NY Times column by Condoleeza Rice. her rationale for her judgement that Iraq is not disarming itself.
Interesting read, GJ, though I doubt it will persuade you.
'fan,
I read the Times Op-ed piece, Why We Know Iraq Is Lying, and had the predictably out-of-step reaction. Instead of being impressed and persuaded by the argument of a high US government official that guilt or innocence is largely predicated upon how proactively Iraq participates in its own investigation and prosecution, I instead found myself wondering if Condoleeza Rice is familiar with the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution and what she thinks of it, if she is.
I imagined Condoleeza Rice being a public prosecutor and pointing to a defendant in a trial and saying: ‘Look, your honor, even now, in the middle of his trial he’s sitting over there saying nothing, offering no help whatsoever in leading us to the evidence we need to determine his guilt. Instead of offering answers to important questions at issue here, he makes us ask them first and even then refuses to answer them all. I ask you, how can such an uncooperative defendant be innocent?’
(Applause!)
'fan, what’s wrong with me? This seems more like the Soviet Union to me than the land of Thomas Jefferson. I know it’s not right to think this way, but it’s me and always has been me.
The best answer I’ve been able to come up with as to why I’m so stubborn and contrarian about issues of war, death and human rights is my heritage. Specifically my mother’s Swedish family side, surnamed Berg. She’s told me from my earliest years that Raoul Wallenberg is a distant family relation and I think somewhere along the way I just let that go to my head – or maybe it’s just like a wild seed in me, a part of my nature – this stubborn refusal to go along with the killing of people and the making of war unless it’s a clear and crystal matter of just self-defense.
I don’t think there’s any hope that I’ll ever be suitable as ‘my country right or wrong’ material so I should probably just do as Tigerman has demanded and go away and shut up, ride out the upcoming War With the Eskimos in the best fashion I can while the Tigermen and their Tiger tanks prowl the surface of the earth once more.
You have either a good imagination or a poor grasp of the situation. The situation is not analogous to a criminal trial where the 5th Amendment would apply. Iraq has already been found guilty… The situation is more similar to a convicted criminal being given a chance for leniency prior to sentencing… if he will only cooperate and help the prosecution to find the other missing bodies.
The UN has asked that Iraq account for weapons and materials that the UN knows were bought or otherwise produced by Iraq. Iraq agreed to cooperate… and is now failing to do so.
Your analogy is false and thus so is your reasoning that flows from it.
That’s because you don’t understand the situation.
Yeah… you’re a saint… the rest of us who disagree with you are monsters. BTW, my grandmother was born in Malmo. So what?
Oh please… anyone who disagrees with your assessment of the situation is unable to make objective assessments of their own? :?
I don’t recall demanding that you go away. I did imply that you are boring. But that’s not the same thing as demanding that you go away.
That’s an unfair characterization of me and I’m inclined to call you a prick for making the same. If you cannot reply to the comment that has been made several times, asserting that your analogy is flawed, then what should I think?
[quote=“Gavin Januarus”]
The best answer I’ve been able to come up with as to why I’m so stubborn and contrarian about issues of war, death and human rights is my heritage. [/quote]
contrarian? uh, your views are pretty generic. i mean really, it’s quite the typical european/liberal view. how exactly is it contrarian? it’s like a republican in texas coming out in support of the death penalty and then declaring himself a maverick and a rebel. sorry, doesn’t work.
take a note on how many people on this board share your view. now count up how many people share 'fan’s views(me, tigerman, and 'fan…maybe a couple more here and there). how can you be contrarian when you belong to the majority view?
[quote=“tmwc”]Riddle me this:
Arafat, whatever you or I may think of him, was chosen as the leader of his people in an election that was declared free and fair by independent (EU) observers. No other middle-eastern leader can make the same claim, although Isreal itself does seem to have a reasonably stable democracy.
Most of the US’ allies in the region are unelected dictators, yet Arafat is ‘irrelevant’ and Iran - with it’s elected parliament that is trying to introduce reforms - is part of an ‘axis of evil’.
