A momentous moment - Blair must choose Europe

Oops, sorry forgot to respond to another point in your reply.

It’s quite childish for Germany to start claiming that the plan wasn’t revealed cause America would have undermined it. All that happened was that it embarrased the Americans and hardened their resolve even more, and pushed them further apart from Fraance and Germany. Sometimes these things aren’t even about sense but ego, and this is quickly turning into a war between American and Franco-German ego. And to be honest the French and Germans won’t win, can’t win really.

One final thing, a bit off topic, but vaguely pertinent. I feelsorry for the weapons inspectors, if they say Iraq is not complying they are efffectivly starting a war. Do you think this will make them less likely to say anything and justmumble “errr, they kinda are and aren’t complying”, confusing the whole issue even more?

I agree with Pangloss. The global political landscape is changing, and it could well be centred around a power struggle to control the world’s resources. I have been hoping for some time that the UK stands where it belongs- on the side of Europe. It certainly plays into American hands to create divisions within the EU.

As I see it, the effects of this war could be catastophic- it is a major gamble on the part of the US administration IMO. On the other hand, the Franco-German proposition leads to the possibility of a peaceful solution, and removes the USA from the equation- I am very interested in what they have to say. The US is threatening the UN, and meddling in affairs far from its own borders.

I recently heard a number of Americans on Fox News claiming that Germany and France are irrelevant. Perhaps it’s actually the US that’s irrelevant in this situation.

Thanks for your responses, Matt and gordy.

Matt, international relations is made up of vast and complex web of alliances and stances which s often overlap. I think you are wrong to allow your view to be too heavily influenced by the usually-bright Donald Rumsfeld. You’ve allowed his dichotomy of there being ‘two’ Europes to form part of your analysis. Do not be fooled. It is in the interests of the USA to ensure that Europe is on the one hand united prosperous integrated and capitalist, yet on the other hand, not so united and politically integrated that it can act as a real counterweight to the United States on the world stage. Gordy was certainly spot on to identify that it plays into American hands to create divisions in Europe. For the above reason. They have done three things to ensure this. 1)They have kept a very close relationship with Britain, members of the EU, and the second largest national economy in Europe. 2) They have made a huge song-and-dance about the benefits of Turkish membership of the EU, when the issue of their candidature is (wrongly in my view) a matter of continued debate within the European Union. 3) Related to the Turkey question, they have actively encouraged and succeeded in acheiving NATO membership for Central and Eastern European countries. The carrot of being within a military alliance that sees their security guaranteed by the might of the US military, is, after decades of WW2 and Stalinist rule, a carrot they cannot help but eat.

To suggest that these countries have come on side for the Americans because that is the wise rational choice that they have made as independent and reactive-to-their-people democracies, independent of their new-found membership of NATO, is quite silly. If you were the leader of a country little over 10 years since the fall of an oppresive communist rule, with a history of oppression from an external aggresor, and had just signed up to a military alliance with the strongest military power, which is the only country left in the world that can enter a large country and change their regime (no superficial references to Israel please), would you really think of opposing that country’s policy on the first contentious issue to come up since securing membership of this alliance? Honestly. No. Even if they have the other carrot of European Union membership coming up. That will happen regardless. It is already secured, pending a positive referendum.

It is not just German French and Belgian political leaders who seem to oppose the American plan to implement UN resolution 1441. Serious doubts have been expressed by the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland and Norway. They are only unsure about opposing the USA because of their NATO obligations. The two other significant players within the European Union are Spain and Italy. Aznar in Spain is deeply unpopular and te strength of public oppositiion to the war in Spain is more than here. Spanish elections tomorrow would see a sweeping victory for the centre-left and anti-war parties, however divided they are on other issues. Berlusconi in Italy is frankly a joke. The most right-wing major political leader in Europe. He owns and controls the majority of the Italian media output, is their wealthiest man, and their Prime Minister. The Italians can’t help but love a dictator who forces through a corrupt agenda that few people want. !!!

France and Germany are not ‘desperately’ hanging on their place at the heart of Europe. They are successfully maintaining their place at the heart of Europe. Over reform of the EU Commission, over reform of CAP, over EU enlargement, over the drawing-up of the all-important EU consitution. Over the liberalisation of all EU subsidised industries that benefit the French and German economies.

Lets not fall into the trap of right-wing militaristic and egotistic analysis’ of complex situations, just for the sake of simplicity. It is important to be able to see through the spinning ploys of politicians, especially the Rumsfeld’s Cheney’s and Bush’s of our world. Plus the Chirac’s of our world too.

How the USA can say that the credibilty and future operation of the UN is at stake regarding the implementation of this one resolution (1441) when are in fact TWO plans on offer to the UN to implement 1441, is as absurd as it is stupid. The USA will not want to be defeated on this one, and will go out of their way to not be. Lets see, eh! Next Friday is when Blix tells the security council and the US that Iraq have finally showed some serious co-operation. It is also the day that the Franco-German plan is officially unveiled. Being a Fifth Way political boy myself, I would like to see a happy comprimise between the US and European plan. One which does not need Force in the most brutish sense, but which does remove (unequivocally) all Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, and one which probably sees some kind of sort substantial change ‘in’ or ‘of’ regime. Dreamy thinking?

