Comments are closed

Comments are currently closed on this entry.

1. Erm… Surely the point is that it was the UN which, by telling the Allied force not to enter Iraq territory, allowed Saddam (who politically as well as physically models himself on Stalin) another 12 years in which to murder maim mutilate and terrorise his own population? Why doesn’t it seem to matter that the Iraqi regime kills thousands of innocent civilians in a systematic manner? It is because they’re brown people and sort of expect it?

   Posted by cypher at 12am on 04.04.03

2. cypher - point taken, and sorry to be simplistic, but are those innocent civilians helped by being further maimed, mutilated and killed by the ‘coalition’?
   and do you REALLY in your heart of hearts believe that GWB lies awake at night worrying about the Iraqi people??? is that really why we’re there? especially given that the means to maim, mutilate etc. were provided for Saddam by the US for many years.

   Posted by trilby at 11am on 04.04.03

3. Not to mention the fact that the US abide by the UN as and when they see fit, not on principle - it seems clear to me in the quote above that Bush Snr. saw invasion as an option, but chose not to exceed the UN mandate for the reasons he states. No one is arguing that Saddam Hussein’s systematic killing of his people is fine, but the US clearly gave him carte blanche to do so by a) arming him in the first place, and b) encouraging uprisings by the Kurds et al, then failing to provide them with support. I would go so far as to say that the US, and the international community share much of the blame with Saddam Hussein for the deaths of Iraqi civilians and dissidents. Anyway, this war is the wrong way to deal with a situation that has arisen thanks to the actions of the US, and, as you say, mismanagement of the situation by the UN. The international community is shit at this stuff - how long did it take to end apartheid in South Africa? How come China can kill as many dissidents as it likes? How come Bush was allowed to rig an election in the most powerful country in the world? - the answer isn’t to hand over control to the US, on the grounds that they have the biggest guns, the answer is to improve the mechanisms used by the international community to exert pressure on despotic regimes, and that applies to all despotic regimes, not just the ones in control of valuable resources.

   Posted by Jack at 12pm on 04.04.03

4. Jack, you’re bang on. The international community is shit at this stuff and the answer isn’t to hand over control to the US. But in the absence of anyone else taking responsibility it’s all we - and they, the ordinary terrorised Iraqi - have got.

   I’d adree with almost every criticism anyone made of the US and GB action. It is obviously about oil; it is obviously not about saving individual human lives; it is clearly a crying shame that the US and GB (and France and Russia and China and God knows who else) sold his regime arms in the past. But so what? So what if G W Bush doesn’t cry himself to sleep every night about every innocent life. Did Churchill in 1939? Did Roosevelt in 1941? Does a leader need himself to bleed in order to take action which will lead to right being done? To turn trilby’s question around, do you imagine that Tony Blair sleeps soundly at night knowing that his decisions have led to soldiers’ deaths on both sides?

   Do you sleep soundly knowing these things? No? Then at least allow that our leaders, the people we (if not indeed you) voted for, are as human as you or I.

   Posted by cypher at 11pm on 04.04.03

5. Cypher, the point is that it’s not a case of the US taking responsibility for the situation when no-one else will; it’s more a case of the US deciding that it’s the only entity qualified to make judgement here, and no-one else is allowed such responsibility, because others’ final decisions would naturally not be in harmony with the wants of the US administration.

   Chruchill and Roosevelt probably didn’t cry themselves to sleep over every life lost. However, there’s a distinction here (and it’s one that is always brushed aside in the rush to equate the situation now to the situation in Europe between 1939 and 1945): then, action was taken in the hope that it might lead to “right being done” because Hitler was a genuine threat to the fabric of the world. This war isn’t about “doing right” in the same way, because the only thing Saddam Hussein is a real threat to is US interests in the gulf. If Bush, Rumsfeld and all the other bloodthirsty oil barons poulating the Capitol were truly interested in tackling a threat to world peace, they’d be attempting to deal with North Korea—who already have the capacity to launch intercontinental missiles on the US—or they’d be making moves to slow down India and Pakistan’s nuclear race. They wouldn’t be going after some tinpot thug in the middle east.

   As for the ordinary terrorised Iraqi, I’d imagine that being bombed and shot at by Americans is really no more fun than being bombed, gassed or shot at by the Iraqi army. I suppose the only difference is that the Americans tell you it’s for your own good, rather than for your hallowed leader’s.

