More in Iraq, letter in The Economist
Discussion
This letter appeared in The Economist
Interesting angle I thought
D.
>>> Edited by davidd on Friday 21st February 12:30
A letter said....
Right now there are about 100,000 American troops camped outside of
Iraq. Because of that, Saddam has let inspectors back into Iraq. You
and I would agree, I am sure, that if the American troops were not
there, the inspectors, who left in 1998 due to Iraq obstruction, would
still not be back in Iraq.
I think you would also agree with me that sans inspectors, Saddam would
be busy developing as many WMD as he could; and that being the sort of
chap he is, there's enough of a risk he'd use them that we'd really
rather he didn't have them.
Right now France and Germany are saying "peace has a chance - let the
inspectors have more time". Yet those inspectors are only *there*
because of the American presence south of Iraq.
It's an interesting conumdrum. The French and Germans are touting an
alternative to war that only exists because the Americans are ready to
go to war, and are paying for the forces massed on the southern border.
If the Americans said "yes, you're right, inspectors will work - lets
take the troops home", the inspectors would summarily be booted out
Iraq.
France and Germany claim their motive is a love of peace.
Historically, a "love of peace" in the face of violent men ready to use
violence has lead inevitably to war, since violent men do not love peace
and take advantage of those who do. I point at the decade preceeding
WW2.
However, if this is so, should not the French and Germans be paying
towards the upkeep of the military force on the southern border of Iraq
which is responsible for providing them with the peaceful option they
prefer?
If the US Army was not present, Iraq would be obdurate and inpenetrable.
What would France and Germany do then, given the accepted fact the
Saddam would be in the process of developing WMD?
Interesting angle I thought
D.
>>> Edited by davidd on Friday 21st February 12:30
Interesting article. However IMHO it's totally off the mark.
True - though the French / Germans are merely asking for time - not no war. The french have been sending military units to the gulf for some weeks now.
The French position is motivated by 2 things :
1. Oil. The French want US guarantees about their stake in Iraqs oilfields. The US aren't carving out a generous enough slice for Elf so the French are stalling the US attack. Both know there is going to be a war, it's just a case of whether the French get the concessions they want.
2. Africa - France claim to be a 'world power' and thus justify it's position with a permanent security council seat depends on French influence in Africa. African nations are strongly against the US military going in, so by ploughing this line the French keep their credibility with Africa - maintaining their global status as a major player.
This all just happens to happily fit in with French (and msotly UK) public opinion.
Once the UN saction war (and they will) the French will be at the vanguard of nations getting the new resolution signed - calling on its influence over the African nations on the security council to get a unanimous resolution.
BTW, the US didn't pay the balance for the last gulf war, the Kuwaitis and Saudis did. What the financial arrangement is this time I don't know - only time will tell, but I'd be suprised if neither nation paid the US towards the cost of removing Saddam....
As for Germany, I've no idea what Herr Schroeder is up to, though without a veto on the security council the US probably doesn't really care...
It's an interesting conumdrum. The French and Germans are touting an
alternative to war that only exists because the Americans are ready to
go to war, and are paying for the forces massed on the southern border.
True - though the French / Germans are merely asking for time - not no war. The french have been sending military units to the gulf for some weeks now.
The French position is motivated by 2 things :
1. Oil. The French want US guarantees about their stake in Iraqs oilfields. The US aren't carving out a generous enough slice for Elf so the French are stalling the US attack. Both know there is going to be a war, it's just a case of whether the French get the concessions they want.
2. Africa - France claim to be a 'world power' and thus justify it's position with a permanent security council seat depends on French influence in Africa. African nations are strongly against the US military going in, so by ploughing this line the French keep their credibility with Africa - maintaining their global status as a major player.
This all just happens to happily fit in with French (and msotly UK) public opinion.
Once the UN saction war (and they will) the French will be at the vanguard of nations getting the new resolution signed - calling on its influence over the African nations on the security council to get a unanimous resolution.
BTW, the US didn't pay the balance for the last gulf war, the Kuwaitis and Saudis did. What the financial arrangement is this time I don't know - only time will tell, but I'd be suprised if neither nation paid the US towards the cost of removing Saddam....
