With money, promises and blasting, the bush administration can at best celebrate a short-term success on the iraq ie, otherwise its policies are already leaving an explosive shambles in their wake
In order to ensure the long prepared invasion of iraq, the hour of the so-called realpolitik has come. The british and american governments are trying by all means to obtain or rather to buy the necessary votes in the security council, while the other side is striving to get out of the conflict in one piece with whatever decision it takes. It is this behind-the-scenes wheeling and dealing, but under the guise of a peaceful solution or a war for peace and democratization, in which the credibility of international organizations from the un to nato is in danger of being gambled away.
It is striking that politicians and commentators keep saying that war is inevitable. Admittedly, it is only because the u.S. Government has never really allowed an alternative and has been focused on regime overthrow under the pretext of disarmament, which it intends to use to consolidate its influence throughout the region. Strangely, hardly anyone talks about the fact that the un resolutions do not contain any reference to regime change, even though it is generally wished that the international community could or should impose stronger freedom and democracy – not only in iraq.
People distrust a masked policy of interests
The plan to drive the hussein regime from power has long been harbored by conservative circles in the united states that came to power with bush, came shortly after 11.9. Quickly got on the agenda and is now to be implemented in the wake of the afghanistan war. A war is not supported by a large part of the population in many countries, because the people are obviously not really convinced of the reasons, but the real interests are not disclosed and discussed. One only has to look at the new coalitions for or against a war in iraq to realize that it is not primarily a matter of freedom and democracy. When only one government holds the same position, it seems to have become quite irrelevant for all involved whether the partner in the struggle for the respective good respects the principles of democracy and the rule of law as well as human rights.
The mistrust of the citizens of many states is directed against the appearance of a superpower that is uncritically convinced of itself and acts in a messianic manner, that places itself above all other states, does not respect international agreements, instrumentalizes the united nations and nevertheless allegedly only follows noble goals. The fact that in all countries many, sometimes even the majority of the people agree to a war, if it is desired and legitimized by the world community, is, despite all justified criticism of the un and especially the security council, a good sign that a democratization of the situation is also desired globally (the first global or planetary demonstration).
The u.S. Government has always made it clear that it wants to carry out the invasion without the approval of the security council and thus accept the loss of importance of the un. The iraq conflict, one should not forget with all the fixation of attention on it, is only one case for the american internationalism of the bush administration, on which unfortunately the discussion has now narrowed down. As far as nato and the eu are concerned, the u.S. Also relies on agreements with individual countries. On the one hand, this is understandable, because in the short term it is easier to assert national interests, but on the other hand, the disintegration of the organizations forced by the u.S. Government has certainly made the world more unstable and insecure in the long term.
Money helps to win vassals, but not necessarily to democratize the situation
Although this is quite common and in line with realpolitik, little democratic transparency is currently being ensured for the implementation of the desired position of the countries in the security council, but also for the acquisition of further alliances. Democracies have the characteristic, which the u.S. Government apparently wants only to a limited extent, that their attitude cannot be imposed from above. The u.S. Is allying itself with governments that have the overwhelming majority of their citizens against them on the iraq ie, as in italy or spain, while governments such as germany’s or france’s, which are in favor of disarmament and represent a majority of the citizens in this matter, are being threatened rather blatantly, even though dissenting opinions should also be part of the international democratic culture. Already some time ago, some us politicians rumored that, for example, the states of the willing will naturally have economic advantages from the expected flow of oil and money from iraq with its us government and the iraqi successor government.
A liberated iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region, by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America’s interests in security, and america’s belief in liberty, both lead in the same direction: to a free and peaceful iraq.
Us president bush
The current checkbook diplomacy of the u.S. Government, cultivated in the name of freedom, democracy and peace, will at best be able to forge a short-term ad hoc alliance, which may be able to assert u.S. Interests even in the security council with more yes votes, no vetoes and some abstentions, but which could quickly break up if the war lasts longer or if more serious difficulties arise. Then the democratization of relations promised by bush could also lead to some changes in his fractured alliance. And in iraq, too, with the planned military government, the smoldering conflict between turks and kurds over access to the oil wells in northern iraq and over the autonomy of the kurds, as well as the open question of how the shiites in the south will behave, the import of democracy from the outset is accompanied by a simultaneous attempt to "integrity" of iraq is being called into question. Should the turkish army also enter northern iraq to control the kurds and support the turkmen, conflicts with the kurds, perhaps even in turkey itself, are inevitable.
