Funmurphys: the Blog

The Triumph of Hope over Experience

Archive for category International Politics

Lest We Forget

Mar 5

Posted by Kevin Murphy in International Politics | No Comments

Most people seem to have forgotten what happened during the last UN – European attempt to contain a tyrant. In a word, failure and mass murder. In 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared independence (with encouragement from France) from Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia tried to keep both regions from leaving, and war broke out. After ten days of fighting against Slovenia with little success, Yugoslavia gave up on Slovenia and concentrated on Croatia.

Croatia had a significant Serb minority who felt if Croatia could leave Yugoslavia, why couldn’t the serbs leave Croatia? The UN imposed an arms embargo on the region to try to end the war, and not surprisingly it had no effect other than preserving Yugoslavia’s military advantage, and led to President Clinton aiding gun runners in violation of the UN resolution. In 1992 Bosnia also declared its independence, and it too was engulfed in ethnic war. The Serb minority, backed by Yugoslavia (which was now pretty much Serbia) was successful against the Bosnian army and began what is now called ethnic cleansing. UN peacekeepers from European countries were dispatched to Croatia and Bosnia to try and enforce the many ceasefire agreements. 

In 1993 “safe areas” or safe havens were declared (ultimately six towns) by the UN and peacekeepers assigned to them. The serbs made preparations to take Srebrenica, and the Bosnian army complied with the UN resolution and turned over their heavy weapons near the city. The military commander on the scene, British General Rupert Smith, wanted more men, more airstrikes – more backbone. The military commander at the UN, French General Benoit Jeanvier, wanted to limit the risk to the peacekeepers. As the serbs probed the UN willingness to fight around Srebrenica, they finally provoked an airstrike when they actually attacked UN peacekeepers. The Serbs responded to the airstrike by taking peacekeepers as hostages throughout the region and then chained them as human shields at military installations. General Smith was ordered to get approval from the UN Secretary General before ordering more airstrikes, and General Jeanvier himself began negotiations with the Serbs. Reportedly, the two side reached an understanding – the peacekeepers would be released in return for no more airstrikes. After that, the Dutch peacekeepers in Srebrenica stood by while the Serbs entered the city, separated the men from the women, and then massacred over 7,000 men and boys.

The massacres took place in July of 1995, after four years of UN handwringing and resolutions over the wars. Over 200,000 people were killed in Bosnia alone, thousands more in Croatia (I’m probably understating the real death toll). Starting on August 30, 1995, the United States led a bombing campaign against Serb forces, and on November 1 the leaders of Croatia, Bosnia, and Serbia travelled to the United States to negotiate the Dayton Accord. In just over two months, the United states put an end to the war that had dragged on with no end in sight. The United States sent in peacekeepers who have kept the peace, unlike the unending string of ceasefires prior to their arrival.

The UN coupled with the Europeans compiled a dismal record of toothless resolutions, appeasement of mass murderers, and utter failure. So spare me any claims of the importance of Europe or the UN. On their own, they couldn’t stop a two-bit tyrant like Milosevich on their doorstep. In Iraq, they’ve decided to get in bed with a tyrant – selling arms to a murderous despot and selling his oil to pay for them. What tyrant have they ever felled without US support? Those may be unpalatable facts, but facts they are.

Tags: , , , , ,

Chirac and the French

Feb 18

Posted by Kevin Murphy in International Politics | No Comments

There’s a lot of French bashing going on these days. Roy Blunt made jokes about France at the Missouri GOP convention. Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys is a common description. Well, count me out on the French bashing, for a couple of reasons. On the military side, let me say just one word – Verdun. The joke about French rifle — never fired and dropped only once — not funny. Yes, the French capitulated in WWII – after the Brits were driven from the field (without their weapons, BTW) and the Germans thoroughly whupped them with the blitzkrieg. In some ways, its not clear that the French have ever recovered from WWI with its devastating loss of people or WWII with its humbling blow to their pride. And on the personal side, I have to say my own limited experience with the French runs counter to the stereotype of the aloof snob. I found them as warm and friendly as any other group. So while I think their political classes these days are deplorable, I don’t think that warrants a general attack on the people themselves.

Jacques Chirac, however, has slimed himself: 

“These countries have been not very well behaved and rather reckless of the danger of aligning themselves too rapidly with the American position. It is not really responsible behavior. It is not well brought-up behavior. They missed a good opportunity to keep quiet. I felt they acted frivolously because entry into the European Union implies a minimum of understanding for the others,” Chirac said. 

Chirac called the letters “infantile” and “dangerous,” adding: “They missed a great opportunity to shut up. Romania and Bulgaria were particularly irresponsible. If they wanted to diminish their chances of joining Europe they could not have found a better way,” Chirac said. 

