Europe-US Split ... Ramifications May Last For Years

[DAVOUT]

Brzezinski definition
[QUOTE][I]a comprehensive and integrated geostrategy for Eurasia must also be based on recognition of the limits of America's effective power and the inevitable attrition over time of its scope ... the US policy goal must be unapologetically twofold: to perpetuate America's own dominant position for at least a generation and preferably longer still; and to create a geopolitical framework that can absorb the inevitable shocks and strains of social-political change while evolving into the geopolitical core of shared responsibility for peaceful global management.[I][/QUOTE}

Reading from Sirius (or any other place not involved), this definition, and the related comment you made, one could only think that such a geostrategy is realistic and overall quite reasonable for the first power on this planet. Of course, a dominant position, which is relative to others position, could induce to lower the rival when it becomes difficult or impossible to elevate its own, but considering the limited time span of the dominant position (one generation), and the unforeseeable events hidden in the future (one generation ago, USSR anyone?), it cannot be seriously criticized. And the creation of a framework evolving into the geopolitical core of shared responsibility is definitely the thing to do for a peaceful global management of Earth.
As often, the difficulty arises when we connect this definition with a real case, such as the Iraq affair. It can be seen, without twisting words or concepts (don't forget that we look at that from Sirius), as an affirmation of the dominant position: you feel threatened, nobody can stop you, you will solve the problem once and for all. You inform everybody that it is a matter between you and Iraq; that is it. But it was also presented as belonging to the geopolitical framework, which is a place where responsibilities are shared, hence the misunderstanding. It appears clearly that some thinks that the responsibilities are already shared, whereas the definition says that the framework will evolve into the geopolitical core of shared responsibilities.
It is useless to comment that a proper communication could have reduced the problem to nothing. But it could be worth to observe that the relationship between US and Europe is totally unclear on one important point: the burden of military budgets. Either Europe pays for its defence (either directly through European armies, or indirectly through US military, as Germany did for Gulf War I), and it legitimately demands a say in all decisions, or it let the cost to the US, which will decide in all good faith. But then Europe could say that the whole word is subsidizing the US through the dollar, and the military protection is a fait counterpart.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by The Viceroy
Agathon,

By all means debate, but try to lesson the insults, they serve nothing but to discredit your opinion, which im sure is worth listening to.

Perhaps, but I just don't have any patience with some people. This is a vice of mine, although I'll usually only respond rather than start it.

You talk of scientific polls, but do you not agree that they are purely subjective, and the question can skew the result ??

This is true, but there are better polls and worse polls. The good ones ask good questions and take a wide base of opinion, the bad ones don't.

But all this is besides the point. Every news agency I have watched (even those biased to one side or the other) have confirmed that there is mass opposition to a war without a second resolution in Europe. In Britain it is less stark than in say, Spain or Germany but it is acknowledged by virtually every commentator I have seen. The same people also say it is different in the States where there is much more support for a war, although it isn't clear that there is a majority for one without a second resolution - but this is disputed.

Now if I really wanted to just baldly claim that everyone was anti war I would have claimed that all the Americans are. As it stands they may well be, but I have seen no reputable evidence that they are.

[OliverFA]

Originally posted by The Viceroy
Polls are simply statistical tools, and as all good BBC polls state, they are merely indicative, and not representative of the population as a whole. Neil Kinnock will remember all the polls which forcast him to be the next Labour prime minister, and George Bush senior will remember the polls which gave him 90% approval only a year before the election.

As an example of what Viceroy is saying here, in the last two Spanish General elections the party who "lost" the polls was the one who won the elections. The last time with absolute majority...

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by randomturn
I have to disagree with Sava. France has removed itself from the list of nations the United States will confer with in a crisis. What future President would want to repeat Bush's diplomatic errors -- which certainly include Kyoto and cracks like "old Europe" -- but also very much include giving the French any say in world affairs. That is clearly just an invitation for them grandstand and play at being Leader of the World. Avoiding the French means avoiding the UN, so theat is going to be a huge casualty of this process. Some administration types are actually talking about the US withdrawing "temporarily" from the UN until that organization is reformed. The rift is far deeper than anyone in Europe seems to understand, and the consequences for the Atlantic alliance will be enormous.

The problem is not France, the problem is what she says.

[Agathon]

With all due respect, that is bloody silly.

