December 10, 2003
AMAZING (via John Resnick):
Anger over Iraq contracts list (CNN, December 10, 2003)
A decision by the U.S. to bar some of its major trading partners from bidding for Iraqi reconstruction contracts has been greeted around the world with amazement. [...]While officials from some of the excluded countries speculated that the memo was not official U.S. policy, the White House put such notions to rest Wednesday, when spokesman Scott McClellan said decision to limit the list was "totally appropriate." [...]
In Ottawa, incoming Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin said the decision was difficult to understand because Canada had already spent $300 million to support Iraq and also had troops in Afghanistan.
"I find it really very difficult to fathom," said Martin, who will take the helm of Canada's government Friday from outgoing Prime Minister Jean Chretien.
"There's a huge amount of suffering going on there, and I think it is the responsibility of every country to participate in developing [Iraq.]
"This shouldn't be just about who gets contracts, who gets business. It ought to be [about] what is the best thing for the people of Iraq."
It was about the best interests of the Iraqi people when we removed Saddam--where were you? Posted by Orrin Judd at December 10, 2003 8:16 PM
Oh, come on--we know where they were. They were with the French and Germans.
Motto: "We've only wanted the best for the Iraqi people...since 1991."
Posted by: jsmith at December 10, 2003 10:51 PMjs:
No problem here with the policy (I'm enjoying the squirming), but that is not entirely correct. Our esteemed PM did indeed side with the bad guys on the issue of whether UN sanction was needed. But, unlike France and Germany, it was always clear Canada wanted the UN to vote in favour. That's why we made pests of ourselves desperately trying to find the compromise resolution nobody wanted.
Posted by: Peter B at December 11, 2003 6:45 AMWellm there are those who step up to the plate, and there are those who talk about how they would have stepped up to the plate except that they never quite managed to do it. Sure, being a coat-holder is better than being a coat-stomper-into-the-mud (read: France & Germany). But in the end, a coat holder isn't really a helper.
Japan realised this just this week, and said so. "If we want to be a player, we've got to contribute."
Posted by: ray at December 11, 2003 8:00 PMRay:
I'm not sure you aren't being too kind. If you are holding the coats of both the right and wrong because you want to bring them together at all costs, you may end up causing more havoc than if you just took the wrong side. Beware the sunny mediator who is so open to competing points of view that he has no principles of his own.
However, the surface point was that Canada's sins were not nearly as motivated by an anti-US animus or challenge as those of the three others. Where that takes us, I don't know.
Posted by: Peter B at December 12, 2003 6:32 AM