When asked why he wasn’t similarly critical of the EU nations that signed the letter, Chirac said: “When you are in the family … you have more rights than when you are asking to join and knocking on the door.” 

After that temper tantrum, Chirac has shown himself to be far worse than Bush. He clearly told the “junior” members to shut up and do as they are told by the senior, ie France and Germany, members. And it isn’t just Chirac, European Commission President Romano Prodi said he was saddened rather than angry with the candidates because their pro-Americanism was a signal they had failed to understand that the EU is more than a mere economic union. 

“I would be lying it I said I was happy,” he told reporters. “I have been very, very sad, but I am also patient by nature, so I hope they will understand that sharing the future means sharing the future.” 

When all the new members join European Union, the influence of France and Germany within it is going to be diluted. And for now, anyway, all the Central and Eastern European countries that are joining still look to the US for leadership and don’t feel the need to be a counterweight to US power and influence, which seems to be the overriding foreign policy principle of France and Germany these days. Given their much different recent political history, that attitude may last awhile.

Tags: , ,

Existential Questions At The UN

Feb 17

Posted by Kevin Murphy in International Politics | No Comments

I suppose we’re all pondering the same simple question: if the UN won’t vote that a resolution has been violated, has it been violated? The diplomats there seem to agree with Captain Collins of the USS San Pablo (from the movie The Sand Pebbles) that what matters isn’t the events of the day, but how we record those events. 

Iraq is in violation of numerous binding UN resolutions, most of which date to the end of the Gulf War. The latest, Resolution 1441, makes it clear that Iraq’s failure to disarm itself of weapons of mass destruction will result in “serious consequences”. It isn’t the job of the inspectors to disarm Iraq, or contain Iraq, or do anything but verify that Iraq has disarmed itself. Iraq clearly hasn’t done that. The UN response so far has been to ignore its own resolution as to what constitutes a material breach and make up the rules as it goes along.

The UN is in the position of a nice parent with a bratty child. As long as the child knows that no matter how much mom and/or dad blusters and threatens no real punishment will be forthcoming, the child will continue in his bratty ways. He knows “I’m not going to tell you again” in fact means all I’ll ever do is tell you, over and over, and hope you grow weary of the sound of my voice. In the UN case, not only is mom unwilling to follow through, she’s trying to keep dad from doing anything either. 

I happened to catch Saturday Night Live the other night. They had a skit where Bush announces that the US is no longer interested in Iraq anymore – they can do whatever they want, we don’t care. I’m not sure what the joke was supposed to be (a feeling I typically get while watching SNL which is why I do it so rarely now), but it got me to thinking, what would happen if Bush really would make that declaration. How long do you think inspectors would be in Iraq – hours or days?

Tags: , ,

Axis of Weasel’s Punishment

Feb 12

Posted by Kevin Murphy in International Politics | No Comments

After France, Germany, and Belgium have blocked NATO aid to defend Turkey, there have been calls for some sort of response. Not that I favor anything beyond a better understanding of what the word “ally” means for Americans — for instance England, Australia, and yes, Canada should spring to mind when hearing that word — my thought would be the most appropriate thing to do (not that I want to do anything) would be to simplly kick all three out of NATO. The Germans would be free to attack France through Belgium again, only this time nobody would come to France’s aid. Anybody else, and all the rest of a united Europe would rise up to defend itself. That’s fair, I think. Besides, now that the Germans are such pacifists, it wouldn’t be a big deal. And if these three countries want to help out in war, then by all means NATO can accept the aid with open arms. They just wouldn’t get a veto is all.

Tags: ,

This Isn’t Arrogance?

Feb 12

Posted by Kevin Murphy in International Politics | No Comments

I keep hearing how arrogant America and Americans are. Well, Belgium unilaterally claims a right to universal jurisdiction in human rights allowing Belgium’s courts to try crimes against humanity and genocide, no matter where they were committed. And the Belgium Supreme Court just ruled that Ariel Sharon can be tried for war crimes dating back to the 1982 massacre at Sabra and Shatila refugee camps after he leaves office. All I can say is, you and what army are going to make the arrest?

Tags: ,

Belgium Joins the Axis of Weasels

Feb 9

Posted by Kevin Murphy in International Politics | No Comments

The Washington Post reports that Belgium in solidarity with France and Germany will block a request of the US to provide military aid to Turkey in the event of war with Iraq. And Germany is working with France on a proposal that would include a deployment of UN troops to Iraq coupled with tripling the number of weapons inspectors – which immediately reminds me of the saying why should you expect different results if you keep doing the same thing. I guess one positive note out of all this is that France and Germany have apparently finally buried the hatchet after fighting war after war with each other and trading Alsace and Lorraine back and forth like a cheap baseball card. Maybe now that Iraq has rejected Blix’s latest requests, Germany will bother to tell Powell what they’ve got cooking, instead of letting him read about it in the paper. Do you sometimes wonder if we ever get beyond high school?

