I guess it was inevitable that recent events should become a topic here, and
I won't shy away :-) I will be stepping on toes of many of my best friends
on this list, but I feel strongly enough abut this that I am prepared to
take the risk.

This sort of thing always tends to be placed in a historical context, where
the historical "facts" used tend to be highly selective, and some spurious
and frequently intellectually embarassing conclusions are reached, by people
who a) should know better and b) are much more intelligent than their
comments would suggest. Thus, we get absurd comparisons between Bush and
Hitler, Ridge and Hess, and we get the denigration of American contributions
to the victory in WW II on the basis that they constituted a minority in
this battle or that. And mostly, we get the "wah-wah-I didn't get it my
way!" reaction.

Then the ambiguity gets tempered  by national pride. Those who are against
the war nevertheless get peeved when their countries' contributions aren't
recognized, and those who contribute something - but only what is currently
politically possible - get classified as lesser contributors. And forgotten
is the fact that they may contribute later, with a different kind of
resource that corresponds better with their skills.

People think that this world, and the alliances and friendships it contains,
acted significantly different from the past. But tell me, since when did
France not play the perpetual recalcitrant ? Since when did Germany not shy
away as long as possible from making difficult and historically sensitive
decisions involving the deployment of soldiers ? Since when did Russia and
China not automatically rear up against any American-led use of force ?
Since when did the UK, Spain and Italy not side virtually automatically with
the US ? Since when did Holland and Denmark not sit in the middle, but
ultimately come down on the side of the US ? Since when did Asia (with the
exception of the always entertaining Dr. Mahathir) not shut up and get on
with life ? And since when did America not ultimately make the decision they
felt was in their best national interest ?

The answer, of course, is that nothing has changed. Kissinger notes in his
memoirs, "diplomacy merely reflects the balance of power that already
exists". That really says it all. Since 1945, Europe has ALWAYS obeyed
orders from the US. Sure, Europe was a convenient buffer area for the US,
but to suggest that it was an arrangement which only the US benefited from
is the height of hypocrisy in my never humble opinion. Now that the safety
blanket offered by the US is no longer required, this sort of ludicrous
conclusion is drawn by more and more Europeans. It's a bit like the teenager
who has grown up and has left home saying he no longer needs his parents,
and never really did...If the US was under the impression that Europe would
fall in line, is is basically Europe itself that has created that
impression, and yet Europe claims to be surprised.

People with no insight whatsoever into the actual reasoning speculate about
the motives for the war. Is it about oil ? If it is, I would suggest that it
is as much about France's and Russia's oil as about the Americans', but only
rarely are those two countrie's massive vested interests suggested. Is it
about WMD? If so, I would suggest that some countries are probably not real
keen on the truth gettting out about who supplied the know-how and the
hardware. Is it about some sort of family feud, with the Bush clan being
committed to taking out Saddam once and for all ? Yeah right, for that to be
possible, America would have to really be like Iraq, and we all know that to
be untrue.

Forgotten in the highly selective historical comparisons is also that on the
Western side, those leaders who might have propped up Saddam in the past are
not the leaders in power today. The selective history-quoters seem to
suggest that the sins of the fathers should be visited upon the sons, such
that because America or Europe once did this or that, they should not be
allowed to ever do anything different. This is, of course, the fallacy of
suggesting that two wrongs make a right.

A right. What is "right" here ? If you strip away the rhetoric and the
speculation, what remains is the fact that, soon, a vile dictator will be
divested of his reign. If anyone thinks Saddam should stay in power, then
stand up and be counted. If you think it is only right that he and his
cohorts should be allowed to continue a reign of terror, torture, rape,
genocide, exploitation, and so on - WMD OR NOT - come out and say so. And if
you don't think so, then by what twisted logic can you possibly be against
what is happening ?

The "logic" among many peaceniks goes that while, yes, Saddam is not a very
nice guy, it is unacceptable to kill innocent civilians to achieve his
downfall. I suppose that for some, it is easier on their conscience to let
Saddam kill innocent Iraqis indefinitely than to do it ourselves, but by
that "logic", Hitler should have been allowed to stay on, too. Maybe that
was the same logic that permitted Europe to turn a blind eye to events in
Kosovo until the Americans took the initiative and Europe was  forced to
confront its embarassing collective lapse of memory of events 50 years
earlier, and the oft-repeated but never enforced vow, "never again!". The
favorite European tools, of trade sanctions, "inspections" and strong
rhetoric, have never worked anywhere, and that is NOT selective history!

And please don't insult my intelligence by suggesting that the US stance on
North Korea vs. their stance on Iraq suggests hypocrisy. North Korea is the
PERFECT argument for what is now happening in the Gulf. Hand-wringingly
waiting until Iraq becomes another North Korea - i.e. untouchable by virtue
of its military strength and vast stocks of WMD, would no doubt be the
preferred European strategy (because it would not require any hard choices),
but it wouldn't do the world any favors in the long run, would it ?

There is a lot of talk about the violation of national sovereignty, and
frequent suggestions that the UN charter disallows the intervention in the
national concerns of other states no matter what. But even the esteemed Kofi
Annan thinks differently, and entirely rightly so. Take a peek at
http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2003/sgsm8581.doc.htm:

QUOTE

Question:  Mr. Secretary-General, your name has become attached to the idea
of humanitarian intervention -- that the world cannot stand by and watch a
genocide occur within borders.  Some have argued that the new United States
concept of pre-emptive action is simply an expansion of the "Kofi doctrine"
of humanitarian intervention.  Do you believe there is a case for
pre-emptive military action, especially in the case of incipient terrorism?

The Secretary-General:  That is an interesting question. But I would want to
distinguish the two.  I think the basis on which I argued for intervention,
which eventually also led to the establishment of a commission by the
Canadian Government, which issued a wonderful report that I would recommend
to all of you: "The Responsibility to Protect". It argues that sovereignty
is not just privilege; it also carries responsibilities.  Governments do
have responsibilities to protect their citizens.  If they fail to do so, in
a situation where their human rights are systematically and grossly being
violated, the international community may have to step in, because a
government has failed to protect the people.  We should not allow them to
use their sovereignty as a shield behind which to commit these gross
violations

UNQUOTE

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Everyone is entitled to
demonstrate in the streets. Everyone is entitled to criticize their leaders.
Everyone is entitled to all this, while knowing that they can do so free of
fear of retribution from the state.

I rejoice in the knowledge that soon, the people of Iraq will be entitled to
all this, too, and I can't fathom why anybody wouldn't. Reflect on that for
a little while, will you ?

Bjorn