You are right to say that it is toa great extent about egos and domestic political support. As I explained in my post, this is something of a last-chance salloon for Schroder whose support in Germany is at a record low for any Chancellor since Hitler (I couldn’t help but point that out!). Chirac, after his 80% thumping of LePen, has found himself a new lease of life, and is aiming to seal his place in French history as only second to Napoleon (I’m not joking!). Putin has much to gain, as it will certainly further his Russia’s floundering position on the world stage. As for Blair, well, as I said, he has a decision to make. There’ll be pressure from both sides, internal and external of this country.

The British government have quietly stated their position regarding the Franco-German plan. I suspect that behind the scenes, they are furious. To go along with it could be perceived as a serious defeat on the European stage. It could also be perceievd as Blair having united Europe, that is, the mainstream Europe (the three biggest and wealthiest countries), the real Europe, not the ‘old’ Europe. However, whichever way you see it, Blair has about as much sympathy from me as Hans Blix (a nice point, Matt_). Blair’s decision, which looks inevitably (for the time being, at least - a week is a long time in politics) to side with the US, will be the most important one on the world stage, given his having one foot in both continents, with both camps.

The crunch for King Tony is now in sight. Tense times.

As an american I do not like a strong centural europe. You europeans always wanted to rule the world(including eurasia) Hitler, napolean(i liked him), stallin, mousalini(sp?) and the list goes on.

Also with nastrodamus’s blue turban thing geting closer and closer(the date is 2006) and that involves a strong centural europe.

Basically My view is this if you ask for it, it will happen. every fiction we have is based on war, we are moving toward another war on a global scale only because the only form earth has left to move to is a strong centural global goverment. Which i dont like. Maybe its the rebel in me but I like small centural feudal principalties because they are easier to control and maniuplate.

Have you actually read any of the ideas being exchanged above? Grrrrrr!!!

I assume that your well thought out views are based on a real knowledge of world government and international relations in the context of the present day.

Join us, Blutgi.

I think here in England the Franco-German proposal is being seen more and more for what it actually is, a sham trying to buy them time. Turns out they haven’t asked Saddam his opinion and now they’ve renegaged on their promises in NATO. And out of all 16 countries it was only them and the insignificant Belgium (who incidentally refused to even supply ammunition for the Gulf war).

The whole debacle is being seen more and more as France and Germany being selfish little b******ds who can’t get their own way and are now having a tantrum about it. Who else has spoken out majorly in support for their plan in Europe? Putin also plays a dangerous game, trying to be the peace maker but pissing off a new key ally of America, all in abid to become influential again. I don’t know anything about China’s stance, so can’t comment really. The plan is, as I saw one commentator call it today, a back of the envelope job.

Even worse for France and Germany is that now people in the NATO alliance are starting to whisper what they really think France & Germany are up to, namely that they want to undermine American influence over European international policy, unfortunatly for them they’ve done a very stupid thing. France already tried to screw NATO up once and failed quite spectacularly, it’s second attempt isn’t going to work, the new NATO members know they can’t rely on the European Rapid Reaction force for protection.

All in all the Franco-German proposal appears to be nothing more than a concerted effort to undermine American influence in Europe. There are theories abounding about the French/Germans trying to ensure that they get all future construction, etc. projects in the Middle East cause the Arabs won’t want to give contracts to America or any of it’s allies, though I think this rumour should be treated with as much initial skepicism as the rediculous reports that the war on Iraq was all about oil.

You wrote this yesterday so I don’t think you saw that the inspectors are now saying there’s been no big cooperation from Iraq at all, the new documents recieved have been no help whatsoever.

There really aren’t two plans in front of the UN, there’s war and there’s a plan to give Iraq a bunch of hostages when the US finally lose patience. Rember the key thing that the Americans are complaining about is that Saddamm still isn’t co-operating, there’s no sign of huge amounts of weapons that they had when they got rid of the weapons inspectors. Where the hell are they??? No-one is quibbling with the Americans about that. But what good is waiting going to do? Saddam has had thousands of chances to come clean, with every delay it shows how useless the UN is, the inspectors can’t do their job, unless Iraq is honest and it’s bloody obvious that they’re not being honest. What will another 200 inspectors do? War is the last option left, and the longer it’s left, the harder it will be to agree to go to war. At the moment it’s the French/German thing, next it’s this, then it’s that, until evryone’s forgotten about it all and then Saddam chucks out the inspectors again 5 years down the line. Or worse, a huge terrorist attack happens with weapons from secret Iraqi factories.

