So it’s done. We have four more years of George W Bush to look forward to. A quick tour of the American blogs shows a few trying to pull some sort of moral victory from this election, but the truth is that they’ve lost everything. Not only has the president finally won the majority denied to him in 2000, but as a reward for his mismanagement and incompetence, Democrats have actually lost seats in both houses of Congress, including losing the Senate Minority Leader. For all that the vote is close, the outcome is a stunning defeat in terms of real access to power. There is no longer a meaningful opposition in the US able to moderate the power of a president who needs no longer worry about reelection.
At best, this means that in 2008 the Republicans will have to run on a deeper quagmire in Iraq, no meaningful victories in the so-called war on terrorism, another huge hike in the American public debt and all the new messes Bush can create. But, let’s be honest. That isn’t going to happen. No one will be called to account. The American electorate, for a number of reasons, simply will not hold this administration to account. They did not do so in 2002, they haven’t this time, and there is no reason to think they will in 2008.
Reaction in the French political scene is muted, but definitely not happy.
The French foreign minister is doing his job by being diplomatic about it, talking about a “new dialogue” with the administration. The French right in general is taking a similar tone. From Chirac, it’s all about “renforcing Franco-American friendship.” Alain Madelin is, once again, France’s most visible apologist for the American right. “Of course I’m happy with this outcome. [...] Confronted by hyperterrorism and the treat of Islamic fascism, we need American power to be engaged.” Bush has also received the support of Jean-Marie Le Pen: “I believe that it is important for the whole world that America, an imperial power with crushing responsibilities, have an experienced man as its leader.”
The rank and file of the mainstream French right wing parties has, however, expressed clear support for Kerry over Bush. Former foreign minister Hubert V?drine believes this election reveals “a large and enduring gap in comprehension between the American people and the rest of the world.” Alas, this is only true of about half of the American people, and that half would no doubt agree entirely.
The French left, of course, is not so diplomatic today. The Communist Party is calling Bush “the candidate of excessive warfare, of unilateralism and of American hegemony.” For Green Party MNA No?l Mam?re, this is “a dark day for democracy, for peace and for the environment.”
The Socialists are a bit less apocalyptic. They are doing what I hope politicians all over Europe start to do, and turn the Bush election into a reason to vote for the European constitution. Jack Lang: “This is very bad news for the world and for peace. Bush will be even more miltant, aggressive and imperialist than ever. This why Europe must be a real force, a counterbalance. More than ever, we must vote ‘yes’ to the European constitutional treaty.”
Fran?ois Hollande, leader of the Socialists, and Fran?ois Bayrou, the president of the right-centre UDF party are echoing this sentiment: “Europe must be strong by comparison to an America that, in any case, will try to assert its vision of the world.”
I couldn’t agree more, and I hope that George W Bush is turned into the poster boy of the “Yes” campaign across Europe. He’s one of the few figures people agree on enough to create real majorities for the constitution.
We’ve had a number of hits in the last day from Americans googling “immigration to Europe” or similar queries. For a sizeable group of people who voted against Bush, this election is an unambiguous sign that they are completely alienated from a nation bent on transforming itself into something far from what they thought their countrymen stood for. They are disaffected, and they are turning to Europe and to Canada for answers.
In the past, Europeans turned to America when their governments went mad. We owe it to them to return the favour.
Follow afoe on Twitter
Follow afoe on Facebook
Feed: A Fistful of Euros
November 4th, 2004 at 2:00 pm
Scott,
Doesn’t it occur to you that the interests of the American people and those of Europeans simply aren’t in alignment? You seem to take it for granted that the only reason Americans refuse to march in lockstep to European opinion is because slightly more than half of them are fools.
Let us ignore for now the possibility that the fools might actually be on the other side of the Atlantic; the fact is that America, with its military predominance and its global alliances, has interests which may overlap with those of Europe in certain instances, but which are on the whole broader and of a different character. Europeans have had the luxury of 59 years of peace guaranteed by American power, during most of which the US had to listen to what they thought because their countries represented the frontline with an aggressive totalitarian dictatorship. Now that the Soviet Union is dead, Europeans might have every reason to wish to see the old arrangements continue, but from an American point of view, why should it? Why should militarily insignificant powers like France and Germany have a veto over what America does outside their own immediate environs? You simply take it for granted that they should, and then fume at American “stupidity” when they refuse to play along with your assumptions.
A few depressed lefties may now be casting about for means of flight, now that their fellow citizens have categorically rejected their vision of a Eurosocialist state, but that says absolutely nothing at all about the merits of the European vision of the world, any more than the fools who fled to Stalin’s “paradise” vindicated the Soviet path to development. If “ever closer union” means the adoption of policies which have seen 1 in 10 continental Europeans going for years without jobs, growth rates that make Bush’s America seem a boom-land, and continent-wide military budgets hardly sufficient to pay for a single Nimitz-class carrier group, then Bush’s America has little to fear from such a would-be challenger. Left-wing economic policies are a dead-end, as Gerhard Schröder and the German workforce are currently finding out.
November 4th, 2004 at 2:29 pm
Heh, so much drama over the U.S. election. I think someone’s playing on fears to further their Euro agenda.
November 4th, 2004 at 2:53 pm
Abiola, I take it that the rest of the world should have some say in what America does outside its own borders for exactly the same reason that I don’t think you should be working on a plantation under the whip of a foreman: Because might does not make right, and because power needs to be responsible to those over whom it is exercised. This same cause once made an insignificant British colony declare their independence. That American conservatives have betrayed their the values of the founding fathers they almost worship does not mean I have to put up with it.
If America is going to play lone prick on the prairie, someone has to play the sheriff. Better Europe than China.
November 4th, 2004 at 3:05 pm
Scott, from his posts, Abiola think that no might is no right. As for US conservatives, they have not betrayed the values of those so called founding fathers, because they never had them at heart. The declaration of independence has always been one big propaganda lie.
DSW
November 4th, 2004 at 4:09 pm
“Abiola, I take it that the rest of the world should have some say in what America does outside its own borders for exactly the same reason that I don’t think you should be working on a plantation under the whip of a foreman: Because might does not make right, and because power needs to be responsible to those over whom it is exercised.”
