Here's a link to another article

looks like the lawyers are going to have a good time with this.

Fareed Zakaria is a good journalist with interesting views.  I enjoy his opinions and agreed with many of them in the past.  Unfortunately, like many who lives in NYC and traveled among foreign intellectuals, the fear of potential abolition of existing world structures is too great for them to contemplate.  Without seeing the world as they are, a jungle full of perils with ambitious, ruthless leaders ready to claim their prize (see Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Syria’s de facto control of Lebanon, etc.), they view the world as a civil society where procedures and processes are more important than substance.  

Here is my attempt to rebut the premise and various arguments raised by his piece in Newsweek.  It is properly better suited in other forums.  However, since a link the article was brought up, I thought this would present a counter view which might be worthy of consideration.

Part I.  The attitude of the rest of the world towards the US position – the listing of the world’s opposition to US on this matter is well presented.  However, the underlining reasonnale of those oppositions has not been elaborated.  The majority of the world is not threatened by weapons of mass destruction (WMD).  They knew that US is the number one target for terrorist ready to use WMD.  They are more worry about the near term supply of oil than the long term effect of the collapse of sanctions against Iraq.  That is their luxury which US could not afford.

They sympathized with us on our loss on 9-11 but many don’t do much to bring about a change without constant pressure from US.  Yes, European intelligences have captured terrorist cells in their countries plotting against Americans inside their countries.  When it comes to tightening up their immigration policies as in Canada, shuts down the financial pipelines from countries supporting terrorist as in Switzerland and Saudi Arabia or takes aggressive actions to deny havens to terrorist camps as in Philippine, they are dragging their feet.

The observation of Zekaria that people in the world “have come to be deeply suspicious and fearful of us” is wrong.  To say that they have come to be jealous and resentful towards us are more to the point.  If they are fearful of us, they would not publicly demonstrate their disapproval of US.  The opposite is true.  

Because of our benign and benevolent way of dealing with the world with opposition and impediments to US suffered virtually no consequence, people and leaders of other countries are taking more and more shots at US.  Once the consequence of US bashing are demonstrated in South Korea with the discussion of withdrawal of US troops, their government and most of the opposition change the tune.

It is like the situation regarding terrorists in the 90s.  They prevailed again and again in acts against US with minimal effective retaliations from us.  That emboldened them and their supporters with the cumulation of the event of 9-11.

Part II.  Zakaris reading of the world’s past view of American power is different from mine.  “US supremacy is hardly a recent phenomenon.  America has been the leading world power for almost a century now.”  I dispute that observation.  

US might be the richest country in the world by 1900.  However, the influence of US on the world stage before WWI was minimal.  TR’s white navy was eye-catching when they visited ports around the world.  No historian I knew claimed that American’s arm forces were feared by other countries at the time.  Much of the world were focused on the naval arm race between Britain and Prussia (read the book Dreadnought by Robert Massie http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0345375564/qid=1047874094/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/104-2433324-6983902 ) .  

Japan was a great economic power in 1980s, but not many people in the world valued their opinions on the world stage.  It was mainly due to their timid leadership.  After WWI, US was viewed as “a power” who chose to mind their own business.  That’s why Hitler was more worried about French, British and Soviet’s reaction than those of US.  Japan and Italy openly thumbed their noses to the world without much thought of US opinions.  “Use it or lose it” was so true in those decades.

The enlightened foreign policy of FDR, "it reassured countries - through word and deed, style and substance - that America'a mammoth power need not be feared.", was not as humble as Zakaris had stated.  

Tehran and Yalta happened because by 1943 and 1945, Soviet had proven themselves as the main thrust against Nazi Germany.  Stalin, being a communist leader in war time, wouldn’t leave the country for long trips abroad.  Both 1943 and 1945 meetings were plans by Roosevelt to placate the Soviets for the lack of second front and the plan for postwar Europe.  It was done due to the necessities of facts on the ground, not some ideal humble gestures.  On fundamental issues of when to start a second front against Nazi Germany and the division of Europe, the idea of sending a secondary in the discussion was laughable.  It was suggested by Zakaris as a much overstated example of how good FDR gave attention to diplomacy.  I didn’t think Stalin and the Soviets were grateful at all on those gestures.

