And Spain and Italy. And a waffling Ireland. Bulgaria is on the wagon (to about the same extent as Romania), and I believe Greece is, as well. Norway may jump in, but I don’t think it has a set in stone policy either way. The Netherlands are (is?) on the fence, but leaning towards Bush.
Except for France, Germany and Russia, I don’t believe that many other European governments are rooted against the war - most are sitting on the fence, biding their time to see which side will give them the most benefit before committing.
And don’t forget that France has a major financial incentive for wanting Saddam to stay in power- Iraq owes them a lot of money, a good portion of which is due to France’s ignoring UN sanctions.
If that were the only reason France could easily be brought on board with a promise that its debt be binding on future Iraqi governments (which may be the case anyway) and promised a share of the economic pie in post-war Iraq.
What is wrong with opposing a war for economic reasons anyway? And doesn’t the US have possible economic interests in Iraq as well?
Does anyone have any evidence that economic reasons play a bigger role in French or German policy towards Iraq than American policy ?
I have no doubt that they don’t play a bigger role. They may even play a slightly lesser role, but only slightly. And I have no problem with opposing a war for economic reasons…I would be in utter shock if a country didn’t fight as hard as they could against a war if they felt it would cause them serious economic harm. That doesn’t necessarily make it the best policy, though. Of course, it doesn’t make it the not the best policy either.
Why should anyone in the world support the Bush clan’s desire for a war? Most Europeans just don’t see the relevance of this action and see it as dangerous militaristic opportunism, driven by greed and personal vengeance. Any other motives for a war potentially threatening the lives of thousands (millions?) of people requires clear proof – and tellingly, the U.S. government has not been forthcoming with such information (citing “compromising intellegence,” etc.)
As far as the absurd “Old Europe” quote, this is yet another variant on the simpleton (but dangerous!) “with us or against us” mentality. He did in fact specify the new NATO members in Eastern Europe in his speech. He was obviously referring to the fact that many of the “New European” countries’ governments feel that they now need to pay their dues and demonstrate their fealty to the U.S. (One may wonder whether he now classifies the U.K. as an Eastern European country or whether he is confusing “New Europe” with “New Labour”.)
But perhaps he should look at opinion polls throughout Europe (and Britain!) as well and not just the cowed decisions of a few governments’ leaders. The U.S. is not winning the “hearts and minds” of many (“New” or “Old”) Europeans these days.
However, immediately suspecting ulterior (oil) motives behind France, Germany and Russia’s policies is an interesting example of projecting the Bush administration’s morals onto others. (Not to mention onto Canada, China, practically every Arab country, probably Turkey, the Vatican, etc.) It is also quite cynical to suspect anyone in the world of wishing for Saddam to remain in power (even though Bush Sr. certainly did in 1991!) But that is definitely not likely to be any European government’s reason for trying to prevent a war.
“Support” is a very slippery thing here. A useful analogy would be votes in the US Congress. On many occassions, a politician will vote for a program or law that he actually detests, if he is assured that there is no chance that it will actually take effect.
A similar effect is probable on an international level. No sane nation wants to piss off the Big Dog, it just ain’t smart. But if they can be assured that the Security Council will not pass a military force resolution, there is no reason at all not to loudly and firmly declare one’s unshakeable support for the US - if the Security Council agrees.
It would be something like me expressing my firm support for the War on Mars: I volunteer to be on the first troop transport going to Mars. Hey, I’m a brave guy.
Don’t be daft, TheThill. Of course they are concerned about their oil contracts and of course they are worried about contract guarantees in a postwar government. And of course that is their main concern. The French, German and Russian governments are not altruistic humanitarians. They are looking out for their country’s economic and political interests, which is as it should be. Frankly, the one European leader that is really making me nervous is Blair, since he is the one walking the most dangerous line here, but he will also reap massive political dividends if he can get the Bush administration to tone down, while putting on a show of support. If he messes up though, I don’t see him as PM much longer.
