03-21-2003, 05:12 AM
I don't think what happened in Yugoslavia is analogous to Iraq. First of all, yes it was NATO and not the UN, but it was still a supra-national organization. I think there is significant difference between a group of nations deciding what to do on an ad hoc basis and going thru an organization like NATO, with its own established rules and procedures. I don't think anyone, not even the harshest critic of the administration, is saying you *have* to go through the UN. Had the US gone through NATO again this time, I think the criticism would be greatly muted. (Why NATO would be involved is a different matter, and probably would have required concrete linkage between 9/11 and Iraq-- which we could not show.)
Second, during the Yugoslav campaign, the people who wanted to intervene in the Balkans made the proper inquiries and found out Russia would veto any resolution authorizing the use of force in the Balkans. So Blair et al opted not to go through the UN at all. Perversely that had the effect of preserving the integrity of the UN; Yugoslavia became a NATO issue and the UN simply was not implicated, negatively or positively. Because again, no one is saying the UN is the be-all and end-all and sole arbiter of international relations. Regional organizations can, and have, acted without consultation with the UN in their own regional affairs. NATO is one example, and the OAS is another.
What the US did here, however, was quite different, not only for substantive reasons -- everyone agreed that Milosevic was committing genocide, the only issue was whether to act militarily; there is no such agreement on whether Iraq poses an immediate threat -- but also procedurally. And I think the process is what has angered Paris and Bonn more than the substance of this debate.
In other words, I don't think its simply a matter of risk analysis. Germany + France have lost far more troops in peace-keeping missions than the US. I think it is in part a principled objection to how the Bush Administration handled the whole debate. Quite frankly if I were President of France I don't see how I could have done it any differently than Chirac did, even if I truly believed Saddam is a threat.
Second, during the Yugoslav campaign, the people who wanted to intervene in the Balkans made the proper inquiries and found out Russia would veto any resolution authorizing the use of force in the Balkans. So Blair et al opted not to go through the UN at all. Perversely that had the effect of preserving the integrity of the UN; Yugoslavia became a NATO issue and the UN simply was not implicated, negatively or positively. Because again, no one is saying the UN is the be-all and end-all and sole arbiter of international relations. Regional organizations can, and have, acted without consultation with the UN in their own regional affairs. NATO is one example, and the OAS is another.
What the US did here, however, was quite different, not only for substantive reasons -- everyone agreed that Milosevic was committing genocide, the only issue was whether to act militarily; there is no such agreement on whether Iraq poses an immediate threat -- but also procedurally. And I think the process is what has angered Paris and Bonn more than the substance of this debate.
In other words, I don't think its simply a matter of risk analysis. Germany + France have lost far more troops in peace-keeping missions than the US. I think it is in part a principled objection to how the Bush Administration handled the whole debate. Quite frankly if I were President of France I don't see how I could have done it any differently than Chirac did, even if I truly believed Saddam is a threat.