Comments on: Binding Gulliver http://crookedtimber.org/2004/03/06/binding-gulliver/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Sun, 12 Feb 2012 13:01:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: ginger http://crookedtimber.org/2004/03/06/binding-gulliver/comment-page-1/#comment-20486 ginger Tue, 09 Mar 2004 20:25:35 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1198#comment-20486 Ok, I'm "<i>completely wrong</i>" then, Sebastian. Just because you can't see that the fact that Serbia was not as powerful as China has nothing to do with how "easy" or hard it was to "go in". That "go in" presumes military intervention, right? Now, the EU has no European Union Army, right? And back then, NATO still counted something as military alliance, right? And who's at the head of NATO? If you don't see the role the US interests played there, Sebastian, I can't help you. We're talking different planets, apparently. I'm talking of the wider strategy and intervention in that area, not Srebrenica itself. I'm not disagreeing with statements of fact on what occurred. Merely with interpretations taking the moral high ground on what-could-have-been-done while a) overlooking responsibilities from those directly responsible for the massacres and b) ignoring those wider strategies, factors, and the blatant difficulties of any intervention into an area seized by ethnic conflict. The fact that China and Russia are more powerful is not relevant to how much more "difficult" it'd be to "go in" - it's relevant to the fact no one has any INTEREST in going in. The difficulty in all cases would still be there, intrinsic to the nature of ethnic conflicts. It's the motivations for intervention, or lack of it, that change. <i>Yeah, and you clearly aren’t willing to admit that it had quite a bit to do with a combination of Milosevic’s incitement and Europe’s indifference.</i> Riiight, now turn me into a Milosevic apologist while you're at it... <i>For you everything is about the US and how the US should be doing something. </i> No, you got it all wrong. I'm not a kneejerk antiamerican, unless you want to picture me as one, be my guest. All I said was, the US was not disinterested in what was going on in the Balkans, and did not merely "go in" after Europe had shown it was "powerless in their own backyard". That's a naive reading, because the US were very much following what was going on since the start of that ethnic conflict, and were also playing a role in aiding different factions at different times. It's clichéd, and also contradictory, to see the US in this story as the indifferent bystander, who only comes in dragged by the shirt by the petulant euros who can't solve their own "backyard" problems. The US did not want anyone to "go in" if it wasn't them leading the effort on their own terms. Which is understandable after all. And no, this does not excuse the European countries who also played their roles into the Balkans conflicts, since their origins, not by belated intervention or indifference to massacres. It goes back a long, long way. So I'm not taking an anti-US or pro-Euro position at all, Sebastian, understand that. I'm pointing out it was all a lot more complicated than "powerless in the backyard". <i>And as for Mugabe, France and most particularly Chirac is protecting him.</i> Oh, ok... <i> The US doesn’t see the need to defy Europe when our strategic interests are not in play. </i> Interesting... I hadn't heard this reduced version, well it sure makes it all simpler, doesn't it? <i>Once again you want the US to fix everything.</i> Nope. I am addressing your points, not "the US". I wasn't even thinking the US should intervene against Mugabe. It could be the UK, for instance. But no matter who takes action, what kind of action do you envisage? And isn't it belated already? And why do you seem to be more cynically accepting of the difficulties/lack of interests/lack of strategies about Mugabe, than about the belated intervention by *all* in the Balkans? By what kind of standard one can judge powerlessness, or choices not to intervene? <i>International problems don’t typically get fixed by Europe.</i> No, indeed. Did I say otherwise? <i>The US isn’t getting involved against Mugabe therefore the killings continue.</i> Not necessarily a causal relation. They killings continue because there's people killing. No one decreed the US should be the policemen of the world, I certainly don't think so. Not necessarily? But Europe should? What's the standard, in other words? Ok, I’m “completely wrong” then, Sebastian. Just because you can’t see that the fact that Serbia was not as powerful as China has nothing to do with how “easy” or hard it was to “go in”. That “go in” presumes military intervention, right? Now, the EU has no European Union Army, right? And back then, NATO still counted something as military alliance, right? And who’s at the head of NATO? If you don’t see the role the US interests played there, Sebastian, I can’t help you. We’re talking different planets, apparently. I’m talking of the wider strategy and intervention in that area, not Srebrenica itself. I’m not disagreeing with statements of fact on what occurred. Merely with interpretations taking the moral high ground on what-could-have-been-done while a) overlooking responsibilities from those directly responsible for the massacres and b) ignoring those wider strategies, factors, and the blatant difficulties of any intervention into an area seized by ethnic conflict. The fact that China and Russia are more powerful is not relevant to how much more “difficult” it’d be to “go in” – it’s relevant to the fact no one has any INTEREST in going in. The difficulty in all cases would still be there, intrinsic to the nature of ethnic conflicts. It’s the motivations for intervention, or lack of it, that change. Yeah, and you clearly aren’t willing to admit that it had quite a bit to do with a combination of Milosevic’s incitement and Europe’s indifference. Riiight, now turn me into a Milosevic apologist while you’re at it… For you everything is about the US and how the US should be doing something. No, you got it all wrong. I’m not a kneejerk antiamerican, unless you want to picture me as one, be my guest. All I said was, the US was not disinterested in what was going on in the Balkans, and