   Posted by Leon at 12am on 05.04.03

6. Oh come on, Leon. In 1938 not one Western country - let alone its peoples - thought Hitler was a genuine threat to the world. What passed for opinion polls in the UK said that 80% of the population was against a war. The US (oh, and: Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan (post conflict), South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey and Uzbekistan, as well as pluckly little GB) the US is the only prepared to actually do something about it.

   Far from the UN being the only organisation qualified to take action, the UN has demonstrated time and again that it is incapable of taking action under almost any circumstance. Soviet Russion under the purges, Vietnam (right or wrong) Cuba, Somalia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Nigeria and Biafra, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Yugoslavia, not to mention Chechnya, or Tibet, or whatever you like. In each of these appalling wars, civil or otherwise, the UN did nothing at all, and indeed actively tried to stop the international community from doing anything at all. The list above comprises 25% of the “international community” - a pretty good showing. What many of them also have in common is that they have recently emerged from just the sort of viscerally disgusting regime the US and GB are trying to overthrow in Iraq.

   Indeed, when exactly has the UN made a difference in the world? A difference for the better, that is… Its inaction has lead to million upon millions of deaths - even Live Aid had to be organised by half-arsed pop stars!

   “The only thing Iraq is a threat to is US interests…” First, I think we’ve dealt with that one above. Iraq started a war in the 1980s with Iran in which millions of people died, and in the resulting havoc took the opportunity to begin the routine torture and murder of hundreds of thousands of its own population in Hussein’s deliberate attempt to emulate Stalin; it invaded Kuwait without provocation, murdered that country’s civilians and blew up its oil wells; it has made a laughing stock of the UN, running rings around its resolutions and arms inspectors and good intentions; it has killed perhaps a quarter of a million Kurds, the destruction of 2000 Kurdish villages, in the South 100,000 Shia muslims, and 2 millions refugees (these figures are Human Rights Watch’s)

   And still you say this war is about George Bush’s friends’ voracious desire for money. It might well be. I personally don’t mind if it destroys this loathsome creature and his regime. I don’t mind one bit. Imagine if Stalin could have been destroyed one day earlier; if Hitler, or Pol Pot, or Mao T’se Tung, or President Kim.

   Lastly, if it doesn’t matter who’s bombing or shooting at you, then what does it matter. At least when the “coalition” wins it’s going to stop.

   Our leaders are, for better or worse, the people we made our leaders, and there are many sides to this situation. It would be nice if those who are against this war could see more than one of them…

   Posted by cypher at 1am on 05.04.03

7. Sorry, but I’m on a roll here. Someone else on this site pointed us to some idiot journalist’s blog which starts (at least today) with

   As the conflict enters its second week it’s beginning to take its toll on the personal lives of some of the journalists based here in Sulaymaniyah.
   Over dinner, two members of the press pack tell me they’ve split up with their girlfriends by phone or e-mail in recent days. With no end to the assignment in sight and no return date, some loved ones have had enough.
   erm… Anyone else think that with all the death going on in that benighted country the last thing the world needs to hear about is some fatheaded journalist splitting up with his girlfriend?

   On a personal level though, tough luck, guys… the bitches…

   Posted by cypher at 1am on 05.04.03

8. Granted, in 1938, that might have been the case, but the case changed pretty quickly, and yes, not everything that happened during WW2 was the result of beautiful altruism: each of the countries majorly involved were obviously in it for their own various ends, as is practically every country which gets involved in a war, be that war justified or otherwise.

   And yes, the UN is inefficient, terrible at dealing with both international and internecine disputes, and ought to be reformed in order to rectify this. However, as regard’s who’s qualified to take action, it’s simply not justifiable for any country—the US or anyone else—to step outwith the boundaries of international consensus that exist, and that each country is party to. To do so sets a dangerous precedent; what if, say, either India or Pakistan was to make some sort of “pre-emptive” strike on their neighbour on the grounds that they were perceived as a threat? It’s too implausible a situation, but could you imagine the UN acceding to that? Just sitting back and saying “well, they’ve made their choice, and there’s not much we can do about it”?

   Like I said, I agree that the UN isn’t best placed to deal with this, and their list of disastrous lack of interventions stretches back to the time of the UN’s formation, but—and this is a big but—that doesn’t give the US, or any other country, the right to unilaterally (or maybe bilaterally, with British support; after all, how many “coalition” countries are actually providing more than verbal agreement) intervene, particularly if the worldwide body to whicch they are supposed to adhere has not backed the enterprise.

   Maybe I was a little flippant with that remark about threats to US interests, but I think it does have some credence, particularly when you look at the way the US (and, for that matter, the UN) consistenly ignored/sold arms to the Iraqi regime which enabled it to gas its own people and invade neighbouring countries.

