Tuesday, March 18, 2003

Another Success for Bush Diplomacy! Who needs treaties? Who needs alliances? Who needs security? Who needs diplomacy?   We’ve got dubya-dubya III all lined up!   The Russians agree: the only thing the US under Bush respects is the law of the jungle… and nukes too.   Russia Delays Ratifying Nuclear Treaty With U.S. Legislators Say White House Setting Stage for World War By Sharon LaFraniere Washington Post Foreign Service Tuesday, March 18, 2003; 4:14 PM   MOSCOW, March 18 -- The lower house of the Russian parliament today put off a vote on ratification of a U.S.-Russia arms control treaty after angry legislators accused the Bush administration of setting the stage for a world war.   Duma leaders said the dramatic cuts in nuclear warheads envisioned under the treaty should not be considered at a time when the United States has flaunted international law and tried to strong-arm countries such as Russia that objected to its policy on Iraq. The vote had been scheduled for Friday.   Duma speaker Gennady Selezynoz, who until recently was a Communist Party member,suggested the accord might be shelved indefinitely if the United States invades Iraq, because an attack would usher in "the law of the jungle" in international relations.   "The strong will trample the weak. And we don't want to be weak. Therefore we will still need the missiles," he said.   Other lawmakers predicted that the treaty would be approved, perhaps as soon as the Duma resumes work on April 1 after a break. "The deputies are angry," said Sergei Shishkaryov, deputy head of the Duma's foreign affairs committee. "But they still understand how important this treaty is for Russia."   When they signed the treaty last May, President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin cast it as a dramatic sign of the improvement in U.S.-Russian relations since the end of the Cold War. The three-page agreement commits both countries to reduce their nuclear warheads by roughly two-thirds, from 6,000 warheads apiece to between 1,700 to 2,200. Russia pushed hard for the cuts in large part because it can no longer afford to maintain its stockpile.   The U.S. Senate unanimously approved the agreement two weeks ago as part of an effort by the Bush administration to both woo and pressure Russia not to block a UN resolution that would have authorized a military strike on Iraq. Putin opposed the now-moot resolution while trying to preserve the spirit of good will that has prevailed between the two countries since the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.   The Duma typically obediently follows instructions from Putin's office in the Kremlin. But in this case, deputies put Putin's wishes aside to vent their unhappiness over U.S. Iraq policy and, some analysts said, to win points with voters before parliamentary elections in December.   "This is a silly thing because our relations with the United States are not simple and there is a threat that they will deteriorate," said Vladimir Ryzhkov, an independent Duma deputy. "Now it would be important to give a positive signal, not a negative one."   The Kremlin had no immediate comment, but Mikhail Margelov, an influential lawmaker close to the Kremlin, said the Duma had voted against Russia's interests. 5:01:55 PM

Why we are now a Rogue Nation   Josh Marshall sums up a pretty much slam-dunk case about who is at fault at the UN and who is breaking the ground rules agreed to in 1441. Clearly it is the Bushies who are breaking the rules (once again) because they couldn’t get their way.   Here are the key ‘graphs (including a quote from our rep to the UN endorsing the European interpretation of 1441) but check out the entire post here:   So much for legal authority… but it hasn’t stopped them before, so why should it now?   So much for “rule of law”… but what do you expect when you install a criminal, illegitimate regime?   The problem for the United States is that we pretty clearly went on the record validating this other interpretation. Here's what America's UN Representative John Negroponte said at the UN on the day the resolution passed ...   There's no 'automaticity' and this is a two-stage process, and in that regard we have met the principal concerns that have been expressed for the resolution. Whatever violation there is, or is judged to exist, will be dealt with in the council, and the council will have an opportunity to consider the matter before any other action is taken.   What he was saying there was that 1441 was not self-enforcing. Its language and what counted as an infraction was to be decided by the Security Council. This was the price we paid for getting for getting the unanimous vote.   What this means pretty clearly is that we cannot claim that Resolution 1441 gives us any basis for doing what we're about to do. The White House has sort of had it both ways on this -- on the one hand saying we're bagging the UN process and on the other saying 1441 gives us sanction. Clearly, it doesn't give us sanction since at the very least the expressed understanding of 1441 at the time was that only the Security Council could judge when 1441 had been be violated.   3:39:59 PM

