zenpundit.com » 2003

Archive for 2003

Tuesday, April 1st, 2003

AFTER IRAQ ? WHAT TO DO ABOUT WMD PROLIFERATION

WMD proliferation is being driven by several factors.

1) The current state of American superiority in all qualitative and quantitative categories is an incentive for all would-be regional hegemons – China, Franco-German EU bloc, Russia – to proliferate WMD technology to irresponsible state actors like North Korea and Iran. American resources spent containing rogue states cannot be invested in countering the agendas of regional hegemons and makes the help/cooperation of regional great powers all the more valuable to America. A card to garner concessions the way the U.S. sacrificed American interests in bilateral relationships with say France or Japan for the sake of Western unity during the Cold War

2) Technology/knowledge is fungible. The general rise in educational levels, international trade, GDP across the world made proliferation to some extent inevitable. We are often talking about weapons requiring modest educational training to make. Even where highly sophisticated training and equipment is required – as with nuke programs – the road map is clear unlike with the Manhatten project. How long could 1940’s level technology been kept secret when the nuclear club has approximately a dozen members ?

3) Until recently, nonproliferation has been, at best, a tertiary concern of the National Security community garnering mostly lip service and third-rate diplomatic complaints. Few costs were imposed on proliferators in the 1990’s by the United States – who in fact, were rewarded by a dismantling of COCOM, MFN status, IMF loans, bilateral aid and other goodies. We have given incentives to unfriendly states for undermining our vital interests.

What to do ? The United States cannot exercise omnipotent control over all other nations but it can sensibly elevate NP to a first tier foreign policy concern and impose real and severe costs on both the proliferators and their rogue state customers for their behavior. The certainity of these costs be they economic, diplomatic or military must become part of the calculations of foreign statesmen. Iraq is useful in this regard as a test case because the fundamental question is – will the Americans go to war over this ? Dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 are a major reason that they have never been used since – that America would use nukes was not something the Soviets considered to be an open question during the Cold War. The Politburo acted on the premise that if they pushed matters to war nuclear weapons would be used and the peace was kept ( albeit with hair-raising close calls but unlike in 1914 we stepped back from the brink)

Tuesday, April 1st, 2003

AN EXCELLENT POINT ABOUT THE DIVIDED DEMOCRATS

” Today, three decades later, after a Clintonian interregnum which papered over ideological differences, American liberalism is in the process of dividing again, into the Dick Gephardt liberals and the Dominique de Villepin left.

The Gephardt liberals are patriots. They supported the president in the run-up to this war, and strongly support the war now that it has begun. It would be misleading to call this group the Joe Lieberman liberals, because he was already too much of a hawk to be representative, but the group certainly includes Lieberman. It also includes Hillary Rodham Clinton, probably a majority of Senate Democrats, less than half of the House Democrats, Democratic foreign policy experts at places like the Brookings Institution and the Council on Foreign Relations, and a smaller number of liberal commentators and opinion leaders–most notably the Washington Post editorial page.

The other group includes the Teddy Kennedy wing of the Senate Democrats, the Nancy Pelosi faction of the House Democrats, a large majority of Democratic grass-roots activists, the bulk of liberal columnists, the New York Times editorial page, and Hollywood. These liberals–better, leftists–hate George W. Bush so much they can barely bring themselves to hope America wins the war to which, in their view, the president has illegitimately committed the nation. They hate Don Rumsfeld so much they can’t bear to see his military strategy vindicated. They hate John Ashcroft so much they relish the thought of his Justice Department flubbing the war on terrorism. They hate conservatives with a passion that seems to burn brighter than their love of America, and so, like M. de Villepin, they can barely bring themselves to call for an American victory. ”

– William Kristol

Tuesday, April 1st, 2003

QUOTE OF THE DAY

” An oppressive government is to be more feared than a tiger “

– Confucius

Tuesday, April 1st, 2003

VACATION this week. Blogging will be light

Monday, March 31st, 2003

THEY JUST DON’T GET IT…AND THEY NEVER WILL

From UPI ” Comments by Secretary of State Colin Powell to a Congressional panel Wednesday indicated that the Bush administration is unwilling to completely cede control of the post-war reconstruction effort to the United Nations. But Powell did say that the United Nations should play some role, especially in funding the rebuilding of Iraq.

Phyllis Bennis, a fellow at the liberal Institute for Policy Studies, said Powell’s testimony made it clear that the White House has no intention of sharing power with the United Nations except in an attempt to gain some international credibility for its military occupation of Iraq.

“The administration’s view is to use the United Nations as support cover, a political fig leaf to allow other governments to give money to the reconstruction effort and not have it look like America is going it alone,” said Bennis. “That is a serious problem.”

Bennis said the United Nations should be a central part of the effort to rebuild war-torn Iraq, but also indicated that she was worried that United Nations participation would ultimately legitimize the type of U.S. policies that lead to the invasion.

“There will have to be new government agencies and institutions, and I think the United Nations is well suited to helping Iraqis plan that out,” she said. “That can’t be imposed by U.S. tanks if it is going to have any legitimacy to it.”

Actually Ms. Bennis, it can. ” Legitimacy ” is vested in sovereign governments and the UN is not a world legislature however much the Social Democratic left has tried to stretch the UN charter during the last ten years. The UN does not grant legitimacy and often recognizes as ” legitimate ” powerless phantom governments of psuedo- nations that are hardly more than geographic expressions. The UN is a political forum, a handy umbrella for a variety of humanitarian agencies and a useful rubber stamp on the rare occasions a consensus exists among all the Security Council members. That and no more. Iraq will have a legitimate government when Saddam Hussein is dead and a democratically elected government replaces his clique of murdering thugs. If matters were left to the UN, Saddam would be torturing his people until the day he dies of old age.


Switch to our mobile site