I hear you Tom (although I'm not *completely* with you :o) )

→ Posted by: dorian at February 16, 2003 12:10 AM

Very well said. What's getting lost in the shuffle in all this building up to war is the role the US (and UK) had in creating Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden in the first place. Until there is some sort of honest dialogue about dealing with these root causes, I gotta say I'm not too optimistic about what will happen after the smoke clears in Iraq. And the way things are going in Afghanistan, I don't think those types of concerns are unfounded.

→ Posted by: Mike at February 16, 2003 1:01 AM

For someone so edgy regarding "warblogging", your latest posts have been some of your least annoying and most compelling reads (I mean that very nicely). You put into words almost exactly what I feel. I'm not adding to discussion here, I know - just agreeing with you. (Which isn't to say I haven't enjoyed your site for the last several years -I have- but I am compelled to simply nod my head in this instance.)

→ Posted by: Julian at February 16, 2003 1:18 AM

Well said. Your comments have helped me to solidify the very fluid opinions I have about whether war with Iraq is a good or bad idea.

I work in the news business and believe me when I say, every single person in our business believes we are going to war and frankly, want it to happen because war is good for news.

My main problem with the reasons is why now? Why give Saddam a pass for several years and suddenly draw a line in the sand? What you said about working to change the U.N. from the inside is probably the most brilliant and common sense thing I've heard about this whole issue.

Here in the USA when crazy, gun-toting militia men want to 'change' America we argue that it's best to do it through our flawed legal and judicial system. If they don't like that then elect people who will support their ideas. America should do the same with the U.N. Change the U.N. to make it more effective.

Ok, now I'm just repeating what you said but I'll wrap this up by saying that I have this gnawing suspicion that this whole thing is an elaborate bluff. Maybe it's wishful thinking, I dunno. But only time will tell.

→ Posted by: Eric J at February 16, 2003 2:06 AM

All of this makes me wish that Clinton was still in office. In a recent interview with Katie Couric on the Today show (http://www.msnbc.com/news/871318.asp?0cb=-214136125) he talked about it is important for us to go through the proper channels of the UN. He also said that it was important for us to look determined for war versus eager for war. I think that's the problem Bush and to a smaller degree Blair seem eager for war.

I don't know if I agree with Clinton when he said that we don't need another UN resolution to go to war. I do agree with him when he says we have to give the inspectors time.

My favorite part of the interview was “I don’t think the president needs another Security Council Resolution, as a matter of international law. I think politically, if he could get it, it would be great. For the simple reason that, if we had to go without another UN resolution — if we had to go and European powers or Russia or China are vocally opposed to this, then there will always be the suggestion that this was, in effect, a pre-emptive strike. I know the administration has said pre-emptive strikes may be justified in some places. But we’ve never done that. And democratic powers normally wait to get hit before they hit. On the other hand, if it is the UN, carrying out the UN mandate, and we’re doing this because for 12 years he has defied the UN mandate to disarm, that is not a pre-emptive strike. It’s a police action designed to protect the world from chemical and biological weapons."

Sorry for the long post, I probably should have done my own, and trackbacked to you...

→ Posted by: David at February 16, 2003 4:28 AM

Tom,
The UN does not represent the weight of world opinion. I wish there was something that did. What it represents in my opinion, is the interests of the richest and most powerful people in each of the constituent nations. And to be more precise, it only really gives force to the five permanent members of the security council. One look at the Ivory Coast, should tell us that they are not acting out of a humanitarian desire, but rather in their own self interest. Where real justice, and change will come from is an organized and committed public. I am I am thinking of the civil rights movement, the Vietnam anti-war movement et al.

We should also remember the 100 000's of Iraqis who have died as a result of the sanctions imposed on Iraq by the UN. After two administrators of this program quit in disgust and dispair, it should tell us something.

No doubt there will be more opportunities to make this decision, next time I hope you march, because we are the checks and balences for the international system! And it is wayy off kilter from my perspective!

Take care...

→ Posted by: Josh On at February 16, 2003 5:39 AM

Tom,
The UN does not represent the weight of world opinion. I wish there was something that did. What it represents in my opinion, is the interests of the richest and most powerful people in each of the constituent nations. And to be more precise, it only really gives force to the five permanent members of the security council. One look at the Ivory Coast, should tell us that they are not acting out of a humanitarian desire, but rather in their own self interest. Where real justice, and change will come from is an organized and committed public. I am I am thinking of the civil rights movement, the Vietnam anti-war movement et al.

We should also remember the 100 000's of Iraqis who have died as a result of the sanctions imposed on Iraq by the UN. After two administrators of this program quit in disgust and dispair, it should tell us something.

No doubt there will be more opportunities to make this decision, next time I hope you march, because we are the checks and balences for the international system! And it is wayy off kilter from my perspective!

Take care...