As for Germany, I've no idea what Herr Schroeder is up to, though without a veto on the security council the US probably doesn't really care...
mr_tony said: As for Germany, I've no idea what Herr Schroeder is up to, though without a veto on the security council the US probably doesn't really care...
Mr Tony, Schröder is an absolute fcukwit and his greenslime Fischer is worse. They are only interested in selling them more chemical plants,. tanks, VWs and Muckycedes, and want to have clean hands after the war and say "look we tried to stop it!"
What Schröder has done by refusing to even PLAN any NATO support for Turkey, which he is legally bound to do if the crunch comes, is show how unreliable the Germans are (in NATO). They only EXIST because NATO kept their promises and did their planning, otherwise Comrade Bolshevik would have been on the Rhine and there'd be no effin Germany at all!
Thankfully the Germans I know from ALL walks of life, know what a fcukwit Schröder and Co are and DO NOT SUPPORT his weasly socialistic actions..........
He is trying to back out of his situation now... but he's lost all face here in Germany because he's a lying swine.
Their Basic Law however does prohibit any war of aggression starting from german soil.. and that may be the reputable thought behind it!
mr_tony said:
1. Oil. The French want US guarantees about their stake in Iraqs oilfields. The US aren't carving out a generous enough slice for Elf so the French are stalling the US attack. Both know there is going to be a war, it's just a case of whether the French get the concessions they want.
2. Africa - France claim to be a 'world power' and thus justify it's position with a permanent security council seat depends on French influence in Africa. African nations are strongly against the US military going in, so by ploughing this line the French keep their credibility with Africa - maintaining their global status as a major player.
This all just happens to happily fit in with French (and msotly UK) public opinion.
Once the UN saction war (and they will) the French will be at the vanguard of nations getting the new resolution signed - calling on its influence over the African nations on the security council to get a unanimous resolution.
As for Germany, I've no idea what Herr Schroeder is up to, though without a veto on the security council the US probably doesn't really care...
Ditto the Russians who lost two key oil supply contracts and then 'won' them back again after a mission went over, following which they came out against the war with France and Germany. As for Germeny itself, Schroder needs to win brownie points at home and a anti-war footing, he thinks, may help him given Germany's dire economic situation.
Its all circles within circles. Love the fact that the US will 'rebuild' Iraq post Saddam - in their own interests of course
am I wrong, or was the rules for re-engaging in war based on iraq failing to stick to its surrender promises after attacking kuwait and loosing
Basically that is what resolution 1441 entails - i.e. technically - "failure to comply with weapons inspectors" is a breach of the ceasefire terms - therefore war is on again without requiring any further resolutions.
Ditto the Russians who lost two key oil supply contracts and then 'won' them back again after a mission went over, following which they came out against the war with France and Germany.
True - lukoil are the company. The US / Russia have negotiating 'compensation' for Lukoil.
Its all circles within circles. Love the fact that the US will 'rebuild' Iraq post Saddam - in their own interests of course
of course the US will hand over control of the _oil_ to Iraq. The oil services contracts on the otherhand to rebuild / refit / expand the Iraqi oil fields will have to go to US companies (there are 2 big companies both US that do this sort of work) - estimate contract value - 35billion $...
Their Basic Law however does prohibit any war of aggression starting from german soil.. and that may be the reputable thought behind it!
Public opinion there has a big part to play - Herr S is also playing out his election pledge not to get into a war. Rather quaint - a politician honouring a pledge!
As much as I hate to see there be war (lets face it it's never a nice thing, and innocent people will die - they always do) I don't see that it's a case of if - merely when.
IMHO, being against this is akin to being a certain norse king ordering the tide not to come in. All I hope is that the US can execute it quickly and decisively. Otherwise all hell is going to break loose.
am I wrong, or was the rules for re-engaging in war based on iraq failing to stick to its surrender promises after attacking kuwait and loosing
Basically that is what resolution 1441 entails - i.e. technically - "failure to comply with weapons inspectors" is a breach of the ceasefire terms - therefore war is on again without requiring any further resolutions.