First off, Europeans haven’t limited themselves to “having a say” on what goes on outside America’s borders. They’ve been pretty vocal about events both within and without our borders, with an amazing amount of ignorance in both cases. Do I need to bring up examples, or does the fact that we’re posting comments on your lament about the results of the U.S. presidential election suffice?
All in all, I think we in the U.S. have handled the very vocal European complaints and yes, interference, in our affairs with good grace.
Second, do we need to go over the exact amount of times the U.S. asked EU nations to take part in the Iraqi coalition and were refused? You were asked for your say, your answer was an aggressive “NO!”. Despite that, the U.S. still listens to concerns from non-coalition nations. If we don’t always do what non-coalition nations ask us to surely you can agree that the U.S. government(and voters!) also gets to have some “say” in what the U.S. does?
Third, claiming to be concerned about human rights for everyone is hypocritical considering the context of Iraq, where the U.S. removed the Baathist regime in favor of a democratic regime despite your objections. Or maybe I’m reading you wrong and you really do favor human rights, except when the U.S. gets involved in which case you favor the sovereignty of the state?
“This same cause once made an insignificant British colony declare their independence. That American conservatives have betrayed their the values of the founding fathers they almost worship does not mean I have to put up with it.”
You’re assuming your strong European-socialist background gives you the knowledge to speak intelligently about either American conservatives or the founding fathers of the U.S. Does it?
“If America is going to play lone prick on the prairie, someone has to play the sheriff. Better Europe than China.”
Word of advice: if you’re going to call our entire nation “pricks”, at least wait until we do something worse than dislodge a brutal dictator or people will think you’re being overly dramatic.
November 4th, 2004 at 4:13 pm
Heh:
” The European elites had spent much of Tuesday evening dreaming about how a President Kerry would ratify the Kyoto accords, sign on to the International Criminal Court, cut and run in Iraq, send flowers to Yasser Arafat and, perhaps, open a dialogue with Osama bin Laden. When it became clear that the American voters wanted none of that, the chattering classes in Europe were left speechless. One Paris TV anchor was literally struck dumb mometarily when, after hours of crowing over Kerry’s victory and the American people’s supposed liberation from Bushist tyranny, he had to admit that things had gone differently.”
November 4th, 2004 at 4:17 pm
They are doing what I hope politicians all over Europe start to do, and turn the Bush election into a reason to vote for the European constitution.
That is a very foolish thing to do. Europe must not be based on aversion to the US. A Union based on fear might work, but loathing is a recipe for failure.
Europe is not under attack by the US, nor are vital european interests threatened. A desire to influence world events is natural, but costly. If anything such talk means that the constitution should not be signed, because it makes obvious that somebody wants to use the EU to further one specific agenda. A union must be fair to all. Would you also support signing the constitution, if the official EU policy were alliance with the US?
November 4th, 2004 at 5:37 pm
Off topic but somewhat attached: You Europeans have been thru hell in the last century what with WWI and II and have a stash of folk wisdom about how to preserve assets in rough times. As an American who fears for the future I would like to tap into that wisdom. Any resources you could offer in the way of advice or reading material would be greatly appreciated.
I can’t protect my fixed assets but I would be interested in moving the liquid stuff to a place where its buying power would be preserved.
I wish I could spell that wonderful German word for the feeling of pleasure at another’s misforture but that must be the word that describes a Europeans feelings about American today.
We here in American get to spend 4 years wondering if it will be Neil, Jeb or Jenna in 2008.
November 4th, 2004 at 5:51 pm
Antoni,
from an objective historical perspective, you are probably more right than wrong, but the ideals of the Declaration have been those we uphold and strive for.
I’m not sure what threats Abiola believes a Nimitz-class carrier group protects Americans like me from; it’s certainly not effective against secret terrorist cells willing to steer 747s into buildings.
As for NATO-type protecting from invasion from an Imperial Power; The Afghanistan and Iraqi insurgencies point to more effective strategies for repelling invaders.
And with the U.S. Army essentially stuck in Iraq, the U.S. certainly isn’t in a position to do so, anymore, for South Korea.
Lastly, evaluating Europe vs. the U.S. economically, Abiola is as astute in his economic comparison as he is with his military comparison.
The best Post-WWII economic managers were not Republican administrations, and Bush43’s is at the back of the republican pack in terms of performance. Bush43 failed to control his Republican’s congress’s spending in his first term, the is no reason to believe that he will be able to, or even willing to, impose fiscal discipline on them during his second term.
November 4th, 2004 at 5:56 pm
“You Europeans have been thru hell in the last century what with WWI and II and have a stash of folk wisdom about how to preserve assets in rough times.”
I do not think anyone can answer that question in these times, but the rule of thumb seems to be: spreading the risks. Maybe someone here can give you a more decisive answer.
As for the German word, “Schadenfreude” is not what I am feeling right now. The Americans have chosen, now they deal with it. For better or for worse. Europe should stop looking to the States all the time and clean up its own house first. As Oliver said: “Europe must not be based on aversion to the US. A Union based on fear might work, but loathing is a recipe for failure.”
If I wanted to be really shrill, I could say: This time the Americans voted decisively for Bush, which means they agree with his policies and style. If things go bad for them, we can always say later on: Sie haben es gewusst.
That would be Schadenfreude and it would be silly, considering our own problems and history.
And please, everybody, stop the talking points.
Europe is no saint, but neither is the USA. At least not when we are talking geopolitics.
November 4th, 2004 at 6:03 pm
Word of advice: if you’re going to call our entire nation “pricks”, at least wait until we do something worse than dislodge a brutal dictator or people will think you’re being overly dramatic.
You mean like killing an estimated 100 000 civilians and counting before/during/after said “dislodgement” ?
November 4th, 2004 at 6:04 pm
It’s simple. 59 million Americans exercised their democratic right to say that (among other things) Europe doesn’t count. We should sign the constitution and get on with looking after our own interests in the world.
November 4th, 2004 at 6:14 pm
You mean like killing an estimated 100 000 civilians and counting before/during/after said “dislodgement” ?
That study has been debunked. What the study said was that as little as 8,000 or as many as 200,000 people have died since the invasion of Iraq. Divide by 2 and feed to the press a week before the election.