Yes polls are fallible. Sometimes they get it wrong. But most of the time they are an adequate although imprecise reflection of public opinion. That's why politicians spend money on them. Using a few examples to discredit the institution of polling is simply ridiculous.

Just because the polls don't favour your side is no reason to doubt them. After all I'm not sure the US polls favour my side, but I don't have any reason to doubt them.

[Arrian]

It all comes down to the phrasing of the questions and whether or not they got a representative segment of the population to answer. My understanding is that the reputable polling groups are good at the statistical bit (right # of people, etc). That leaves only the phrasing of the questions, which can make a big difference in the answers. But, IIRC, the reputable polls will have a link that provides the questions, so you can judge for yourself what the slant was (and there usually is a slant of some kind).

-Arrian

[KrazyHorse]

And when there are 2 million people marching around in London and half the PM's caucus deserts him, it might tell you something even without the aid of scientific polling...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Frogger
And when there are 2 million people marching around in London and half the PM's caucus deserts him, it might tell you something even without the aid of scientific polling...

Which is all I'd been saying. You'd think I'd claimed Elvis was alive and well and a member of Al Quaeda.

[Ned]

Question:

Do you favor resolving the Iraq crisis peacefully or through war.

80% peacefully
20% war

But what does such the answer to such a question tell us about public opinion?

We really need to see the series of questions to understand where the public is on this kind of issue. I think there may be a majority in most countries for war if the UN approves. But, delving even deeper, what does this mean? It is generally understood that the UN would approve a war only as a last resort.

So, I suspect a majority in most of the world agrees that Saddam must be disarmed and is willing to use force as a last resort.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ned

So, I suspect a majority in most of the world agrees that Saddam must be disarmed and is willing to use force as a last resort.

Agreed - but they also think that there is a long way to go before force is necessary and they think that Bush is rushing to war.

[DinoDoc]

You people have killed this thread!

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

How many cases does it take? Off the top of my head we have the American invasion of Panama, the French intervention in the Ivory Coast, & possibly the invasion of Grenada as well to add to the list.

Panama and Ivory Coast had bilateral treaties on the issue, IIRC. Grenada - what was the opinio iuris? Iraq - what is the reason in the first place?

[DinoDoc]

Latin goes over my head in most cases. What does opinio iuris mean?

[HershOstropoler]

randomturn:

Hi rt! How's it going?

"come on, france and germany aren't acting "to stop the war." they have absolutely no power to do so... So then what are their real motives?"

Why not join the US then and cash in on some of the goodies?

"It is widely perceived in america now that -- in contrast to china and russia -- france and germany have strictly personal self-interest at stake rather than high morality"

While China and Russia are in it for the moriality?

"to consolidate franco-german control over european foreign policy and leadership over the rest of europe in general"

I think the french political elite is terminally stupid, but not that delusional. It's more part of a general struggle about europe's role vis a vis the US.

"the alliance is over, you will see"

Has been dead for a while.

"while Britain has greatly increased hers"

Yup, ask Rumsie.

[HershOstropoler]

Derogating a rule of international law requires a new rule, established by state practice and opinio iuris, ie roughly putting forward a new draft rule by saying it exists.

[St Leo]

What does opinio iuris mean?

Latin for "Religion" is "Religio" and Latin for "Jupiter" is "Iupiter". Is it clear enough yet?

[randomturn]

Hersh -- sorry, who ru? you sound like my old friend roland! things are good with me. working hard, starting education companies. kind of like a full time entrepreneur. fun!

no implication that Chi/Rus are moral agents. they are being quiet and not rubbing it in the face of the US. Same with Germany post-election. France is reviled here for enjoying it so much. No one here objects to honest principle, but these guys are making a charade of the UN. France is transparently using crisis to play peacock on the world stage. they aren't going for post-war goodies because they are much more enticed by opportunity to be "leader of the rest of the world" as they see it.

[HershOstropoler]

"you sound like my old friend roland!"

Bingo.

"starting education companies."

Wonna buy an old university (AD 1622) ?

"but these guys are making a charade of the UN."

Well yes, but so is the Bush admin.

"they aren't going for post-war goodies because they are much more enticed by opportunity to be "leader of the rest of the world" as they see it."

As I said, I think they are stupid, but not that delusional. Wrestling a good deal of concessions from the Bushies would serve that goal too, and it would be realistic.

[Ned]

Roland, the US government cities Kosovo as legal precedent for collective use of military force -- in that instance to stop genocide -- to justify collective action here to enforce UN SC resolutions.