Is there something I’m missing here?[/quote]
-
From the point of view of the US, I think Arafat is “irrelevant” because Clinton felt let-down by his rejection of the last peace proposal. For Bush, his view may have been partly influenced by this, too.
-
For Sharon, its a personal battle between the two that has been going on far too long for either of them to change. Sharon basically hates Arafat.
-
For some Palestinians… well… let Edward Said (June 17th 2002) explain his views:
[quote=“Edward Said”]Fifth, is Yasser Arafat and his circle of associates who have suddenly discovered the virtues (theoretically at least) of democracy and reform. I know that I speak at a great distance from the field of struggle, and I also know all the arguments about the besieged Arafat as a potent symbol of Palestinian resistance against Israeli aggression, but I have come to a point where I think none of that has any meaning anymore. Arafat is simply interested in saving himself. He has had almost ten years of freedom to run a petty kingdom and has succeeded essentially in bringing opprobrium and scorn on himself and most of his team; the Authority became a byword for brutality, autocracy and unimaginable corruption. Why anyone for a moment believes that at this stage he is capable of anything different, or that his new streamlined cabinet (dominated by the same old faces of defeat and incompetence) is going to produce actual reform, defies reason. He is the leader of a long suffering people, whom in the past year he has exposed to unacceptable pain and hardship, all of it based on a combination of his absence of a strategic plan and his unforgivable reliance on the tender mercies of Israel and the US via Oslo. Leaders of independence and liberation movements have no business exposing their unarmed people to the savagery of war criminals like Sharon, against whom there was no real defence or advance preparation. Why then provoke a war whose victims would be mostly innocent people when you have neither the military capacity to fight one nor the diplomatic leverage to end it? Having done this now three times (Jordan, Lebanon, West Bank) Arafat should not be given a chance to bring on a fourth disaster.
He has announced that elections will take place in early 2003, but his real concentration is to reorganise the security services. I have long pointed out in these columns that Arafat’s security apparatus was always designed principally to serve him and Israel, since the Oslo accords were based on his having made a deal with Israel’s military occupation. Israel cared only about its security, for which it held Arafat responsible (a position, by the way, he willingly accepted as early as 1992). In the meantime Arafat used the 15 or 19 or whatever the right number of groups was to play each off against the other, a tactic he perfected in Fakahani, and which is patently stupid so far as the general good is concerned. He never really reined in Hamas and Islamic Jihad which suited Israel perfectly: it would have a ready- made excuse to use the so-called martyr’s (mindless) suicide bombings to further diminish and punish the whole people. If there is one thing along with Arafat’s ruinous regime that has done us more harm as a cause it is this calamitous policy of killing Israeli civilians, which further proves to the world that we are indeed terrorists and an immoral movement. For what gain no one has been able to say.
Having therefore made a deal with the occupation through Oslo, Arafat was never really in a position to lead a movement to end it. And ironically, he is trying to make another deal now, both to save himself and prove to the US, Israel and the other Arabs that he deserves another chance. I myself don’t care a whit for what Bush, or the Arab leaders, or Sharon says: I am interested in what we as a people think of our leader, and there I believe we must be absolutely clear in rejecting his entire programme of reform, elections, reorganising the government and security services. His record of failure is too dismal and his capacities as a leader too enfeebled and incompetent for him to try yet again to save himself for another try.[/quote]
Later, in the same article, Said makes the further point:
He seems to be in a vulnerable position!
I think this stuff is too important to be “flamed out” in a week, so I will post this in the US of Shame thread, too.
As Flipper correctly pointed out, you are not at all a “contrarian”. Your views are the easy views to hold. They look good, until scrutinized and analyzed closely. Your posts remind me of comments by Adam G. Mersereau on the peace movement:
Keep fighting the good fight 
Just a question. How old is Januarus Gavinus whateverus? Just curious.