November 4th, 2004 at 6:18 pm
Patrick (G) said,
“As for NATO-type protecting from invasion from an Imperial Power;
The Afghanistan and Iraqi insurgencies point to more effective
strategies for repelling invaders.”
Really.
So Patrick if america was invaded your strategy would be
to kill americans and kill more americans and especially
kill americans that cooperated with the invader, until
your neighbors totally feared and hated you and the like,
but feared you even more than the invaders (because by
some great fortune America had been blessed by invaders
who did not act as you do) and anyway your despairing,
fearful, cursed neighbors join you, because it’s the
safest choice, and the process snowballs till near the
whole nation is on your side doing as you do and America
becomes a good approximation of hell and the enemy (still
blessedly not acting like you do) after some years of
effort gives up and you can declare ‘victory.’ Or even
worse the enemy starts acting like you do and we discover
it’s possible for things to get more hellish.
Really?
Not to say that anything like that happened in Afghanistan –
because it hasn’t — but it seems an apt analogy for
what some are striving for in Iraq.
November 4th, 2004 at 6:19 pm
“You mean like killing an estimated 100 000 civilians and counting before/during/after said “dislodgement” ?”
The estimate you’re referring to has been discredited. Whether or not that matters to you is, obviously, up to you. I’m guessing it doesn’t though, and that you’ll just go searching for some other anecdote to reinforce your prejudice regarding the U.S.
November 4th, 2004 at 6:23 pm
It’s simple. 59 million Americans exercised their democratic right to say that (among other things) Europe doesn’t count.
Quite right too. But one polite request: please, ask Mr Bush to stop calling himself the “leader of the free world”. Only 59 million votes is not enough for him to make that claim.
November 4th, 2004 at 6:24 pm
The estimate is only needed because the invasion force is not keeping a body count. Even if the number was 8,000 - at the bottom end of the scale - are you saying that at least 8,000 civilian deaths is acceptable?
November 4th, 2004 at 6:38 pm
We should sign the constitution and get on with looking after our own interests in the world.
Potentially Europe has a lot of power. Do we want it to be used? If so, how? And who is to decide?
Furthermore, what are Europe’s common interests that would benefit from signing the constitution in terms of foreign policy?
November 4th, 2004 at 6:38 pm
“The estimate is only needed because the invasion force is not keeping a body count.”
The debunked report isn’t looking at combat deaths. It tried to determine whether the overall mortality rate in Iraq changed after the invasion.
Try again.
November 4th, 2004 at 6:39 pm
No. I’m simply pointing out something he’s passing for fact is anything but.
November 4th, 2004 at 6:40 pm
are you saying that at least 8,000 civilian deaths is acceptable?
Are we here to discuss the unavoidable?
November 4th, 2004 at 6:44 pm
Funny. By the year 2008, the U.S. will have half or less of the E.U. level of unemployment, GDP by 30-40% above the European average and a 90% share in Nobel prizes for hard sciences.
What kind of reward will European Commission receive for its own mismanagement and incompetence?
November 4th, 2004 at 7:01 pm
That study has been debunked. What the study said was that as little as 8,000 or as many as 200,000 people have died since the invasion of Iraq. Divide by 2 and feed to the press a week before the election.
No, it hasn’t been debunked. Given how a bell curve works, a number in the middle of the bell curve is more likely to be correct than numbers at the extremes. and the Iraqi Body count (14000-16000) should be taken as a floor, not a ceiling for the number of Iraqis killed since the war began.
But even at the lowest end of the spectrum, that’s whole multiples greater than all the deaths of 9/11.
November 4th, 2004 at 7:29 pm
So Patrick if america was invaded your strategy…
If it came to defending America from invasion, I know what I’d want to fight back with, and it’s not a few really big and expensive boats.
Between aircraft carrier groups and stocking hundreds/thousands of secret and known armories filled with RPGs, SAMs, mortar weapons, and plastic explosives. The latter has more bang for the buck.
November 4th, 2004 at 7:49 pm
“But even at the lowest end of the spectrum, that’s whole multiples greater than all the deaths of 9/11.”
Is there a reason why you are comparing the operation in Iraq to the terrorist attacks on 9/11? If so, what is it?
November 4th, 2004 at 8:01 pm
One of the things that made my head explode when the Yugoslavia went BANG! was that the Europeans had to get the USA involved before there was any, seemingly, motion towards a solution. My feeling was that the USA would not need to wait for Europe if Mexico went BANG! or god forbid!, Canada.
Maybe it would be a healthy thing if Europe felt strong enough to handle things in their backyard without the US leading. I think we should help in any way we can, even with troops cause Europe is where we came from and we speak its languages and share its culture. It bit of vice versa also.
I hope Europe and America can get thru the next 4 years of rough patch and maintain our shared responsibilites.
November 4th, 2004 at 8:05 pm
On invasion:
People, get real. Neither the US nor Europe are facing any risk of actual invasion. Before it comes to that, it is WW3 in earnest and the nukes are flying.
As for third world armies, yes they’ll go the insurgent & guerilla route facing a US or European army. But it is not a matter they have any choice in. They can’t afford anything else, literally.
Thus, any serious European military either has to be a strategic nuclear force or an invasion army. I hope that even the most ardent europhile wouldn’t give Brussels nukes, so the alternative is clear.
That is, if we want a European military, which is the hard question and logically the first question.
November 4th, 2004 at 8:14 pm
Is there a reason why you are comparing the operation in Iraq to the terrorist attacks on 9/11? If so, what is it?
Wasn’t that the rationale for the war ? That we wuz attacked ?
November 4th, 2004 at 8:28 pm
No, it hasn’t been debunked. Given how a bell curve works, a number in the middle of the bell curve is more likely to be correct than numbers at the extremes. and the Iraqi Body count (14000-16000) should be taken as a floor, not a ceiling for the number of Iraqis killed since the war began.