Tags: , ,

Do American’s Care What Other Nations Think?

Jan 31

Posted by Kevin Murphy in International Politics | 1 Comment

Random Observations answers the BBC, that hey, we American’s DO care about other countries. He also points out that those sophisticated Europeans are geographically challenged, just like Americans. Maybe Jay could have an international version of Jaywalking.

Europe Is With Us

Jan 30

Posted by Kevin Murphy in International Politics | No Comments

Sine Qua Non Pundit points out that many European countries do support war in Iraq – Spain, Portugal, Italy , United Kingdom, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Denmark. So why do we keep hearing about France and Germany only?

A little History

Jan 24

Posted by Kevin Murphy in International Politics | 4 Comments

The Midwest Conservative Journal is smoking on Iraq today. The only thing I have to add takes off from the remarks of John Howard (Australia’s Prime Minister for those of us who aren’t Al Gore) who said NATO’s attack on Serbian troops in Kosovo showed that UN approval was not a necessity for Allied troops to begin a military attack:

“Look at Kosovo. There was no UN resolution on Kosovo,” he said. “I don’t remember too many people at the time saying that’s outrageous. I don’t remember it.  I’m not saying Kosovo is a model for what might happen here. I’m not suggesting that. I’m using that as illustration that people who look for a black and white outcome from the UN could be mistaken.  In the end we could have a grey outcome from the UN and you then have to make a judgment on merits.” 

Let me go a little bit further. On Kosovo, not only was there no U.N. resolution, there was no congressional authorization. The short history was there was a cold civil war in Kosovo, with atrocities being committed by both Albanians and Serbians – in fact it was the Albanians in Kosovo who originated the use of rape as a means of war in the modern Balkans, and you were more likely to be victimized as a Serb than an Albanian in Kosovo. President Clinton demanded that Yugoslavia sign the Rambouillet Accord or else, with a deadline after which force would be used. This is typically known as issuing an ultimatum. We knew Yugoslavia wouldn’t, couldn’t accept this Accord — Kosovo was not only going to be autonomous, it was going to be under NATO control and occupation, and under appendix B Yugoslavia itself could be occupied by NATO. Didn’t anybody remember that WWI started with an ultimatum issued to Serbia – again one that couldn’t be accepted? So when the deadline passed, NATO ministers voted for war, and President Clinton ordered bombing to commence, without any congressional debate or vote. That’s right the United States of America went to war, not on a U.N. resolution, not on a Congressional Declaration of War, but on the vote of NATO. Where were the cries of give diplomacy a chance? 

And did we confine ourselves to military targets? No. Not only did we bomb civilian infrastructure – power plants, bridges, car factories, that could be argued were valid because of their use to the military, we bombed a Serbian TV studio because we didn’t like what they were saying on it. We targeted and killed civilians not because of their possible military value, but because we didn’t like their version of events. Where was the outcry? What would have happened if in the Gulf War we would have targeted Peter Arnett (like blowing up his hotel room at night) because we didn’t like how the Iraqi’s were using him for propaganda purposes? Don’t think too hard about that, instead, wonder why when the litany of why America is considered an arrogant cowboy country, we hear about Kyoto and not Kosovo.

So please, don’t tell me that Bush is a warmonger, or that an attack on Iraq without UN approval is illegal unless you said the same thing about Clinton and Kosovo.

Tags: , , ,

North Korea Diplomacy

Jan 15

Posted by Kevin Murphy in International Politics | No Comments

I’m sure you’ve seen this article by Orson Scott Card on Korea – it’s all over the blogosphere, although I found it via Glenn Reynolds. I think it’s a pretty good analysis, although I don’t think China is going to publicly put North Korea under its nuclear umbrella. I’m not sure what form the guarantee will take, but I think it will more likely be a treaty or agreement that includes China. The important thing to remember, as this article points out, not everything that happens happens in public, and not everything that can be said should be (or is) said in public. 

I thought this article (in the NYT of all places) makes a fine companion piece. North Korea is a drain on China — it exports refuges and imports food, money, and resources. South Korea is an asset to China – both as a market (third largest trading partner)and as a source of investment (fifth largest foreign investor), and I’m sure that comes with some technology transfer. In a sense, both South Korea and China would just as soon North Korea disappeared from the map, or failing that, the status quo is just fine, thank you very much. I doubt South Korea wants to try to unify with the North after the example of German reunification, and China is stuck for reasons of history and status with being its protector. So for the Chinese, any problems North Korea causes the US is OK with them; to the extent North Korea causes them problems, well, now something has to be done.

Tags: ,