→ Posted by: Josh On at February 16, 2003 5:40 AM

Oh, I know exactly what you mean, Tom. I'm sure that your thoughts were also the thoughts of a good many people on the march yesterday. But then, for the sake of clarification, I guess you have to say 'Stop the War' rather than 'Stop Rushing Towards War Without Going Through The Proper Channels and Getting the Full and Unequivocal Backing of the UN First'. This morning, on quiet reflection of yesterday's events, I remain more impressed (stunned? surprised?) that in these politically naive and disinterested days, the UK can actually mobilise millions of people to actively march in protest about something.

→ Posted by: Vaughan at February 16, 2003 11:34 AM

It is pleasing to see some sense written. The reason that masses marched was because they feel left out of politics and the media does not inform them. It is easier to march and talk about 'morality' than to recognise continued contempt by Iraq for the UN and actually do something. The UN is a talking shop and stringing out decisions an international disease. People only react to directly personal involvement and then look for simplistic solutions on single issues. It is always easier to appease than take action. To expect the UN to suddenly become effective after 50 inglorious years is naive.

→ Posted by: Ian at February 16, 2003 1:49 PM

It is pleasing to see some sense written. The reason that masses marched was because they feel left out of politics and the media does not inform them. It is easier to march and talk about 'morality' than to recognise continued contempt by Iraq for the UN and actually do something. The UN is a talking shop and stringing out decisions an international disease. People only react to directly personal involvement and then look for simplistic solutions on single issues. It is always easier to appease than take action. To expect the UN to suddenly become effective after 50 inglorious years is naive.

→ Posted by: Ian at February 16, 2003 1:50 PM

It is pleasing to see some sense written. The reason that masses marched was because they feel left out of politics and the media does not inform them. It is easier to march and talk about 'morality' than to recognise continued contempt by Iraq for the UN and actually do something. The UN is a talking shop and stringing out decisions an international disease. People only react to directly personal involvement and then look for simplistic solutions on single issues. It is always easier to appease than take action. To expect the UN to suddenly become effective after 50 inglorious years is naive.

→ Posted by: Ian at February 16, 2003 1:51 PM

But that's why what needs to be done in these circumstances is look at the problems we're having as a reason to work for the empowerment and restructuring of the UN so that it is able to make decisions like this.

→ Posted by: Tom Coates at February 16, 2003 4:19 PM

Tom, I agree with your final paragraph: I think you misunderstood what a lot of people went on that march for. I was there. It consisted of a broad coalition of ideologies and people from all walks of life, whose sole unifying banner was that they didn't want to see an invasion of Iraq. Beyond that, opinions of people I spoke to differed greatly - some "never" want war waged, some "not yet". But what a turnout. And what a great stand for the will of the people. Short of sabotaging tanks and overthrowing the UK and US governments, I think there is little more that the average subject or citizen can do. To pretentiously paraphrase Shakespeare: those against the war who stayed in bed should feel a little bit ashamed, and hold their manhoods/womanhoods (delete as appropriate) cheap that they didn't march with us on that day.

→ Posted by: Marcus at February 16, 2003 7:03 PM

I found your comments very interesting Tom, and the responses to them. I don't want to repeat my earlier views about the rights of nations to act in their own interests. It is also the case that people and peoples may wish to see collective action for a common purpose, and to do that through a super-national organisation. The two principles are not at variance, and part of the problem in discussing this subject has been a failure (by governments and commentators) to distinguish national interest, national policy (which might include agreements with other countries), and international requirements. All are operative. However, with respect to the structure of the UN, it is out of the question that the operative principles of the organisation will change, and the countries that take part in the UN process do not leave their national interests and policies behind when they assemble on East 42nd Street. They will all use the UN to defend and advance their national, regional and alliance interests. Thus, as we know, France is seeking to bolster its international importance, and to move Europe away from the US and towards a more coherent bloc of which its is leader. German leaders are seeking to hold on to power after absolutely disastrous, mandate-shattering domestic elections, by playing the one card they have left. Russia is very concerned about the prices its own oil will fetch (central as it is to all its plans), and about is numerous contracts with Iraq. The idea that the arms inspectors need more time is a blind. What are the inspectors to have more time to do? To find concealed weapons (that would trigger UN action)? Or to "control" and "contain" Saddam. The latter I assume. The trouble is that everything the inspectors do (and remember how hard it was to get Saddam to accept them in the first place) depends entirely on the massive US and UK military presence that has been built up in the region. Without it, would there be any cooperation at all? How soon would they be forced to leave? How would Saddam be controlled then? Is it likely he can be trusted without the threat of coercion? Even then, what of the poor Iraqi people? (and I so agree with what you say about tnat) The issue therefore appears to me not to be about the policy of the UN (about which there can be argument, discussion and agreement) but how it is enforced. Any threat of military action depends on the US, the only country with the men, equipment and money to do the job. We cannot surely ask the US to keep a force of 250,000 permanently stationed in the Gulf, at its own expense. There has to come a time when it will be used or not. But I did not receive that message from the protest marches. They did not say "WAR: Not now, but if and when it becomes necessary". No. They said "America=Evil" and "Bush=Hitler" and "War=Oil" and No War, and Make Tea Not War, and No Attack on Iraq. If Bush and Blair followed the demands of the protesters they would immediately disengage all armed forced and remove them from the Gulf. THEN what would the UN do?

