France and Germany, upholding democracy for us all.

I don’t consider democracy the fundamental issue here. Germany, Belgium or France would not that in no circumstances must Iraq be allowed to possess weapons of mass destruction. However I do share Fischer’s scepticism that a war is the right strategy. (Though does anyone seriously think Saddam would be letting the weapons inspectors in at all without the US Army breathing down his neck?).

If you hold the view that this is all simply a convenient pretext for US geo-political expansionism and securing future oil supplies then any military pressure on Iraq must seem reprehensible. Unlike many in the peace-movement I do think there is a genuine threat from Iraq; I just don’t think the policy of containment has failed.

Scepticism about the justification of a war is one thing. Germany-Belgium-France’s refusal of Turkey’s request for defensive Patriot missiles is another all together. I’ve tried justifying this to myself a number of ways but Turkey *is* a NATO ally, has its own serious reservations about a war, does not wish to participate in an attack, so to then deny them defensive capabilities strikes me as a major error of judgment.

PS why is NATO falling apart a ‘good thing’?

Its just disappointing to see this nationalistic streak rear its ugly head every time there's a squabble between supposed Allies - the Belgians were referred to as 'those chocolate makers' by one tablid, as if that was somehow something to be ashamed of (its a patronising statement of course) and as Ed says you can be sure there will be numerous references to striped-jersey/garlic-smelling/goose-stepping/sausage-eating ungrateful cowards over the next few days/weeks, sigh...

WOOP! WOOP! NAIVETY ALERT!

Do you really think there's going to be an Iraqi attack on Turkey? Of course not. Turkey is just being beefed up (temporarily) to make it worthy to be used as an airbase for the US invasion, an invasion which Washington has made clear will go ahead whether the UN, NATO, the weapons inspectors, 'old Europe', or anyone else approves or not. The veto is nothing to do with Turkey specifically, it's just a timely reminder to the US that international organisations are not just there to rubberstamp whatever US policy happens to be at the time -- even the few international organisations they actually approve of, like old NATO (it's only the new, liberal int orgs they dislike -- the ICC etc. But they're ready to declare 'irrelevant' any org that thwarts their lust for 'blood and oil'.)

I am concerned about the future though. Plainly NATO will collapse, Britain will withdraw from the European Union and US-UK will form their own special alliance, probably with Turkey as well. But Ireland will find its two major trading partners in an anti European alliance! so we will either stay with Europe and become impoverished, or join the axis of cockfarming. Personnally I'm thinking of learning Swedish and moving up north.

Because if Iraq were to launch the tiny, tiny number of remaining missles at someone, it would be Israel. Was it just patriots Turkey was asking for, or ground troops as well? Turkey is far more likely to be attacked by a resurgent Kurdistan than Saddam, and I doubt NATO wants to go about blowing up Kurds.

Actually, I agree, its hard to see the NATO thing as anything other than "old europe" thumbing its nose at the US and is pretty undefenseable.

I am completely against the war, but what Turkey is asking for from NATO are purely defensive measures against the (very unlikely) event of Saddam attacking Turkey. Its very different to not join an ally in an offensive war of dubious means and aims and to not help an ally defend himself from the possible effects of said offensive war.

Momus – As you know Saddam was prepared to gas Iraqi Kurds during the war with Iran (that ‘the west’ idiotically supported him then is not the issue here). The B’aath Party machinery that backs him uses terror on a daily basis to crush any signs of opposition (recommended reading Kanan Makiya Republic of Fear).

Faced with an overwhelming US military attack intent on unseating this elite from power I wouldn’t discount them from doing anything that might help their cause, and yes that includes lobbing missiles at Turkey (especially the NATO bases) just as Scuds were fired at Israel.

I need no convincing that a majority of Europeans are opposed to the war. I’m far from convinced myself. However on this specific issue I don’t see the request for Patriot missiles as another demand to rubber-stamp overassertive cack-handed US policy. Given most of the world already shares Franco-Belgian-German reservations I don’t think this particular decision helped their cause. One of many tragedies in the making here is increasing divisions not only between the US and Europe, but between European states themselves at a time when there remains a real threat of terrorist attacks.