Montgomery’s appointment of Field Marshall in the command of the invasion force after Normandy was a balancing act since Eisenhower was the Supreme Commander of allied force in European Theatre, just as Bush needs to have Blair on his side as a show of alliance.  China and France was brought into UN Security Council as a calculation of Continental Non-English speaking counterweights to Japan and Germany after the occupations’ inevitable end.  Similarly Spain, Italy and Portugal are enlisted and prominently displayed in the current alliance as a show of the inclusion of other countries.  Why one gesture is honorable while the other one is not worthy of praise is beyond me.

After WWII, many countries in the world didn’t like US and its allies.  Most of the third world and non-alliance countries like India and much of South America were against us.  Greece and large part of France and Italy with its powerful Communist Parties ignored the atrocities in various Communist regimes.  Instead they tried to convince the rest of the world of the evil of market economy and its chief advocate, US.  US was bashed around the world for its successful businesses, large homes and lack of sophisticated culture.  With the need of regional allies to counter Soviet design and the lack of democratic traditions in those countries, unfortunately, US had to support dictators who sided with us in the Cold War.

At the end of the Cold War, Russia was busy righting itself of economic messes.  EU was planning an economic counterweight to US with the unification of currency.  There were talks about EU force outside of NATO but it was exposed as a joke in Bosnia and Kosovo.  There were many undercurrents in the mid to late 90s.  It was just that the design of countries like France was not so obvious as now.

The rise of anti-Semitism around the world especially among European intellectuals and leaders was a main course of hatred and dislike of US.  The exposure of war profits by Switzerland and the cover-up collaboration of France in sending Jews to concentration camp, all these supported by large segments of US, were deeply resented by Western Europeans.

Part III.  Blame it on Bush

Many intellectuals look down on plain spoken, straight shooters of Middle America.  They prefer style over substance.  It was good intellectual exercise to example and discuss the subtleties of nuances.  Unfortunately, too often they only see the trees in front of them and miss the forest.  When faced with the core truth, it is easy to claim that they are works of someone who is “unsophisticated” – to quote French foreign ministry.

On withdrawal of treaties and changes of diplomatic efforts:

1. Arrangements to accommodate N. Korea as we knew it is a total failure.  N. Korea was continuing their search for nuclear weapon throughout the late 90s.  Intelligence of many countries including US knew about that but chose to do nothing.

2. Withdrawal of Anit-Ballistic Treaty and extended the testing of Ballistic missle defense is much needed as shown by the proliferation of missles and the increasing range of N. Korea's missles (some projects that N. Korea only needs less than a year to add an additional stage in their rockets to hit Western US.  There is no effective defense on that right now due to the resistance of the best and the brightest of scientists to do research on missle defense in elite Universities. Scary indeed.)

3. Kyoto Treaty was a seriously flawed treaty; voted down 95-0 in the Senate.  Bush just stated the obvious.  It is the world who could not bear to hear the truth.  People could fault the administration for the lack of follow up.  However, it is like the guest worker program advocated by Mexican’s president Vicente Fox, simple lost their priorities as the administration’s focus is consumed by the war against terror and the revival of the economy.

4. Middle East peace effort after the rejection by Arafat and the resumption of terrorist attack make that untenable for US involvement in the first few months of Bush’s presidency.  Israeli was themselves involved in an election cycles during that period of time.  Many people didn’t notice the delay of confirmations of upper and mid level Bush appointees to many departments and agencies, especially after the Senate switched control in the midst of that transition.

The claim of lack of travel by the President and Vice President was thrown in as a distraction.  After 9-11 (less than 8 months into a presidency), safety for the head of states are a primary concern.  Clinton had to cancel trips to Malaysia and Kenya due to assassination plots against him by Al Qaeda.

The quote by Jorge Castaneda, the resigned foreign minister of Mexico, was placed without much context: “we find it extremely irritating to be treated with utter contempt”.  The reason for his frustration was the refusal by the Bush’s administration to push forward the Mexican guest worker program which was impossible to stand behind so soon after 9-11 with the potential security problems.