In response about America playing Europe off against itself, I think you’re looking at the whole thing from the wrong way. It’s not America that’s doing it, it’s the fundamental differences in the member states that keeps us apart. Historically we are far more tied to America than anyone else and our trading links are and always have been far stronger to the commonwealth and America than our links with Europe. In fact it makes us an ideal gateway between the two, which was the whole point of us getting involved in the EEC. However on the other end of the scale is the Franco-German (initially W.German of course) belief that a federal Europe is the way to go. It’s been one of their aims all along. And there’s plenty of EU members that don’t want to do that, they just want some of the things, but tend to get swept up in the rest. The Key supporters of the Franco-German stance have been those who are going to benefit most out of it.

You also have to remember that NATO is not an alliance of aggression, it is one of defence. There is no obligation at all for the Netherlands, etc. to join in the American side. All they are obliged to do is contribute to the defence of any state that is atrtacked, it is a mutual defence act. That is why the French/German/Belgium stand is so utterly unbelievable in the eyes of the NATO members, they are refusing to do what they have agreed to do. They would deploy defences that have nothing to do with an American attack (with or without allies). If America attacked Iraq alone against the whole of the rest of the world’s approval and then Iraq attacked Turkey, all of NATO would still be obliged to help, cause that’s what NATO’s about. It’s defensive in it’s obligations, not offensive.

I really think we’re starting to see the crumble of the (unjustified) French and German influence over the EU and European politics. And that can only be a good thing. For too long they have been driving desperatly towards a federal Europe in a childish effort to become world players again. The whole initial reason for doing this, to make sure no more world wars happened, has disappeared (it used to be believed that all the wars stemmed from the divided European Empires, which have disappeared). And as the rest of the world drives towards more flexible Nation states which better reflect the people within them, the French and germans are trying to create a new super power.

Sorry there’s a little bit of a rant in there about a Federal Europe, but at least you know where I stand on that point. Looking over our posts again I think that this whole thing is starting to rapidly turn into a test of the EU as well as the UN. I’m sorry the above post is a bit convuluted and not trerribly well structured, I’m a knackered after a hard days study.

One final comment, I’ve never ever thought that the UK even remotely ‘belongs’ to Europe. In fact I think we’re far more strangers to Europe than we are to America in everything apart from geographical location. We could have been part of the Nortern Alliance and we foolishly didn’t try (I think it’s called that, trading alliance of Canada/America/Mexico I think, my international politics is a bit rusty).

In my honest opinion, Europe is second best, and it always will be because our cultures are so very very different to the other European countries. We can’t survive with the one-size fits all Federal European Government, as a member of that we would wither and die, while other would flourish. Why should the UK give up it’s present status so other European countries flourish. The federal Europe may suit them but not us (although I think the underlying cultural differences are there too, there is a big difference between all the countries in Europe).

hmmm. Must say I entirely disagree with you analysis on both main points, though I agree that that EU is being tested. I have no doubt makers of US foreign policy would be elighted to hear your views- the greater the divisions within the EU, the less risk Europe poses to the US. These divisions are a form of secondary benefit to the US, an by no means insignificant.

I fall on the other side of the spectrum. I am a European, and proud to be a European. I do not wish to associate with the US in any significant way (except maybe to watch their comedies on telly).

I believe you are in the minority on this one as far as the beliefs of European citizens go. The fact that only 3 countries have had the guts to stand up the the US is very misleading. Popular opinion is very much against the war. Common sense is very much against the war, and furthermore, nothing has happened that can justify a war in the mind of any thinking personl: There is NO substantial evidence to support the US claims, and furthermore, even if there were proof that Iraq had WMDs in any quantity, this would not by itself justify a war.

Our debate reflects a rift in our country: Those, like yourself who wish to align themselves with the USA (the war-mongering, deceitful, imperialist USA I might add ) versus those of us who believe that our place lies in Europe, or who at least believe that the French / German position is by far the more sensible.

I find nothing to like in the current US administration, but plenty to be wary of: They are stripping away the freedoms of their own citizens, whilst bullying and deceiving the world into allowing them their totally immoral oil war.

The fact is, neither you or anyone who supports the view you have put forward can adequately answer the following point: There has been no real proof that WMDs exist in Iraq. Therefore going to war on the pretext of disarming Iraq is entirely unjustified until you have that proof. So accept the German/French proposal- it is the only sane option between the two alternatives.

gordy,
well put.

I’m with gordy…

No real evidence? Look they had tonnes of the stuff when the weapons inspectors left two years ago, and it’s not there now. Where has it gone? Just cause you can’t find it doesn’t mean it’s not there, it just means that they’re hiding it.

I’ve also never seen large support for a federal Europe in England. I don’t know anyone who calls themself a European in this country apart from my Mum’s dutch friends who live over here. Europe is being forced down our throats, there’s been no referendum on the subject for a long time, but it’s VERY VERY clear that we’re against the Euro, the lastest figures were something like 50%-30% with the other 20% far more likely to vote anti than pro. So we’re talking more like 65-35 here. That’s a bit of a clear statement that while we’re all up for a trading alliance we’re not up for a federal Europe.