(which is why i dislike the default position — on either side — that this is an argument between idealism and cynicism: when it comes to actual real politics, anti-war manouevres will get just as down-and-dirty ie "tactical")

(which i have no great problem with, seeing as the war will be a catastrophe: the lack of forethought evidenced by US leaders in re the European political as it unfolds before us is just a hint of how little this project has actually been thought through in the white house, how incredibly fatuous and hubristic it is... of course the worst that will likely happen to bush is no second term and the bush name a joke for decades; in the rest of the world, lots of ppl will die to no coherent or attainable purpose)

If you don't think it's tactical rubberstamping on the part of USUK, look at the way George Robertson tried to sneak the NATO Turkey missiling resolution, making Monday 900 am the cut-off point for objections/vetos. Pretty sneaky to rush the measure through at the end of the week and make the cut-off point Monday morning bright and early, wasn't it?

That would only be my position if I thought Turkey were threatened by Saddam. In fact, they are threatened by being an ally of the US (just as, for different reasons, Britain is -- see unprecedented deployment of army throughout London and at Heathrow today -- fucking scary.)

A London street today, thanks to Tony's pro-Bush policies.

They are trying to nip an expensive and destabilising war in the bud. Where are Musharaff's textile deals? Where are Karzai's American bodyguards? The US is a fickle friend, incapable of dealing with the humanitarian and political chaos that follows its 'surgical strikes'. Where is the after-sales service? These are questions Europe has learned, post-Kosovo, to raise. The US is apparently not thinking much past 2004.

The people say 'Iraq doesn't directly threaten us. But America wants our nation on its side in a war against Iraq, to spread the costs and risks of its war.'

The people then ask 'Will this make life in our country more dangerous?' They have to answer that with 'Yes, it will. Terrorism will be a threat even if Iraq's scuds aren't.'

The people then ask: 'Will the US protect us from this higher level of risk?' And the people will have to conclude 'The US will protect us, but only for a very limited period. They will try to fob the protection off onto international organisations like NATO (although in general they're against the world being run by such organisations), and they will abandon us as soon as some other conflict obsesses them. Also, the US will continue to be pretty ineffective against Al Quaeda, which worries us a lot more than Saddam Hussein. Helping the US will make us even more of a target for an organisation the US seems unable to find, let alone defeat. And the US' war against a target they can find, Iraq, will only make Al Quaeda stronger.'

So the people decide 'Let's stay out of this. Saddam is already contained.' Unfortunately, the government of the people's country does not appear to be listening. Hence this thread title. Right to veto = a democratic instrument, to be exercised in the name of the people. In this case the people of Europe, massively, approve.

Germany, Belgium, France and the rest of the UN, all agree that Iraq must not be allowed to posses weapons of mass destruction. That would make “life in our country more dangerous”. Saddam is a tyrant who wished to turn Iraq into a super-power in one of the most sensitive geo-political regions on earth. Had Saddam held onto Kuwait without UN intervention (opposed by Belgium incidentally who refused to sell the UK armaments) he would have been a considerable step closer to his goal. Lest we forget Saddam has already directly supported terrorism in the UK –Iraq flew in, armed and supported the hijackers responsible for the Iranian Embassy Siege.

The people then ask: 'Will the US protect us from this higher level of risk?' And the people will have to conclude 'The US will protect us, but only for a very limited period. They will try to fob the protection off onto international organisations like NATO (although in general they're against the world being run by such organisations), and they will abandon us as soon as some other conflict obsesses them.

Without US military support NATO would have little credibility. There is little balance between US capabilities and the rest. When NATO engaged in military action for the first time in its history, in Europe, in Bosnia, in Kosovo, with backing from ‘the people’ it was predominantly US aircraft that flew in those air campaigns. Without US involvement those conflicts would have been lost. I’m glad they weren’t. Without US involvement Milosevic wouldn’t be sitting in a prison cell not far from where I’m writing this.

Also, the US will continue to be pretty ineffective against Al Quaeda, which worries us a lot more than Saddam Hussein. Helping the US will make us even more of a target for an organisation the US seems unable to find, let alone defeat. And the US' war against a target they can find, Iraq, will only make Al Quaeda stronger.'

This is one of the strongest arguments against a war in my view . Namely the damage it will do to ‘the war on terrorism’ by turning much moderate Arab opinion into radical anti-Western Arab opinion and exasperating an already running sore between the west and the arab world.

So the people decide 'Let's stay out of this. Saddam is already contained.' Unfortunately, the government of the people's country does not appear to be listening. Hence this thread title. Right to veto = a democratic instrument, to be exercised in the name of the people. In this case the people of Europe, massively, approve.

Ok I agree. So long as

a) we don’t pretend that there is no threat that needs to be addressed from Iraq possessing WMDs and defying UN weapons inspectors.

b) that don’t taint our anti-war arguments with anti-Americanism.

I spoke with an Iraqi refugee recently. He can’t wait for Saddam to be disposed. He just doesn’t want his family in Baghdad to be vaporised in the process.