Apart from turkey, which is still wavering despite many promises, and which was given an aid package of at least 15 billion dollars if it agrees to an attack from turkey, the u.S. Government must, however, buy further agreements from zagreb countries by threats and money. Of the 15 countries represented in the security council, only the governments of the united states, great britain, bulgaria and spain are still in favor of war. In the case of a referendum, however, this would look quite different, because then the usa would be quite alone: not a good image for the commitment to democracy.
Iraq’s liberation from tyranny need by no means be merely contagious in terms of democratization and increased security
The diplomacy of persuasion and blackmail, when added to the money paid to israel and the agreements with arab states such as egypt, can be quite expensive for the americans in the long run, even if the war is won (on the intricacies of u.S. Diplomacy, for example, money and war). The u.S. Government cannot hope to bear a large part of the costs of the war, as it did in the last one, and it will be under greater economic prere if the war continues and oil prices continue to rise.
If the bush administration succeeds, with the means of prere it has used, in persuading the still-drawn governments of angola, mexico, guinea, cameroon, chile and pakistan, all of which have seats on the security council, to agree to the new resolution, in diading china and russia from vetoing it by promises, and in not allowing any alternative, such as the canadian proposal, this would be a bitter victory for politics and would only confirm that money and economic and military power are the only stakes on the stage where only the hopelessly naive can believe in the performance of the play of the good against the bad, the democrats against the dictators, the peaceful against the aggressors, the truth-lovers against the lugners – or whatever the script may say.
President bush condescendingly said that a second resolution was only being sought because of the compounds anyway. Die un ist also nur taktisch von bedeutung. Bush habe lange uber die angelegenheit und ihre folgen nachgedacht. Was auch immer dabei herauskommen mag, am wichtigsten sei es, dass saddam entwaffnet wird. Das ist dann schon eine art versprechen. Wenn nur dieser bosewicht weggeschossen ist, wird alles von selbst irgendwie gut.
Of course, the united nations has already had to endure several crises of credibility, and this is by no means the first time that the u.S. Has behaved in such a way, when in the name of freedom certain interests are to be enforced that do not even have to be national, but can only be those of the government and the interest groups behind it. But it is astonishing and probably really only understandable because of a messianism based on some quite real interests that the bush administration, with a war that is by no means necessary for security reasons, not only accepts eruptions in the middle east, but also a strengthening of radical islamism and the terrorism that emanates from it. Where power and money pay, it is easier for terrorists to legitimize the use of their means to pursue their goals. The transformation of the middle east could well end in muslim extremists coming to power in some states and gaining further influence in turkey or pakistan, for example, but also in afghanistan.
The overthrow of the hussein regime carried out by auben need by no means be contagious only in the direction desired by the united states. But even in the case of the allies, it is by no means certain that this policy will lead to a strengthening of governments. Here, too, depending on the course of the war and its consequences, opposition could grow, leading to changes of government in spain or italy, for example. And last but not least, such a "regime change" the bush administration has also been. The game of truth and lies currently being played by the u.S. And british governments, which is all too easy to see through – and which could also show that for the u.S. Government, the democratic public is nothing more than a manipulable coarse – could altogether call for criticism of democracy as a sham, and thus for extremists of all kinds.
The iraq conflict is a catalyst for developments that have been simmering for a long time but are now gradually defining the post-cold war world. It will certainly be less simple and probably hardly more secure, as the crude blocks have given way to a multitude of connections, some of which are merely ephemeral. The problem at the moment is that the bush administration, which consists almost exclusively of cold warriors, wants to hold on to the old bipolar world view by all means and thus does not reduce the conflicts, but intensifies them. In such an open world, however, there is more than ever an opportunity to move toward a common world domestic policy based on the principles of the rule of law. If the usa had been "american dream" behind it, much would be gained. But unfortunately there is nothing to be said for this at present. Nevertheless, at the moment we are witnessing an accelerated phase in the reshaping of the world.