In the summer of 2002, after Cheney’s speech on Iraq, Bush was ready to do what Clinton did in Bosnia, Haiti and Kosovo, bypass UN on the way to deal with Iraq.  Many in the world including Tony Blair and Colin Powell within the administration changed Bush’s mind and urge him to go the UN route.  The force was sent to Middle East as a backup as many in the administration were pessimistic about the outcome from UN.   Now that Bush went the UN route with all the mess that accompanied that as many of his critic cheered last fall, his domestic opponents claimed Clinton’s unilateral actions were better.  Indeed, Bush should skip the UN on the Iraq matter, JMHO.  The critics can’t have it both ways.  (The 2 nd/18 th resolution that created all these diplomatic problems was at the request of our ally, Tony Blair, who underestimated French’s opportunism/opposition and misread their true intention in hurting Anglo-American effort.)

Part IV:  The evolving world

Problem with Turkey – The reporting on Turkey is faulted.  One can claim that Turkey didn’t like the high handed approach by the administration in persuading them to vote for basing right.  However, taking away the rhetoric, if one looked at the demand by Turkey for the aid package: 30+ billions of dollars of financial aid and loan without much accountability (good for their corrupt politicians) and exceptional say on reorganization of postwar Iraq; only a clear signal by US would stop the haggling.  Turkey, in their refusal to allow over flight rights to US, is trusting EU to award them their long sought membership in EU: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003200 .

People forgot that it is the demand by Turkey that delayed the vote for weeks that galvanized the opposition to the basing of American troops.  The failure of the Turkey vote was done by the opposition party who is pro-American but chose to use the occasion to humiliate and weaken the Islamic government.

I fear the design of Turkey on post war Kurdish Iraq and their oil resources.

JMHO, the solutions offered by Zakaria to rebuild US relations with the world are full of false demise.  “It can stop oversubsidizing American steelworkers, farmers and textile-mill owners, and open its borders to goods from poorer countries”.  US had done that in the last few decades while Europe, Japan and China are doing the opposite.  That doesn’t buy us much good will.

US had been too good to other countries: Mexico, Chile, Canada, Japan and China enjoy great trade benefit from this country.  With the exception of Japan (now humbled by their failure to revamp their economy for over a decade), all these countries and their people don’t want to give US the benefit of the doubt.  Instead, they choose to use this moment of vulnerability of US to humiliate us in the world stage.  These are not actions of friends or partners.  They viewed Americans as a naïve people that are generous to a fault.  They want to reap the benefits but don’t want to share the burdens.  (Canada and Mexico’s nonchalant attitude to border control are well documented even in the immediate aftermath of 9-11)  Canada’s lack of serious concern for potential terrorist attack against US is breath taking: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/13/international/americas/13CANA.html .

A final note:

"Today's Western society has revealed the inequality between the freedom for good deeds and the freedom for evil deeds. A statesman who wants to achieve something highly constructive for his country has to move cautiously and even timidly; thousands of hasty (and irresponsible) critics cling to him at all times; he is constantly rebuffed by parliament and the press. He has to prove his every step is well founded and absolutely flawless. Indeed, an outstanding, truly great person who has unusual and unexpected initiatives in mind does not get any chance to assert himself; dozens of traps will be set for him from the beginning. Thus mediocrity triumphs under the guise of democratic restraints." --- 1978 Harvard commencement address by Nobel Laureate Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn  ( http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/347nmolx.asp )

This could easily apply to United States as a whole on the world stage.

There's an old adage that if an auto accident is witnessed by 10 people there will be 10 versions of what took place.  The moral being that the truth to each is based on where they were standing before it happened rather than who is right & who is wrong.  I see little difference as it applies to the current situation.  

I have my own views, but I've not expressed them as I've been busy playing devil's advocate with my personal friends on BOTH sides of the fence & frankly I'm too exhausted to repeat them on TER.  Let's just say I feel a case can be made for either position & I could argue in favor of either.  The only real problem I have is when people, whichever way they lean, seem to take things out of context or ignore facts which wouldn't support their position.

so obviously I won't even try to discuss it.

However I would like to raise a few points for your consideration, just for the sake of argument.