Ditto the Russians who lost two key oil supply contracts and then 'won' them back again after a mission went over, following which they came out against the war with France and Germany.
True - lukoil are the company. The US / Russia have negotiating 'compensation' for Lukoil.
Its all circles within circles. Love the fact that the US will 'rebuild' Iraq post Saddam - in their own interests of course
of course the US will hand over control of the _oil_ to Iraq. The oil services contracts on the otherhand to rebuild / refit / expand the Iraqi oil fields will have to go to US companies (there are 2 big companies both US that do this sort of work) - estimate contract value - 35billion $...
Their Basic Law however does prohibit any war of aggression starting from german soil.. and that may be the reputable thought behind it!
Public opinion there has a big part to play - Herr S is also playing out his election pledge not to get into a war. Rather quaint - a politician honouring a pledge!
As much as I hate to see there be war (lets face it it's never a nice thing, and innocent people will die - they always do) I don't see that it's a case of if - merely when.
IMHO, being against this is akin to being a certain norse king ordering the tide not to come in. All I hope is that the US can execute it quickly and decisively. Otherwise all hell is going to break loose.
JMGS4 said:
Mr Tony, Schröder is an absolute fcukwit and his greenslime Fischer is worse. They are only interested in selling them more chemical plants,. tanks, VWs and Muckycedes, and want to have clean hands after the war and say "look we tried to stop it!"
What Schröder has done by refusing to even PLAN any NATO support for Turkey, which he is legally bound to do if the crunch comes, is show how unreliable the Germans are (in NATO). They only EXIST because NATO kept their promises and did their planning, otherwise Comrade Bolshevik would have been on the Rhine and there'd be no effin Germany at all!
Thankfully the Germans I know from ALL walks of life, know what a fcukwit Schröder and Co are and DO NOT SUPPORT his weasly socialistic actions..........
He is trying to back out of his situation now... but he's lost all face here in Germany because he's a lying swine.
Their Basic Law however does prohibit any war of aggression starting from german soil.. and that may be the reputable thought behind it!
Whow, that's a stand point and I only can second that as a German.
Hi all,
Some interesting reading with varied opinions to be sure. To add mine to the mix:
As far as the US applying force behind UN resolutions, I agree that little regard would be given to UN resolutions by Iraq if the threat of military force didn't back it up. Is it not just common sense that an individual or country will rarely modify their behavior without some sort of incentive to do so? Peace loving nations will almost always chose to impose progressive incentives to effect change by another. With respect to Iraq, this has been done, from first voicing International condemnation of their actions, to 12 years of economic sanctions, to on-site inspections to insure compliance with disarmament demands (until 1998), each of these has been used as incentives for Iraq to change. To date, they have refused. This not only confirms their intransigence, but dilutes the ability and credibility of the UN to effect peace in the world, their primary justification for existance. This intransigence can only contribute to more trouble in the world as it signals that a nation need not heed anything spewing forth from the UN. In this progession of increasingly harsh incentives, there is little left to be applied but force to modify Iraq's behavior.
Those calling for increased inspection time and greater numbers of Inspectors lose sight of the fact that the Inspectors are there as auditors to measure the degree of Iraq's willingness to comply with UN resolution #1441. Their function is not to act as detectives and locate each litre of Ricin or Anthrax, or every nuclear warhead and Scud missile. Such a function is impossible for merely 100 Inspectors in a landmass the size of California. The Inspectors have, in fact, completed their task, they have determined (as stated by Blix twice in both his reports to the UN Security Council to date) that Iraq is showing no willingness to comply with #1441. This 'Material Breach' of the agreement is cause for the UN to escalate the incentives they offer Iraq to modify it's behavior. A time component for Iraq's compliance is important in both a real and political sense. To allow Iraq to become a stronger threat with respect to WMD is unwise and their ability to extend their intransigence to a UN resolution to disarm dilutes the real power of the UN.
