How Long Will America's Allies Put Up With Bush's Behavior? (Minimal Spam please)

[Maharlika]

Here's something I want to share and think about...

...you know, sometimes I'm thinking whether Bush and Blair are doing a Galileo or Columbus (the world is round) wherein everybody thinks their nuts, but in fact they aren't or are these two gentlemen doing a Quixote...


Goodbye To All That
How Long Will America's Allies Put Up With Bush's Behavior?

John Prados is a senior analyst with the National Security Archive in Washington, DC. His current book is Lost Crusader: The Secret Wars of CIA Director William Colby.


The present course of the Bush administration quite plainly threatens regime change. Not changes in Iraq's regime, although American military power may well bring that about, but a transformation of the entire pattern of the United States' relationships with the world. Americans have long been taught that international alliances and cooperation form the bedrock of our standing in the modern world. Global economics depends on that kind of cooperation; global politics builds on it. Talking about the United States as a "hyperpower" obscures the fact that we exist within an international system. That system required decades to craft, but now finds itself under threat after only two short years of the Bush administration. The juxtaposition of the current war on terrorism with a near-certain conflict in Iraq throws these developments into sharp relief. Americans need to pay attention to Bush administration demands on the international system, as these strains are triggering subtle changes that are not in our best interests.


Americans need to pay attention to Bush administration demands on the international system.



We learned this lesson once before, in the inter-war era of the twentieth century, the time between the end of one world war and the onset of a second, when the failure of international collective action (then expressed in the League of Nations) enabled an enormously destructive new war to occur. At the urging of isolationist leaders, the United States had not joined the League of Nations. During the heat of World War II, four months before the Pearl Harbor attack, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt held a conference with British leader Sir Winston Churchill aboard a British warship anchored at Placentia Bay in Canada. That August 1941 meeting adopted an "Atlantic Charter" that expressed principles -- such as self-determination and freedom from want -- to be upheld by collective action. These principles were invoked at the creation of the United Nations in 1945, and again by the foundation of the Atlantic alliance known as NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) five years later. Presidents from Truman to Kennedy worked to strengthen NATO, and Eisenhower tried to extend the structure by establishing similar alliances in regions across the globe, yet the core relationship has remained the one that spans the Atlantic.

The system has withstood shocks before. The Vietnam War proved divisive in many countries, and American rejection of its allies' advice put strains on the structure. The international financial chaos that resulted when Richard Nixon took the United States off the gold standard in 1972 typified another kind of strain, as did the conflicts of the late '80s and early '90s over global environmental standards (now enshrined in the Kyoto agreement). Not all strains have been products of U.S. action -- when the British and French invaded Egypt in 1956 (the Suez crisis), Atlantic allies were pressuring America to involve itself in their rear-guard colonial wars. But those tensions eventually eased, and the underlying web of mutual interests always pulled the allies back together. Optimists today argue that the same thing will happen again, that after a day or a year people and leaders will overcome their resentments.

Rather than defying the system on a single demand or issue, George W. Bush has shocked America's friends on multiple counts.



But today's situation is unprecedented, and possibly irreparable; one need only look to the Bush administration's foreign policy actions for glaring evidence. Rather than defying the system on a single demand or issue, George W. Bush has shocked America's friends on multiple counts. Bush's renunciation of the Kyoto standards, U.S. withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, and the administration's "unsigning" from the treaty establishing an international war crimes tribunal (actually illegal under applicable international law), plus its disputes over commodities and preferences within the World Trade Organization -- all these posed direct challenges to our global partners. Separately and together, these issues were sparking conflict before September 11, 2001. Politically, Bush actually profited from the 9/11 attacks, which diverted everyone's attention from the growing discord within NATO.

The Bush administration requires international cooperation to even hope for success in the terror war. But having pocketed alliance help in Afghanistan, in police actions, and in halting money-laundering efforts, the administration has left the allies to pick up the tab for rebuilding the demolished former Taliban seat while claiming the credit for itself. The United States has also snubbed alliance views on a constructive approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. An Iraq war portends more of the same unilateralism -- a U.S. determination to go to war in spite of what allies think, and in spite of the costs that Bush's decisions in Washington will incur in Europe. Win or lose in Iraq, gasoline prices will rise in Copenhagen and Vienna, not merely in Cincinnati.

The looming question is, how long will America's allies put up with Bush's behavior? Europe -- and this is a hidden development -- is stronger and more united today than ever before, with increasing reason to resent American arrogance. A European political move to the right will be about building an autonomous superpower -- not about cooperating more fully with the United States. At the same time, another round of U.S. pocketing support then rejecting European concerns -- which looks likely if a "coalition of the willing" attacks Iraq -- will push our traditional alliance partners in the same direction. Meanwhile the issues in the European-American relationship that were masked by 9/11 have not disappeared; they are simply submerged at the moment. Those issues will resurface to disturb a harmonious alliance, and push our friends toward independence in the form of a United States of Europe. It's ironic that the net result of the Bush war could do more for European integration than decades of economic and political efforts; it will be doubly so if a strengthened Europe supplants a United States weakened by war and economic recession as the new world hyperpower.

