick up the tab for continued American hegemony – inducing all the parallels I already referred to on January 20th. Bandow, on the other hand does not see a point in paying for hegemony – and this is not just a different financial assessment. It’s a different world-view.

“Still, it is understandable why Europe has so little influence over American policy. Europe as a whole is a security black hole for America. … Providing a handful of special forces and lending a couple of AWACS planes would not have been necessary were the U.S. not devoting a substantial share of its military to defending Europe.

The Europeans would do far more for America by simply garrisoning their own continent, instead of expecting the U.S. to maintain 100,000 troops to protect populous, prosperous industrialized states, as well as another 13,000 to enforce order in the Balkans, a region of no strategic interest to America.”

He realises that Europe’s attitude may be one of rational free riding. But that, of course, feeds US demands of eternal subservience, which Europe is seemingly less willing to swallow these days.

In the end, the Iraq crisis is teaching all parties involved that it’s impossible to have the cake, and eat it, too – in Bandow’s words (from last September) –

“… neither side has conducted itself with much maturity in the ongoing international spat. The Bush administration believes that allies such as Germany should do what it says, no questions asked. The Schroeder administration believes that Germany deserves a significant say in international relations, while shrinking its military and relying on Washington to resolve tough global problems. … The administration wants doormats, not allies. Germany and Europe don’t have to remain irrelevant, however. The Schroeder- Bush fight offers Berlin and other European states a unique opportunity to strike a more independent course. It’s time for Washington to encourage such a change.”

As for the last sentence of the quote, the current administration does not seem to listen to Mr Bandow. At least, not yet. As always, time will tell.

Standard
Iraq, US Politics

Seriously, guys.

Sorry for the lack of updates. I will write more later, but this one could not wait.

I just checked the MIT’s blogdex and found an “instapundit.com” entry ranked #38. The entry links this article concerning the increasing isolation of France and Germany following yesterday’s Aznar-Bush advertising campaign. Today, Slovakia and Albania signed up, too. Remember Albania? The county that virtually attacked the US in Barry Levinson’s “Wag The Dog“?

Anyway, Albania is not what I wanted to talk about. As Glenn Reynolds rightly notices –

The article goes on to minimize (if that’s possible) the military importance of Albania and Slovakia.

But then he says something which I could not find in the article he linked to and which really makes me wonder about the quality of information out there these days.
He goes on to say –

“But that’s not the point. The point is that — despite (or because of) their diplomatic anschluss — France and Germany are now isolated within the E.U. Indeed, there is now talk that the E.U. may splinter as a result of their anti-American efforts.”

Excuse me? Let me repeat it for your reading pleasure.

“Indeed, there is now talk that the E.U. may splinter as a result of their anti-American efforts.”

How far is Europe from the US again? Seriously guys, it does make a huge difference to say that

a) the joint European position, which EU foreign ministers agreed on last Monday is about to splinter as a result of non-reconcilable positions – as actually stated in the linked article – or that

b) the EU, a supranational entity with a common market, which is performing governmental, legislative and judicial functions for its member states could be disbanded because of a foreign policy dispute regarding Iraq. However important the Iraq-question may have become – such a proposition is sheer and utter nonsense.

Mr Reynolds also rather doubts the proposition, adding that –

“[t]hat probably won’t happen…”

No, it will CERTAINLY NOT happen. I really wonder if this proposition has actually been made, and if so, by whom? And why?

It is this kind of avoidable disinformation does make me angry. Seriously.

Standard
German Politics, Iraq, US Politics

Now we’re talking…

Now look at that.

If ‘old’ Europe’s support were indeed as damn irrelevant to the US administration as many of its senior officials have repeatedly stated – why, then, would someone like Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon’s defense advisory board and one of the key figures behind the Bush administration’s Irak policy, find the time to appear on German tv for a six minute interview on the day of the President’s “State Of The Union” address?

And believe it or not – while firmly restating the well known simple WMD based argument for attacking Iraq – he often referred to European “friends“, not weasels, that do not share the US administration’s point of view in many respects. I have to say, for someone who (seriously?) stated after last year’s German election that

“[t]he best thing would be for [German chancellor Gerhard Schröder] to resign…”,

this appears to be a quite remarkable change of communication strategy.

So maybe Bush won’t add France and Germany to the “Axis of Evil” tonight ;-). And maybe, his speechwriters have realised by now that they are not simply writing for their neoconservative constituency. Maybe, they have realised that a lot of Americans do care about the world’s, and thus – also – ‘old’ Europe’s opinion, and that international opposition can damage approval ratings – at least before America goes to war. Maybe they have realised that Harvard’s Joseph Nye may have had a point (even though he was a Clinton official, and thus also some sort of honorary weasel) when he described The Paradox of American Power: Why the World’s Only Superpower Can’t Go It Alone. Maybe they have realised that, tonight, their words will be examined by the entire world.

Maybe this is wishful thinking. But maybe, the world will be spared from another “Axis of Evil” tonight – I certainly hope so.

I recently read a review of “The Right Man”, a book containing some insights into the Bush administration, written by David Frum, a former speechwriter. In this review, Jeffrey A. Tucker writes –

“Remember the famous “Axis of Evil” phrase? It was originally “Axis of Hatred,” and it was written by Frum. Why? Frum writes: “Bush decided that the United States was no longer a status-quo power in the Middle East. He wanted to see plans for overthrowing Saddam, and he wanted a speech that explained to the world why Iraq’s dictator must go. And from that presidential decision, bump, bump, bump down the hierarchy… to me.”

Again, what can this mean? Bush knew he wanted to get rid of Saddam but didn’t know why? He hires people like Frum to drum up some, any, rationale?”

Stories like these do not automatically disqualify the political goal to oust Saddam. But they are clearly not helpful to win a sceptical world’s support. So now, let’s hear what the US President is going to tell us this year. Oh, and while we’re watching, we might as well have a little fun.

Standard