Simply because you have a bell curve doesn’t vouch for the accuracy of the study. If the curve were more realistic, say between 1000 and 50,000 deaths then you would have a point. The poster at CT is saying doesn’t even address this issue with regard to the Slate article:
“?This isn?t an estimate. It?s a dart board?. The critique here, from Slate, is that the 95% confidence interval for the estimate of excess deaths (8,000 to 200,000) is so wide that it?s meaningless. It?s wrong. Although there are a lot of numbers between 8,000 and 200,000, one of the ones that isn?t is a little number called zero. That?s quite startling. One might have hoped that there was at least some chance that the Iraq war might have had a positive effect on death rates in Iraq. But the confidence interval from this piece of work suggests that there would be only a 2.5% chance of getting this sort of result from the sample if the true effect of the invasion had been favourable. A curious basis for a humanitarian intervention; ?we must invade, because Saddam is killing thousands of his citizens every year, and we will kill only 8,000 more?.
Okay. And? Because people have died this justifies an obviously biased study? 8,000 100,000 or 200,000? It doesn’t matter because people actually died?
November 4th, 2004 at 9:15 pm
“Okay. And? Because people have died this justifies an obviously biased study? 8,000 100,000 or 200,000? It doesn?t matter because people actually died?”
In fact you, and those who agree with you, never ever cared about the true Iraquis. The study is not biased, unless you prove that beyond reasonable doubt. The difficulties to get better numbers are a deliberate action from US government, in order to have free hands to murder Iraquis.
And spare me your claims of freeing Europe from Fascism, I live in Spain, and fifty years ago you did not topple Franco so you did not free us.
DSW
November 4th, 2004 at 9:16 pm
“Wasn’t that the rationale for the war ? That we wuz attacked ?”
For Iraq? Nope.
What is this, throw up a “damning” anecdote about the U.S. because you feel like it day?
November 4th, 2004 at 10:12 pm
It looks like this is AFOE’s post-Bush-victory sourpuss reaction week against all Americans.
It really is amusing to watch. The best part about the Bush victory is that now, more than ever, Europeans want to distance themselves from the US, and become rivals.
And if there’s one environment that Americans thrive in, it’s in a competitive environment.
Abiola was spot on when he said that America has no reason to see the old arrangements continue. The less we can extricate ourselves from international treaties with Europe, the better. As Iraq has shown, coalitions can be built for every contingency, with or without the blessings of “international” institutions.
That is one of the reasons I voted for Bush: his presence will increase the long-term alienation between the two continents, - a welcomed development.
November 4th, 2004 at 10:55 pm
Mark,
In this context, I certainly regard the war on terrorism as far more important a political issue than gay marriage and suspect most Europeans do too.
All the more surprising then when correspondents of European media report back from America about the importance accorded to moral issues and gay marriage by a significant slice of the electorate in exit polls during the presidential. The likely outcome is to confirm European preconceptions - or prejudices, if you will - about the American electorate and the Atlantic suddenly gets wider.
Most Europeans are concerned about nuclear proliferation IMO, whatever mistaken impressions may have been generated hereabouts. The divisiom of opinion was over whether starting the Iraq war was a sensible way of dealing with the proliferation threat. Richard Perle, a leading Neocon, has admitted the Iraq war was illegal, thereby affirming the expert opinion of eminent international lawyers. The UN inspectors could have completed their search and since the invasion, no WMD have turned up in Iraq. Besides all that, Mr Khan in Pakistan seems to have done much more to promote nuclear proliferation than ever Saddam managed but he seems to have been exonerated. From a European perspective, the Bush administration now looks both irrational and dangerous. After that, reported recent comments by Cheney about Bush now having a popular mandate for a radical Conservative agenda are hardly reassuring in Europe.
Btw it wasn’t Barroso who said gay relationships were “sinful”, but Rocco Buttiglione, the incoming EU Commissioner from Italy to whom Barroso, the new President of the EU Commission, had offered the Commission portfolios for justice, human rights and anti-discrimination policy. For reasons best known to himself, Buttiglione elected to make gratuitous comments about gay relationships and the role of women, which many Europeans regard as offensive, especially when advanced by someone about to take on his portfolio of responsibilities. At the very least, that displayed a quite remarkable political ineptitude, which meant he patently wasn’t up to the job.
November 4th, 2004 at 11:08 pm
Well, RSN, I think I can speak for quite a few people when I say that the fact that you are like you are despite being old enough to vote makes you that much sadder.
November 4th, 2004 at 11:38 pm
Whoops! That should have been “the more we can extricate ourselves from international treaties”, of course.
Bob:
“The likely outcome is to confirm European preconceptions - or prejudices, if you will - about the American electorate and the Atlantic suddenly gets wider”
I’m glad you concur. Where we part company, I think, is that in my view this is a positive development.
G. Svenson: sadder for Europeans? That sounds good.
In the end, there is no reason in the world why a transatlantic partnership should be an assumed given. The hostility level is only increasing, not decreasing. Politicians and diplomats will make the usual gestures and noises, but the reality is that disgust and hate are on the rise, and there are plenty of forces on both sides of the Atlantic to make full use of them.
It’s going to be a century of great competition. Certainly more wars will be on the horizon. But one thing is certain: the economies that won’t see growth are the ones that will eventually lose.
November 4th, 2004 at 11:44 pm
Ah, yes, grand strife, blood and homeland, yada yada. You made your pathetic quasi-fascism clear enough the first time around.
November 4th, 2004 at 11:53 pm
FelixUSA,
Per one study of the historical record, there were 27 different rationales given by the Bush administration for the war against Iraq. The supposed link between Saddam Hussein and OBL is not least among them.
Would we have invaded Iraq if it wasn’t for 9/11 ?
Nobody is going to invade the U.S. for the killing in Iraq though by the precedent we’ve set, they would be well-justified.
But with Bush in charge, why invade when you can just sit back and watch him self-destruct one last time ?
If it was just the economy he was mismanaging, or the war, while awful, I think we could cope. but since it’s pretty much everything, I think he’s going to bring down the Republic.
I’d be happy to be proven wrong, but it would take more than you can muster to convince me of that.
November 5th, 2004 at 12:22 am
More than anyone can muster, I’ll bet. You don’t seem like the type of person to let facts deter you from making your well-opinionated argument.
As for the commenter who said the Iraq invasion was illegal, here’s what UN res. 1441(Nov. 2002) had to say about it:
“Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,”
November 5th, 2004 at 12:47 am
RSN,
I think you make a mistake in rejoicing in any alienation
between europe and america. War is not a healthy competition,
and you are only playing into the hands of our enemies.
I assume the source of your bitterness is anger at some
of the hateful things said to you or that you have read.