Pope Exposed as “Wafer-Eating Surrender Monkey” How dare he contradict god’s chosen instrument as he pursues “Dubya-Dubya III.”   Does this mean now that all those radical Catholics in operation rescue are going to start targeting the Bush regime for sniper attacks? After all, to endorse this war is now the equivalent of endorsing abortion rights as far as the Church is concerned.   Well, the Pope has shown his cards… now he’s isolated (along with 90% of the rest of humanity).   (Thanks again to the horse)   Vatican: US, Backers Responsible Before God on Iraq VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The Vatican (news - web sites) said on Tuesday countries that decide to wage war on Iraq (news - web sites) without a global consensus must take responsibility before God and history -- making clear the Pope would not endorse their actions.   "Those who decide that all peaceful means that international law makes available are exhausted assume a grave responsibility before God, their conscience and history," said Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls.   Navarro-Valls' comment was the Vatican's first official reaction to Washington's ultimatum to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) to go into exile within 48 hours or face war. Both the British and Spanish prime ministers have backed Washington.   The latest developments will be a setback for Pope John Paul (news - web sites), who has led a vigorous diplomatic campaign against the threatened U.S.-led attack on Iraq, emerging as one of the world's most powerful anti-war voices.   At the weekend he issued a passionate plea for peace and said Iraq's leaders had a duty to cooperate with international community to avert war. He told both sides there was still time to negotiate.   The 82-year-old pontiff has held talks with world leaders who are opposed to war and those who are its staunchest supporters. He has also sent peace envoys to both Washington and Baghdad.   The Vatican has said it will not shut its embassy in Iraq even if war breaks out.   3:23:14 PM

Dean on Dissent Some or perhaps even most of you may not know Howard Dean.   He is currently running for the democratic nomination for President in ’04 after previously having served multiple terms as governor of Vermont and as a medical doctor.   His standing has improved through serious statements defending the liberties and freedoms that generations of Americans have died defending in statements like the following below, issued yesterday.   After all this isn’t Iraq, at least not yet…   (thanks to the Horse)   Tonight, for better or worse, America is at war. Tonight, every American, regardless of party, devoutly supports the safety and success of our men and women in the field. Those of us who, over the past 6 months, have expressed deep concerns about this President's management of the crisis, mistreatment of our allies and misconstruction of international law, have never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction. Those Americans who opposed our going to war with Iraq, who wanted the United Nations to remove those weapons without war, need not apologize for giving voice to their conscience, last year, this year or next year. In a country devoted to the freedom of debate and dissent, it is every citizen's patriotic duty to speak out, even as we wish our troops well and pray for their safe return. Congressman Abraham Lincoln did this in criticizing the Mexican War of 1846, as did Senator Robert F. Kennedy in calling the war in Vietnam "unsuitable, immoral and intolerable." This is not Iraq, where doubters and dissenters are punished or silenced --this is the United States of America. We need to support our young people as they are sent to war by the President, and I have no doubt that American military power will prevail. But to ensure that our post-war policies are constructive and humane, based on enduring principles of peace and justice, concerned Americans should continue to speak out; and I intend to do so.   3:07:59 PM

The Domestic Consequences of Iraq War… …is the main topic for Krugman’s latest must read column. Sure, the Bushies are busy destroying US credibility, alliances and influence around the world. Sure, this will further bankrupt an already bankrupt fiscal policy.   More importantly though, will you be able to complain about it?   The Bushies have essentially demonstrated that they can lie cheat, steal and bribe and there are no consequences to be paid in the court of public opinion here at home (abroad is an entirely different matter).   What does this mean for American democracy when one side cannot be criticized (“it is treason after all during a time of ‘war’”) and hence can float any BS they want?   What does it mean for democracy when you can’t exercise free speech (unless you want to praise “our glorious leader”?).   These folks have already shown that they don’t play by the rules. They didn’t during the election, they during the “recount,” they didn’t in exploiting the tragedy of 9/11 in a cheap, partisan, “flag-conservative” way (“conservatives” who prefer to substitute the “flag” for a serious commitment to conservative or even democratic principles). Now they are breaking the rules with regard to habeas corpus and free speech. How long before dissenters from government policy end up in another camp X-ray?   