As far as paying for this military presence, Iraq is hardly a poor, undeveloped country like we saw in Somalia, Bosnia and the like. Why then should we not pass this expense on to them? While it's true that the '91 Gulf War's $72 Billion tab was paid largely by Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (total $52 Billion between them), clearly they were invaded or under threat of an invasion. Why would they not be willing to pay for protection from the Iraqi threat? Especially since they lacked the internal means to provide this protection themselves. The US footed $20 Billion of this cost and to date, Saudi Arabia still owes the US $20 Billion which remains unpaid.
Appeasement has been common in Western Europe ever since WWI, so it's not unusual to see nations begin with this approach. To be sure this is currently driven by commercial interests. In Germany's case, since their reunification, Germany has yet to develop a National character or 'Soul', this is something they are still searching for. It's a whole new game for established German politics with so many new factions and voters, so their progress in defining themselves is sure to lag behind the rest of the EU. In France's case, their status as a world power has been suspect since the end of WWII. Their power of veto in the UN, NATO and the EU is one of the few things they posess which gives them any semblamce of an equal footing with the other powers in the world. They invoke it because it gives them real power which they would otherwise lack and it signals their constituency that France is a country they can believe in, so it's not unusual for them to flex this imaginary muscle. As they really don't posess 'World Power', they will inevitably fall into line for fear of being left without a chip in the big game. They are merely playing this scenario out.
As far as oil playing a part in the conflict, this cannot be denied, but it is generally misunderstood. The US does not need Iraqi oil. We produce 52% of our consumption domestically and posess reaserves to increase this production if necessary. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Mexico have pledged to increase production to make up for any shortfall caused by a short term interuption of Iraqi oil (the US currently gets 8% of it's imports from Iraq). And, we have the wealth to buy oil beyond that of most other nations. It is much cheaper for us to merely buy the oil rather than bear the expense of a long protracted war. Long after the rest of the world is pushing Oxcarts, Americans, because of their wealth and domestic supplies, will still be driving their cars. Indeed, Germany, France and Russia need to secure favorable oil supplies and maintain those they already have with Iraq. But that is an oversimplification of their oil interests. In the aftermath of a war and regime change in Iraq, all existing contracts would be subject to renewal, but so would Iraq's membership on OPEC. OPEC is a weakening body having controlled 52% of all oil production in 1995, they currently control only 47%. Should Iraq fail to rejoin OPEC, they would not be bound by production limits. In a country rebuilding from war and trying to raise the standard of living for it's citizens, it is estimated that a stepped up Iraqi oil production could depress the world price of a barrel of oil to $16USD. Russia's oil industry cannot exist if the barrel price falls below $18USD and Germany and France require a $20+USD price to maintain their margins and pay for delivery systems such as tankers and pipelines. So there is great concern about any upset to the current system, by these nations as well as the bulk of OPEC's members.
As far as additional UN resolutions to sanction military action, numerous people skilled in International Law opine that existing case law demonstrateas that no further authority is needed for a Security Council member or coalition to exert force upon Iraq. Indeed, there would be a PR backlash, but additional authority is clearly not required. Any negative PR backlash would be negated to a great extent should evidence of Iraq's nuclear, biological and chemical weapons industry, or links to international terrorism be uncovered.
One must also look beyond the cessation of any conflict as well. Northern Alliance factions, with a favorable backing by Iran are already preparing for a separate state in the north western part of the country currently controlled by the Shi'ites. This is a real possibility which must be considered. So, US self-interest will certainly not be the only dynamic force at play here. Besides, there are few examples where the US did not help create a better country than the one which existed prior to any change. Our history is one of establishing better health care, better agiculture and food supplies and the right of the indigenous people to self-determination. Another real benefit would be the establishment of a moderate Arab state which could effectively shift the balance of power in the Arab/Israeli conflict leading to substantive progress and perhaps permanent peace in the region...Jim'85TE
Some interesting reading with varied opinions to be sure. To add mine to the mix:
As far as the US applying force behind UN resolutions, I agree that little regard would be given to UN resolutions by Iraq if the threat of military force didn't back it up. Is it not just common sense that an individual or country will rarely modify their behavior without some sort of incentive to do so? Peace loving nations will almost always chose to impose progressive incentives to effect change by another. With respect to Iraq, this has been done, from first voicing International condemnation of their actions, to 12 years of economic sanctions, to on-site inspections to insure compliance with disarmament demands (until 1998), each of these has been used as incentives for Iraq to change. To date, they have refused. This not only confirms their intransigence, but dilutes the ability and credibility of the UN to effect peace in the world, their primary justification for existance. This intransigence can only contribute to more trouble in the world as it signals that a nation need not heed anything spewing forth from the UN. In this progession of increasingly harsh incentives, there is little left to be applied but force to modify Iraq's behavior.