France, Germany and Russia all have oil and gas development contracts with Iraq. They are concerned about the well being of those contracts - not only guarantees, but the conditions of the fields when they get them. None of those countries really gives a shit about the Iraqi people, outside of a rhetorical device for their own people.
“And of course that is their main concern”
Eh? Can you provide evidence that this is their main concern? There are other reasons they might be concerned about a war on Iraq; for instance national security concerns if the war inflames the entire Middle East.
“None of those countries really gives a shit about the Iraqi people, outside of a rhetorical device for their own people”
Maybe but neither does the Bush administration. And at least those countries don’t blather endlessly about “moral clarity”.
I should note that morally there is an assymmetry between opposing and supporting a war for economic reasons. The former is perfectly acceptable. The latter is questionable. Peace is the default after all and it is upto the war-party to provide good reasons for war.
The UN Security Council already provided good reasons in Resolution 1441. Read the whole thing. You’ll see a list of reasons from the past.
The resolution lays out the requirements for “a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations.” Iraq has not complied with the enumerated obligations.
Greetings yojimbo – link no work december - Always refreshing to see a supporter of Mr Sharon / Likud talking about enforcement of the terms of UN Resolutions……yawn…
In general and IMHO: Unusually complex potential scenario’s to address; the weight of public and political opinion against them nationally and internationally; still no evidence unearthed; 100,000 plus military deploying / ed. Rumsfeld’s sounding a little strained. Pressure getting to him; bunker mentality creeping in ?
I wonder if it’s the realization that they’ll have to go outside the UN that’s getting to him most – that and the ardent nature of the mainstream Euro position.
“The UN Security Council already provided good reasons in Resolution 1441. Read the whole thing.”
As I have explained several times there is nothing in UNSC resolutions which says that a violation has to be punished by war. That is another decision to be made by the UNSC based on the nature and seriousness of the violation and the threat it poses.
yojimbo, you are clearly operating under a misconception, that a cabal of rich and powerful men, operating in stealth, can manipulate the foreign policy of our government. You have us confused with England, where the repugnant “class” system still hold sway.
This is manifestly not true in our “classless” society, which is the envy of the nations, as any of the scions of the Kennedys, Rockefellers and DuPonts could tell you. Clearly, if it were the case, rich right-wing crackpots would have an inordinate effect on the nation’s politics. It would then follow, would it not, that they could have an equally coercive effect on that nation’s tax policies, and would be able then to manipulate them to thier own advantage! I trust, then, that you can see the obvious fallacy of your argument.
No, sir, we have long since thrown off the control of our evil stepmother, England (once known as Great Britain), and have consigned its “class system” to the rubbish heap! We are now free to be governed by Apathy, and better than half of our population are its tepid devotees.
Quite true. It says, “Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;”
As I understand it, Resolution 1441 was left purposely ambiguous as to whether another resolution is required. I think most people understood “serious consequences” to be a euphemism for war, but your interpretation is conceivable.
I think the UN will approve of an attack on Iraq, despite the current blustering from France, Germany and Russia. When it’s clear that the US, Britain and Australia are committed to going ahead with or without the UN, these three countries won’t want to be left out.
First, let me clarify a few things here that I didn’t really make clear in my original posts.
I am, in no way, saying that the French or whoever else are bad people because of their economic concerns, nor am I criticizing them for the reasons behind what they are doing. I am also not taking the position that the Bush has a more moral position than the French or anyone else. And, to be frank, I think moral arguments in international politics are fairly silly so you will never see me talk about moral duties or moral superiority or whatnot - at least I hope not. Please call me on it if I do and I’ll rethink my position.
Now then, as to the main concern thingie…while I believe that there are several other concerns for foreign governments in this case, the oil issue is usually the main one when it comes to the Middle East, at least since the British lost India. Especially since those countries have very lucrative contracts for development with the current government - made even more important by a slow global economy. Again, I’m not saying that it is their sole concern as that would be just as much of an asinine simplification as saying that the US’s sole concern is oil.