Or maybe not, maybe they’ll just be subject to an unofficial lynching campaign like as already been unleashed upon the French. “They cain’t be ‘Mericans – don’t don’t laike Bush!” It would be kind of like “death-squads-lite” – all the deniability with less death and more character assassinations (like Al Gore or John Kerry) perhaps along with some vandalism and house burnings.   To paraphrase media celebrity and GOPer Ann Coulter: “it’s time to kill liberals to make the afraid and make them realize they can die.”   Don’t say “it can’t happen here” – a lot that we though “couldn’t happen here” already has, and it didn’t start on 9/11.   Things to Come By PAUL KRUGMAN Of course we'll win on the battlefield, probably with ease. I'm not a military expert, but I can do the numbers: the most recent U.S. military budget was $400 billion, while Iraq spent only $1.4 billion.   What frightens me is the aftermath — and I'm not just talking about the problems of postwar occupation. I'm worried about what will happen beyond Iraq — in the world at large, and here at home.   The members of the Bush team don't seem bothered by the enormous ill will they have generated in the rest of the world. They seem to believe that other countries will change their minds once they see cheering Iraqis welcome our troops, or that our bombs will shock and awe the whole world (not just the Iraqis) or that what the world thinks doesn't matter. They're wrong on all counts.   Victory in Iraq won't end the world's distrust of the United States because the Bush administration has made it clear, over and over again, that it doesn't play by the rules. Remember: this administration told Europe to take a hike on global warming, told Russia to take a hike on missile defense, told developing countries to take a hike on trade in lifesaving pharmaceuticals, told Mexico to take a hike on immigration, mortally insulted the Turks and pulled out of the International Criminal Court — all in just two years.   Nor, as we've just seen, is military power a substitute for trust. Apparently the Bush administration thought it could bully the U.N. Security Council into going along with its plans; it learned otherwise. "What can the Americans do to us?" one African official asked. "Are they going to bomb us? Invade us?"   Meanwhile, consider this: we need $400 billion a year of foreign investment to cover our trade deficit, or the dollar will plunge and our surging budget deficit will become much harder to finance — and there are already signs that the flow of foreign investment is drying up, just when it seems that America may be about to fight a whole series of wars.   It's a matter of public record that this war with Iraq is largely the brainchild of a group of neoconservative intellectuals, who view it as a pilot project. In August a British official close to the Bush team told Newsweek: "Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran." In February 2003, according to Ha'aretz, an Israeli newspaper, Under Secretary of State John Bolton told Israeli officials that after defeating Iraq the United States would "deal with" Iran, Syria and North Korea.   Will Iraq really be the first of many? It seems all too likely — and not only because the "Bush doctrine" seems to call for a series of wars. Regimes that have been targeted, or think they may have been targeted, aren't likely to sit quietly and wait their turn: they're going to arm themselves to the teeth, and perhaps strike first. People who really know what they are talking about have the heebie-jeebies over North Korea's nuclear program, and view war on the Korean peninsula as something that could happen at any moment. And at the rate things are going, it seems we will fight that war, or the war with Iran, or both at once, all by ourselves.   What scares me most, however, is the home front. Look at how this war happened. There is a case for getting tough with Iraq; bear in mind that an exasperated Clinton administration considered a bombing campaign in 1998. But it's not a case that the Bush administration ever made. Instead we got assertions about a nuclear program that turned out to be based on flawed or faked evidence; we got assertions about a link to Al Qaeda that people inside the intelligence services regard as nonsense. Yet those serial embarrassments went almost unreported by our domestic news media. So most Americans have no idea why the rest of the world doesn't trust the Bush administration's motives. And once the shooting starts, the already loud chorus that denounces any criticism as unpatriotic will become deafening.   So now the administration knows that it can make unsubstantiated claims, without paying a price when those claims prove false, and that saber rattling gains it votes and silences opposition. Maybe it will honorably refuse to act on this dangerous knowledge. But I can't help worrying that in domestic politics, as in foreign policy, this war will turn out to have been the shape of things to come.     3:00:37 PM