Some people have worked very hard for many years to create
that alienation; you reward them, you play into their hands,
when you echo it yourself.
November 5th, 2004 at 1:00 am
FelixUSA,
It was up to the UN Security Council to sanction war against Iraq for breaches of Council resolutions and the Council was manifestly unwilling to do so. As for expert opinon of 16 eminent international lawyers on the legality of the Iraq war, we have this:
“We are teachers of international law. On the basis of the information publicly available, there is no justification under international law for the use of military force against Iraq. The UN charter outlaws the use of force with only two exceptions: individual or collective self-defence in response to an armed attack and action authorised by the security council as a collective response to a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression. There are currently no grounds for a claim to use such force in self-defence. The doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence against an attack that might arise at some hypothetical future time has no basis in international law. Neither security council resolution 1441 nor any prior resolution authorises the proposed use of force in the present circumstances. . . ” - from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,909275,00.html
As for Richard Perle, the well-known Neocon:
“International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal. . . ” - from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html
Kofi Annan has made it very clear on several occasions that he regards the US and Britain as in breach of the UN Charter in attacking Iraq.
All in all, that seems fairly definitive to me.
November 5th, 2004 at 1:35 am
Bob: You really like to spin the facts, don’t you?
1. All of those 16 “eminent” “international” lawyers are European academics: hardly unbiased in their opinions.
2. Richard Pearle did not concede that the war was illegal. The Guardian said that, while Pearle said something quite different.
3. Who appointed Kofi Annan to be a judge? The biggest scandal in UN history - the payoffs to Saddam - happened under his watch. He’s hardly a worthwhile person to look for any kind of juridical opinion.
November 5th, 2004 at 1:35 am
I am a little surprised and disappointed about how discussion unfolds here.
Some quotes. I add my emphasis and objection:
Abiola: “the interests of the American people”.
Not only are the interests very diverse, they differ a lot among the American people.
Scott: “If America is going to play…”
Talk about the Bush administration please, not the US people.
FelixUSA: “I think we in the U.S.A have handled…”
You did that all together?
Dilbert: “You Europeans have been thru hell in the last century what with WWI and II..”
The number of Europeans that have gone through WWI I think is probably below 1 promille. The number that has gone through WWII bigger but very small as well.
Mon Tibi: “This time The Americans voted decisively for Bush..”
A distinct majority of the 63% of the voters did that. Every single voter had his or her own ideas why.
To me the most worrying part of Bush’ campaign strategy was not that he made gay marriage a crucial issue in the elections nor the swift boat veterans campaign. Not even the stunning suggestion that he succesfully brought back government spending.
The most worrying in my opinion is his flirt with anti-intellectualism. Outright demagoguery about Kerry knowing the French language. A direct appeal to stupidity.
This is not something purely American. The threat to democracy is as strong in Italy and Russia.
Siberian Light strengthen my worries by citing the remarkable comments of Berlusconi: “Sylvio Berlusconi, no less, says that Bush’s victory in yesterday’s US Presidential election: “would also make the further development of Russian- Italian relations easier”.”
November 5th, 2004 at 1:55 am
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=6565
Stephen Soldz has more on why the Lancet article estimating 100,000 excess Iraqi deaths since the beginning of the war cannot lightly be dismissed, even if the headlines tended to take the upper limits of the estimates.
November 5th, 2004 at 1:59 am
Mark Amerman:
On the contrary, I am not bitter as much as elated (I’m not kidding). I really think that Europe is an impediment for positive socio-economic growth for the rest of the world. It is a model that can be easily discredited, by challenging it to geopolitical competition and rivalry. The recent election victory will only enhance this rivalry.
I don’t consider war as healthy competition, but competition is certainly healthy. War is just a by-product of competition, yet wars certainly can have positive results, - Afghanistan being the prime, recent example.
In terms of playing into the “hands of our enemies” - not to worry. America wants to have enemies, the better to rally around a cause. If Europe really wants that, then it will play into our hands.
Alienation from Europe will protect us from the damaging effects of statist sclerosis. We have very little to gain from endearing Europeans to us. They are increasingly irrelevant as a power.
The future lies in our relationships with Asia. Luckily for the US, Asia has more tense trouble spots than Europe (Korea, Taiwan, Kashmir), so there are more possibilities for coalition building, and playing one side against the other.
The competition has only just begun!
November 5th, 2004 at 2:08 am
RSN: “All of those 16 “eminent” “international” lawyers are European academics: hardly unbiased in their opinions”
ROFL! If you don’t believe/trust/like European academics, how about this open letter signed by several hundred American academics and scholars specialising in international relations: http://www.sensibleforeignpolicy.net/letter.html
November 5th, 2004 at 2:40 am
If you don’t believe/trust/like European academics, how about this open letter signed by several hundred American academics and scholars specialising in international relations:
I suspect that if he doesn’t believe/trust/like European academics it’s two fold for American ones.
November 5th, 2004 at 2:43 am
Scott,
Might does not make right (because “right” is arbitrary and relative.) But it sure as Hell decides who is left, eh? :^)
The U.S. government is not here to make the world a nicer place, my boy. It is here to make _my_ world, as a U.S. taxpayer, a better place. Your interests (and all of Europe’s, insofar as that isn’t a massive oversimplification of a variety of different interests) do not enter into the equation as a normative target or “good”, but rather as independent variables that have to be factored in and dealt with to get what we want. You’re an environmental condition, Scott, and that’s all we are to the vast majority of Europeans. So cut the silly sanctimony and learn how to deal with factors you can’t control in a somewhat more productive manner than whining, eh?
Bernard Guerrero
November 5th, 2004 at 3:15 am
Thank you, Cornelius, you took the words out of my mouth.
What are academics, anyway? Intelligent people who simply couldn’t find themselves in the ‘reality-based’ world, and had to run back to the safety of their ivory towers.
Those that can’t do, teach.
November 5th, 2004 at 6:20 am
And you really believe professional politicians are cleverer and more knowledgeable and realistic than academics?