Just talking to an economics minister from Latin America, who told me that what they would love more than anything (besides free aid money of course) is to be able to export their products to the developed world. This would bring in billions of revenue which would far outweight the 100s of millions of dollars (combined total) that are given to his country. The problem? The Common Agricultural Policy supported primarily by France to appease its own farmers. Man you should have heard this guy railing against France. It seems to be the conversation of choice these days. France this France that. Apparently, according to his statistics at least, not only does the CAP shut them out of European markets, it floods potential export markets with cheaper European goods from the lake of wine and mountain of cheese that they have. So at least in his book, Denmark and Norway can keep the 100K they give to support education in remote villages (and usually only for tribal groups never for the populace in general despite the fact that this gives them 1% of GDP) as chump change. Give them open markets instead. Don’t get this guy started on bananas and how the whole system is rigged to favor French growers in (where else) the French territories of Guadeloupe and Martinique. This is like the sixth conversation I have had this week where everyone was beating up on France. Surely they are not to blame for ALL the world’s problems?
This is a bugbear of mine, too. Its not just the French - Germany, too, the UK… all the EU are complicit. The US has higher import tariffs on farming than it needs. And let’s not forget Japan and rich-but-still-developing South Korea (where import tariffs on agricultural goods are about 60%). Restricting imports of agricultural goods does much harm:
- it denies consumers access to cheaper goods from abroad
- it denies consumers access to a greater variety of goods
- it denies poor countries opportunities to earn foreign exchange and slows their development
- it harms the environment by protecting the least efficient producers of foods, producers who have to rely on a far higher rate of chemical fertilizer use (highest, for example, in Korea)
Thus, the whole policy of protecting the agricultural sector in the US, UK, Europe, Japan, and elsewhere is, in my opinion, a terrible crime.
We might add, here, too the MFA (Multifibre Agreement) that blocks poor country exports of apparel to the US. This probably does just as much harm to developing nations - its supposed to go by 2005, but watch out for delaying/backtracking.
So, its not just France. Other countries play the game, too. And its to the detriment of their domestic consumers and foreign countries’ development. Why do they do it? Industrial lobbying. How do they get away with it? Not enough people protest to their national governments. Farmers in particular have been adept at using environmental “save the countryside” arguments to garner domestic support. And so, voters vote for expensive food, higher chemical pollution, and third-world poverty, just so that the farmers can keep their incomes.
Now, I may have put the case a little baldly, but the essential arguments are just these.
The trouble is, when it comes to issues of trade, people have to be able to look beyond their own borders, own interests, and prejudices. This is tough. And its not worth any politician’s career to try and force them to do it, if it means thousands of “salt-of-the-earth” farmers rioting outside the parliament building telling middle-class voters that the government is trying to betray their pastoral heritage.
[quote=“imyourbiggestfan”]Its not just the French - Germany, too, the UK… all the EU are complicit. The US has higher import tariffs on farming than it needs. And let’s not forget Japan and rich-but-still-developing South Korea (where import tariffs on agricultural goods are about 60%). Restricting imports of agricultural goods does much harm.
Thus, the whole policy of protecting the agricultural sector in the US, UK, Europe, Japan, and elsewhere is, in my opinion, a terrible crime.[/quote]
IYBF,
I completely agree.
But I think it is primarily France. There are a few governments in the EU, such as Britain and Germany, that recognize a need to cut subsidies, along with the quotas and other barriers to trade. But it is the French, so frequently complaining about US unilateralism, who have warned that they’ll tolerate no changes in the agricultural system.
But this is precisely what President Bush has been proposing in the US. Not complete free trade, but a very substantial reduction in both agriculture tarrifs and subsidies, which both Japan and the EU utilize much more than the US, even with the recent $190 billion U.S. farm bill subsidies.