did not merely “go in” after Europe had shown it was “powerless in their own backyard”. That’s a naive reading, because the US were very much following what was going on since the start of that ethnic conflict, and were also playing a role in aiding different factions at different times. It’s clichéd, and also contradictory, to see the US in this story as the indifferent bystander, who only comes in dragged by the shirt by the petulant euros who can’t solve their own “backyard” problems. The US did not want anyone to “go in” if it wasn’t them leading the effort on their own terms. Which is understandable after all. And no, this does not excuse the European countries who also played their roles into the Balkans conflicts, since their origins, not by belated intervention or indifference to massacres. It goes back a long, long way. So I’m not taking an anti-US or pro-Euro position at all, Sebastian, understand that. I’m pointing out it was all a lot more complicated than “powerless in the backyard”. And as for Mugabe, France and most particularly Chirac is protecting him. Oh, ok… The US doesn’t see the need to defy Europe when our strategic interests are not in play. Interesting… I hadn’t heard this reduced version, well it sure makes it all simpler, doesn’t it? Once again you want the US to fix everything. Nope. I am addressing your points, not “the US”. I wasn’t even thinking the US should intervene against Mugabe. It could be the UK, for instance. But no matter who takes action, what kind of action do you envisage? And isn’t it belated already? And why do you seem to be more cynically accepting of the difficulties/lack of interests/lack of strategies about Mugabe, than about the belated intervention by all in the Balkans? By what kind of standard one can judge powerlessness, or choices not to intervene? International problems don’t typically get fixed by Europe. No, indeed. Did I say otherwise? The US isn’t getting involved against Mugabe therefore the killings continue. Not necessarily a causal relation. They killings continue because there’s people killing. No one decreed the US should be the policemen of the world, I certainly don’t think so. Not necessarily? But Europe should? What’s the standard, in other words?

]]> By: Sebastian Holsclaw http://crookedtimber.org/2004/03/06/binding-gulliver/comment-page-1/#comment-20485 Sebastian Holsclaw Tue, 09 Mar 2004 17:36:46 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1198#comment-20485 "Exactly, and that is largely a cliché, because it was the US themselves who wanted to be at the lead of the intervention there, because of those interests. So both the US and European members of NATO decided to intervene when it suited them, when they could, when inaction could no longer be justified, etc." Completely wrong. The US was not particularly interested in going in to the Balkans for almost a year. If Europe had the capability and/or desire to go in, they had plenty of time. The US absolutely did not go rushing in. Your response to my comments on China and Russia doesn't make any sense. You say: "Don’t you see, that also voids the moral AND practical premises on which one can indict those who are said to have been “powerless in their own backyard”?" No I don't see that. The Balkans was not as powerful as China or Russia. The area was just about as weak as is possible. Europe could not or would not intervene EVEN IN THE EASY CASE. I don't know how you can be so misinformed about a well reported case like Srebrenica, but I suggest that Google is an excellent resource. "It’s both cases of full-blown, internal, ethnic conflicts, within sovereign countries, not one country against another." Yeah, and you clearly aren't willing to admit that it had quite a bit to do with a combination of Milosevic's incitement and Europe's indifference. For you everything is about the US and how the US should be doing something. Fine, then let us do something and get out of our way. And as for Mugabe, France and most particularly Chirac is protecting him. The US doesn't see the need to defy Europe when our strategic interests are not in play. Once again you want the US to fix everything. This illustrates my point, not yours. International problems don't typically get fixed by Europe. The US isn't getting involved against Mugabe therefore the killings continue. That supports my thesis, it doesn't help you at all. “Exactly, and that is largely a cliché, because it was the US themselves who wanted to be at the lead of the intervention there, because of those interests. So both the US and European members of NATO decided to intervene when it suited them, when they could, when inaction could no longer be justified, etc.” Completely wrong. The US was not particularly interested in going in to the Balkans for almost a year. If Europe had the capability and/or desire to go in, they had plenty of time. The US absolutely did not go rushing in. Your response to my comments on China and Russia doesn’t make any sense. You say: “Don’t you see, that also voids the moral AND practical premises on which one can indict those who are said to have been “powerless in their own backyard”?” No I don’t see that. The Balkans was not as powerful as China or Russia. The area was just about as weak as is possible. Europe could not or would not intervene EVEN IN THE EASY CASE. I don’t know how you can be so misinformed about a well reported case like Srebrenica, but I suggest that Google is an excellent resource. “It’s both cases of full-blown, internal, ethnic conflicts, within sovereign countries, not one country against another.” Yeah, and you clearly aren’t willing to admit that it had quite a bit to do with a combination of Milosevic’s incitement and Europe’s indifference. For you everything is about the US and how the US should be doing something. Fine, then let us do something and get out of our way. And as for Mugabe, France and most particularly Chirac is protecting him. The US doesn’t see the need to defy Europe when our strategic interests are not in play. Once again you want the US to fix everything. This illustrates my point, not yours. International problems don’t typically get fixed by Europe. The US isn’t getting involved against Mugabe therefore the killings continue. That supports my thesis, it doesn’t help you at all.

