NYTimes on Bush Interview

[Ned]

GePap, the problem with containment was that there was no finality. It would have been just like the cold war -- it would drag on and on and on and on until there was fundamental change inside Iraq.

And Saddam would never have continued to cooperate unless the alternative was war.

[rev]

Then we're down to a question of ideals: whose duty is it to bring 'finality'? The citizens'? The US?

And Saddam would never have continued to cooperate unless the alternative was war.

Saddam didn't even think he was going to be invaded, and positioned his forces accordingly, in order to quell civilian uprisings -- not prepare for US invasion.

[Ned]

rev, it is clear that Saddam was living a bubble of his own creation. Noone was honest to him because he apparently shot bearers of bad tidings.

A man like that is very dangerous. He twice attacked his neighbors thinking he would easily win.

Anything was possible so long as he was in power.

And his sons were worse!

[rev]

Anything was possible so long as he was in power.

Not really. Again, he was a regional and local threat, not an international one. You do him too much justice to pretend that he was a huge, international threat to freedom and safety.

[East Street Trader]

The current position in Iraq can hardly be called "final".

What will emerge from the present power vacuum is unknown.

It might be thought naieve to imagine that what will emerge is a new settled state which is stable and responsible.

Whether the new situation will be more or less dangerous as regards the production of hideous weapons and the support and encouragement of terrorism is in the lap of the Gods.

[East Street Trader]

Originally posted by Ned All this shows that major powers should never go to war. To the extent that that is your point, I agree.

But, if you have situations like we had with Milosevic, Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, use of overwhelming power by the world's great and superpowers is highly effective - much more effective than sanctions.

I am glad we agree about never engaging in major wars. It will be a good idea to make sure our political leaders either agree or at least know they will have to fight any such war on their own.

But there is a problem with solving minor hassles by way of gunboat diplomacy.

The problem is that if you resolve minor problems that way, when a serious disagreement between major powers comes along no alternative method of resolving the dispute will have been developed.

That is the position now and it has been the position since nation states evolved.

The only small advance made in that time has been the crreation of the UN. And a lot of patient work is still needed to build on that small beginning.

If I was certain that enough people take our view that there must never be a major war again then continuing to rely on gun boat diplomacy for small hassles might not be too much of a worry.

But in fact politicians are extremely good at whipping up patriotic fervour. And in the past virtually nobody has managed to resist them.

People are a little more sophisticated, a little more educated and have access to a whole lot more information to-day than in the past. But I don't think that is enough. As illustrated by the reaction in the US to the WTO outrage and to the cheap appeals to patriotism which Bush has been making. But more generally because of the very existence of patriotism itself. Love of homeland is strong and the development of nation states has made it stronger.

So we need to work up some way for nation states to resolve conflict by an arbitral process. In fact we need to reach the point where the actions of states are just as much governed by a rule of law as we nowadays all accept that the actions of individuals and small groups must be. For exactly the same reasons. Accepting that you are ruled by law involves giving up some freedom - to take action against the interest of others - in exchange for knowing that others are bound not to interfere with you. It also means that you know that conflict will be resolved without all the risks that come (whether you are involved as a principal or as a bystander) with doing so by force of arms.

Those benefits are as great - or greater - in the case of modern, well developed nation states as they are for individuals or small groups (companies, businesses, pressure groups, whatever). Because of what will happen if such states resort to force of arms.

It may be frustrating to work through the UN. In any large organisation it can seem like swimming through glue to get anything done. But it will pay off handsomely if the result of seeking to act through consensus rather than in response to the narrow interests of particular nation states is (1) for international arbitral methods to be found and (2) a strengthening acceptance on the part of those who govern nations that their actions should be subject to the rule of international law.

[notyoueither]

What a load of hog wash. The UN as it stands is little more than a screaming mob of a Commons, and a corrupt, veto selling Lords.

[East Street Trader]

It's not very good at the moment, I agree.

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither
What a load of hog wash. The UN as it stands is little more than a screaming mob of a Commons, and a corrupt, veto selling Lords.

Yes. that is what it is: and fault lies with those corrput lords that keep the system like it is. sadly, there is no way to elect out the members and reform, becuase said corrupt Lords (aka the UK, US. France, Russia and China) won't allow change.

[East Street Trader]

How might this be. A resolution invites all member states to agree that a two thirds majority vote will bind everyone subsequently upon the issue voted upon and that everyone will contribute towards whatever it subsequently takes to enforce any rule decided upon.

Let us make the issue to be voted upon the question of whether the law of each member state can or cannot allow the manufacture and sale of land mines.

Conceivably major powers such as those on the security council might be willing for an issue like that to be decided by a strong consensus. It might be hard to explain to their citizens why they should not be in favour of doing so.

I have not heard much good said about land mines and we have all seen pictures of the kids who daily lose their feet and hands to them. And our pockets feel the expense of all the endless clean ups which get attempted.

But maybe a debate would flush out some case to be made for continued manufacture.

Anyway the point would be to try out the UN as a forum for a new sort of law making. True international law (what we have at the moment is just a bunch of agreements mostly lacking means of enforcement).

[Ned]

Originally posted by rev


Not really. Again, he was a regional and local threat, not an international one. You do him too much justice to pretend that he was a huge, international threat to freedom and safety.

OK, I surrender.

Our being there, in Kuwait, in the first place was not justified. After all, it was a LOCAL matter.

[Ned]

I don't think the UN will ever be a forum where law will prevail. It is a forum where war wages by political means, and the powerless combine to hamstring the powerful.

[rev]

Our being there, in Kuwait, in the first place was not justified. After all, it was a LOCAL matter.

There's a difference between being a local or regional threat and actually invading somebody.

[Ned]

rev, as I said, I totally lost the argument. You are right. Saddam was only a regional threat and we should have left him alone. He could invade Kuwait again, and perhaps Saudi Arabia. Whose to care? Those nukes landing on Tel Aviv -- well the Jews are not allies are they?

Yes the only people who were threatened by immediate attack from Saddam were no-account "locals." America had no interests at all to protect in the region.

[rev]

1. Iraq didn't have nukes. They were nowhere NEAR having a nuke.

2. Pushing back an invading force and returning the land to its government or people is different than invading a country and toppling its government. Few on the left or right would not be supportive of an effort to expel an invading Saddam.

3. Hussein's armies were far weaker in 2003 than they were when he invaded Kuwait. I highly doubt he'd get far into Kuwait or Saudi Arabia before the invaded country would repel him, or before the US helped push him back.