After criticizing that US farm bill as a subsidy blowout, Europe and Japan are now complaining about the Bush proposal, which calls for all farm tariffs to be cut to an average of 15% in 5 years, from a world-wide average of 62%, and for domestic farm subsidies to be capped at 5% of a country’s output. Rather than merely bashing the US, the EU ($93 billion in producer supports) and Tokyo ($47 billion) must now take action regarding their own subsidies.
Look at the Australian response to the US proposal. Australia forces its farmers to compete in an open market and wishes that the rest of the world do likewise. Australia’s agriculture minister stated that the US initiative “clearly demonstrates its commitment to engage seriously in WTO negotiations on agriculture.”
The EU’s tariffs are on average 31%, compared to only 12% for the US. The EU also outspends the U.S. on export subsidies $2 billion to $20 million. Moreover, the average EU farmer obtains 35% of his income from subsidies and other supports, compared with 21% for the American (and 4% for the Australian). The EU crys that it spends only $16 per farmer versus $20 for the US, but that merely reflects the fact that the US went through massive farm consolidations in the 1980s and now has much larger farms. In support per hectare of farm land, the EU outspends the US – and the OECD as a whole – six to one!
The wealthy world spends approximately $230 billion in farm supports. This raises the price of agricultural products world-wide, to as much as 50% higher in Europe for example, and this very much harms developing nations.
According to a recent World Bank study, African exports could increase by
approximately $2.5 billion if the US, Europe, Japan and Canada eliminated
their agriculture tariffs. The 2000 Africa trade bill allows most African
goods to enter the US with little or no taxes. Unfortunately, however, some of Africa’s best exports, such as ground nuts and tobacco, still encounter significant import barriers. No amount of aid can counterbalance that obstacle to growth.
The US and Europe will not have any credibility to negotiate a new global trade round unless they are willing to lay these farms subsidies on the table. The US has done so… its now up to the French and the EU and Tokyo to do the same.
Shame on who?
[quote=“tigerman”]The US and Europe will not have any credibility to negotiate a new global trade round unless they are willing to lay these farms subsidies on the table. The US has done so… its now up to the French and the EU and Tokyo to do the same.
Shame on who?[/quote]
Shame on everyone - but yes, of those countries mentioned, in terms of the level of subsidies, Japan is the worst, EU comes second, the US a distant third, and Australia is the best. Perhaps shame can be placed proportionately.
I have little to add, except that as an avid free-trader I would like to see the US call for even more cuts - as 15% is too close to the average level of their own tariffs. I’d like to see them press for reductions as far as Australia, for example. But this would obviously not be politically astute!
Mr. T. I find nothing to disagree with in your post. All of which is further evidence for those who believe we inhabit the same space-time coordinates.
Someone posted part 1 of Friedman’s NY Times piece on Iraq. Here is part 2. Just as worthwhile reading:
Thinking About Iraq (II)
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
In my column on Wednesday I laid out why I believe that liberals underestimate how ousting Saddam Hussein could help spur positive political change in the Arab world. Today’s column explores why conservative advocates of ousting Saddam underestimate the risks, and where we should strike the balance.
Let’s start with one simple fact: Iraq is a black box that has been sealed shut since Saddam came to dominate Iraqi politics in the late 1960’s. Therefore, one needs to have a great deal of humility when it comes to predicting what sorts of bats and demons may fly out if the U.S. and its allies remove the lid. Think of it this way: If and when we take the lid off Iraq, we will find an envelope inside. It will tell us what we have won and it will say one of two things.
It could say, “Congratulations! You’ve just won the Arab Germany ?a country with enormous human talent, enormous natural resources, but with an evil dictator, whom you’ve just removed. Now, just add a little water, a spoonful of democracy and stir, and this will be a normal nation very soon.”
Or the envelope could say, “You’ve just won the Arab Yugoslavia ?an artificial country congenitally divided among Kurds, Shiites, Sunnis, Nasserites, leftists and a host of tribes and clans that can only be held together with a Saddam-like iron fist. Congratulations, you’re the new Saddam.”