]]> By: ginger http://crookedtimber.org/2004/03/06/binding-gulliver/comment-page-1/#comment-20484 ginger Tue, 09 Mar 2004 10:54:13 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1198#comment-20484 Sebastian: the US is a superpower and has strategical interests everywhere, interests that areas do not get unsettled in ways that can affect other areas... All countries have those interests. The US more than anyone because it holds more power. Plus, the Balkans is and has always been a crucial area in many aspects, both geographically and politically and economically. I can't sum all that background up for you if you have no idea... No wonder you don't get my point. <i>‘Powerless in their own backyard’ meant that when they wanted to do something about Croatia/Kosovo/Bosnia the Europeans were incapable of doing anything until the US stepped in.</i> Exactly, and that is largely a cliché, because it was the US themselves who wanted to be at the lead of the intervention there, because of those interests. So both the US and European members of NATO decided to intervene when it suited them, when they could, when inaction could no longer be justified, etc. If only it was always so black-and-white as to be a matter of "so guys, when do we go in, and what have you been waiting for?" You've got to look at the reasons why those massacres occurred. You've got to consider that situation, what it was about, how it developed. You can't remove the primary responsibility from the direct players to attribute it to outsiders. <i>I have no idea what you point on Yugoslavian sovereignty is. We don’t interfere with Russia because it is large more than because it has ‘control’ of Chechenya. It is the same reason why China is allowed to commit genocide in Tibet. Welcome to the real world.</i> Exactly, you've made my point clearer for me. Russia is more powerful than Serbia back then, so we don't dare touch it. Ditto for China. Sovereignity, AND bigger power. Don't you see, that also voids the moral AND practical premises on which one can indict those who are said to have been "powerless in their own backyard"? <i>The quote on inability to prevent massacres wasn’t from me, but it pretty clearly points to the Srebrenica massacres which took place under the watchful eye of the UN, even though they were specifically in place to provide ‘safe zones’.</i> I think that's another cliché way to look at it, oversimplified really. WHY did those massacres occur in the first place? Because the UN was there but didn't do enough? Or because those committing the atrocities had turned that ethnic war into a jungle of atrocities, indeed? I'm not defending the UN or anyone, mind you, we all know how the UN is powerless and often chooses to be powerless. Plus, the UN is not a military force. But the point is, you've got to look at the primary responsibitlies, primary situation. And see what a terrible mess it was. A mess that was the doing of those who directly created. And for all the faults of the UN or NATO or whoever, it wasn't their own direct making at all. I don't see how that can be ignored. <i>Sure, but the European Community could not act at all without the US. They either didn’t have the capability or they didn’t have the political will or both. </i> Back then, NATO counted more than the EU. And NATO included the US. Has it occurred to you that maybe, the US - government, services, authorities, policy-makers, etc., not opinionists or think-thank writers, mind you - didn't intervene before because it didn't want to, or couldn't find the suitable ways to, or was waiting to see how the situation evolved within that sovereign country? <i>Without the US stepping in, there would still be genocidal acts in Kosovo.</i> Actually, the killing and refugee problems increased after intervention, and Kosovo is still a terrible mess, but anyway... <i>Actually that might not be true, Milosevic would have killed everyone he wanted to kill by now.</i> He wasn't the only one doing the killing. Just like the Russians were not the only ones doing the killing in Grozny. It's both cases of full-blown, internal, ethnic conflicts, within sovereign countries, not one country against another. It's not easy in terms of international law, politics, strategy, to deal with such issues, even aside factors like power and interests. By the way, what's happening to Mugabe? Is he still there? That's not even a big powerful country like China, right? So what's up with that? Sebastian: the US is a superpower and has strategical interests everywhere, interests that areas do not get unsettled in ways that can affect other areas… All countries have those interests. The US more than anyone because it holds more power. Plus, the Balkans is and has always been a crucial area in many aspects, both geographically and politically and economically. I can’t sum all that background up for you if you have no idea… No wonder you don’t get my point. ‘Powerless in their own backyard’ meant that when they wanted to do something about Croatia/Kosovo/Bosnia the Europeans were incapable of doing anything until the US stepped in. Exactly, and that is largely a cliché, because it was the US themselves who wanted to be at the lead of the intervention there, because of those interests. So both the US and European members of NATO decided to intervene when it suited them, when they could, when inaction could no longer be justified, etc. If only it was always so black-and-white as to be a matter of “so guys, when do we go in, and what have you been waiting for?” You’ve got to look at the reasons why those massacres occurred. You’ve got to consider that situation, what it was about, how it developed. You can’t remove the primary responsibility from the direct players to attribute it to outsiders. I have no idea what you point on Yugoslavian sovereignty is. We don’t interfere with Russia because it is large more than because it has ‘control’ of Chechenya. It is the same reason why China is allowed to commit genocide in Tibet. Welcome to the real world. Exactly, you’ve