--- Jean-Louis Couturier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
At 14:06 2003-01-29 -0800, Gautam wrote:
>No. I think that arguing that France and Germany
are
>selfless is, almost by definition, ridiculous -
when
>have they _ever_ acted in such a way? If you say
that
>about the US, it's at least possible. It has
>happened.
It has happened post WWII. Before that, France was
a colonial
empire bent on dominating what parts of the world it
could. The
USA was trying to do the same, but all the good
spots were already
taken. The same holds for Germany except for the
time that they
spent recovering from WWI.
Gautam wrote :
Your argument about American colonial policy strikes
me as insupportable. The US was the foremost
anticolonial power in the interwar period, and this
position caused great tension with Britain, for
example, as the US kept trying to force it to give up
its colonies. Notably the US did not - as it easily
could have - traded its support for the Allies in the
First World War for colonies (as Japan did, for
example).
Your compatriots from that each beg to differ:
http://www.boondocksnet.com/ai/ailtexts/civillib.html
I figure they should know since they were there. I will
give you this. At least in the US a part of the population
was against the whole thing.
When, incidentally, has it happened post World War II?
In Indochina? Well, not exactly. In the
anti-colonial campaigns in Algeria, where the French
general-in-chief publicly explained how a major method
of interrogation was electric shocks applied to the
genitals? That wasn't terribly altruistic either. It
also explains why I find French criticism of
Guantanamo - where prisoners are given three hots and
a cot and never tortured at all - somewhat annoying,
but heck, that's the way these things go. I guess
sinking the Rainbow Warrior probably counts as a
public service, but I'm not thinking that it was
motivated by a sense of human dignity or anything like
that.
Right and I said that were altruistic where exactly?
>
After WWII, the US did indeed show a lot of
compassion. This is
very honorable, but we could also say that after
WWI, it was evident
that pettiness wouldn't lead anywhere interesting.
Furthermore, there
was a popularity contest going on between the US and
the USSR.
Since then, pure generosity from the States has been
scarce.
Really? As George Bush said a few days ago, which
country provides 60% of world food aid?
What if you compare the number with a country's GDP?
Still #1 you think?
Who
intervened in Somalia to prevent a famine?
We were there too. By the way, I'm not french.
Who did
pretty much all of the fighting in Bosnia and Kosovo?
I don't recall anyone else doing that recently. Who
_still_ has troops protecting South Korea? That's a
UN Mandate - where are French soldiers (not, given
France's military record, that we'd _want_ French
soldiers, but that's a different argument).
I don't think Canada has anything to be ashamed
of when it comes to peacekeeping missions.
None of
these things are in our interest by any reasonable
definition of the world. They were, however, the
right thing to do. Kosovo, of course, was only
necessary because Europe made a _choice_ to be too
weak to fight a fourteenth-rate military power in its
own backyard. That was a choice. If you wish to be
taken seriously in international relations, you must,
in fact, be serious. This choice is an example (one
of many) of France and Germany's fundamental
unseriousness. They want power, but they're not
willing to pay for it, and they think they deserve it.
That is, well, childish, really.
Of course it is, it's like saying that if Bush wants
to go
to war with Iraq, then they must be responsible for
9-11.
Quoting the idiots from the opposing side doesn't
> get the
discussion anywhere.
Unfortunately, except for Prof. Hoffmann, there isn't
a whole lot on the other side. And even Prof.
Hoffmann wasn't up to his usual standards, I'm sad to
say. There is fairly intelligent argument about
whether this war is a good idea - I hadn't really
_decided_ until a few weeks ago, to be honest. I just
don't see any from our erstwhile allies. They aren't
interested in the people of Iraq, and they don't
really seem to care if Saddam gets weapons of mass
destruction. It won't be their problem if that
happens - as usual, we would have to clean up the
mess.
Hey, it's possible that the war is a good idea. I'm
just saying that the US should be the first to agree
that there needs to be due process. Right now, I'm
waiting for proof. Nice speeches aren't proof.
Show me the weapons.
> I don't agree. They would probably let Saddam stay
where he is just because there's no good way to oust
him. That's the problem with this situation. The
US
has decided on its own that enough was enough. It
is
making up the rules as it goes and what the world,
including french and germans, are thinking is:
what's it
going to be next time? We're at a point in world
politics
where we can start interfering in other countries'
business.