That says it all really, they’re not imperialist (how many countries have they taken over recently?), they’re not war-mongering (how much do you think it costs them to go to war, and do you think they like their share prices going crazy cause of this crisis? They’d prefer it if the terrorists just left them alone, they’re not so they have to defend themselves) and they’re anything but decietful. What have they said all along? Saddam if you don’t co-operate with WMD we will attack you. The only way they could be seen as decietful is if they don’t attack, as then they’d be lying.

Remember there’s a big difference between imperialism and cultural imperialism. With Cultural Imperialism the government has little or no control over how the companies within it act or who they sell their goods to. I mean they could ban all exports to the Middle East or the like, but people in the Middle East want Coca-Cola, Pop music, want the notions of freedom, liberty, etc. The cultural assault that is going on is in it’s heart a war within a country that the Cultural imperialist is just a catalyst for, but not the cause. And for that they get some wacko fundamentalists, mourning the death of their predjudices and ‘traditional’ values, flying some planes into the WTC.

Firstly, the bill proposal is still in it’s working stages, I hope it doesn’t pass, I really do, I hope the Americans resist it as we did.

Secondly, what have I already said about the oil propoganda? Let me be clear, it’s bullshit. Absolute, utter, complete, no doubt, stupid bullshit. If it were about controlling Oil the UK and the US or whoever else could sort the deal out with Iraq in about 10 seconds flat. In fact the ones who would stand to lose/make money if there is/isn’t a war are those who are opposing it, they’re the ones who have deals signed for the N.Iraq oil fields, so they’re the ones who is letting their greed for oil cloud their judgements. The Venezulan oil crisis happened AFTER the Americans started talking about war. AFTER. Hello??? I thought we’d all got over that misconception. If you’re going to use that one again, please offer the reasons why. You’ll find there aren’t any.

Let’s remember what’s going on here. There are shit loads of terrorists around the world saying “we’re going to attack the infidel evil America”. At the moment the worst that could happen, a conventional bomb. If there’s no control on WMD then it could be a nuclear bomb going off in Times Square. Or London. Or Paris. Or Sydney. But the focus of their hatred is America, which is the place they’re most likely to try and attack. Why the hell shouldn’t they stop the proliferation of WMD??? And why should they let some nutter like Saddam Hussein have them?

Sorry missed this point.

I don’t know what news channels you’ve been watching, Iraq having WMDs would be a justification for going to war. That’s the whole bloody point. The Iraqis are not allowed to have them. They are obliged not to have them. If they do and are hiding them and refusing to destory them, that is a very justifiable reason for going to war on them.

What do you think all these UN resolutions have been passed for? The international community has told Iraq, “you’re not allowed WMDs, we can’t trust you”. Iraq defied that, and are still defying that. If they’d have come clean then it would have all been ok (e.g. South Africa), but they didn’t and now the only recourse left is war. Let me say again, this whole process has taken 12 years to reach the point of war. It’s not like they’ve not had a chance to come clean thousands of times before.

Without co-operation the weapons inspectors won’t find anything. The size of a chemical/biological warfare factory need only be that of a small house, old weapons of mass destruction could be buried anywhere in their deserts. 100, 300 or 10,000 inspectors won’t find these things. There won’t be neon signs over the WMDs saying “They’re here” unless the Iraqis put the signs there (metaphorically speaking).

Or should we wait another 12 years and show the whole world that the UN is a sham, like the league of nations? The time is to act.

Thanks Gordy. Much of my potentially tome-length response to Matt has been condensed.

However, I’m going to take a kind of Middle Way on this, albeit, slightly closer to Gordy.

Within the prism of the crisis over Turkish weapons and Franco-German plans to oppose the US on their plan to implement 1441, is another prism, a debate about the future of the EU, about what sort of EU leader system there should be, about how much power Brussels should ever be allowed to absorb, and about the potentially damaging or enriching prospect of Turkey joining the Union.

European unity has been failed by France and Germany’s secrecy in making the plan. Any chances of a united European foreign policy have been scuppered by the French approach of keeping its cards close. It’s extraordinary that Chirac did not tell Blair of Project Mirage at their summit meeting last weekend. With the certainties of the cold war long gone, a new international order is now at stake. This is the first major issue to divide NATO members and those who make up the international consensus. Outside of the context of an impending war, this is as much to do with political leaders attempting to establish their country’s position in the new world order. It is a shame that Chirac has decided to do this in such a way, so as to render the European Union a non-starter in this race. The EU actually becoming a genuine counterweight to American dominance on the international stage would certainly be healthy development for the future of international relations. By isolating Britain in the way Chirac (putting Blair in a position where to come on his side would be to lose face) has thrown away any realistic chance of there being a common European defence and foreign policy. Without the UK, the EU rapid reaction force is just a name. As frustrating as this is, and as woeful (and unlikely) as it would look for Blair to join with France and Germany, it seems that in joining with the USA in this crisis, this race to end all races, he is throwing away a once-every-few-generations opportunity to reshape the alliances of the international stage, and assert a more benign and *secure world order.