Something interesting I came upon on the MSNBC website:
“WASHINGTON - An Army contracting officer who led the FBI to widen its investigation of Pentagon contracts to Halliburton told NBC News that she had never seen a worse case of contracting abuse. . . ” - from: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6356265/
I wonder how much that had to do with the Vice-President and the Iraq war since we learned from Paul O’Neill that the Bush administration started on planning the war shortly after coming into office in January 2001, months before 9/11.
For all the claims made by the Bush administration and in Britain by Tony Blair, no WMD have been found in Iraq. Few dispute that Saddam’s regime in Iraq was a despotism but it didn’t constitute a threat to the security of America or Britain. We were lied to.
Many thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed as the result of an unnecessary war.
November 5th, 2004 at 8:47 am
“What are academics, anyway? Intelligent people who simply couldn’t find themselves in the ‘reality-based’ world, and had to run back to the safety of their ivory towers.”
Just some ancedotes: My Middle East Politics professor lived in Iraq until last year (when academic study there became far too unsafe to continue). My Canadian Public Policy professor last year runs a successful consulting firm and is a former Treasury Minister for British Columbia.
Academics aren’t always people disconnected from the “real world.” Many are active in politics and business, and many of those who aren’t engage with the real world in the course of their academic world in ways in which other people don’t.
So, care to convince me that your position is correct using an arguement which draws on the real world instead of the supposed inferiority of those critical of your position?
November 5th, 2004 at 10:25 am
RSN: this is the last time I will react on something you wrote and I advice others to do the same: you just declared yourself a troll.
“America wants to have enemies, the better to rally around a cause….
Luckily for the US, Asia has more tense trouble spots than Europe (Korea, Taiwan, Kashmir), so there are more possibilities for coalition building, and playing one side against the other.”
It’s not America that wants to have enemies (a country can not have a desire btw), it’s not the Bush administration that wants enemies either: it’s you. You do not visit this site for a debate but to fight enemies.
November 5th, 2004 at 11:36 am
“Not only are the interests very diverse, they differ a lot among the American people.”
Frans,
And they differ even more amongst the peoples (note the plural) of Europe. By your reasoning, there’s absolutely no rationale for a European Union to exist.
Talk about shoddy thinking.
November 5th, 2004 at 11:45 am
Frans,
RSN’s comments do often (though not always) verge on trollery. I’d hope he doesn’t come here simply looking to pick a fight but rather to try in good faith to get his views across, however misguided most of us find those views.
His comments do have a certain merit, though. They offer, unwittingly perhaps, insight into the emotions and psychology of a certain strain of American unilateralism. But we shouldn’t make the mistake of concluding that this psychology necessarily informs the policy position. FelixUSA and Mark Amerman, I’d guess, would broadly agree with RSN on many policy points; but their reasons for doing so seem quite different, and do not appear to be based on frustration, resentment or animus (vide Mark’s mild rebuke to RSN for rejoicing over US/European alienation). Felix and Mark, I disagree with much of what you write; but I am pleased that you come here and defend your positions with reasoned argument and a degree of nuance (I apologise if you think my calling you ‘nuanced’ makes you sound too Old European).
November 5th, 2004 at 12:51 pm
“A distinct majority of the 63% of the voters did that. Every single voter had his or her own ideas why. ”
I know, Frans. But the US administration represents the American people in general (at least in theory) and US policy will reflect that. The Republicans have the president, the House, Congres and the Supreme Court. That is decisive and that is how the American people (okay, in general) want it.
Iraq was not invaded by Bush-voting soldiers only. Whatever the US administration has in store for the world, it will be executed by all Americans. This, of course, goes for the EU too.
Besides, if you read my blog you’ll know I do not like to tar all Americans with the same brush. But I do stress the broader strokes because they may affect us.
November 5th, 2004 at 2:00 pm
Bob,
“As for expert opinon of 16 eminent international lawyers on the legality of the Iraq war, we have this:”
I see 2 problems with the opinions of your 16 “eminent international lawyers”.
First, they apparently fail to take into consideration that war already existed between Iraq and member states and that it was a conditional cease-fire that was in effect, not a state of peace. Maybe in Europe they are unaware that Saddam’s troops were firing on U.S. military units almost every day for the entirety of the 12 years since the end of the Gulf War, we in the U.S. were not. Regardless, that’s a rather large aspect of the Iraqi situation to overlook by “accident”, which brings your international lawyers’ judgement in this matter into question.
Second, I fail to see how your international lawyers can claim no UN security council resolution proposed the use of force when I have already quoted that portion of 1441 that says:
“Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,”
It quite clearly states that Member States are authorized to use all necessary means to uphold all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660. Since 1441 later quite clearly states that Iraq was in material breach of multiple U.N. resolutions and considering resolution 678 is the same resolution that authorized the Gulf War 1, I fail to see how your “eminent international lawyers” can claim that the UN security council did not provide authorization. Unless they are claiming that resolution 678 did not provide authorization, in which case they are basically claiming Gulf War 1 was illegal too.
November 5th, 2004 at 2:12 pm
@Abiola:
“”…there?s absolutely no rationale for a European Union to exist.
In my opinion there is absolutely no rationale for a discussion on the European Union vs the USA without specifying what topics you talk about and what interests you want defended.
I have a problem with everyone writing in the name of his or her country.
Only when you are elected as president you can do that. You have made clear what you find the American (or French or Russian) interests are and you won support from a majority for that interpretation.
Pity that you do not react on the big outline of my contribution. That was: I see a very useless sort of discussion developing when people start talking about some absolute difference between the two sides of the atlantic. Stupid and intelligent people are about evenly distributed everywhere I suppose. I think at the US side there are more religious-fundamentalists (although in Poland, Ireland, Greece we have them in unhealthy numbers too) and I really see this as a threat to worldpeace in the long run: compare it with the influence of the Jewish-Taliban on Israels policy.
Bush apparently showed ?a willingness to wage a contentious confirmation battle with Senate Democrats, should there be an open seat on the court. He pointed to his first-term nominations for federal judgeships ? many of which triggered pitched partisan strife on the Senate floor ? as a guide to his approach, noting that he had sought out candidates “who represent a judicial temperament that I agree with.”
Of course in itself the nomination of supreme court judges surely is not of our (European) bussiness. If this is part of a tendency to fulfill the wishes of the christian-fundamentalists or the war-mongers it is, however.