Those calling for increased inspection time and greater numbers of Inspectors lose sight of the fact that the Inspectors are there as auditors to measure the degree of Iraq's willingness to comply with UN resolution #1441. Their function is not to act as detectives and locate each litre of Ricin or Anthrax, or every nuclear warhead and Scud missile. Such a function is impossible for merely 100 Inspectors in a landmass the size of California. The Inspectors have, in fact, completed their task, they have determined (as stated by Blix twice in both his reports to the UN Security Council to date) that Iraq is showing no willingness to comply with #1441. This 'Material Breach' of the agreement is cause for the UN to escalate the incentives they offer Iraq to modify it's behavior. A time component for Iraq's compliance is important in both a real and political sense. To allow Iraq to become a stronger threat with respect to WMD is unwise and their ability to extend their intransigence to a UN resolution to disarm dilutes the real power of the UN.
As far as paying for this military presence, Iraq is hardly a poor, undeveloped country like we saw in Somalia, Bosnia and the like. Why then should we not pass this expense on to them? While it's true that the '91 Gulf War's $72 Billion tab was paid largely by Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (total $52 Billion between them), clearly they were invaded or under threat of an invasion. Why would they not be willing to pay for protection from the Iraqi threat? Especially since they lacked the internal means to provide this protection themselves. The US footed $20 Billion of this cost and to date, Saudi Arabia still owes the US $20 Billion which remains unpaid.
Appeasement has been common in Western Europe ever since WWI, so it's not unusual to see nations begin with this approach. To be sure this is currently driven by commercial interests. In Germany's case, since their reunification, Germany has yet to develop a National character or 'Soul', this is something they are still searching for. It's a whole new game for established German politics with so many new factions and voters, so their progress in defining themselves is sure to lag behind the rest of the EU. In France's case, their status as a world power has been suspect since the end of WWII. Their power of veto in the UN, NATO and the EU is one of the few things they posess which gives them any semblamce of an equal footing with the other powers in the world. They invoke it because it gives them real power which they would otherwise lack and it signals their constituency that France is a country they can believe in, so it's not unusual for them to flex this imaginary muscle. As they really don't posess 'World Power', they will inevitably fall into line for fear of being left without a chip in the big game. They are merely playing this scenario out.
As far as oil playing a part in the conflict, this cannot be denied, but it is generally misunderstood. The US does not need Iraqi oil. We produce 52% of our consumption domestically and posess reaserves to increase this production if necessary. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Mexico have pledged to increase production to make up for any shortfall caused by a short term interuption of Iraqi oil (the US currently gets 8% of it's imports from Iraq). And, we have the wealth to buy oil beyond that of most other nations. It is much cheaper for us to merely buy the oil rather than bear the expense of a long protracted war. Long after the rest of the world is pushing Oxcarts, Americans, because of their wealth and domestic supplies, will still be driving their cars. Indeed, Germany, France and Russia need to secure favorable oil supplies and maintain those they already have with Iraq. But that is an oversimplification of their oil interests. In the aftermath of a war and regime change in Iraq, all existing contracts would be subject to renewal, but so would Iraq's membership on OPEC. OPEC is a weakening body having controlled 52% of all oil production in 1995, they currently control only 47%. Should Iraq fail to rejoin OPEC, they would not be bound by production limits. In a country rebuilding from war and trying to raise the standard of living for it's citizens, it is estimated that a stepped up Iraqi oil production could depress the world price of a barrel of oil to $16USD. Russia's oil industry cannot exist if the barrel price falls below $18USD and Germany and France require a $20+USD price to maintain their margins and pay for delivery systems such as tankers and pipelines. So there is great concern about any upset to the current system, by these nations as well as the bulk of OPEC's members.
