March 13, 2003
THE DIPLOMATIC CIRCUS (via Rantburg):
In the swing (Guardian, 3/13/2003)They are known as the swinging six and it has nothing to do with wife-swapping. These are the member states holding America to ransom over war on Iraq. You can spot a swinger by the swagger in his gait and the crowd of hysterical journalists surrounding him. The Pakistanis, Chileans, Mexicans, Cameroonians, Angolans and Guineans are visibly basking in the attention, and the gossip is intense. "Am I enjoying being at the UN at this time? Of course. It's fantastic," the Pakistani ambassador, Munir Akram grins.
More likely it's France they're holding to ransom. I wonder how many Swiss bank accounts have added a zero this last week?
[S]omeone "upstairs" called them "the bidders" - some cynics think they are out for as much money as they can get in return for support.
They slide the truth in, for their sensible readers. But which money counts more -- aid to their countries, which America largely controls, or aid to their personal accounts, which France can more readily give?
[T]he German ambassador, Gunter Pleuger, (strongly anti-war) is smilingly convinced that America will never get the nine votes it needs to make any military action it takes look so much as mildly justified. "I don't see the six as swingers," he smirks. "They are all anti."As he moves across to the enormous bank of television cameras, he stops for a brief chat with a journalist who suggests that their opposition might leave Germany and France isolated in Europe. The notoriously placid Pleuger explodes. "Isolated! Isolated! Who can try and isolate France and Germany in Europe! We'll show them who's isolated!"
We'll launch a diplomatic Blitzkrieg!
Charm, it is widely agreed, is not Washington's forte. The Pakistani ambassador smiles. "Do they actually threaten us? They don't have to. Pressure? We get a lot of, shall we say, delicate phone calls."
The obligatory nod to the Guardian readership's belief that Americans are bullies, and should take lessons in charm from Ambassador Pleuger.
There are, apparently, "wimpy fear-ridden intellectuals" who believe Mexico should just get in line behind Big Brother, but the government refuses to play its cards too early. They don't want to "pay the cost of any decision in advance"...
Those "wimpy intellectuals" lack experience in international negotiation. Why miss out on bribes by telling the French that the inevitable really is inevitable? Now that I think of it, that State department leak yesterday that said the African countries and Pakistan were on our side, but Mexico and Chile weren't, may just have been a favor from us to Mexico and Chile, helping their leaders milk the French.
Word at the UN is that Musharaf's position is near-impossible. He faces total opposition to war against another Islamic country at home, but he relies for his own personal and political survival on American support. "America is very helpful to Pakistan," says Ambassador Akram. "It could also be very unhelpful."..."We know exactly what we're doing," [Guinean ambassador Mamady Traore] grins.
"They have no idea what they're doing," says a senior UN official....
"We are not undecided," says Traore, looking undecided. "As president of the Security Council we should not choose any camp. We are trying to create consensus."
The Africans are celebrating, Musharaf is mourning. I'm starting to think we'll do a favor to Pervez and General Franks (who would like tactical surprise) and skip the U.N. vote entirely. I hope we wait long enough for the French checks to clear. Posted by Paul Jaminet at March 13, 2003 11:41 AM
This whole vote thing is disgusting. I was encouraged when Bush said a vote would be held this week but we are now hearing that it will be postponed again.
I want to force the French to veto but not if it means days/weeks of putting up with this type of garbage.
A friend sent me Alastair Cooke's BBC commentary
on 1938. Cooke notes he is one of the few
left who remembers all that directly.
If any lesson was taught by the 20th century,
it was that collective security is not merely
an unworkable notion but positively harmful.
Bush, who knows nothing about much of anything
except maybe local politics, is, in his way,
just as silly and self-destructive as -- to pick
one example among thousands -- the
Sojourners. Visit sojo.com for their ridiculous
alternative to war.
Anyhow, the last months have been a disaster
for U.S. policy. Remind me again what we have
gained by bidding for the approbation of
these criminals.
Not only is the vote being postponed, the new British proposed resolution, with 6 benchmarks for Iraqi cooperation, appears to be nothing more than then next U.N. trap complete with inspections for "verifying" Iraqi compliance.
I've officially joined the skeptics who don't think Bush or Blair, in the end, have the courage to defy the U.N. and do what needs to be done without them.
I think there is a lot of good that can be extracted from this sordid affair. But first, the bad; I hope it has no ill effect on the safety of our troops, as the Iraqis seem to have taken advantage of the extra time.
We have exposed the treachery of the Frawnch. We have realized the absurdity of our defense, or even the acting on our national interests, being held subject to the decisions of third world rulers. We have realized the value of true friends and allies like Britain, Spain, and Australia. We have gained the support of New Europe, and can hope for mutual benefits in the future.
The biggest thing is obvious, yet unmentioned. After the attacks, we expected the entire world to rise up in righteous anger, at least I did. But it was a bit naive, of all of us to an extent. We have to once again face the realities of normal relations between countries. Except for a very few, nations will only stand with us if they benefit from it, regardless of issues of right and wrong. We all knew this, but the recent diplomatic wranglings put this fact into stark relief. They are not all Americans anymore.