made my point clearer for me. Russia is more powerful than Serbia back then, so we don’t dare touch it. Ditto for China. Sovereignity, AND bigger power. Don’t you see, that also voids the moral AND practical premises on which one can indict those who are said to have been “powerless in their own backyard”? The quote on inability to prevent massacres wasn’t from me, but it pretty clearly points to the Srebrenica massacres which took place under the watchful eye of the UN, even though they were specifically in place to provide ‘safe zones’. I think that’s another cliché way to look at it, oversimplified really. WHY did those massacres occur in the first place? Because the UN was there but didn’t do enough? Or because those committing the atrocities had turned that ethnic war into a jungle of atrocities, indeed? I’m not defending the UN or anyone, mind you, we all know how the UN is powerless and often chooses to be powerless. Plus, the UN is not a military force. But the point is, you’ve got to look at the primary responsibitlies, primary situation. And see what a terrible mess it was. A mess that was the doing of those who directly created. And for all the faults of the UN or NATO or whoever, it wasn’t their own direct making at all. I don’t see how that can be ignored. Sure, but the European Community could not act at all without the US. They either didn’t have the capability or they didn’t have the political will or both. Back then, NATO counted more than the EU. And NATO included the US. Has it occurred to you that maybe, the US - government, services, authorities, policy-makers, etc., not opinionists or think-thank writers, mind you – didn’t intervene before because it didn’t want to, or couldn’t find the suitable ways to, or was waiting to see how the situation evolved within that sovereign country? Without the US stepping in, there would still be genocidal acts in Kosovo. Actually, the killing and refugee problems increased after intervention, and Kosovo is still a terrible mess, but anyway… Actually that might not be true, Milosevic would have killed everyone he wanted to kill by now. He wasn’t the only one doing the killing. Just like the Russians were not the only ones doing the killing in Grozny. It’s both cases of full-blown, internal, ethnic conflicts, within sovereign countries, not one country against another. It’s not easy in terms of international law, politics, strategy, to deal with such issues, even aside factors like power and interests. By the way, what’s happening to Mugabe? Is he still there? That’s not even a big powerful country like China, right? So what’s up with that?

]]> By: Sebastian Holsclaw http://crookedtimber.org/2004/03/06/binding-gulliver/comment-page-1/#comment-20483 Sebastian Holsclaw Tue, 09 Mar 2004 08:40:07 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1198#comment-20483 Very little help is descriptive, I'm not being dismissive. I have no idea what US interests in Kosovo you are talking about. 'Powerless in their own backyard' meant that when they wanted to do something about Croatia/Kosovo/Bosnia the Europeans were incapable of doing anything until the US stepped in. I have no idea what you point on Yugoslavian sovereignty is. We don't interfere with Russia because it is large more than because it has 'control' of Chechenya. It is the same reason why China is allowed to commit genocide in Tibet. Welcome to the real world. The quote on inability to prevent massacres wasn't from me, but it pretty clearly points to the Srebrenica massacres which took place under the watchful eye of the UN, even though they were specifically in place to provide 'safe zones'. "Whatever was going on, whatever the goals of intervention, even with the most justified aims and concerns - you can’t just invade a country like that by pretending it’s your own backyard when it’s not. You have to at least deal with that matter. And that takes time. You don’t want to go in and start bombing and come up with something worse than before. Right?" Sure, but the European Community could not act at all without the US. They either didn't have the capability or they didn't have the political will or both. Without the US stepping in, there would still be genocidal acts in Kosovo. Actually that might not be true, Milosevic would have killed everyone he wanted to kill by now. The European response in 'its own backyard' was completely contingent on convincing the US to use its military. Very little help is descriptive, I’m not being dismissive. I have no idea what US interests in Kosovo you are talking about. ‘Powerless in their own backyard’ meant that when they wanted to do something about Croatia/Kosovo/Bosnia the Europeans were incapable of doing anything until the US stepped in. I have no idea what you point on Yugoslavian sovereignty is. We don’t interfere with Russia because it is large more than because it has ‘control’ of Chechenya. It is the same reason why China is allowed to commit genocide in Tibet. Welcome to the real world. The quote on inability to prevent massacres wasn’t from me, but it pretty clearly points to the Srebrenica massacres which took place under the watchful eye of the UN, even though they were specifically in place to provide ‘safe zones’. “Whatever was going on, whatever the goals of intervention, even with the most justified aims and concerns – you can’t just invade a country like that by pretending it’s your own backyard when it’s not. You have to at least deal with that matter. And that takes time. You don’t want to go in and start bombing and come up with something worse than before. Right?” Sure, but the European Community could not act at all without the US. They either didn’t have the capability or they didn’t have the political will or both. Without the US stepping in, there would still be genocidal acts in Kosovo. Actually that might not be true, Milosevic would have killed everyone he wanted to kill by now. The European response in ‘its own backyard’ was completely contingent on convincing the US to use its military.