→ Posted by: charlie b. at February 17, 2003 1:38 AM

I found your comments very interesting Tom, and the responses to them. I don't want to repeat my earlier views about the rights of nations to act in their own interests. It is also the case that people and peoples may wish to see collective action for a common purpose, and to do that through a super-national organisation. The two principles are not at variance, and part of the problem in discussing this subject has been a failure (by governments and commentators) to distinguish national interest, national policy (which might include agreements with other countries), and international requirements. All are operative. However, with respect to the structure of the UN, it is out of the question that the operative principles of the organisation will change, and the countries that take part in the UN process do not leave their national interests and policies behind when they assemble on East 42nd Street. They will all use the UN to defend and advance their national, regional and alliance interests. Thus, as we know, France is seeking to bolster its international importance, and to move Europe away from the US and towards a more coherent bloc of which its is leader. German leaders are seeking to hold on to power after absolutely disastrous, mandate-shattering domestic elections, by playing the one card they have left. Russia is very concerned about the prices its own oil will fetch (central as it is to all its plans), and about is numerous contracts with Iraq. The idea that the arms inspectors need more time is a blind. What are the inspectors to have more time to do? To find concealed weapons (that would trigger UN action)? Or to "control" and "contain" Saddam. The latter I assume. The trouble is that everything the inspectors do (and remember how hard it was to get Saddam to accept them in the first place) depends entirely on the massive US and UK military presence that has been built up in the region. Without it, would there be any cooperation at all? How soon would they be forced to leave? How would Saddam be controlled then? Is it likely he can be trusted without the threat of coercion? Even then, what of the poor Iraqi people? (and I so agree with what you say about tnat) The issue therefore appears to me not to be about the policy of the UN (about which there can be argument, discussion and agreement) but how it is enforced. Any threat of military action depends on the US, the only country with the men, equipment and money to do the job. We cannot surely ask the US to keep a force of 250,000 permanently stationed in the Gulf, at its own expense. There has to come a time when it will be used or not. But I did not receive that message from the protest marches. They did not say "WAR: Not now, but if and when it becomes necessary". No. They said "America=Evil" and "Bush=Hitler" and "War=Oil" and No War, and Make Tea Not War, and No Attack on Iraq. If Bush and Blair followed the demands of the protesters they would immediately disengage all armed forced and remove them from the Gulf. THEN what would the UN do?

→ Posted by: charlie b. at February 17, 2003 1:39 AM

This is very much how I feel.
Though I'm not for a war... It DOES have a lot more to do with feeling bullied, embarrassed, and inappropriate.
The people in power in the U.S. these days rarely seem to adequately or accurately represent this American.

→ Posted by: Chloe at February 17, 2003 2:37 AM

Wow.. someone wishes Clinton was back in office. In desperate times, we need a man with absolutely no morals.

As another one of your astute readers pointed out, the march wasn't for peace, but rather an anti-American march. Bush=Hitler?

Does anyone with a half a brain not realize that SH has been a dictator since 1979? He was elected with 100% of the vote in his last election. I guess nobody caught the CNN special about the Iraq citizens that protested against the govt and were taken away and never heard from again.

We deserve the right to defend ourselves and we will do it, with or without the UN. Since when does France represent the common man's point of view? France is afraid that if they make a stand toward terrorism they will be the target of future attacks. I may have lost my mind, but didn't they have one of their oil tankers hit by terrorists?

I'll leave you with this.

"America is often said to be a 'hyper power,' yet our actions are
repeatedly frustrated by an endless train of objections and obstacles.
America has fought distant wars to defend whole continents from a
succession of aggressors, but the beneficiaries of the safety we have
ensured often devote their energies to impeding our efforts to help
others," Hyde said. "We shoulder burdensome responsibilities for the
benefit of the entire globe, but too often we must do so alone."

→ Posted by: Frank [American] at February 17, 2003 3:06 AM

yeah, i'm kind of ambivalent too :) so are iraqis!

→ Posted by: kenny at February 17, 2003 4:58 AM

Spot on, and I agree fully. (I was only in the march long enough to get back to my hotel. Ack.)

Here's the crux for me: I agree that the UN should not be flaunted or ignored as an international body. But who is doing the flaunting? Iraq, for its continued lack of compliance with declarations? The UN, for not enforcing the consequences of those declarations? Or the US, who has rushed headlong to enforce its will before the UN can decide?

I don't mean to spin that question towards any particular answer. Frankly, I think it's a bit of all three. But that's the main difference I've seen (re: the UN) between Europe and the US. Over here, it's Iraq that ignores the UN. Over there, it's the US.

→ Posted by: Mike at February 18, 2003 3:13 PM

I'd feel more a lot more comfortable with a war against Iraq if it had UN backing, and it would have been hypocritical to march against it.

Can someone tell me what interests the UN was protecting in East Timor and Kosovo?

→ Posted by: Sam at February 19, 2003 12:42 AM