The American perception of the French as ungrateful frog-eating decadents holds a little weight, though for me, it only serves to look back to the past, at a time when the future (with a new world order, a new international consensus, and so much human and economic cost is at stake) is all that should matter now at a time of real tension. Yet they can (as the Daily Mail was keen to point out ‘Monstrous Ingratitude’) draw on the fact that over 130,000 American servicemen were killed in helping liberate Europe during WW2. That (apparently!?!) over $15 trillion were spent by the US on protecting Europe during the cold war, or that the US spends $10 billion on NATO each year.

The UK’s ‘special relationship’ although not ideal in an ideal international climate, can only be seen as a force for good, and should be (as much as is possible) maintained as such. The common assertion that London can act as a bridge between the US and EU is correct. For Europe and the United States to be fundamentally opposed on important issues is dangerous for world peace. The spirit of friendship, constructive dialogue and respect should be maintained at ALL costs. Note that small trade wars start to materialise between the US and EU over small issues (in the context of the wider Europe-America relationship), with the US steel tariffs, and the EU’s (or should I say French-German) decision to maintain the costly and market-distorting CAP funds to farmers. With the entire world as interdependent and integrated as it is (EU and US markets in particular), the need for common and co-ordinated government at this level is paramount. It infuriates me when people dismiss the UN as on the verge of being irrelevant. It’s a f***ing World tier of government, the furthest away from those who implement policies. Of course it won’t be able to implement all of its resolutions. However, the need for the UN, if not as a way of controlling global decision-making for the good of all those decisions affect, is important as a discussion forum for countries and interest groups to resolve their disagreements through discussion, co-operation and (if possible) consensus. This has proved so successful (which is why it doesn’t get the sufficient publicity) that the UN is still the key forum at the centre of an international crisis, over 50 years after its formation. The US (with the new world order up for grabs) are almost bribing the likes of France and Russia into joining them or stopping their alternative plan, by saying that the integrity and future of the Unite Nations is at stake. How dare they take such a stance, putting the innocent and under-resourced UN right in the middle.

The American perception of the French as ungrateful frog-eating decadents holds a little weight, though for me, it only serves to look back to the past, at a time when the future (with a new world order, a new international consensus, and so much human and economic cost is at stake) is all that should matter now at a time of real tension. Yet they can (as the Daily Mail was keen to point out ‘Monstrous Ingratitude’) draw on the fact that over 130,000 American servicemen were killed in helping liberate Europe during WW2. That (apparently!?!) over $15 trillion were spent by the US on protecting Europe during the cold war, or that the US spends $10 billion on NATO each year.

I think that our differences of opinion ultimately boil down to different perceptions of our country. We are right in the thick of it now, and in forming this perception, it is worth being aware that some are more willing to look to the past than others, some more to the future. Some more towards Europe, an active democracy, and federalism, and others more towards the USA, the old world order, and a more consumerist and (dispute over whether this illusory or not) comfortable, arguably more conservative way of life. Some look to the Marxist critique of the market as their source of truth about society, the state and citizens, some towards the neoliberal consensus, and towards markets as the best way of distributing most of society’s resources. Some take a ‘Third’ Way. Some a ‘Fourth’ Way. Some (like me) even take a Fifth Way. The natural historical dialectic of two opposing idea confronting (domestically and internationally) each other, then yielding a synthesis does not take every person with it. We are all bickering amongst ourselves, as we have to make some tough choices about who and what and why we want to be. The euro debate and referendum will see us making another similar choice, and the integrity of the media will, of course, be called into question. Some think (including part of myself) that the result of that referendum, whenever it happens, will be decided this Friday, this week. If Blair wins our hearts on Iraq AND on the euro, he will be hailed as our greatest. I am sure of that.

*The last thing a capitalist economy needs is anxiety in the markets, and instability on the world stage. If not to satisfy the emotional attachments of the old world order, then to resist and support Blair in building a strong relationship with Europe, would be to the lasting gain of capitalist economies the world over, and the billions affected by traumas like this one.

As tempting as it is to think this: International politics is never simple. Alliances do and should overlap.

Matt, with all due respect, I think it’s time you stopped buying wholesale the American line on this and started thinking for yourself.

Well maybe that’s the point- maybe my knowledge of the situation is not limited to what’s on the news.

Oh really? And where is the justification for that? Resolution 1441 talks of “serious consequences”- a very ambiguous phrase that the Americans put in there. Does the resolution say “If Iraq does not cooperate then America may invade their country and bomb innocent civilians”? No. Besides, Iraq has gone a long way towards cooperating; they have allowed inspectors into the country, have allowed surveillance by U-2 planes… who decides that Iraq is not cooperating? Just because you have heard Bush say it a number of times you have to believe it?

Powell’s evidence to the UN Security Council was basically the case for war. To say it was unconvincing would be pretty generous. great performance from Powell, but already much of the evidence has been discredited- the biological weapons factory that was actually a bakery, the other one that didn’t actually exist, the leaked report from British intelligence denying the existence of links with Iraq, the utterly humiliating case of the report that Powell had referred to as outlining the case in “exquisite detail” as having been plagiarised and spun, turned into a piece of propaganda. So what are we left with? Tapes that could so easily have been faked, or have been recorded years ago, and photos that are totally open to interpretation. A case for war? My arse!