France and Germany are standing up for the multilateral approach to problems that more or less works within the EU. (Germany is in better position to assume the moral high ground in this not having blocked reform of the CAP, plus they were very magnanimous in agree to be under represented in QMV decisions).

NATO's role is over, its time for Europe to look after its own security and it can best do this through ensuring that a gap as wide as that between the US and the third world does not open between Europe and the rest of the world.

Maybe I misunderstood, but according to what I heard from the news, outright denial of protection is not what is being discussed here; Germany, France & Belgium only want to wait until war is inevitable to deploy these missiles, and fear that deploying them *now* would be a provocation. The USA, meanwhile, already sees war as inevitable, and thus sees no reason to wait. So it's not about *denying* Turkey protection, it's just about when we'll do it (and if doing it will even be necessary); in the case that war starts, I think no one will deny Turkey those missiles (if NATO still exists by then of course.)

the Belgians were referred to as 'those chocolate makers'

That's the oddest fucking insult I've ever heard. I mean, everyone loves chocolate, no?

Protection racket vicous circle = 'Become our ally because you're going to need our protection from the people who will attack you because you're our ally'.

Anti-American vicious circle = 'Join with America as it tries, in a couple of short years, to turn previously-friendly nations against it and betray some of the most fundamental tenets of its own constitution -- otherwise you are anti-American'.

Is this (to paraphrase Hitchens) the France that sent troops to Rwanda to try and rescue a client-regime that had just unleashed ethnocide against the Tutsi? The France that currently treats the people and nation of Cote d'Ivoire as their colonial posession? The France who ordered the destruction of the Rainbow Warrior? The France that ignored world opinion and carrried out those nuclear tests? The France that recently torpedoed attempts at reforming the CAP to protect its own farmers?

Any strike on Iraq, and it's a British general strike!

Momus, I'm skeptical that you know all that much about Iraq. Perhaps you do, if so please elaborate. It's just that I hear so many Anglo-American pundits on all sides of the debate waxing "definitive" about Iraq when their seems to be a very severe dearth of knowledge regarding contemporary Iraqi society.

Has anyone noticed the nations most opposed to war and kicking up a fuss have first hand experience of the repercussions of war on their people? Before I get lynched by the my-grandad-fought-in-the-war mob, I know Britain has experience too, but not to the extent of France, Germany and Russia.

I just think that's very telling and wanted to point it out.

'The House committee's top Democrat, Rep. Tom Lantos of California, said in remarks prepared for the hearing that he was "particularly disgusted by the blind intransigence and utter ingratitude" of France, Germany and Belgium, which have blocked a U.S.-backed plan to improve Turkey's defenses against any attack from neighboring Iraq. The three countries, which favor giving U.N. weapons inspectors more time in Iraq, see the plan as making war more likely.

"If it were not for the heroic efforts of America's military, France, Germany and Belgium today would be Soviet socialist republics," Lantos said. "The failure of these three states to honor their commitments is beneath contempt."

The committee's chairman, Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., said in his prepared remarks that "America has fought distant wars to defend whole continents from a succession of aggressors, but the beneficiaries of the safety we have ensured often devote their energies to impeding our efforts to help others."

(Salon)

I just love this picture of the US fighting distant noble wars of principle, defending distant people from other distant people attacking them, only to find the 'beneficiaries of the safety' stopping the US providing the same assistance to other distant peoples when their hour of need comes! I mean, why would they do that? It could only be some sort of client state sibling rivalry. France and Germany, having been 'saved' from Adolf and Joe, are just jealous of Turkey, now its turn has come to be 'saved' from Saddam. Sour grapes! And then, don't you know it, no sooner will the US have 'saved' Turkey and be preparing an invasion of Iran, than Turkey will probably turn round and say 'Hey, you can't do that! Lay off!' Extraordinary ingratitude! Why it's enough to make a benign old superpower just leave the rest of the world to their own devices! But not quite enough.

One way to look at WWII is as a partial loss for the United States, in that we let a dictator as brutal as Hitler end up with 1/2 of Europe.

The U.S. and Soviet Union did indeed break the back of the Third Reich. Now, I don't know about France and Belgium ever being Soviet satelites. That's totally hypothetical and irrelevant.

Saddam is no modern-day Saladin either.

As Chirac said yesterday, there is a difference between a friend and a sicophant. A friend tells you when he disagrees with you. A sicophant never disagrees. It's much better to have a couple of good friends than any number of sicophants.

Now THAT'S a turn-up for the books...