Part I

You say that the rest of the world is not threatened by WMD. Where does that come from ? The US are obviously the main target but let's not forget that Europe has known bombings and terrorists activity since the 70's. Eventhough nothing could compare to 9/11 in size. The Aum sect gassed the Tokyo subway in 95. Terrorism is not only the problem of Bin Laden & Saddam.

Part II

I pass

Part III

What you're saying about the Kyoto treaty is very symptomatic. It was rejected by Congress, so it is bad. Who cares if it looks good for the rest of the world. Of course the whole world is wrong and "could not bear to hear the truth". What is good for the US must be good for the rest of the world, what is bad for the US must be bad for the rest of the world. Personnally I find this attitude a little scary.

The lack of travel: one can undestand taht president Bush has had no time to travel since 9/11. But what about before he was elected. The point the journalist makes is that Pr. Bush has never taken the time or had the inclination to travel, and thus is not very well versed into understanding other cultures.

Part IV

The part about border control is interesting. One wonders what would happen if there was a terrorist incident in Mexico and Mexico asked the US to change its immigration policy, what the US would do ? Of course they would immediately comply !

Besides, correct me if I'm wrong, but none of the 15 9/11 terrorists entered from Canada or Mexico. They came in through US customs on visa that should never have been granted in the first place because they were so flawed. And what about the 5.5 to 8 million illegal aliens already in country?

IMHO, the world is kinda scared because it sees the US ready to shoot at a target it has selected, because it wants to do so, and eventhough a large part of the rest of the world is against it. That's scary because who's next on the list? North Korea? I'm with you. But you won't do it because these guys have nuclear weapons. China ? These people have been oppressing their opponents - TianAnMen square, doing their own genocide in Tibet for years. And yet they have favored nation status witht he US or used to have. Or France? because it opposed US policy?

For the record, I really haven't formed an opinion on the right or wrong of this war yet... I just honestly do not feel I have enough information to make that decision... but I'll support our troops regardless.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/17/scud_stud/index1.html

Hugs*
Nicole

That was a well articulated and well assembled work, and it stands on it's own, not just as a rebuttal.  I'm sure there will be plenty of opinions on what you expressed.  

When I read the first article posted I thought it screamed out for a rebuttal to keep balance, but the doggone thing was so turgid I just didn't have the energy.

Being a master at taking the path of least resistance, I took a look at 1441 and the associated resolutions. To me the language is specific enough about what Iraq must do, and what the US and it’s allies can do if they do not unilaterally disarm.

Other interesting tidbits that came out today are:

The opposition within Iraq is not getting much coverage:
http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/news.asp?ArticleID=81032


Hussain has admitted he has chemical weapons, but not offensive ones! Wink Wink Nudge Nudge! That’s not really admitting that he’s been lying is it?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81303,00.html


He is placing those chemical weapons to the South where our main invading forces are massed.  Hmm, think he may try to use them on our forces?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2854199.stm

Hussein seems to be proving that he’s had his chemical scientists under threat of death since day one if they revealed any information as to the nature or whereabouts of the materials themselves:
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_17-3-2003_pg4_5

Looks like the blokes from Down Under are ready to join the frey as well:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2859225.stm

counter arguments.

Part I :

I do miss the Tokyo incident.  They were deployed by a deranged cult with no apparent political objective.

After 9-11, many people in US realized the depth of planning and the ambition of those terrorists.  It is no longer the type of terrorist attacks that aimed at killing/wounding hundreds and sent signals of defiance and relevance.  The aim of 9-11 attack was to inflict massive damage to US’s economy and prestige around the world.  Their goal was to lure US military into Afghanistan and tried to engineer a stalemate like Vietnam or a defeat like the Soviet.  This kind of terrorism required a need to create massive spectacles to boost their allies in other Muslim countries and sustain their members’ zeal to achieve the ultimate objective – a clash of civilization.

The terrorisms practiced by IRA, ETA in Spain or PKK in Turkey are used as example to proclaim their relevance and maintain the feud between different religious or cultural groups.  They are small scale warfare not meant for massive casualties.  No WMD would be used in those cases.