The UN resolution did indeed insist that Iraq be disarmed. And other resolutions impose restrictions upon Israel. Futhermore, more resolutions would have been passed to control Israel, had it not been for the US veto. Does the US seek to impose those restrictions on Israel? No, it suplies Israel with about 3 billion dollars of foreign aid each year, the vast majority of which is spent on the military.

The hypocrisy of the whole affair is mind-boggling. Weapons of Mass Destruction indeed? The US manufatures and sells significantly more arms than any other country on earth, with large quantities being sold to unjst regimes.For a number of years, Iraq was one of those unjust regimes.

It baffles me that anyone cannot see that this is about oil.

Actually, Iraq’s oil contracts are with Russia, France and the UK, not the US. Hence the US-led sanctions. (Sanctions which, according to UNICEF, have resulted in the death of well over half a million children).

Oh, well, that’s all right then, I’m convinced. First of all, the inspectors left in 1998 amidst an espionage scandal. Scott Ritter, one of the weapons inspectors has stated numerous times that Iraq has been qualitatively disarmed.

If this war is about WMDs, let the French/German plan go ahead- find the evidence. Even if evidence is found, however, it does not automatically justify the American invasion of yet another country. The UN must decide what to do- not the US.

Asidde from all this, America’s treatment of Iraq over the past 10 years has been absolutely appalling. To find out more go to:

pilger.carlton.com/iraq

I wish people would use their own brains for a change, instead of just buying what the US administration (and much of the very compliant media) are telling them.

Absolutely; one of the key ways to control public opinion is to limit the scope of debate. That’s why you get such unthinking acceptance. I’m all for looking at other options.

I’m not buying wholesale the American line, also please remember that it’s me who is in a major minority here, it’s me who everyone disagrees with and yet I still believe that there is a case for war. I read every day the developments in the news and I still persist in believing that there’s a case for war. I also hope it’s obvious to those reading that there’s not a major propoganda machine going on here in England cause most people in England still believe that the case hasn’t been made, so it’s fine for you sitting in the comfortable embrace of majority support, it’s me who has to make, restate and emphasise the reasons I think it’s the right thing to do in the cold. The easiest thing for me to do would be to buy your arguments.

Let’s leave oil out of the discussion, it’s not the reason, I’m sure of it. But hey if you want to stupidly cling to an objection that was raised AFTER the venezualan oil crisis (which prompted the rumours that it was all about oil), that’s up to you. I view that prejudice with contempt however. You still have merely stated it, and not shown any reason why it would be about oil.

To be honest the oil position shows the ignorance of people on the situation, there’s not a major need for Iraqi oil, in fact the risk of isolating the opec countries is greater if we do go to war. There’s no guarantee that the post-war Iraqi regime would be pro-American either. 1 in 5 british people think it’s about oil (source BBC poll), that’s just rediculous, that was a flash in the pan rumour, there’s been no new revelations to prove that stance. If you watched the debate between Blair and audience chaired by Paxman (with virtually all members hostile to Blair’s stance), you would have seen the utter embarrasment of the person who put that point to Blair, he was slaughtered, had no evidence at all to back his stance and looked like the fool he was. It was also only brought up by the studio audience and not by Paxman, nor was it supported by him, as he damn well knows it’s not a valid argument (he was anti-war and got involved in jumping on anything that he thought Blair couldn’t defend well).

So before you say it’s about oil again, evidence please, or point me to a comprehensive and well argued reason from a reliable political/economic commentator somewhere on the web.

Hmm, turning into an essay again. Onwards!

That the US have been so, well, hypocritical in their actions over Israel resolutions is deplorable. But I couldn’t care bloody less. This isn’t about the ineffective actions relating to Israel. That’s a whole different debate.

That’s what I said. Russia and France have the potential to lose those contracts with war. Hence they could be the ones accused of greed for oil.

So we can’t go to war, what other tool do we have for disarming Iraq? We can’t put down more sanctions, that’s killing more children. Ironic you should mention this as Blair is now also arguing that war may be a more humane way than sanctions:

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2752163.stm

Also see Clementine’s post under interesting factoids:

ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … 3&start=60

if anything this makes it clear that a short sharp war kills a lot less than the sanctions do.

The alternative? Let’s all sit on our hands and let Iraq develop Nuclear missiles everybody!!!

Even Ritter admits that it will only take 6 months for Iraq to resume it’s WMD programmes with the state he left them in 1998 (sorry said 2 years, I still think it’s 2000 for some reason. I also think of myself as 18 ). Although he’s contested that the production of chem/bio weapons would result in vapours, it doesn’t mean that their (mysteriously disappeared) scientists are still not working on develpoing them. There’s more evidence that Iraq is hiding stuff. So far one, ONE!!!, scientist has been interviewed without supervision. ONE FFS. Many more are missing. If there’s not unquestionable evidence that the inspectors are being decieved by Iraq, then I give up. I really do.