]]> By: ginger http://crookedtimber.org/2004/03/06/binding-gulliver/comment-page-1/#comment-20482 ginger Mon, 08 Mar 2004 23:45:40 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1198#comment-20482 ... wake up folks, US-Europe bickering* is so 2003. Not that you'd know if you keep reading certain op-ed rhetorics, of course, they struck a vein, why not keep at it... (*and looking at it from a non-US & non-European p.o.v., I gotta say it's so funny) … wake up folks, US-Europe bickering* is so 2003. Not that you’d know if you keep reading certain op-ed rhetorics, of course, they struck a vein, why not keep at it… (*and looking at it from a non-US & non-European p.o.v., I gotta say it’s so funny)

]]> By: ginger http://crookedtimber.org/2004/03/06/binding-gulliver/comment-page-1/#comment-20481 ginger Mon, 08 Mar 2004 23:42:31 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1198#comment-20481 <i> The US feels it is getting very little help, so it wants very few restrictions.</i> It's the opposite, and it's always been so: the US wants very few restrictions, so it is more than glad to do the biggest share of the action, especially from a military point of view. Which only makes sense for a superpower. It's in the US' own interests. It would be so naive to think otherwise. - Incidentally, "very little help" is a bit dismissive, since the UK and several countries' forces are still giving some not so irrelevant help in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, etc. and it's been acknowledged by the US officials and there's a lot of collaboration on the ground - The US feels it is getting very little help, so it wants very few restrictions. It’s the opposite, and it’s always been so: the US wants very few restrictions, so it is more than glad to do the biggest share of the action, especially from a military point of view. Which only makes sense for a superpower. It’s in the US’ own interests. It would be so naive to think otherwise. – Incidentally, “very little help” is a bit dismissive, since the UK and several countries’ forces are still giving some not so irrelevant help in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, etc. and it’s been acknowledged by the US officials and there’s a lot of collaboration on the ground -

]]> By: ginger http://crookedtimber.org/2004/03/06/binding-gulliver/comment-page-1/#comment-20480 ginger Mon, 08 Mar 2004 23:37:06 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1198#comment-20480 <i>The theory being that the Adriatic is to Europe what the blue water is to us?</i> I'm not sure what you mean. I just meant that phrase, "powerless in their own backyard", means nothing, is a cliché, and an overused one, and a rather hypocrite one too. Bosnia and Kosovo were in what once was Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia back then had sovereignity. Who's telling Putin to "stop messin' with the Chechens" right now? No one. Whether it'd be right or wrong to step in - the thing is Russia has sovereignity over Chechenya. You can't overlook that, so I don't know how it can be overlooked that Yugoslavia had sovereignity back then. Whatever was going on, whatever the goals of intervention, even with the most justified aims and concerns - you can't just invade a country like that by pretending it's your own backyard when it's not. You have to at least deal with that matter. And that takes time. You don't want to go in and start bombing and come up with something worse than before. Right? Also, I seem to recall the US had very direct interests in the area, so, if they ALSO took their time to consider the issue, it means, there were things to consider... no? You make it sound as if we're talking of something quick and easy like stopping kids from picking a fight in the schoolyard. We're talking ethnic wars. Or maybe that "powerless in their own backyard" refers to... the incapacity to *prevent* massacres from even happening? Was that even possible? And again, should that not have been the responsibility of those who committed them, first of all? Grozny was razed to the ground, talk about massacres there... It was probably even worse than Bosnia and Kosovo put together. Yet no one raised any concerns to Putin because everyone accepts Putin has sovereignity over Chechenya. Now, I'm not saying who's right or wrong or what needed to be done, I am not interested in that because I hardly think it's that simple - I just would like to know what the criteria for external intervention are here. <i>Turkey is (or had better be, for your own sakes!) on its way into the EU</i> Meaning? <i>If the citizens of European democracies do not feel a special geographical obligation to foster democracy even within historical Europe,</i> Rhetorics, rhetorics... that phrase also means nothing at all. Who's not fostering democracy in Europe? How? What kind of instances are you thinking of? Are we talking the same real world here? <i>The last two US administrations may accuse each other of botching Haiti, but neither would dream of asserting that it’s someone else’s problem, because the Florida voters would punish anyone who made such an assertion.