[Tamerlane]

An interesting read Mah.

I'm glad to see that the World Trade Organisation got a mention in there too. We are still very bitter in Australia over the way things are being run in that sector and no doubt will be taking the United States to the world trade courts (again) sometime soon.

However the Australian government has commited itself fully behind the States when it comes to Iraq, and basically every other foreign policy that they'll make in the future. We aren't that much different from Blair and Co. it would seem.

[CM]

Bah, you guys just got a free trade agreement with the US due to your support on the war of Terrorism. And you guys are taking the US to court, along with Brazil on the Sugar Regime. Not to mention attacking the Common Agriculture policy of the EU after Jan 2004 when the Peace clause runs out. Feel free to ask more, i am currently doing my agriculture paper. We had an Aussie Prof over, Kym Anderson. Heard of him?

Edit: As for Mar's article, International Law is no longer an important thing for Pres. Bush. He will do what he wants, and honestly you can get away with it when you are the sole military power of the world. I am however very shocked by the staunch actions of France Germany. I expected to cave in as always.

The rift between the US and EU is very large and it is getting worse day by day. Heck they are taking it to UN, WTO negotiations you name it. The US was gonna attack the EU in the WTO on some form of the CAP. They backed off because of the whole Iraq issue. Atleast someone in the white house knows you dont piss your friends off too much and expect to still have them as your friends later on.

[Maharlika]

...I'm not so sure if our gov't's support of America is because of the real issue or they just want more "American forms of gratitude"...

edit- Maybe Askal can give more light on this since he is based there.

[CM]

Pakistan's support for the war has cost our soverignty. Anybody and everybody entering Pakistan is Photographed by the FBI. People are picked up off the street for weeks without a reason by people that even the ISI has no clue about. It is total chaos. We have alteast 7 or 8 teams FBI, CIA, NSA etc running around the country acting like they own the place.

A story that made it to the paper that made Musharraf look like a fool is when the FBI picked up 2 doctors that worked in Afghanistan as aid workers. But they went overboard. The FBI picked up the entire family, kids wives and all. The govt had no bloody idea what was going on. The President office said it was locals. The Punjab Governor said it wasnt them. The ISI and military said we cleared these guys months ago. The IG - police head - of Lahore (where it happened) said, what when this happen? How come nobody bloody tells me anything.

Lets just say people are pissed. Like i am.

[Tamerlane]

Quote:

Originally posted by CM Bah, you guys just got a free trade agreement with the US due to your support on the war of Terrorism. And you guys are taking the US to court, along with Brazil on the Sugar Regime. Not to mention attacking the Common Agriculture policy of the EU after Jan 2004 when the Peace clause runs out. Feel free to ask more, i am currently doing my agriculture paper. We had an Aussie Prof over, Kym Anderson. Heard of him?

We just got one *does Google search* We'll your right, thats news to me.

I'm against the current free trade deal, because it doesn't really benefit Australia at all. The American farmers still get heavily subsidised, Australia will have to scrap its Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme which has provided cheap Australian made drugs so the big American corporations can get a foothold into our markets with expected profits of around US$4 billion a year. Check to see how heavily funded the Republicans were by Pfizer to get a real indication of somethings not right.

We'll also have to make sure that at least 55% of our television shows are American made, by scraping our content rules and lastly the large telecom companies want to gain a foothold into our country. Our telecommunication companies are public owned and privatisation never works. There are plenty more reasons, however the farming one is still a big deal. We've never gotten around to having big disputes like the EU had with America on the likes of importing fruits and steel tariffs. However we have come fairly close in the past. Never heard of Kym Anderson though

EDIT - This is a nice article discussing our trade agreements. I love this quote though...

Quote:

While significant obstacles will have to be overcome, particularly on agriculture, John Howard is understood to be keen to fast-track negotiations towards a deal by the next election, scheduled for 2004.

[Mr Sleep]

Quote:

Originally posted by CM A story that made it to the paper that made Musharraf look like a fool is when the FBI picked up 2 doctors that worked in Afghanistan as aid workers. But they went overboard. The FBI picked up the entire family, kids wives and all. The govt had no bloody idea what was going on. The President office said it was locals. The Punjab Governor said it wasnt them. The ISI and military said we cleared these guys months ago. The IG - police head - of Lahore (where it happened) said, what when this happen? How come nobody bloody tells me anything.

This reminds me a great deal of the Panama & Chile situation that the US found themselves embroiled in, I'll add more later when I have more time.

[HighLordDave]

With any luck, in about twenty three months there will be a different president in office (unless the Supreme Court elects Dubya again). I don't think the damage to international relations that Dubya has caused is irreparable, but I believe it will take more than one administration to undo.