If the world show Iraq that they’re not willing to do anything in their constant attempts to confound the arms inspectors, they’ll end up chucking them out and then starting the programmes again. What is your serious suggestion Gordy? To just keep on inspecting for ever? To keep the sanctions in place? They don’t affect the regime, just the people. It has meant that Iraq has not been able to attack neighbouring countries, but this is the only restriction it seems to have imposed. The elite still live like kings and there is a black market sale of Iraqi oil going on. I even once read about secret oil pipes through Iran (or maybe it was Jordan), but I can’t remember if that was proved or not.

What is needed to resolve all this is regime change, and the only way to effect this is by a physical removal of Saddam. i.e. war. The more faffing, the more delays, the more stupid suggestions by France/Germany, the more likely nothing will be done in the end. Which is not a solution but a recipe for future disaster.

Which brings me on to answering Pangloss’s post (I thought I best split it up a bit). Maybe we should move this debate to a new thread, but it is more relevant to the original idea beind this thread, the other debate belongs more to another thread.

Personally I don’t think it’s America that put the UN in such a position, but it was France and Germany. Even Germany’s press were scathing in their attack on the way Schroeder handled the whole thing (I haven’t been able to see anything about the French press).

side note I used to use teletext to keep up to date on the headlines of foreign newspapers but my new TV doesn’t have it, this new bloody digital TV shit is useless and slow. Damn NTL. Anyone got any suggestions of a good (and unbiased) website for monitoring foreign newspaper articles (english translated). I suppose I should check the teletext website.

I think you’re looking at Blair in the wrong way, I think he really really believes that war is necessary. I mean heart of hearts. You should have seen him in the television debate (of which there’s another tonight btw!! BBC 1, 8:30, be there and be square, but well informed ). I don’t think he would have seen the Franco-German plan as a serious suggestion even if he was consulted first.

I also take great exception to your portrayal of America as the old and the EU as the new. It is quite the opposite. America has an established federal DEMOCRATIC government, while the EU has appointments to the (very powerful) commision with a virtually powerless parliament. It has a very opaque bureacratic structure. The EU commision’s response to the revelation of wide spread corruption? You can now only report suspicions of corruption to your immediate superior. If it’s him who’s corrupt you can do nothing. The EU is disgustingly undemoratic considering it’s representing democratic countries. It’s top heavy and hasn’t had it’s accounts signed off for over 5 years (which normally would result in creditors refusing to pay bills, instead all the countries keep pumping money into it). The reponse to this??? Fire the accountant who refused and get someone in who has NO QULAIFICATIONS IN ACCOUNTANCY. NOT ONE!!! Are you telling me that’s an open and honest democracy? (Sorry EU corruption tends to put fire in me belly).

There’s nothing good at the moment about the EU. It doesn’t just stink, the smell of something bad is so over powering that it’s no wonder Brussels smells like a sewage pipe.

Talking about seperate European countries is different, and to see why we can never have a united international policy is highlighted by this particular case. The French/German heads of state have been accused of riding anti-American feeling within their own countries, and not making tough choices themselves. Instead of leading they are letting themselves be led. As I have stated before, this is a very dangerous idea as citizens of a country often demand quite contradictory things from a leader and the leader then has to make a choice on which to stick to. So far Chirac/Schroeder are doing nothing to suggest how to defeat terrorism they are acting on self-interest. For once in my life I actually admire Blair, he’s finally got some damn balls.

I haven’t even mentioned the rest of it, for example our differences because of imperialistic past (our ties to the commonwealth for example, french to their ex-colonies, Spanish to theirs).

Oh and I pray you’re wrong on Tony Blair and the Euro. I think it would put him down as one of our great screwups, a man who wanted to go down in history as the person who took us into the Euro, which then ruined our country. I keep a keen eye on the Euro debate, I find that virtually every claim made by the ‘pros’ is usually a downright and utter lie. Can you recommend any pro-websites/newsletters? I recieve the no campaign’s newsletter at the moment, and would like a regular pro newsletter. I try and keep on top of the pro campaign by reading a range of newspapers (Telegraph/Guardian/Independant, though I tend to get the Telegraph most as I feel it is the least biased in it’s reporting, only midly conservative apart from certain stories, and that’s anti-Euro). If you’d like to discuss this one more, maybe another thread would be more appropiate.

Sorry, last one until someone else replies promise! Just found this:

This is an extract of a panaroma programme screened last Sunday. I had meant to watch it myself, but couldn’t. If you want to read the whole article:

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/p … 734305.stm

Can empirical truth ever mask the black curtain of belief?

You are certainly informed, Matt, and you are right to make the case that Saddam Hussein is a real threat, especially given the ‘Holiday in Iraq’ and ‘Saddam Hussein: profile’ programmes shown yesterday.

You arguments are real, and much of your objection to the anti-war points are also fair and correct. Even if we were agreed on his having WMDs and agreed that there is an urgent need not only to disarm him and stop terrorists gaining access to his weapons, but to install (far easier said than done) a more benign political system for the Iraqi people, the habit of which may spread elsewhere in the Middle-East, even if we agreed on all of that, you CANNOT be in denial of the enormous damage a war would cause around all of the world. You have to realise the crucial importance of inclusive and secure international alliances in guaranteeing some sort of peace stability and order on the international stage.