As far as additional UN resolutions to sanction military action, numerous people skilled in International Law opine that existing case law demonstrateas that no further authority is needed for a Security Council member or coalition to exert force upon Iraq. Indeed, there would be a PR backlash, but additional authority is clearly not required. Any negative PR backlash would be negated to a great extent should evidence of Iraq's nuclear, biological and chemical weapons industry, or links to international terrorism be uncovered.
One must also look beyond the cessation of any conflict as well. Northern Alliance factions, with a favorable backing by Iran are already preparing for a separate state in the north western part of the country currently controlled by the Shi'ites. This is a real possibility which must be considered. So, US self-interest will certainly not be the only dynamic force at play here. Besides, there are few examples where the US did not help create a better country than the one which existed prior to any change. Our history is one of establishing better health care, better agiculture and food supplies and the right of the indigenous people to self-determination. Another real benefit would be the establishment of a moderate Arab state which could effectively shift the balance of power in the Arab/Israeli conflict leading to substantive progress and perhaps permanent peace in the region...Jim'85TE
cnh1990 said: Fischer, ex-Bader Meinhoff gang member(did I spell that right?). How the heck did he get to be the number 2 man in Germany? Anti American as they come.
The Germans I have met are fine but how do they let guys like this in power?
Calvin
No, no, Fisher was never a member of the Baader gang. However, he was involved in student riots in Frankfurt in the early 70s. Actually, he was beating up the police just 25 meters away of where I sit at the moment
. Speaking of the Baader gang, the German minister for inner affairs, Otto S(ch)illy, was the solicitor of some of the members of the Baader gang. Although the current government was elected it is only backed by about 30 percent of the population. The German government has lost lots of credit in its own country in the past few months, not only because of the Iraq. >> Edited by hansgerd on Friday 21st February 16:40
Wait a minute. Up till now, US policy in the Middle East has been a failure. Its lopsided support of Israel is the main reason - Israel lives beyond its means and seems immune from criticism because of US protection. This protection, and America's refusal to condemn, no matter what violations of international law and human rights it commits, only breeds terrorism (which the US is now seeing on its own soil).
lotusguy said: Besides, there are few examples where the US did not help create a better country than the one which existed prior to any change...
Another real benefit would be the establishment of a moderate Arab state which could effectively shift the balance of power in the Arab/Israeli conflict leading to substantive progress and perhaps permanent peace in the region...Jim'85TE
Israel receives over $5 billion a year in aid from the US taxpayer. It is one of the richest countries in the world (16th richest by per-capita income) yet receives $1,200 per person from the US with no strings attached. Surely there are more worthy recipients?
The only way to peace in the region is for US aid to stop. (Don't forget, Israel has nuclear weapons - according to federal law, aid to countries that build these is illegal). Massive US aid only encourages the right wing, and spreads settlements on Arab Land.
I somehow think "permanent peace" might not be no. 1 on Bush's priorities. Sadly, money talks, and it seems to whisper especially loud in the ear of Tony's bum-chum George Dubbya...
Wait a minute. Up till now, US policy in the Middle East has been a failure. Its lopsided support of Israel is the main reason - Israel lives beyond its means and seems immune from criticism because of US protection. This protection, and America's refusal to condemn, no matter what violations of international law and human rights it commits, only breeds terrorism (which the US is now seeing on its own soil).
polar_ben said
Israel receives over $5 billion a year in aid from the US taxpayer. It is one of the richest countries in the world (16th richest by per-capita income) yet receives $1,200 per person from the US with no strings attached. Surely there are more worthy recipients?
The only way to peace in the region is for US aid to stop. (Don't forget, Israel has nuclear weapons - according to federal law, aid to countries that build these is illegal). Massive US aid only encourages the right wing, and spreads settlements on Arab Land.