In the case of Islamic Jihad and Hamas against Israel, it was mainly the volume and frequencies of the terrorist attacks that they are after.  Since the Palestinians live side by side with Israel and their goals are mainly to sabotage any change of peace process or perpetuate the existing power structures, it is unlikely they would use WMD as a tool.  They know that any WMD terrorist attack on Tel Aviv would give the fundamentalists in Israel causes to expel all Palestinians in Israel, West Bank and Gaza.  I doubt that they would do so unless extreme actions are placed upon them.

It is much easier to do small scale terrorist acts against Americans in other countries.  Terrorist acts involving WMD are hard to control.  Used in other countries would hurt more citizens of the host country than Americans.

Part III :

Bush action about the Kyoto Treaty was simply stated the obvious - it was rejected by the Senate 95-0 and would not be implemented.  (That is in accordance to the US constitution.)  No president could revive it.  

What is good for the US is not necessary good for the world – the withdrawal of exemption of patent law on pharmaceuticals to third world countries are good for US companies and drug researches but bad for poor countries.  The anti-dumping of steel imports and the subsequent rise of tariff are good for US steel workers but bad for steel exporters in other countries.  I don’t agree with those economic policies.  However, anything that is good to the security of US and our allies, like the withdrawal of ABM, I believe, is ultimately good for the world.

The criticisms of Bush on his lack of travel prior to his election are shallow.  Houston and Austin in Texas are home to many immigrant groups.  Many multi-national companies have large presence in Texas.  Petroleum and Natural Gas are world commodities.  Their exploration involved extensive foreign dealings.  It is not like he is from Idaho or Montana – land lock states with a largely homogenous population.

Most of the travels done by Americans are on tourist sites.  Truman, a great internationalist, had not traveled much at all.  That didn’t make him a narrow minded president.  Presidents are decision makers, not advisors dealing with nuance.  The criticism is just a cheap shot on someone from the middle of this country by sophisticated liberal journalists.  Those are the same snobs who thought that the inability to speak fluidly meant a lack of intellect.  I wonder what would they really think about persons with dyslexia or speech impediments.

Part IV :

Believe me, if American immigration policy endangered the security of Canada and Mexico, US will act quickly.  Isn’t it true that Germany’s liberal asylum policy was modified and restricted due to the concerns of other EU countries a few years ago?

I think you have forgotten the incident of the millennium terrorist entering US from Canada in 1999.  Fortunately, a US border guard caught that.  This is not about illegal Mexicans smuggling across the border.  It is about Middle Eastern male or Pakistanis using liberal asylum policies and the lax borders to enter into US intending to do serious harm.

It is very hard for democracy to enter into arms conflict.  Most of people in this country and the world don’t like war.  I don’t like that either.  However, to abdicate the use of force in any situation is ridiculous.  Iraq had been on the radar screen for over a decade.  If it is easy for US to enter into large scale war, he would be taken care of long ago.

China only gained the normal trading status (the misnamed Most Nation Status) because of the slow liberalization of their societies and their increasing economic power.  I don’t hear much criticisms of France’s dealing with China and various dictators of the world.  The official policy of France is to allow bribery to secure foreign businesses which is illegal for US business to do so according to US law.  Why is that US is the one everyone picked on while West Europeans turned a blind eye to their governments dealing?

Let me make a few comments on the points you make.

- you say, speaking of the terrorists that their "goal was to lure US military into Afghanistan". Now that's conspiracy theory at its best. Come on! How can one imagine that OBL was aiming that. Wanted to kill and destroy US sense of safety and humiliate, yes. But luring the US into Afghanistan. That's really too far-fetched. Let's not attribute supernatural powers to this guy. Nobody could have forecast and imagined that Pr. Bush would decide to attack Afghanistan.

- you do not really answer my point about Kyoto. Of course sometimes what is best (bad) for the US is best (bad) for the rest of the world. Your ABM example is very good. Where I have a problem is with “It is the world who could not bear to hear the truth” which means that the whole world is completely wrong while the US is the only one right. Well the whole world begs to disagree.