In the first scenario, Iraq is the way it is today because Saddam is the way he is. In the second scenario, Saddam is the way he is because Iraq is what it is. Those are two very different problems. And we will know which we’ve won only when we take off the lid. The conservatives and neo-cons, who have been pounding the table for war, should be a lot more humble about this question, because they don’t know either.
Does that mean we should rule out war? No. But it does mean that we must do it right. To begin with, the president must level with the American people that we may indeed be buying the Arab Yugoslavia, which will take a great deal of time and effort to heal into a self-sustaining, progressive, accountable Arab government. And, therefore, any nation-building in Iraq will be a multiyear marathon, not a multiweek sprint.
Because it will be a marathon, we must undertake this war with the maximum amount of international legitimacy and U.N. backing we can possibly muster. Otherwise we will not have an American public willing to run this marathon, and we will not have allies ready to help us once we’re inside (look at all the local police and administrators Europeans now contribute in Bosnia and Kosovo). We’ll also become a huge target if we’re the sole occupiers of Iraq.
In short, we can oust Saddam Hussein all by ourselves. But we cannot successfully rebuild Iraq all by ourselves. And the real prize here is a new Iraq that would be a progressive model for the whole region. That, for me, is the only morally and strategically justifiable reason to support this war. The Bush team dare not invade Iraq simply to install a more friendly dictator to pump us oil. And it dare not simply disarm Iraq and then walk away from the nation-building task.
Unfortunately, when it comes to enlisting allies, the Bush team is its own worst enemy. It has sneered at many issues the world cares about: the Kyoto accords, the World Court, arms control treaties. The Bush team had legitimate arguments on some of these issues, but the gratuitous way it dismissed them has fueled anti-Americanism. No, I have no illusions that if the Bush team had only embraced Kyoto the French wouldn’t still be trying to obstruct America in Iraq. The French are the French. But unfortunately, now the Germans are the French, the Koreans are the French, and many Brits are becoming French.
Things could be better, but here is where we are ?so here is where I am: My gut tells me we should continue the troop buildup, continue the inspections and do everything we can for as long as we can to produce either a coup or the sort of evidence that will give us the broadest coalition possible, so we can do the best nation-building job possible.
But if war turns out to be the only option, then war it will have to be ?because I believe that our kids will have a better chance of growing up in a safer world if we help put Iraq on a more progressive path and stimulate some real change in an Arab world that is badly in need of reform. Such a war would indeed be a shock to this region, but, if we do it right, there is a decent chance that it would be shock therapy.
[quote=“Gavin Januarus”]Instead of being impressed and persuaded by the argument of a high US government official that guilt or innocence is largely predicated upon how proactively Iraq participates in its own investigation and prosecution, I instead found myself wondering if Condoleeza Rice is familiar with the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution and what she thinks of it, if she is.
I imagined Condoleeza Rice being a public prosecutor and pointing to a defendant in a trial and saying: ‘Look, your honor, even now, in the middle of his trial he’s sitting over there saying nothing, offering no help whatsoever in leading us to the evidence we need to determine his guilt. Instead of offering answers to important questions at issue here, he makes us ask them first and even then refuses to answer them all. I ask you, how can such an uncooperative defendant be innocent?’[/quote]
From the TIMESONLINE:
[quote=“Timesonline”]Eleven weeks ago, the burden of proof was unequivocally on Iraq to show itself free of these weapons and the capacity to produce them. Since then, merely by leaving UN weapons inspectors to search for what he still refuses to disclose, Saddam has managed to shift the political load back to the US. This frustrating game of pass the parcel has gone on for 12 years. The international debate has regressed to a dangerously confused state. Next week clarity about what Iraq must do needs to be restored.
On Monday Hans Blix reports to the Security Council in his capacity as head of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (Unmovic). President Bush gives his State of the Union address the following day. At issue is whether Iraq is complying with Resolution 1441, unanimously passed by the Security Council on November 8. It is important to be clear what