Remarks like ?Why should militarily insignificant powers?????.have a veto over what America does outside their own immediate environs? for example really surprise and worry me. I left out the countries on the place of the dots and ask you if this could be your way of reasoning. If not, then please distinguish between your idea of US-unilaterism and your apparent contempt for that two countries or their governments. If yes, and if more US-politicians think along this line, maybe the idea of actively pursueing to (politically, not military) counterbalance the present US administration is not that strange indeed.
PS: I admit that I may have sounded different when I had started my reaction stating that I really dislike the tone of Scott’s remarks on Americans googling on “immigration to Europe”.
PPS: I agree with Oliver: ?That is a very foolish thing to do. Europe must not be based on aversion to the US. A Union based on fear might work, but loathing is a recipe for failure.?
November 5th, 2004 at 2:34 pm
@Mrs Tilton:
?RSN?s comments do often (though not always) verge on trollery. I?d hope he doesn?t come here simply looking to pick a fight but rather to try in good faith to get his views across, however misguided most of us find those views. His comments do have a certain merit, though. They offer, unwittingly perhaps, insight into the emotions and psychology of a certain strain of American unilateralism.?
Although I studied psychology I strongly oppose talking about people you discuss with in this way. Unintended most probably, but this is really very arrogant.
?Felix and Mark, I disagree with much of what you write; but I am pleased that you come here and defend your positions with reasoned argument and a degree of nuance (I apologise if you think my calling you ?nuanced? makes you sound too Old European).?
I completely agree with you that we should be glad with commenters like Mark or Felix (and Abiola most of the times). I agree with them more often than the average AFOE member does, btw.
We, the politicians discussing here at AFOE, have to deal with the fact that at present the European governments offer a very, very poor alternative to the Bush policy on a lot of issues.
November 5th, 2004 at 3:03 pm
In my opinion there is absolutely no rationale for a discussion on the European Union vs the USA without specifying what topics you talk about and what interests you want defended.
True, but the question whether Europe has enough shared interests to make a common foreign policy viable is legitimate.
If yes, and if more US-politicians think along this line, maybe the idea of actively pursueing to (politically, not military) counterbalance the present US administration is not that strange indeed.
This is to me a deeply flawed idea.
Firstly, any country must in the end have a unified foreign policy. No country can allow its opposition to ally itself with foreign powers, because that would undermine independence. You will not find any remotely sane US Democrat who would cooperate against an elected president with foreigners. The mere suspicion would end his political life. We must recognise that the US government speaks for the US.
Secondly, you cannot fully divorce the military from the political. Military operations have political goals. If Europe should actively oppose the political goals the US is making war for, Europe will create conditions under which US losses rise. The US cannot ignore that. There is a limit to the possible behavior of allies.
If we are really willing to oppose the US, this is the end of NATO. And possibly, the EU. Donald Rumsfeld’s remarks had an amount of truth in them.
November 5th, 2004 at 3:19 pm
Frans,
//
Dilbert: ?You Europeans have been thru hell in the last century what with WWI and II..?
The number of Europeans that have gone through WWI I think is probably below 1 promille. The number that has gone through WWII bigger but very small as well
//
Life expectancy in most of Europe is over 76 years, especially the women. And the wars affected most of the countries, in Eastern Europe the battles of WWI extended for some more time after 1918. Spain Civil War was rather a prelude to WWII.
DSW
November 5th, 2004 at 3:20 pm
“His comments do have a certain merit, though. They offer, unwittingly perhaps, insight into the emotions and psychology of a certain strain of American unilateralism.”
Thank you, Mrs. Tilton. I must admit that I do not feel I am alone with my viewpoints: everyone in the particular part of the businessworld that I inhabit here in the US would immediately recognize what I am talking about, and for the most part, agree.
As an example: I am one of those millions of Americans that just loves watching the cutthroat manoeuverings in Donald Trump’s “The Apprentice”. Talk about the celebration of competition!
Davon: the notion that “those that can’t do, teach” is a very American concept. It questions the main motivation for academics - especially young ones - to seek the solace of academia. It disparages them as unwilling or unfit for real-life competition, and - most importantly - questions the assumption that they have a better understanding of society, given that they live such protected lives.
Frans: I tend to think you are not familiar enough with the kinds of thinking going on in the American businessworld. Perhaps that’s the reason for your angry charges.
November 5th, 2004 at 4:44 pm
Bernard,
The U.S. government is not here to make the world a nicer place, my boy. It is here to make _my_ world, as a U.S. taxpayer, a better place.
Almost correct, Bernard, but the U.S. government’s mandate is not to ‘taxpayers’ but to citizens.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
I don’t think the Bush Government has done a good job of fulfilling that mandate in the past four years, I’m dubious about the prospects of them doing better in the next four. And I fear they’ll botch it up so that no subsequent elected government will be able to remedy the situation.
November 5th, 2004 at 4:50 pm
Frans,
by ‘psychology’ I am not implying ‘pyschopathology’; I am no Charles Krauthammer. I simply mean something like ‘way of thinking’. You are a professional and I a layperson, so I can understand how you might get irritated at my use of the term. But I assure you, my usage was merely descriptive, not diagnostic.
RSN,
I don’t know what part of the ‘American businessworld’ you inhabit. I inhabit the same world, as it happens (not geographically, of course, though I’ve done that too; but the US makes up a very large part of my virtual businessworld). In my part of that businessworld, nobody has much time for ‘The Apprentice’. (It’s now been cloned over here, BTW, with Bayer Leverkusen’s former manager as the Trump analogue.) Pure competition - eh, maybe. But we have enough competition every day without needing to watch its simulacrum on television. And if I do need simulacra, I’d sooner watch BL itself (and, d.v., watch them lose) than Rainer Calmund.
BTW, long ago I played a very small part in a transaction with Trump on the other side. He was trying to stay out of Ch. 11, and had to give all sorts of security in all sorts of things. He later managed to pull out of that particular nosedive (and fair play to him for it) but still, it was such fun to watch him signing away at those hundreds of bits of paper.
November 5th, 2004 at 7:06 pm
The U.S. government is not here to make the world a nicer place, my boy. It is here to make _my_ world, as a U.S. taxpayer, a better place.