Please read through my posts again, and have a look at the ‘Plaigarism’ thread near this one. There is a lot to Know to get an accurate view of the Iraq crisis, and the various other issues that are being played out as the gaps in international grow ever wider. This is complex stuff. War (as complex as some of the arguments for it seem to be) though, would be relative to cutting the Gordian knot on a long-standing international consensus. As painful as the prospect must seem, that knot has to be untied. Tony Blair (as difficult as it would be for him) is probably the only person in a real position to do that.

As for your point regarding government terror warnings being entirely unrelated to the upcoming march, I am quite confident you are wrong. I can tell you how sinister the intelligence services can be in this country. My phones and internet access are being tapped and played around with. The reason I can get on with my own political activism, is because is NOT a consensus within the British establishment about going to war. The war in itself IS difficult to justify, and seen in the perspective of a new international power struggle, the Mandarins in the civil service are reluctant to allow COBRA decisions to infringe on the activities of the anti-war movement too much, because it is in their (i.e. the government departments, I.E. the country) interests to allow the anti-war movement to pick up weight. This troop deployment in Haethrow (as surprising as it may seem, and difficult to come to terms with) is, outside of actually protecting us from a steady terrorist threat, designed to scare the shit out of the ‘bewildered herd’ that is the British public. It has been done in preparation for every single war where public opinion has wavered. Terror warnings (usually kept secret) are passed onto the public, in an alarmist way, so as to soften public opinion. Although much of what is written in it is a little wrong and out-dated now, I seriously recommend you also my ‘Case against war’ post in the ‘War on Iraq’ thread in the Essays and Theses’ forum. I spell it out as clearly as you need. It is a much easier and much more comfortable knowledge, being frightened of another country, or another leader, or a real terrorist network. Being frightened of your own government is quite a different matter. I must concede that I am not, but that’s because I feel I have their actions in the full perspective of everything that’s going on in the internatinoal scene. Know the truth.

As the world’s one undisputed superpower, it is surely the responsibility of the USA to protect the most blessed and sacred institution of world government, the UN. The Franco-German plan was, like the US plan, designed to implement UN resolution 1441. For the US to respond to an alternative plan to implement one of 1441 UN resolutions, by saying that if their plan is used, then the UN will be irrelevant, IS outrageous and wholely irresponsible. They are wiling to say such a thing about the UN whilst calmly saying that NATO will survive, because the UN does not serve US interests in quite the same way as NATO, or the IMF, or the World Bank, or the WTO. Some say that these organisations higher influence is just a cloak to mask a new-found zeal for US worldwide imperialism. The source of this zeal is understandable when seen in the context of the US being detached (geographically) from much of the outer world, and seen in terms of the fact that the US has relative solidarity on most foreign policy issues(I need not comment on some of the tactics used to acheive this solidarity), whereas the various large countries and supranational entities in the rest of the world do not have this solidarity. This disunity often causes problems for US interests, ususally with their international trade and the exploits of their TNCs, but sometimes, as with 9/11, domestically too. When they percieve the rest of the world as warrior-like troublemakers, whilst the US is happy and comfortable in their peaceful idyll, the ‘imperialist’ tendencies that we see, become apparent. It may be the case that many within the American administration and the Washington consensus, in light of this perception of the rest of the world, simply do not see the full extent to which American foreign policy and TNC activity can damage the fragile politics and economic stability of other parts of the world. This is why world government, and greater transparency and Accountability is needed within the organisations and insitutions whose decision-making is global in impact. US society (roughly around 1980, conincidentally enough) saw a streak of anti-intellectual sentiment sweep the country. This sentiment is running dry now, and those on the world stage who did not join the neoliberal consensus, see now as the perfect time for the US and UK to get their come-uppance.

As far as media sources from abroad are concerned, I’m sorry Matt, but the best one is on Teletext. Page 147.

I wouldn’t know where to start in recommending a pro-euro newsletter. Give me your email address, and I’ll give you some details. I generally think it’s bad news to subscribe to the newsletter of one side of a complex debate. But good for you anyway. I’m looking forward to the euro debate. I jump onto the fence quite often.

As far as Blair’s sincerity is concerned, I agree that his performance on Newsnight was impressive, but I have also read the most devastating critique of Blair’s position and performance on this issue, and find it as convincing as I found Blair. I will send it to you. Or you can find it (it has two parts) on the ‘Media Alerts’ section of medialens.org

I think someone else made this point elsewhere, the UN isn’t the most blessed and great thng it’s supposed to be, it’s got a load of tyrants, despots and other such fed up countries sitting in it. It’s a good talking place, but it’s also got some major flaws. To say it has the last say on international matters is equivalent to giving away the power to protect oneself. That’s why Israel largely ignore it, it knows it is in a situation where it cannot listen to the UN. Not that that justifies the gross treatment of the Palestinians at all.