</i> What's that got to do with anything discussed here? Apples to oranges. You can't compare the US to the EU and you can't compare Haiti to Kosovo. But if the *very same situation* as took place in Kosovo had happened in "the US backyard", I wonder, what exactly would have been expected of the US. - I was going to mention Argentina, Chile, El Salvador, but that'd be too cruel really... The theory being that the Adriatic is to Europe what the blue water is to us? I’m not sure what you mean. I just meant that phrase, “powerless in their own backyard”, means nothing, is a cliché, and an overused one, and a rather hypocrite one too. Bosnia and Kosovo were in what once was Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia back then had sovereignity. Who’s telling Putin to “stop messin’ with the Chechens” right now? No one. Whether it’d be right or wrong to step in – the thing is Russia has sovereignity over Chechenya. You can’t overlook that, so I don’t know how it can be overlooked that Yugoslavia had sovereignity back then. Whatever was going on, whatever the goals of intervention, even with the most justified aims and concerns – you can’t just invade a country like that by pretending it’s your own backyard when it’s not. You have to at least deal with that matter. And that takes time. You don’t want to go in and start bombing and come up with something worse than before. Right? Also, I seem to recall the US had very direct interests in the area, so, if they ALSO took their time to consider the issue, it means, there were things to consider… no? You make it sound as if we’re talking of something quick and easy like stopping kids from picking a fight in the schoolyard. We’re talking ethnic wars. Or maybe that “powerless in their own backyard” refers to… the incapacity to prevent massacres from even happening? Was that even possible? And again, should that not have been the responsibility of those who committed them, first of all? Grozny was razed to the ground, talk about massacres there… It was probably even worse than Bosnia and Kosovo put together. Yet no one raised any concerns to Putin because everyone accepts Putin has sovereignity over Chechenya. Now, I’m not saying who’s right or wrong or what needed to be done, I am not interested in that because I hardly think it’s that simple – I just would like to know what the criteria for external intervention are here. Turkey is (or had better be, for your own sakes!) on its way into the EU Meaning? If the citizens of European democracies do not feel a special geographical obligation to foster democracy even within historical Europe, Rhetorics, rhetorics… that phrase also means nothing at all. Who’s not fostering democracy in Europe? How? What kind of instances are you thinking of? Are we talking the same real world here? The last two US administrations may accuse each other of botching Haiti, but neither would dream of asserting that it’s someone else’s problem, because the Florida voters would punish anyone who made such an assertion. What’s that got to do with anything discussed here? Apples to oranges. You can’t compare the US to the EU and you can’t compare Haiti to Kosovo. But if the very same situation as took place in Kosovo had happened in “the US backyard”, I wonder, what exactly would have been expected of the US. – I was going to mention Argentina, Chile, El Salvador, but that’d be too cruel really…

]]> By: Sebastian Holsclaw http://crookedtimber.org/2004/03/06/binding-gulliver/comment-page-1/#comment-20479 Sebastian Holsclaw Mon, 08 Mar 2004 17:37:29 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1198#comment-20479 "The basic error is a misunderstanding of the issues at stake for the Europeans. These have less to do with substantive differences over policy (although these exist) than with the perception that the current administration is unwilling to take its allies’ interests into account." So say some of the Europeans. The substantive differences over policy drive the perception. France especially acts as if it should have nearly a veto power though its actual contributions are small. The problem of substantive differences is that Europe wants the US to cease operation if there are substantive differences. Europe also wants to use the US military because it needs to avoid spending money on a military in order to prop up the socialized state--see why 'NATO' in Kosovo really meant the US fights, Europe mops up. The substantive difference in the War on Terror is that most European governments are not interested in the change needed in the Middle East to minimize violent terrorism. There is constant whining that Afghanistan isn't being effectively dealt with, but Europe doesn't offer to increase troop levels, Europe doesn't offer to double the money outlay. So either the complaint is empty, or the commitment of Europe is empty. This problem is repeated in numerous debates. Europe wants 'consultation' (which means a near veto or it apparently doesn't count) but it doesn't want the cost of doing difficult things. The US feels it is getting very little help, so it wants very few restrictions. It is a feedback loop. The US does something and gets little help with many restricitions. So it distances itself from the restictive institutions, which then are even