That's all good and fun, but there should be rules
and the
rules shouldn't be written by just one country. If
the US
insists on playing by its own rules, it should
expect that
many countries won't want to play.
Jean-Louis
Let's be really clear on this. French and German
policy has consistently been to weaken any and all
attempts to depose or weaken Saddam. Do you disagree
with this? They have consistently advocated lifting
the sanctions, they crippled the first and second
inspection regimes, and so on. What in that record
makes you believe that they have anything but an
active preference that Saddam remain in power? Where
is there _any_ evidence in the record of the last 12
years that they would lift a finger to remove him?
Like I said, they won't. Once they've decided they
won't, they'll try and profit from him as much as they
can.
Second, you keep talking about the rest of the world,
but the rest of the world doesn't agree with you.
Britain doesn't. Australia doesn't. Spain, Portugal,
Italy, and all of Eastern Europe just came out on our
side. So by "the rest of the world" you mean France,
Germany, and a bunch of dictatorships.
Actually, I'm talking about people. Remember when
you said that you had a good opinion of the population,
just not the elites? Polls say that the population is
opposed to war in Iraq unless it is sanctioned by the UN.
Not very far from the french position which consists of
refusing to agree to anything until proof is found.
You've been saying or weeks that you have the proof.
We're still waiting.
Well, okay,
but, well, that's not a compelling argument to me. UN
Resolution 1441 was approved unanimously. It was
unambiguous about the consequences of a material
breach. Hans Blix was unambiguous in stating that
Iraq is, in fact, in material breach. So, having
approved those actions, France and Germany are
essentially saying "We didn't mean it last time!"
Again, fundamentally they are unserious. Or more
accurately, they are very serious, they're just not
serious about disarming Hussein - they're playing a
very different game, and it's time we (the United
States) recognized that and treated them that way.
The argument about interfering in other countries
internal affairs is, I'm afraid, kind of specious.
Who were the foremost advocates of intervening in
Kosovo? Well, that would be France and Germany,
right? That was an internal affair. What was
happening in Serbia wasn't _nearly_ as bad as what
happens routinely in Iraq. So if your argument is
based on the Westphalian principle, then the same
people defending it now were more than eager to
overthrow it earlier. Nor has France (for example)
been all that enthusiastic about the rules when it
intervened in the Ivory Coast or Rwanda (in that
particular case, _on the side of_ the people
committing genocide). So where were the rules then?
You talk about rules, but in point of fact, it's the
US and its allies that are taking the rules seriously.
Rules only have meaning if someone enforces them.
The rules are, in this case, the relevant Security
Council resolutions. We want to enforce them. France
and Germany wish _not_ to enforce them. But if you
want to argue that the rules are important, the
argument that the rules are important, so the most
important thing we can do is do nothing when they are
flouted - that's not such a good one.
Finally, you mention that the US wants to write the
rules. Partly, that's what a hegemon does. The
extent to which the US actually plays by the rules is
pretty remarkable, but _of course_ it has a
disproportionate role in writing the rules. That's
pretty much the definition of a hegemon. But the US
does all of the heavy lifting of enforcing the rules.
Its our soldiers around the world who take the risks
and pay the price for maintaining those rules. If you
want to have more influence on those rules, the US is
unique among all the hegemons in history that _it
encourages other countries to do so_. We _want_ the
other democracies of the world to put more effort into
writing those rules. The coin of the realm is simple.
Do some of the work of defending them. The choice
not to do so marks those who criticize them as
fundamentally unserious. In political science they're
termed free riders, but in common use the word is
usually parasites, isn't it? If you don't pay the
piper, you don't get to call the tune.
Gautam
It seems to me that the many countries have been
trying to set up rules that define what is unacceptable
behavior for leaders. They have done so by creating
a world court. Now not only is the US refusing to
participate in its operations, it's actually trying to
sabotage the whole deal. I don't call that encouraging
others to participate.
Jean-Louis
P.S. By the, nice renaming of the subject. The previous
one was there mostly because it looked better than
Re: Brin-L Digest #X
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
