newcity
Well, it's slow here in Corvallis. I'm sitting in my hotel room actually watching CSPAN. Yeah, it's that slow.
CSPAN carried France 2, a network TV program with English subtitles. It was a very well balanced presentation of the day's events, focusing on Blix's report, and the shortcomings of Iraq's compliance. The network also had a good report on US and UK efforts to protect the Kurds.
CSPAN now is carrying a debate in the Canadian House of Commons (CSPAN and the Canadian House....yeah I know it's boring!). Anyhow, PM Jean Chretien is getting a grilling from Stephen Harper, the leader of the Opposition, on what actions Canada is taking to work with the US and UK to prepare for war, now that Blix states Iraq is in noncompliance. Chretien does a good job of not answering questions. One member slammed Chretien on the condition of the Canadian military. I'm certainly no expert, but have seen reports that the Canadian Navy is in pretty sorry shape.
Chretien has finally said that Canada will not commit troops unless the UN authorizes it. A straight answer....who would have guessed!
Still in Corvallis. Went to see the Eugene Vocal Arts Ensemble on Saturday. Very good presentation of baroque and renaissance music. It's also quite a change from a place like the San Francisco Orchestra. In SF, the streets are filled with limos, the women wear furs, the men expensive suits. To a blue-jean wearing engineer like me, it's some show. In Eugene, the audience is much more low key. Makes for a pleasant evening.
Will we go to war? And on what basis? It seems legalities, and traditional justifications have parted company.
As Blix made clear today, in the flowery language of diplomacy, there are many 'unanswered' questions about Iraqi WMD's. The British newspaper, the "Independent" has an excellent summary of Blix's charges at:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/01/28/wirq28.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/01/28/ixnewstop.html
The BBC World service (referred to by a few wags as the "Baghdad Broadcasting Corporation") was surprisingly aggressive within minutes after the conclusion of Blix's speech. They claimed Blix had said Iraq was not cooperating, and was hiding its efforts to make WMD's. (The tinny speakers on my laptop truly suck).
There seems little doubt Iraq is violating UN resolution 1441. Iraq is lying, and those who believe the charade is a picture of reality are willing to excuse any lie as long as it postpones war. Blix contrasted Iraq's actions with those of the South Africans; a big difference. Resolution 1441 did not say the inspectors had to find WMD's (i.e. find a smoking gun); it said Iraq had to prove it destroyed weapons it was known to possess from previous UNSCOM inspections in 1994, and later. It hasn't done so. When the Iraqi Ambassador was asked what happened to 8200 liters of anthrax it had been known to have which wasn't mentioned in Iraq's 12,000 page report, he said Iraq 'would' tell UNMOVIC what had happened to it. Of course, they were already supposed to have done that. They didn't. Nor did the Iraqi report mention rocket motors imported last month.
But is this enough for war? War is generally either a defense against attack, or a pre-emptive action designed to forestall an imminent attack (yes, that is legal under international law). There is little sign of this from Iraq. So in evaluating US actions, it appears the world has jettisoned the legality of Iraqi non-compliance, and substituted the more common notion of what is needed to fight a 'just war'.
But the victim in this will be the UN and an international consensus. This is an issue the US administration takes very seriously indeed. If the confusion is not resolved, and UN resolution 1441 is transformed into a whitewash, the US may very well start to ignore the UN (more than it has in the past). Neither the US, nor the UN can afford this. It is in our mutual best interest to decide what resolution 1441 says, agree on it, and enforce it, whether or not that means war. The Germans will just have to live with it.
"National Review" online has Peggy Noonan quoting a 'high administration source' as saying Bush literally is sleepless over concern that Iraq may someday initiate a terrorist attack using WMD's on US soil. That, I think, explains a lot.
It's obvious, the lies of idiots notwithstanding, the coming war is not for oil. The "Economist" (subscription required) had an article about how much it's going to cost to improve Iraq production capabilities over the next 10 years. The cost is very high indeed. In addition, as I've pointed out previously, if we wanted control over oil, Bush Sr. could have had it in '91 when we had troops in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq. So this war is not for oil.
Bush is the point man here. If the US is attacked, again, it will be his fault. Regardless of the situation or the cause, he will be blamed. It takes no great imagination to see that this President, with a strong unilateralist/isolationist right wing behind him, would rather risk war now than be blamed for an unimaginable event in the future. Bush would rather lump Hussein in with other crazed Middle Eastern psychopaths (there are so many), and act now rather than later.
And that's one primary difference between our European allies and us. We were attacked, they weren't. We are at war; they aren't. There is a world of difference in these perspectives.
I've quoted Naipul before on his travels through Middle Eastern countries. He said Islamic fundamentalists believe that if the west were destroyed, the TV's, the cars, the movies, etc., would continue to come. They don't make the link between the west and products of western culture. Europe, it seems, thinks that if the US stops defending the west, everyone will make nice. There won't be any hostility anywhere in the world. It's a nice dream. But that's exactly what it is.