Here's the inauguration speech he should have given:

'Thank you for the trust you, and my party's appointees on the supreme court, have put in me. My fellow Americans, there is a lot to be done now.

There are new federal jobs to be created, on an unprecedented scale, to make big government even bigger than it ever has been. By 2003 I want to see the public sector as the only growth area in new jobs for this country.

There are new depths to be plumbed in the economy. I'd like, within a couple of years, to see the Dow and NASDAQ indexes at their lowest levels since the 80s.

I'd like to see monopolies like Microsoft go scot free. I'd also like to see some of our major corporations fall like dominos as a result of fraudulent accounting practises. I'd like to see any implications of impropriety on the part of prominent figures in my administration left uninvestigated.

I'd like draconian new legislation that lets government spy on people to an unprecedented degree. I want to see new death penalties, deportation rights, and a real erosion of civil liberties.

I will create new sandmen and bogeymen. Some will be really dangerous, others will just scare you.

And I will create new wars! Let's create new enemies, then massively increase our defence spending, all the while cutting health and welfare programs for the weak, the sick and the elderly and making tax cuts which benefit tiny minorities of the rich.

Let's create new enemies, I say, by turning many of our old allies in Europe against us!

I'd like to see a new willingness to lower the threshold to nuclear war, together with a new tactical policy of pre-emptive strikes and invasions of other sovereign states. And I'd like to see all this justified by Colin Powell in the most laughably transparent terms, so that the message that comes through loud and clear to the world is: 'Our country, right or wrong'.

While all this is going on, I want to see our dependence on foreign oil increased, environmental legislation loosened, international agreements scrapped, and our nation's energy policy dictated by meetings with a handful of my and Dick's friends at meetings nobody will ever see the notes to.

Thank you for the trust some of you have placed in me, America! We've got a lot of damage to do, so let's get to work!'

To be pedantic, Cheney was CEO of Haliburton. The actions of their Brown & Root subsidiary don't bother me nearly as much as the actions of their European subsidiary, which engaged the Burmese military's help in providing slave labor for projects in that country (as reported by the Wall Street Journal before the '00 election).

My conspiracy theory senses are now in overload and I fear my tinfoil hat as been rendered useless.

Asa regards the franco-german plan we should wait until tomorrow when it is presented to the world. I am for anything that will avert war.

he has surely got himself into the current fix by sticking to his convictions

(i think it's a mainly good thing — pragmatically speaking — when govts do listen btw, but the principle involved is primarily "i don't want to be voted out of office" mixed in somewhat with "huge numbers of voters so alienated from the system that they take to the streets is a bad situation to have got into")

(when i can work out how to word it i will maybe start a "does idealism suck as politics?/why and how i am a pragmatist" thread...)

France has a lot of money tied up in Iraq (50 billion dollars?).

Russia doesn't want cheap Iraqi oil flooding the market.

Belgium has been promised the Congo back, and access to the waffle mines etc.

stuart, france isnt being principled. and as soon as the war starts france will do a 180 and be right in on the gravy train behind you.

and why should any country necessarily follow what america says? america seems to think that all of the other countries of the world are duty bound to agree with it on this! well i dont for a start

lawrence is correct. the other countries are pursuing their own ends just as america is pursuing its. the only difference this time is that they dont coincide

I would happy to discuss it if you would explain this a bit more. (I read the article upthread.)

i'm due to meet and probably argue with a friend (protest marcher) later on today (it's 5am, and i'm tired and emotional) - i will find it interesting to explore the areas of acts/omissions and double effect theory which are involved in this horribly difficult issue.....
(sort of surprised it's taken so long for govt./media to finally start mentioning them)

MPs are elected and they should have had the vote on this issue no?

>>Belgium has been promised the Congo back, and access to the waffle mines etc.<<

In between various pieces of truth, you have managed to insert utter comedic genius. I salute you and your clear OTM status.

-
Alan

possible brightside to all this: NATO falls apart
― James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 11 February 2003 bookmarkflaglink

Its happening

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-us-troops-europe-nato-2019728

Well the other Donny T seems into it.

linking to newsweek?

I love links.

I don't think NATO falling apart is a good thing. That being said, functionally its probably already been happening since Obama's second term, though only Poland and the Baltics seem to have realized (Finland a separate case who already made their own plans prior to joining)

It does seem like there's a certain amount of denial in Europe about this, even with the exceptions Poland's belated realisation about a changed landscape has been pretty late. In most countries it feels like there's an assumption that its still 2006 and big dog US will ride in and protect, but this hasn't felt like a particularly reliable assumption in at least a decade.