I somehow think "permanent peace" might not be no. 1 on Bush's priorities. Sadly, money talks, and it seems to whisper especially loud in the ear of Tony's bum-chum George Dubbya...
PB,
Your observations are fairly widely held, but they may be oversimplistic in their scope.
US foreign policy toward Israel is merely a part of it's overall strategy for the region. Our goals in this strategy are many and varied and include, but are not exclusive to, maintaining peace in the region, creating and maintaining US commerce, promoting Human Rights and advancing the concepts of individual freedom. The US uses the possibility of foreign aid as a means of achieving these foreign policy goals. It is incorrect to believe that US aid to Israel, or anyone else for that matter, comes with 'no strings attached' as you assert. Israel has frquently been forced to abandon a position or practice by the US, using their vast aid as a lever to do so.
Israel is the biggest recipient of US aid, but it totals $2.8 billion, not the $5 billion you assert. My source for this is the Congressional Research Service, a support branch of the US Congress who's responsibility it is to gather information on a variety of topics for US Lawmakers to use. See: http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/trade/reports/98-916.pdf
You should also note that the second and third largest recipients of US aid are Egypt ($1.9 billion) and Jordan ($227 million). This aid is in direct response to their agreement to various Arab/Israeli peace conferences beginning with the Camp David Accords in the 1970's. America can, and does, use the prospect of giving aid to modify a nation's policy or practices. This is much preferable to applying military force.
To be sure, there are many problems with Israel, but consider that as a matter of stated policy, the Arab League calls for the destruction of the State of Israel,and has since before it's inception (Arab League resolution #18). In light of this, Israel's stance is not surprising. But, strong as their responses often are, Israel is not terror bombing Arab schools, malls or countries. And, they are not in violation of as many 'International Laws' as is commonly thought. In fact, most anti-Israeli legislation coming from the UN are General Assembly resolutions which are non-binding, and so the use of force or other means of gaining their compliance would be illegal. Where they are not in compliance with International Law, I agree that they should be. But, they have never invaded another state as they have been many times by Arab neighbors who are, in fact, breaking International Law. It would be interesting to see what Israel would do if their dependence upon US aid were not there to restrain them. As far as Israel posessing nuclear weapons, this is merely speculation, perhaps strong speculation. The US, in all probability, simply chooses to avoid the issue. For them to address it, credence is given to the fact, this could incite all sorts of Arab reprisal. Whether they have these weapons or not, bye in large, the world feels they have exercised proper restraint in posessing them, or else, greater pressure and voice would be expressed by the rest of the world.
And, lest we forget, it was the British who initiated this whole mess with their Mandate for Palestine which called for a Jewish homeland in 1917 and later pushed for it's adoption in both the League of Nations (1922) and the UN (1947).
Personally, I believe that if a historical homeland for the Jews exists, it is Poland where 80% of the world's Jews lived prior to 1940. But, Britain and the rest of Europe did not want to partition a piece of land for them on the continent, so they were given barren scrub land in Palestine instead.
The US policy toward Israel is fueled mainly by a very strong pro-Israel lobby which is beginning to lose strength, so this policy will certainly shift as time goes by. Internally, Israel is being forced to abandon it's agressive poilicies by younger people who believe that compromise and acommodation is the only way halt the Arab terrorism they suffer daily. It may not be fast enough for you or others, but it's happening all the same.
It is naive to think that US aid sparks terrorism, especially since the US contributes significant aid to both sides. Terrorism is not warranted under any circumstance. It is simply wrong to cast terrosists as victims, they are not. They are criminals, both legally and morally and it confuses the issue to cannonize them as martyrs, victims or to justify their methods in any light. They lose any right to legitimacy when they attack innocent civilians with bombs and refuse to compromise or openly lobby through legitimate means for their cause.
Equally, it is wrong to villify the legitimate foreign policy of the US. You can claim that it is inneffective, although with greater stability in the region than say Africa or the Balkans in the past 20 years, and a policy which has prevented an oil embargo similar to that in the early 70's (which benefits every country's national economy), one could argue at least some sucesses...Jim'85TE
>> Edited by lotusguy on Sunday 23 February 08:51
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff