Help, I can't find any links

[Occhidiangela]

The issue at hand is more of:

The UN has already shown that it will not enforce its own decress in re Iraq beyond the limited method of imperfect embargo, so the question posed is: is that condition acceptable or not?

Try this on for size, at a local level:

The cops won't arrest the Mayors son, as they are unwilling to deal with the Mayor's displeasure when they do so, him being an indulgent father, yet the son is the person who keeps on pissing on the courthouse marble steps. This causes a slip hazard that not everyone can avoid. Some citizens don't much care, but others do, so someone, a citizen who wishes to see the law against such behaviour enforced, makes a citizen's arrest. In the process, the Mayors son gets a bloody nose, but is brought to the police station. Now, does it make sense that the citizen be sued? No, but a complaint may be lodged against him anyway, over the nose, when the issue is that the Mayors son was pissing all over the court house steps in the first place.

I realize that the analogy is not perfect.

We could rely on a cliche:

"Evil prospers when good men do nothing."

But being a cliche, it is a bit of a throwaway.


In any case, I am still not convinced that 'democracy' delivered at the point of a bayonet will be as well received as democracy that grows from within. The problem is, to get anything to grow, some weeds need to come out of the garden for it to bloom, but one can't say for certain whether or not the garden's sandy soil will support daisies, tomato plants, or venus fly traps. Or any of the above.

We shall see.

[Medicine Man]

Somehow I don't think very many Iraqi's would be amused with your garden analogy, Occhi. Nevertheless, you are right -- very often valid social change begins in violent ways. This war may very well work out to be a bloody but ultimately benefitial intervention. Or at least I'm hoping it will... now that the violence has begun.

As for Democracy in Iraq: I'm sure that a peaceful, represative, democratic government would be the best thing for the citizens of Iraq. What I'm wondering is if they will chose to endorse or maintain such a system? And does it really matter? The necessary qualities of a post-war Iraqi government can be met in a number of ways, democratic or otherwise. If the Iraqis end up wanting to adopt a system similar to Saudi Arabia or Syria, is the coalition going to force them to hold elections? As long as their new system doesn't endorse terrorists, build WMDs or neglect the needs of half the population, should the west decide how they develop?

I think the answers to these questions will go a long way to determining the length and nature of US entanglement in Iraq. Hell, the answers go a long way towards determining our relations with the rest of the middle east as well.

Thinking about the war in general: I really didn't want it to start. Now, from my vantage point on the sidelines, I really really want it to be over. I've just about stopped watching the news - seeing British and American soldiers getting shot up isn't my idea of a good time. It would be worth tolerating any amount of swaggering American bravado just to see the 7th cavalry smash Sadam's regime tomorrow.

Cheers.

[Occhidiangela]

Syria: check out how benevolent they have been regarding Lebanon over tha past 20 years. Their structure is almost identical to Iraq, an autocracy.

Saudi Arabia: An anachronism in the 21st century. What will be interesting to see there is whether or not the sons of the Current King adopt a progressive, and possibly constitutional monarchy that moves them forward, or if they will stay somewhere in the 14th century.

Look to Turkey for a model of how a formerly 'Muslim State' (empire?) adopted a parliamentary form of government and entered the modern world. Consider the risks they take, since the guarantor of the Costitution's secular nature, i.e. the prohibition against the re-establishment of a Caliphate in Istanbul, is the military.

Pakistan has been working the parliamentary form for a while, although some would argue that the present regime represents a set back.

Look to the Islamic Republic of Iran. As I suggested in another thread, my own opinion is that an Islamic Republic, of a sort, is a likely evolution, a reaction to 25 years of a junta. The question is, do the folks in Iran want to move forward or backward?

I'd sort of like to see them allowed to determine that with UN support as soon as the junta is gone. If you apply the South American/Latin American 'Strong Man' model to Saddam Hussein, it fits pretty well.

[Medicine Man]

I've been thinking about it and I suppose that it isn't all that unlikely that the people of Iraq may want to adopt a government of reaction after Saddam is removed. As you mention, a similar transition happened previously in Iran, and the Taleban party came to control Afghanistan partially due to encroaching outside influences. Moreover, the majority of people in Iraq are apparently Shiite-moslem -- an oppressed religion majority.

I wonder if we will see reforms of reaction either during or after the US-administration in Iraq? That would really put our concept of democracy to the test, as I doubt many people in the west (or in the middle east) would want to see another Islamic Republic rise up. While we all may have a legitimate reason to be wary of such governments, overtly discouraging them may paint us as anti-moslem in parts of the world where that won't sail very well.

I'm not really worried about the outcome of this war -- it's really only a matter of how badly coalition soldiers and Iraqi civilians suffer in the process. The only way the US will lose is if the policy makers lose their stomach for war and make a political settlement. Although I'm not in favor of this war, I feel that now that it has begun there should not be any compromise on the outcome.

Crud, I think alot of other things about the war as well, but few of them are worth venting here.

[FoxBat]

The problem here is the singular collective "law".

Alone, yes, it's no paradox. That did need adressing.

However, if we are to disregard only some laws, we have some criteria by judging what laws should be followed, and which not. Take two laws, both of them issue from one authority. We can't appeal soley to that authority to justify the one law, and then disregard it for the other. I'm not so sure Occhi or you are saying such things, but I do hear this quite often, and that's one source of the retort that the U.S. is violating UN law.

You might say police, or whatever official power, gets away with it, becuase they are said authority.

[--Pete]

. . . what "law" was broken?

Hi,

OK, I'll admit I'm playing the shyster lawyer here. However, how can the USA be accused of breaking a law that was never passed? Specifically, the UN never said "do not invade Iraq", it simply did not say "invade Iraq". But it also said that Iraq would face "considerable repercussions" (usually a code phrase for military intervention) if it did not comply. Now, admittedly, the USA pulled an end run by simply not continuing the UN course when it became obvious that that path would not work, mostly due to France's stated intent that they would veto any resolution for action.

So, the position of the USA is not that of a criminal, but rather that of an over-zealous police officer. The USA is enforcing the UN mandates relative to Iraq up through 1441. The fact that the UN, as a body, might not want those mandates enforced does not negate their existence.

--Pete

Bah. As an exercise in logic, this post was OK (well, so-so). But as a statement of position, it reeks to high heaven. Have fun ripping this one to shreds, it has more holes than a fish net. ;)

[WarBlade]

So, the position of the USA is not that of a criminal, but rather that of an over-zealous police officer.

No, "vigilante" fits the idea more accurately IMO. :P

Hmm, I just conjured up a vision of the shrub striding purposefully up a small hill (sporting a single tree) with a hangman's noose in hand. :huh:

[Scorzonera]

The Convention on the Rights of the Child has so far been ratified by 191 nations, only Somalia and the U.S. have not done so. Clearly, this isn’t an issue of the legality of male circumcision. The Convention is about "ensuring children’s rights to survival, to develop to the fullest, protection from harmful influences, abuse and exploitation, and to participate fully in family, cultural and social life" to quote UNICEF.

May it be that the U.S. is reluctant to ratify the Convention because of their pratice of sentencing children to death ? Executions are not very congruent with "ensuring children's rights to survival".

According to Amnesty International "Fifteen US states were holding a total of 82 child offenders on death row as of August 2002". To me, this is a shame.

PS. Do you think speculations on opinions and mental abilities belong in this discussion ?

[Scorzonera]

they were executed while in captivity

These are war times. Don't believe everything you hear.

No 10 has to retreat over Blair's 'execution' claim

[Occhidiangela]

Aaaaaaaaaaack, double post. :P

[Occhidiangela]

Did you bother to look up the crimes that "child offenders" had committed that got them onto death row? Is a murderer at age 16 any less of a murderer for his legal minority? A boy can impregnate a girl at age 12 or 13, typically, and teenagers can kill with weapons, be it knife, gun, bat, or rocks, at any age. Latest horror in the paper was a 10 year old boy who beat a 3 year old To Death! And do your forget those two Brit boys a few years back, who killed the 2 year old?

What is 'a shame' is that they have not already been executed. What is a shame is that they committed capital crimes in the first place.

Your post implies that you feel that "youth" is a valid excuse for a capital crime.

What a load of crap.

[Occhidiangela]

I just was wondering what time frame the "stuff the ANZUS treaty" you were referring to took place, I'd like to do some more reading up on that.

[Occhidiangela]

You will note that Amnesty International is ignored by such luminaries as Kim Jong Il and Saddam Hussein. I find it interesting that AI has had no effect on those places who need it most. :P

Check out the news story (I almost can't believe it) regarding Kim Jong 'Mentally' Il and the decree that all triplets Shall be raised in state orphanages. That's right, shall. They get taken from their parents. (Until I see a news report that I consider credible, I will write this off as hearsay, but three different radio stations carried it this morning.)

[WarBlade]

I just was wondering what time frame the "stuff the ANZUS treaty" you were referring to took place, I'd like to do some more reading up on that.

Where to begin . . .

The ANZUS treaty is a post WWII defence agreement between Australia, New Zealand and the United States for mutual defence of eachother and protection of small island nations throughout the Pacific.

After Nuclear testing in the Pacific and many years getting increasingly more ecologically minded, NZ finally declared Nuclear Free status in 1984 (I think that's the year). If there was any doubt about being nuke free it ended when the French Government figured they could get away with a terrorist attack in sinking the Greenpeace ship "Rainbow Warrior" in Auckland Harbour.

That Nuclear Free status meant any nuclear powered or nuclear armed vessel was barred from entering and any vessels of types normally carrying such weapons had to be searched. Of NZ's allies only America couldn't accept that position and decided that it would "suspend security obligations to NZ" despite the fact that 9/11 came around and NZ and Australia both came running citing the ANZUS treaty.

All these years later outgoing US governments always fire a parting shot when the ambassador gets changed. But Nuke Free is not a government policy any more - It's effectively a source of national pride and Kiwis aren't budging over it.

So time frame is the end of WWII until the present with a collection of related events happening in the mid 80's.

Edit: one century off from a typo :P

[Occhidiangela]

"We have a nuclear capable ship, but will neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons on this ship at this time."

That was our Navy's standard line. The NZ government decided that such was not good enough for them, so they would not permit US ships to call in their ports, unless the US government would certify that the ship was 'nuclear free.'

A real shame, from my perspective, since I know many US sailors would have loved to have visited New Zealand, but the sovereign right of NZ is honored. As well it should be, I might add. It's your turf, as they say. :)

I guess I need to look into the last 20 years of the ANZUS agreements to flesh out my understanding of the recent goings on. Thanks for the summary.

For what it is worth, I cheered the sinking of the Greenpeace boat, personally, for my own reasons. I do not consider ecoterrorism a valid stance, though I understand that there are people who do. On their behalf, they put their own arses on the line, so at least they had the courage of their convictions. That counts for something, even to a jaded old rogue like me.

[Occhidiangela]

Excerpt from an article on this issue. Cato institute, a bit hawkish, I confess. I don't have the 65 quid to buy Pugh's book.

"The United States decided to test the ban in late January 1985 by requesting port privileges for the U.S.S. Buchanan. American officials clearly designed this test case to offer Lange's government the least degree of provocation. A conventionally powered destroyer, the Buchanan was a type of warship unlikely to be carrying nuclear weapons. The only question was whether New Zealand would demand an explicit U.S. assurance to that effect. If Reagan administration leaders believed the Lange government's policy was a bluff, they miscalculated. New Zealand officials demanded to know whether the Buchanan carried nuclear weapons, and when the United States refused to divulge that information, the vessel was denied port access.[5]

The Buchanan incident abruptly terminated the Reagan administration's policy of quiet diplomacy. Washington immediately announced several punitive measures. First, it canceled the ANZUS "Sea Eagle" naval exercise scheduled for spring 1985. It also called off a visit to U.S. military headquarters in Hawaii by the New Zealand parliament's defense committee. More ominously, the United States announced that it would restrict the flow of intelligence information to New Zealand. The rationale for this action was most revealing: American officials stated that while New Zealand remained a "friend," its status as a loyal ally was in question, and the sharing of intelligence data was predicated on allied status.[6] Although President Reagan expressed continued friendship toward New Zealand, the message of U.S. actions was that Washington was through tolerating its maverick policies.

Rather than persuading Prime Minister Lange and his associates to alter their anti-nuclear stance, Washington's initial actions seemed to deepen Wellington's intransigence. Lange denounced the U.S. tactics as "akin to the very totalitarianism we're supposed to be fighting against." While he conceded that the measures were serious and damaging, the prime minister defiantly vowed, "New Zealand can live with that."[7]

What the hell have we been doing since 1991? Pres Bush signed the executive order removing tactical nukes from our combatants. Having done that, a good 80% of the fleet would be easily certifiable as non nuclear at no risk to 'security of where nukes are' and so this policy strikes me as one very ready for review. How the heck Pres Clinton did not moderate that position confuses the hell out of me. He was really big on 'getting along' when and where he could.

Putting Sea Eagle back into place would be a boon to US Seventh Fleet and to our general Pacific posture. With a lot of 'blue helmet' maritimve ops in the past 15 years, I am puzzled as to why Washington has neglected to revisit this with an eye to better multilateral operations in the future as the Pacific Rim takes on a greater importance, as it shall, with China trying to become The Big Dog.

Most puzzling.

A few years back, the US stood down its helicopter squadron, if I recall, who used to go out on the Antartic Ice, VXE-6. Has the US completely left Christchurch, or is there still a cooperative agreement there? My nieghbor in Italy, from NZ, had married an American sailor who she had met while he was posted to Christchurch.

Aaaah, I am out of touch with some stuff that I used to be quite current on.

Update.

AH HA!

The Navy left in 1998, to be replaced by an Air National Guard Unit. So, the US still flies support to the South Pole from New Zealand, it just is not a Navy outfit that does it.

Or has the National Guard left also?

[--Pete]

Hi,

That Nuclear Free status meant any nuclear powered or nuclear armed vessel was barred from entering and any vessels of types normally carrying such weapons had to be searched.

Let's hope that the test will never come. But I fear that if an enemy wanted to make NZ a *nuked* zone, it will take more than harsh words to stop it. So, that policy is akin to pissing yourself in a dark suit. You get a warm feeling, no one else notices.

--Pete

[WarBlade]

Hi,

That Nuclear Free status meant any nuclear powered or nuclear armed vessel was barred from entering and any vessels of types normally carrying such weapons had to be searched.

Let's hope that the test will never come.  But I fear that if an enemy wanted to make NZ a *nuked* zone, it will take more than harsh words to stop it.  So, that policy is akin to pissing yourself in a dark suit.  You get a warm feeling, no one else notices.

--Pete

Well the "mightiest military in the world" certainly had to wake up and take notice.

I love this line though: "if an enemy wanted to make NZ a *nuked* zone"
That's a pretty big "if". Between geographic isolation and a distinct lack of enemies (outside of any "westerner" associations) I feel rather safe.

No, any negative spinoff from the nuclear free stance is purely economical and mostly just involving exports to the US AFAIK. Even that is arguable against the grander scheme of things where maintaining such ideals as this stance adds up to highlighting NZ as a place unwilling to make enemies and a safe place to visit by extension. Considering tourism is the biggest foreign dollar earner that works in our favour. ;)

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . since a military power tried to make all the Pacific its personal playground. "If you want peace, prepare for war." Hackneyed, but still true. Some see a non-military nation as an easy target. It's been happening as long as there has been a history (why do we call it England and not Britain?) and probably will not end soon.

But, the choice is up to each nation. If all goes well, fine and good. But if the faith in humanity is re-payed by treachery (as is so often the case), then tough.

And nations aren't invaded by enemies, they are invaded by neighbors wanting something.

--Pete

[WarBlade]

Well, there's really only one neighbour and since they want friendship, alliance and bilateral free trade agreement (all of which they have) then they'd hardly be interested in invading.

The power that made a play for the Pacific is now on pretty good terms with the Pacific too (a fantastic export market BTW). In the course of that play they fired something like one or two torpedos in coastal waters here. And missed.

I'm not suggesting people shouldn't be prepared for war. I would suggest that the preparation be appropriate to the assessed threat and the potential threats to NZ look to be little more than trans-national terror organizations. We're more worried about earthquakes than invasions.