less interested in giving even token help. Repeat. I'm sure you want the US to break the cycle. It gets to do everything doesn't it? ;) “The basic error is a misunderstanding of the issues at stake for the Europeans. These have less to do with substantive differences over policy (although these exist) than with the perception that the current administration is unwilling to take its allies’ interests into account.” So say some of the Europeans. The substantive differences over policy drive the perception. France especially acts as if it should have nearly a veto power though its actual contributions are small. The problem of substantive differences is that Europe wants the US to cease operation if there are substantive differences. Europe also wants to use the US military because it needs to avoid spending money on a military in order to prop up the socialized state—see why ‘NATO’ in Kosovo really meant the US fights, Europe mops up. The substantive difference in the War on Terror is that most European governments are not interested in the change needed in the Middle East to minimize violent terrorism. There is constant whining that Afghanistan isn’t being effectively dealt with, but Europe doesn’t offer to increase troop levels, Europe doesn’t offer to double the money outlay. So either the complaint is empty, or the commitment of Europe is empty. This problem is repeated in numerous debates. Europe wants ‘consultation’ (which means a near veto or it apparently doesn’t count) but it doesn’t want the cost of doing difficult things. The US feels it is getting very little help, so it wants very few restrictions. It is a feedback loop. The US does something and gets little help with many restricitions. So it distances itself from the restictive institutions, which then are even less interested in giving even token help. Repeat. I’m sure you want the US to break the cycle. It gets to do everything doesn’t it? ;)

]]> By: Joshua W. Burton http://crookedtimber.org/2004/03/06/binding-gulliver/comment-page-1/#comment-20478 Joshua W. Burton Mon, 08 Mar 2004 14:28:33 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1198#comment-20478 _But of course Bosnia was even more of a mess. I’ doubt it would have been an easy situation for US alone even if it had been in their own “backyard” (not to mention the Balkans are not anyone’s backyard…)._ The theory being that the Adriatic is to Europe what the blue water is to us? Turkey is (or had better be, for your own sakes!) on its way into the EU, and Greece (along, now, with Slovenia) is a full member state. If the citizens of European democracies do not feel a special geographical obligation to foster democracy _even within historical Europe_, then it's silly to talk about a transatlantic alliance based on shared values. The last two US administrations may accuse each other of botching Haiti, but neither would dream of asserting that it's someone else's problem, because the Florida voters would punish anyone who made such an assertion. This isn't just, or even primarily, about flexing military muscles. The US takes a (sincere, if sometimes counterproductive) long-term interest in the Mexican economy, because it's better for both countries if we create good jobs at Mexican wages there than bad jobs for illegal immigrants at Mexican wages here. How much is France investing in job creation in the Maghreb? Why isn't there a BMW plant in Egypt or Turkey? (Well, there _is_ one in Egypt -- http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/664/ec5.htm -- but it's not on anything like an export scale.) The less you ask yourselves questions like these, the less interesting the old alliance looks from our end. But of course Bosnia was even more of a mess. I’ doubt it would have been an easy situation for US alone even if it had been in their own “backyard” (not to mention the Balkans are not anyone’s backyard…). The theory being that the Adriatic is to Europe what the blue water is to us? Turkey is (or had better be, for your own sakes!) on its way into the EU, and Greece (along, now, with Slovenia) is a full member state. If the citizens of European democracies do not feel a special geographical obligation to foster democracy even within historical Europe, then it’s silly to talk about a transatlantic alliance based on shared values. The last two US administrations may accuse each other of botching Haiti, but neither would dream of asserting that it’s someone else’s problem, because the Florida voters would punish anyone who made such an assertion. This isn’t just, or even primarily, about flexing military muscles. The US takes a (sincere, if sometimes counterproductive) long-term interest in the Mexican economy, because it’s better for both countries if we create good jobs at Mexican wages there than bad jobs for illegal immigrants at Mexican wages here. How much is France investing in job creation in the Maghreb? Why isn’t there a BMW plant in Egypt or Turkey? (Well, there is one in Egypt— http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/664/ec5.htm —but it’s not on anything like an export scale.) The less you ask yourselves questions like these, the less interesting the old alliance looks from our end.