What Kosovo stands for, IMO, is that such collective action is a legal to remedy of a violation of international law if the SC cannot itself act because of the obstruction of one (or more?) its permanent members, in that case, Russia. Essentially, the precedent establishes the right of collective action to remedy a violation of interantional law when the SC is split or when one or more permanent members veto's.

I remember the discussion of the legality of defending South Korea in the face of a Russian veto. 50 years ago it was thought that a resolution of the General Assembly would be sufficient to proceed.

However, Clinton never approached the GA. Nor did he seek the authorization of Congress. He simply formed a coalition, NATO, and declared war on Yugoslavia after an ultimatum.

The UN SC did not condemn Clinton, IIRC, even though Ramsey Clark wanted him tried for the crime of aggression before the Hague.

May I suggest, Roland, that if one wants to argue that Bush's actions are illegal here, that we first arrest Clinton and put him on trial. We cannot have a double standard, can we?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ned
May I suggest, Roland, that if one wants to argue that Bush's actions are illegal here, that we first arrest Clinton and put him on trial.

Somehow, I don't think there is much that would please some people more.

[Drake Tungsten]

If we want to talk about precedent, what cases justify the belief that all use of force must be approved by the Security Council? I doubt two cases (Korea and the Gulf War) negate the precedent set by every other military action since the end of WWII, which have not had UN approval. General state practice seems to be to ignore the UN, so why wouldn't such behavior be de facto international law?

[notyoueither]

The SC was not required in Korea for the US to land troops. It was required to get forces from most everywhere else to help out.

The SC was also not required for Desert Storm. Again, it was a good thing to have so that most everyone else would chip in.

The US and the UK could easily have cleaned the desert in Kuwait with or without the rest of the world as hangers on. Likewise, the absence of some of the hangers on would not have effected the outcome in Korea, most likely.

[DanS]

I think France will find out that approbium, even by the entire world community (or especially by the entire world community) is a very fickle and fleeting thing.

I used to think that France would try to protect its interests in the UN and take more a fence straddling position. Don't quite understand the game they have going on, except if they are suffering under delusions of grandeur.

rt: Nice to see you around!

[Ned]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
If we want to talk about precedent, what cases justify the belief that all use of force must be approved by the Security Council? I doubt two cases (Korea and the Gulf War) negate the precedent set by every other military action since the end of WWII, which have not had UN approval. General state practice seems to be to ignore the UN, so why wouldn't such behavior be de facto international law?

Drake, I beleive the problem here is the UN Charter which outlaws the use of force except in self defense or collective self defense. If you examine most cases not condemned by the UN, the protagonists had a legal excuse for their war, even if it was a phony one they themselves set up - such as the one the Soviets used in Afghanistan.

This kind of legal pretext behavior is as old as the hills. I first encounted it when I read Caesar. Everything he did in Gaul, in Britain, in Germany and in crossing the Rubicon, was justified legally. And yet, we know exactly what he was actually doing, don't we?

[Adam Smith]

Does the current diplomatic manouvering have ramifications for the ME peace process? Eventually, hopefully, we get to a two state solution, with Isreal's good behavior guaranteed by the US, and Palestine's good behavior guaranteed by Europe. Can Europe, especially France, be trusted to keep their end of the bargain? If not, can there be a bargain?

Good to see you rt

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Agathon
Perhaps, but I just don't have any patience with some people. This is a vice of mine, although I'll usually only respond rather than start it.

How do you deal with all that Kiwi-bashing and still retain your equanimity?

[HershOstropoler]

Ned:

The Kosovo precedent does not make law on its own. It also leaves a lot of questions open: what is a sufficient collective? what is a legitimate target? what kind of SC failure is required?

There's also the big difference that Bush and his ilk wanted an Iraq war from the beginning, under any pretext they could find. Is that ok then for China too? Or North Korea? India would have much better justification to attack Pakistan - is that ok, too?

"I remember the discussion of the legality of defending South Korea in the face of a Russian veto."

No case there as there was no Soviet veto.

[notyoueither]

Because the Americans realised the Soviets had forgotten to attend that day...

I am sure that public discourse happened prior to that.

[KrazyHorse]

"forgotten to attend"

Weren't they boycotting the SC?

[notyoueither]

So they foolishly, intentionally, forgot that the SC could derail the revolution on that day. They either forgot something, or never knew it to begin with.