The problem for the world is that no single country in the world can stand up to us. Not economically and not militarily. We have the means and the will to bully just about anyone we want into doing our will. If the world wants to put Dubya in his place (which you guys could do), everyone will have to band together and tell him to shut the hell up. Unfortunately, Dubya has been very good at splintering the opposition so there is no united front in opposition to Dubya's policy outside of militant Islamic groups.

[Tamerlane]

Quote:

Originally posted by HighLordDave The problem for the world is that no single country in the world can stand up to us. Not economically and not militarily. We have the means and the will to bully just about anyone we want into doing our will.

Thats the reason why I'm against the free trade agreement, as Australia really has nothing to give, but a hell of a lot to lose.

I think Europe will make a stand sooner or later, something along the lines of being eventually considered as equals, the Rapid Response Army will be an important factor in deciding that stand. Russia already have a long term plan which will see them, India and China form an economic and military alliance. Its basically a symbolic stand for the time being, but you don't have to be genius to figure out where this will head in the future.

[Mr Sleep]

A Little light relief:

http://www.whitehouse.org/initiative...bombardier.jpg

[Tamerlane]

LMAO Sleep

The sad thing is that they haven't ruled out using something like neutron warheads in a first strike to wipe out the bunker systems in Iraq. Apparently you can control and limit the spread of radiation.

[Mr Sleep]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr Sleep This reminds me a great deal of the Panama & Chile situation that the US found themselves embroiled in, I'll add more later when I have more time.

There was a factual movie I saw a while back called Missing, if you haven't seen it watch it, it's brilliant and one of the best political thrillers ever, Jack Lemmon is the father of a journolist who is a little to close to the situation in Chile, I can't really go into it too much cause it would ruin the movie but I suggest you watch it and then you will appreciate the similarities to Fas' story.

[Osiris]

Quote:

Originally posted by CM Bah, you guys just got a free trade agreement with the US due to your support on the war of Terrorism. And you guys are taking the US to court, along with Brazil on the Sugar Regime. Not to mention attacking the Common Agriculture policy of the EU after Jan 2004 when the Peace clause runs out. Feel free to ask more, i am currently doing my agriculture paper. We had an Aussie Prof over, Kym Anderson. Heard of him?

Whoopee Doo...Going on recent history our trade agreements with the US somehow end up costing us money. In any case I doubt it will make up for the $100 million in wheat sales to Iraq that we have blown by joining "the alliance".

Kym Anderson is from the Uni of Adelaide of which I am also a grad. Apart from that I don't know much about him.

[fable]

Personally, I liked the basic idea behind the piece, but I don't think the writer built his case as well as he could have. First, he left out any detailed mention of all the various treaties, environmental and arms-related, which the Bush administration has either abandoned after signing, or abandoned in negotiation. (One treaty is mentioned; there are several dozen, large and small.) These include everything from a major disarmament treaty with Russia to an international anti-mine pact (one of whose other refusals, ironically enough, came from Saddam Hussein).

Secondly, he neglected to point out how self-defeating in the long run it is for any administration to rely internationally upon threats as their main weapon of diplomatic choice. In this, Dubya is consistent: he's using the same tactics that enabled him to steamroller through bills in the Texas legislature. The problem is, Texas politics have been based for years on the cheerful acceptance of "the big club" theory of management. (I've got a much bigger club than you, and I'll use it if you don't do what I say.) It has already backfired repeatedly in the Congress, prior to 9/11. (Bush lost that celebrated one senator margin of control in 2001 over the Senate because, as Jeffords repeatedly said to the press, he was being threatened and strongarmed by Bush into voting the President's agenda. Typical instance: Jeffords co-sponsored a humanitarian bill, and worked hard for its passage over several years. Bush deliberately didn't invite Jeffords to the signing, thus losing him the PR benefit in his home state.)

Threats of boycotts of goods against Germany and France are already being mooted at the state legislative level in the US, under instructions from Washington. Rumsfeld has spoken of building closer alliances with Eastern Europe, while abandoning "to its fate" "old Europe." Then, there were the steel tarriffs that Bush placed on the EU, amounting to an additional 75% of cost. The EU promptly retaliated. There's talk now among some of the EU members of privately forming a group of nations to encourage the movement of investment from the US to the new EU members--ironically, the very same ones Rumsfeld praised.

Nations like Germany and France are not used to being treated in this fashion by their close allies, and are not so insignificant that their reactions can be safely ignored. With the US chalking up an enormous backlog of international ill-will for its method of getting what it wants, the main question as I see it is when payback will actually hit.

[Nightmare]

Quote:

Originally posted by HighLordDave The problem for the world is that no single country in the world can stand up to us. Not economically and not militarily. We have the means and the will to bully just about anyone we want into doing our will.

China could, I believe.