   I’d love to see Iraq rid of Saddam Hussein as well, but I’m not convinced that when the “coalition” “win” it’ll just stop. Should the “coalition” win, then I suspect that the US (and the UK, though they’re a minority character in this particular game) will feel it’s been given carte blanche to then invade Syria and Iran, as well as any other country in the region they feel like invading.

   As regards running rings round the UN, ignoring security council resolutions, refusing weapons inspectors access, lying about chemical weapons programs and so on, Iraq, as devious as they’ve been, still have nothing on Israel (and then there’s America, who have recently decided to ignore both nuclear anti-proliferation treaties, as well as those signed to prevent further investment in chemical and biological weapons, and refuse to let independent UN inspectors inside military installations).

   Yes, there’s obviously been a good case for getting rid of Saddam Hussein for years, but it’s not the case that’s been made in an attempt to justify this war. And quite simply, I don’t trust the US administration to be the ones to do the best job. I can’t think of a single country that they’ve intervened in since 1945 which resulted in a democracy being installed, but I can think of plenty where a democracy, however flawed it might have been, was replaced by a brutally autocratic head of state willing to do business with the US (Chile being a prime example).

   Yes, there are many sides to this situation, and I’m sure you could find quotes from as many Iraqis who want to get rid of their leader as I could find quotes from Iraqis who want the “coalition” forces to withdraw. Thing is, there are better means of resolving this than the current war; diplomacy, to use a hackneyed phrase, had not been exhausted; indeed Hans Blix has said recently that given more time, the inspection and dismanlting of Iraq’s weapons would probably been possible, because he believed that the inspections process was working. That’s not to say it would have been a cakewalk, as it were, but surely a peaceful means of disarming the Iraqi regime, would be preferable.

   A final point: our leaders might be the people who, for better or worse, the people we made our leaders, but that doesn’t mean we have to (i) accept that they’re always right or (ii) not make ourselves heard when we fell they’re not doing the right thing, or that they’re doing something for the wrong reasons.

   Posted by Leon at 1am on 05.04.03

9. Oops. That’s rather long-winded and full of spelling mistakes.

   Posted by Leon at 2am on 05.04.03

10. What’s interesting is that I agree with almost everything you say and still come up with the opposite interpretation.

    Let me see if I got this right: the UN is inefficient as presently constituted in dealing with international crises; yet the UN is the only authority which should be allowed to deal with international crises. Hmmm. It’s not just inefficient, it is incapable. Its inaction has directly led to the death of millions of human beings, all in the name of some bogus “international concensus”. I originally interfered in this discussion to point out that it was through the UN that the Iraqi regime has been allowed to continue its muderous ways. After the Alliance victory in 1991 the UN told the Alliance, “Thus far and no further… Let us, the international community, take it from here.” And so the Alliance went no further. And the UN did… nothing. Sanctions were imposed which hurt only the Iraqi people; they imposed an oil for food programme which actually helps Hussein, since Iraq’s oil is now sold through intermediaries who kick back 20% of the proceeds directly to the government. And Hans “Give me just a little more time” Blix. Well, in Christine Keeler’s famous words, he would say that, wouldn’t he?

    Does anyone now doubt the justice of the 1991 war? They did at the time, but I honestly can’t remember on what grounds. I honestly can’t imagine on what grounds. War really does conform to Clausewitz’s dictum of “diplomacy by other means”. And this one more than most. Remember back in November last year - we all knew what Resolution 1441 meant. The inspections process was restarted only through the threat of imminent war 1441 proposed; the war became inevitable exactly at the moment that the perfidious cheese-eating surrender monkeys (couldn’t help it - thank God for Bart Simpson) made it clear that the US and GB would never get their second resolution.

    And they’re being lectured to by Jacques Chirac? The man who actually resumed his country’s nuclear weapons testing progamme, testing 12 atomic devices in the South Seas in clear breach of agreed international conventions, and thus giving tacit permission to, inter alia, countries like India, Pakistand and Isreal to do the same? The friend of Robert Mugabe? The man whose principal drive to power at the last election was to avoid impeachment for political and financial offences (allegedly) commited while in the second-highest office in the land. Bring back Dick Nixon, I say…

    You grant that at the start of the Second War noone much minded about Hitler except a handful of visionary politicians (oh, some Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, Hungarians, Austrians, a few Jews, gypsys, homosexuals etc etc), then refuse to grant that - just perhaps - someone might know a little more than you or I. You draw parallels with Israel - forgive me, but I just don’t see where you can go with that. Sure, Israel is this that and the next thing - but to say that it is worse than Iraq, or even comparable, is hardly a serious argument. I bow to no man in my distaste for Ariel Sharon, in my disgust for his role in, among other things, the massacres and Sabra and Shatila or his deliberate rekindling of the Intifada. But what of it? The major factor keeping a monster like Sharon in (democratically elected) power is precisely the ordinary Israeli citizen’s fear of a greater monster like Saddam Hussein.