- I am still not convinced about the US changing their immigration policy because it suits their neighbours. But I have no good argument except that it suited the whole world to sign Kyoto, but still the US did not. Germany had to modify their immigration policy because it was in the framework of the Maastricht treaty, which required to abolish immigration control within EU: no more barriers, no control at the borders. Before that could be implemented the treaty required modifications to each country’s immigration policy to get them all in line. Such is not the case with the US because borders and controls still exist with its neighbours.

- you were right about the millenium incident, I had forgotten. Question I, would a different Canada immigration policy have changed anything?

- I strongly disagree with you on China. We are not discussing France attitude but the US. I can’t agree that because China is a growing economic power then it can have its own little genocide in Tibet or kill and put its opponents in jail. There should be no relation with economic considerations whatsoever. Either you are committing genocide or you aren’t. How much of a market you are does not make any difference.

- Now what you say on bribing is quite interesting, and completely erroneous. First of all I do not see what it’s doing here. Then stating that it’s France “official policy” is purely and simply wrong. I would like to remind you that France signed the OECD anti-bribery convention, so I do not see how it could be an “official policy” to use bribery. I know that it’s illegal for US companies to use bribery. But first of all the US uses bribery all the time as a country. Offering 30 billion aid package to Turkey for its support is bribery plainly and simply. And did not the US bribe Noriega and several of its friends in Central America in the past? And have a look at the “Transparency International Bribe Payer Index 2002 (link)”. You will no doubt find interesting that France is ranked #12, just before the US (ranked #13). Surprise, surprise ! And spying for business intelligence by governmental agencies is acknowledged by the US, using their “Echelon” system. This was recognised publicly by none less than a former CIA director.

Finally when talking about corruption and such, let’s not forget about Enron and WorldCom. Bribery is illegal, but fraud and betraying shareholders also is – yet it is done everyday. Why wouldn’t that be the case with bribery?

1. At this point, the precise objectives of UBL after 9-11 are hard to nail down.  Everyone knew that US had to respond after 9-11.  Either Bush did the Clinton way – a few bombings inside Afghanistan, or sent ground troops there.  Pure bombing didn’t work the first time, it wouldn’t be adequate the second time.  So my conjecture is not a far fetch one.  I believe any analysts agreed with that before the Afghan War.

2. About Kyoto.  What I meant is that it is the official US policy (Administration and the will of Congress) that Kyoto Treaty is unacceptable.  Why single out Bush as the villain then?  (Kyoto is deeply flawed; China and India are exempted from it.  Many European countries didn’t even start to meet its target.  One can debate the merit of the Treaty but it is really off the topic)

3. Countries do change their immigration policies with regard to the concerns of their neighbors as illustrated by the example of Germany.  It is not an easy task and not always successful.

4. The problem with the current Canadian immigration and asylum policy is that they are very lax without much screening and monitoring.  INS of US is a mess too.  However there are new laws addressing that.  From my news reading, there are lots of resistances in Canada to address this new threat to US.

5. About China.  The change of MFN status of China is necessary as a step to admit China as a WTO member.  My point is that France and many other nations didn’t penalize China for their policies regarding Tibet.  Why single US out?  BTW, China is severely and brutally oppressing the Tibetans, a harsher version of what Turkey did to their Kurdish minorities in their eastern provinces.  However to use the word “genocide” is to cheapen that word.

6. My understanding is that French tax law allow French companies to write off bribery cost as a business expenses – that is what I meant by their official policy.  If they have since changed their law to curb that practice, I was not aware of it and I would admit my mistake on that point.  The aid and loan (or bribery as you claim) to Turkey is used as an instrument in security issues.  Noriega was a CIA informant.  Those are not related to business dealings.

There are many frauds committed by companies around the world.  I don’t know whether you have read the latest news about the trial in France on French oil giant TotalFinaElf’s misuse of funds on secret subsidies and possible briberies to politicians and others. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$H2LJBS3UIILIZQFIQMFCFFOAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2003/03/18/welf18.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/03/18/ixportal.html

All I am saying is that why single out US.


-- Modified on 3/18/2003 7:20:25 PM

the Kyoto Treaty.

http://www.genomeweb.com/articles/view-article.asp?Article=200331495815

Thanks to webloggers and InstaPundit http:/www.instapundit.com for this info.