Who Do You Believe? Read the following eloquent statement below and ask yourself which case better reflects reality: the one put forward by Robin Cook or the one presented (once again, as if repetition can somehow make it true) last night by resident chimposter Bush.   This statement covers all the bases in a straightforward, rational and measured way. There are no illusions to be uncovered in Cook’s assessment (in great contrast to the malarkey put out by the office of the white house).   Read it, savor it and forward it to your friends and relatives.   This is why we oppose this war – it is the wrong war, for the wrong reasons (domestic ones being prominent in the US) at the wrong time and its costs in terms of future security (influence, alliances and international institutions) far outweigh any “benefits.”   Thanks yet again to Atrios   Why I had to leave the cabinet This will be a war without support at home or agreement abroad Robin Cook Tuesday March 18, 2003 The Guardian I have resigned from the cabinet because I believe that a fundamental principle of Labour's foreign policy has been violated. If we believe in an international community based on binding rules and institutions, we cannot simply set them aside when they produce results that are inconvenient to us   I cannot defend a war with neither international agreement nor domestic support. I applaud the determined efforts of the prime minister and foreign secretary to secure a second resolution. Now that those attempts have ended in failure, we cannot pretend that getting a second resolution was of no importance.   In recent days France has been at the receiving end of the most vitriolic criticism. However, it is not France alone that wants more time for inspections. Germany is opposed to us. Russia is opposed to us. Indeed at no time have we signed up even the minimum majority to carry a second resolution. We delude ourselves about the degree of international hostility to military action if we imagine that it is all the fault of President Chirac.   The harsh reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading member. Not Nato. Not the EU. And now not the security council. To end up in such diplomatic isolation is a serious reverse. Only a year ago we and the US were part of a coalition against terrorism which was wider and more diverse than I would previously have thought possible. History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations that led so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition.   Britain is not a superpower. Our interests are best protected, not by unilateral action, but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules. Yet tonight the international partnerships most important to us are weakened. The European Union is divided. The security council is in stalemate. Those are heavy casualties of war without a single shot yet being fired.   The threshold for war should always be high. None of us can predict the death toll of civilians in the forthcoming bombardment of Iraq. But the US warning of a bombing campaign that will "shock and awe" makes it likely that casualties will be numbered at the very least in the thousands. Iraq's military strength is now less than half its size at the time of the last Gulf war. Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate invasion. And some claim his forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in days.   We cannot base our military strategy on the basis that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a seri ous threat. Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of that term - namely, a credible device capable of being delivered against strategic city targets. It probably does still have biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions. But it has had them since the 1980s when the US sold Saddam the anthrax agents and the then British government built his chemical and munitions factories.   Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years and which we helped to create? And why is it necessary to resort to war this week while Saddam's ambition to complete his weapons programme is frustrated by the presence of UN inspectors?   I have heard it said that Iraq has had not months but 12 years in which to disarm, and our patience is exhausted. Yet it is over 30 years since resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.   We do not express the same impatience with the persistent refusal of Israel to comply. What has come to trouble me most over past weeks is the suspicion that if the hanging chads in Florida had gone the other way and Al Gore had been elected, we would not now be about to commit British troops to action in Iraq.   I believe the prevailing mood of the British public is sound. They do not doubt that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator. But they are not persuaded he is a clear and present danger to Britain. They want the inspections to be given a chance. And they are suspicious that they are being pushed hurriedly into conflict by a US administration with an agenda of its own. Above all, they are uneasy at Britain taking part in a military adventure without a broader international coalition and against the hostility of many of our traditional allies. It has been a favourite theme of commentators that the House of Commons has lost its central role in British politics. Nothing could better demonstrate that they are wrong than for parliament to stop the commitment of British troops to a war that has neither international authority nor domestic support.   · Robin Cook was, until yesterday, leader of the House of Commons.   12:29:50 AM