    By all means don’t trust the US administration. By all means hold it to account. But you can hold it to account - which you cannot the UN, nor Saddam Hussein.

    Posted by cypher at 12pm on 05.04.03

11. Amazing how ppl change.

    Posted by Tora at 1pm on 05.04.03

12. Regarding the UN: as it currently exists, yes, it’s in some situations worse than useless, and like many a huge beaureaucracy, is about as fast-acting and sharp on its toes as was the average brontosaurus. The thing with the UN is that it doesn’t just exist as an organisation which ought to be pro-active (and god knows, it ought to have been a lot more pro-active in any number of situations in the past); it is also supposed to exist as a bulwark against dangerous behaviour, and though it’s pretty terrible at doing that as well, that doesn’t mean it necessarily has to be terrible.
    It’s not something that’s going to happen overnight, and any reform embarked upon now will doubtless come too late to affect the current situation, but there needs to be some international body to which countries agree to abide by. Otherwise, what’s to stop a descent into various regional (and global) power struggles between nations who don’t care about even appearing to adhere to some form of international convention?
    Chirac, as you said, restarted nuclear testing in the South Seas, thus giving tacit permission to other countries to do the same; likewise, the US invasion of Iraq creates a situation where other countries can attempt to justify themselves in following suit. Chirac may be a pretty odious politician, but I can’t think of a western leader who isn’t, at this point in time; none of them have a cast-iron alibi when it comes to disgraceful international behaviour, internal corruption, vote-rigging, and support for brutal African regimes in some respect or other. (The idea of any of them upbraiding their fellow leaders for moral transgressions is a cruel joke, really.)

    As I’m sure you know, Israel have ignored a far greater number of UN resolutions than Iraq. I don’t want to get into a points-scoring “Israel is bad because x, y, z” kind of a debate, and I’m not about to start chanting “Intifada! Intifada!” What I will say, though, is it’s hypocrisy of the most obvious and base kind to invade one country on the pretext of liberating its people whilst not only allowing but funding the oppression of part of another country’s population, simply because that country is your political ally.

    Anyway, I digress.
    The reasons that I’m opposed to this particular bit of neo-conservative colonialism you already know, and I’m not going to act like a British tourist abroad by shouting louder when you already know what I’m saying. What I was trying to say when I started this reply was that there needs to be serious and urgent reform of the entire structure of the UN, because the world isn’t able to function in any just way at all without some form of international body. That the one we are stuck with now is awful at its job isn’t a reason for ditching the good intentions with which it was originally set up, and that the UN as it currently stands is almost impossible to hold to account is no reason for there not being a body which can be held to account.
    Even if I was an American citizen, I’d be hard pushed to hold the US to account; sure, I could vote and hope that the electronic voting systems being brought into the use in the US (developed and manufactured by Republican party donors) are fair, even though the company which built them refuses to let anyone inspect their inner workings (business confidentiality overrides clear and transparent democracy, y’see?). I could protest in the street (as I have done here), hope that enough people feel the same way, and hope that I don’t get demonised by the media for being some sort of cheese-eating surrender monkey. However, that’s pretty limited, and the Bush administration has proved time and again that the only people it is accountable to are its major donors.

    The US has made it clear that it sees itself as some sort of moral force for good, the good being their best interests, and an increasingly unaccountable US administration, which aims to establish military dominance across the world (and in space) is, to me, a far more frightening thing than a UN which at least, somewhere along the line, has the potential to be a good thing.

    Posted by Leon at 2pm on 05.04.03

13. Like I say, I agree with pretty much all of that - and still come to the opposite conclusion. The only point of disagreement between either side of this debate (glablly, not just here) seems to be that one side thinks that the USA (and, presumably GB and Australia at the least, since they are also sending troops) is a force for evil. I think it is / they are, on balance, a force for good, Republicans notwithstanding. And if I have to wink at a little hypocrisy, a little financial corruption, and perhaps even quite a lot of arrogance on the way to seeing the Iraqi regime neutralised I’m happy to wink like a Belisha beacon…

    We have to trust our leaders, in this case. unless we can demonstrate that they cannot be trusted. It can be demonstrated of the UN - it cannot (at least in the broader sense) be demonstrated of Tony Blair or GW Bush or Joh Howard. If you don’t trust them who can you trust?