This is a nice theory, but it is not the practice of the US government. In practice, the US administration sees itself as more than looking after American interests and, rightly or wrongly, plays a much, much larger role in the world. Additionally, the creation of wealth for its own often, either positively or adversely, affects others, such as military, environmental and trade decisions. Which is why the world pays attention at election time, and why the world feels justified in having an opinion on US policy. Indeed, as many of the adverse effects of US policy on the world can be represented financially, one could call it a type of taxation without representation; wars have been fought over the concept.
November 5th, 2004 at 8:03 pm
Mrs. Tilton, I’m hardly an admirer of Trump’s: he’s too much of a pompous fool. But I like the show, nevertheless. It is a great success. And in my business (the media business) it’s important to see what’s out there; it’s all part of competition, after all.
In terms of uber-businessmen, I like Richard Branson. He has style and verve.
November 7th, 2004 at 2:21 am
Patrick,
“Almost correct, Bernard, but the U.S. government’s mandate is not to ‘taxpayers’ but to citizens.”
Care to guess how close the correlation between the number of voters in a given election and the number of positive (that is, actually liable for income tax) tax returns filed that election year is? :^) Whether by accident or design, Patrick, political control in the U.S. rests for the most part with the tax-payer, and the tax-payer tends to vote his or her interests. In practical terms, I think I’m closer to correct than you are.
This particular point just came up in a class based heavily on Niall Ferguson’s _Cash Nexus_, BTW. I don’t feel I’m at liberty to post the prof’s materials willy-nilly onto the Net, but I can point you to the salient materials via e-mail if you wish.
November 8th, 2004 at 4:12 am
This is one American patriot, who was very educated on the issues–your article got it right! Pray for us (never mind, I forget that God is on our side with a direct line to George II)
November 8th, 2004 at 7:01 am
I’ve not read the entire set of comments, so forgive me if repeat something already said about the debunked/not debunked study of Iraqi mortality rates.
According to the study, 85% of the post invasion Iraqi deaths are due to Coalition military action. This sounds pretty bad, until one actually looks at the ACTUAL REPORTED numbers in the study, not the “projections.” If the self-reported, unverified numbers are true, the mortality rate, setting aside the “Coalition caused” deaths, in Iraq has almost HALVED since the invasion. If that alone doesn’t send up red flags about the study, I don’t know what will.
I’d like to point out one other thing regarding this thread: What is the foundation of the absolute surety that the “European perspective” is the right one? Seriously, why are y’all so damn sure that you’re right, and Bush is wrong? Why doesn’t the consideration that Bush & Co. may, just may, be right even register as a blip on your radars?
Something for you to ponder…
November 8th, 2004 at 11:41 am
What is the foundation of the absolute surety that the ?European perspective? is the right one?
Which European perspective? The British, French, German, Italian…
This illustrates an interesting commonality of many / most current posts from the US on this blog. The world is: black and white, “for us, or against us”, right or wrong, good or evil… An estimate of casuality figures cannot be “correct” because its… an estimate. It isn’t Europe that has the “surety” but the polar opposite opinions of factions within the US translated into reactions to individual “European” events and opinions.
Come back gray, all is forgiven.
November 8th, 2004 at 4:11 pm
What is strange in the diminution of other cause deaths? Let’s suppose that in “normal” conditions there were 2 deaths. The coalition causes 11 more deaths, why one of those deaths coud not be the one of any of the 2 who would have died from another cause?
DSW
November 8th, 2004 at 5:40 pm
Scott,
You’re criticizing without offering a solution. We Americans can beat ourselves up over our mistakes just fine, thank you. Some advice, though, would help.
Or fundamental problem is a severe disconnect between two cultures: Progressives (Urbanites) and Conservatives (Ruralists). The Conservatives won because they have the most money and are the best at mobilizing–and because they focus on fear, which is our strongest emotion. MILLIONS of us worked hard to remove Bush, but it didn’t happen. We know that ultimately all Americans are responsible for what happened in this election, but saying that nothing is going to change by 2008 doesn’t help, and it’s not really true. The Sixties were a terrible time for us, but we got through it, we made positive changes and reforms, and we became better for it. So if you don’t have anything positive to add or come up with ways that Europe can help progressives regain power in the U.S, then don’t whine. We know VERY WELL that Europe isn’t happy with us, believe me.
Give us some ideas.
November 8th, 2004 at 7:45 pm
Are you asking for tactical advice?
Firstly and primarily, analyze your situation.
If you do that you may come to the same conclusion as I. Conditions were as good as they are likely to get. If you couldn’t win this election, you can’t win any election.
Therefore you need to adjust.
November 8th, 2004 at 9:40 pm
“Give us some ideas.”
Move more to the right.
November 8th, 2004 at 10:09 pm
A move to the right isn’t in itself enough. If people want Republicans, they’ll elect them.
Of course in some ways you need to move to the right. “Gun control” is a 4-letter word from now now. And you need to be strong on defense as a party, not just your candidate. Do something spectacular, like embrace SDI and vote for new nukes.
But you must learn to think new ideas and think them in a way appealing to mainstream Americans.
Eg. talk about China, then talk about colleges not turning out American scientists and engineers.
Talk about national defense, then talk about health care and bioterrorism or health care and veterans.
Stress the bill of rights, you should have mentioned Jose Padilla hundreds of times. But you must love them all, even the second.
And think about Lations. GWB will likely nominate a latino to the Supreme Court (I would in his place). You must not oppose him, no matter his views on abortion. If you alienate latinos it is California and this is the end.
November 10th, 2004 at 9:24 am
RSN- I wasn’t asking you to flesh out the argument that “those who can’t teach.” I was aware of the details of that argument. One of my teachers in high school, for example, specifically used the idea to explain that she decided to teach English because she felt that he ability as a writer was poor, and that she felt that instructing young writers was the closest she would come to being a writer herself.
What I was asking you to do was to actually make an give me some reason to believe that the original study you were dismissing is flawed based on reality. All you seem to be able to offer is a catch-all argument that academics are somehow unqualified to comment on real life. That just doesn’t cut it, because, from my own experience, many academic people are just as involved in the real world as anyone else.
If anti-academic arguments have any merit, it is to remind us that having an advanced degree does not make one’s facts or logic unassailable by non-academics. I wholly agree with that sentiment- so go to it.