    Look at the quote again.
    Exceeding the U.N.’s mandate would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. That principle was first established by the US-led alliance in 1991; the UN took the principle in hand and… let it slip away - it took no action in Somalia, or Rwanda, or Zimbabwe, or even Bosnia except to send in peacekeeping troops who made it easier for genocide to happen. It does not even have a policy about what to do about Iraq.

    You say that, if you were an American citizen, you’d be hard pressed to hold your government to account. Well, that’s democracy, and it’s more than the Iraqis get. In a democracy your voice is uniquely important, but it only has meaning if everyone else agrees with you. If they don’t it means, unfortunately, that you’re wrong. ‘Til next time round. Or until you actively join the establised political process.

    I get the feeling that those making the loudest noise about Iraq are among the, what, 41% of people (myself among them, mea culpa) who didn’t bother to vote in 2001. We only get to tell our leaders what to do once every five years - after that they tell us what to do. So we gotta make sure we pick a good one… Just thank your Gods it wasn’t little Charlie Kennedy.

    Posted by cypher at 5pm on 05.04.03

14. Do we have to trust our leaders? At any time? I’m not so sure. Opening this question up, and looking beyond the situation we’re in at the moment, I’d argue that on balance it’s our responsibility to keep check on those whom we elect, and to vote them out of office if we think they’re not acting responsibly. Rather than approach this from the viewpoint that we should trust our leaders until they have proved themselves untrustworthy (which they sadly do too often), shouldn’t we be asking them that they have to earn our trust in the first place? (Okay, voting them into office is an acknowledgement that we do trust them, but it’s not enough for leaders to rest on those particular laurels, such as they may be; they have to earn the right to stay in that position.) I’m not advocating a paranoid “trust nobody, smash the state, let’s all live in smallholding communes and knit our own yoghurt” approach here; I simply think that those in power, by virtue of their position, ought to be subject to stringent scrutiny because if they’re not, they’ll do whatever they want.

    That’s a side-issue to what we were originally debating, although I think that it is a related one. When it comes to the US/UK/Australia being a “force for good” I don’t think you can sideline the Republican element, given that in the past three years US foreign policy has been crafted by the Christian fundamentalists at the heart of the Bush administration. Any subsequent US administration is going to find it very hard indeed to repeal the staggering tax cuts implemented since January 2001, and will face huge opposition if they attempt to scale back the proposed 3.8% increase in the defence budget proposed for 2004, not only from Congress (who knows which party will hold the balance of power in the Senate and the House of Representatives in 2 or 3 years time?), but from the media. Again (as with the UN) that doesn’t mean that the US, in the future, can never be a force for good, but given the current climate and administration, and the long-term impact both of those factors, it’ll be a long time coming, if it ever comes at all.

    I’d have to strongly disagree with your assertion that in a democracy your voice only counts if everyone else agrees with you; surely when everyone disagrees with you, most of them without question, is when your voice counts more than ever? Because to be silent in such a situation is to be as complicit as an inactive UN.

    Posted by Leon at 6pm on 05.04.03

15. So what would you do?

    Posted by cypher at 8pm on 05.04.03

16. What would I do? I’m just gonna sit here and debate minute points about the nature of the UN.

    Seriously, though, I don’t know. I could suggest various half-baked ideas for some proposed UN replacement, but I don’t know enough to actually come up with a viable alternative; I’m not learned enough in the world of international affairs to devise some alternative. All I know is that I’m going to keep protesting about the current situation, and argue about it with people like your good self. (Which, I have to say, has been far more interesting than debating the war with the standard lunk-headed nutters…)

    Posted by Leon at 9pm on 05.04.03

17. Yeah, I feel the same way about the chat :-). But at the same time I believe that while we do our little nothing there are people dying, and there are honourable people trying to stop it, and your (and in some cases my) honourable objections as to the moral rectitude of some of the leaders trying to stop it is just so beside the point. Something had to be done, noone came up with a better idea, so here we are.

    And today people are still dying. But as the result of this war it just might stop. Not just in Iraq but in a host of places, Tel Aviv and Palestine among them. The shame is that this war is the only idea anyone has come up with. Shame on you. Shame on me. Shame, most of all, on Saddam Hussein.

    Posted by cypher at 10pm on 05.04.03