]]> By: ginger http://crookedtimber.org/2004/03/06/binding-gulliver/comment-page-1/#comment-20477 ginger Mon, 08 Mar 2004 11:04:55 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1198#comment-20477 A few more references: http://www.acpr.org.il/publications/policy-papers/pp109-xs.html http://www.ict.org.il/articles/mediaarticledet.cfm?articleid=2 http://www.balkanpeace.org/rs/archive/sep03/rs230.shtml A few more references: http://www.acpr.org.il/publications/policy-papers/pp109-xs.html http://www.ict.org.il/articles/mediaarticledet.cfm?articleid=2 http://www.balkanpeace.org/rs/archive/sep03/rs230.shtml

]]> By: ginger http://crookedtimber.org/2004/03/06/binding-gulliver/comment-page-1/#comment-20476 ginger Mon, 08 Mar 2004 10:50:57 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1198#comment-20476 Joshua: Bosnia and Kosove were different but also similar in many respects, and in this context of US-Euro relations they're both often cited as instances of "powerless in their own backyard". That's why I jump from one to the other. But of course Bosnia was even more of a mess. I' doubt it would have been an easy situation for US alone even if it had been in their own "backyard" (not to mention the Balkans are not anyone's backyard...). Many mistakes were made, many contrasting interests were at play, but you don't "solve" ethnic conflicts degenerated into massacres by external intervention that easily. Especially where sovereignity and independence issues are involved. I mentioned Israel because I happen to think the position of some Israeli government officials at the time, like Sharon, was justified by factors that both the US and NATO at large happily ignored. I also remember, in the cse of Kosovo, the reformists like Rugova weren't too happy to have NATO deal with the KLA instead of other, democratic, forces. That the KLA had received assistance from German and US services amongst others is not a secret either. So to hear that European countries within NATO were more reluctant to intervene than the US because they tended to be more "pro-Serb" sounds plain ridiculous. A belated intervention, or hesitation, does not in itself equal "pro-Serb". Germany for one had no interest in seeing a big Serbia, and was all too happy to help the dismemberment of Yugoslavia. As for the item in that link you mention, how is that in contradiction with what I wrote? I never meant to imply any idea that Israel was *hostile* to the Bosnians or Kosovars per se, or merely knee-jerk anti-Muslim, or didn't want a solution to the massacres and humanitarian problems. Point was: there were also, within the Israeli government of the time, more concerns (and very sound ones, in my view) about the kind of people NATO chose to have diplomatic talks with on the Kosovar side, in particular, about how those talks were carried out, and about the implications of granting independence by conceding to self-proclaimed leaders of a group which was actually a terrorist group, and had been overtly listed among terrorist groups by the US too, just before the negotiations with them started. That's an entirely different issue than, and not in contradiction with, offering humanitarian aid to refugees. Those concerns were totally overlooked by both the US and its European partners within NATO. In Bosnia and then Kosovo there were indeed organizational bases for Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, as in Afghanistan. Yet, neither the US or Europe had any qualms in dealing precisely with that kind of people. There should have been MORE prompt intervention for humanitarian goals, but a little less cynicism or calculations that led to empowering the wrong people. In this respect, I find both the US and Europe to blame in the very same way. I hope that's clearer. Joshua: Bosnia and Kosove were different but also similar in many respects, and in this context of US-Euro relations they’re both often cited as instances of “powerless in their own backyard”. That’s why I jump from one to the other. But of course Bosnia was even more of a mess. I’ doubt it would have been an easy situation for US alone even if it had been in their own “backyard” (not to mention the Balkans are not anyone’s backyard…). Many mistakes were made, many contrasting interests were at play, but you don’t “solve” ethnic conflicts degenerated into massacres by external intervention that easily. Especially where sovereignity and independence issues are involved. I mentioned Israel because I happen to think the position of some Israeli government officials at the time, like Sharon, was justified by factors that both the US and NATO at large happily ignored. I also remember, in the cse of Kosovo, the reformists like Rugova weren’t too happy to have NATO deal with the KLA instead of other, democratic, forces. That the KLA had received assistance from German and US services amongst others is not a secret either. So to hear that European countries within NATO were more reluctant to intervene than the US because they tended to be more “pro-Serb” sounds plain ridiculous. A belated intervention, or hesitation, does not in itself equal “pro-Serb”. Germany for one had no interest in seeing a big Serbia, and was all too happy to help the dismemberment of Yugoslavia. As for the item in that link you mention, how is that in contradiction with what I wrote? I never meant to imply any idea that Israel was hostile to the Bosnians or Kosovars per se, or merely knee-jerk anti-Muslim, or didn’t want a solution to the massacres and humanitarian problems. Point was: there were also, within the Israeli government of the time, more concerns (and very sound ones, in my view) about the kind of people NATO chose to have diplomatic talks with on the Kosovar side, in particular, about how those talks were carried out, and about the implications of granting independence by conceding to self-proclaimed leaders of a group which was actually a terrorist group, and had been overtly listed among terrorist groups by the US too, just before the negotiations with them started. That’s an entirely different issue than, and not in contradiction with, offering humanitarian aid to refugees. Those concerns were totally overlooked by both the US and its European partners within NATO. In Bosnia and then Kosovo there were indeed organizational bases for Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, as in Afghanistan. Yet, neither the US or Europe had any qualms in dealing precisely with that kind of people. There should have been MORE prompt intervention for humanitarian goals, but a little less cynicism or calculations that led to empowering the wrong people. In this respect, I find both the US and Europe to blame in the very same way. I hope that’s clearer.

]]> By: Joshua W. Burton http://crookedtimber.org/2004/03/06/binding-gulliver/comment-page-1/#comment-20475 Joshua W. Burton Mon, 08 Mar 2004 09:04:04 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1198#comment-20475 I'm not sure why we keep jumping from Bosnia to Kosovo; the new "hierarchical" paradigm of US/EU military cooperation was already mostly in place by the time of the latter, largely as a result of the catastrophic, avoidable events of the former. Israel and the Balkan Muslims: not sure of the relevance of this, either; I brought in Sharon solely as an epithet tuned to jar the European ear. But here's a newswire from the 1995 era, concerning the Bosnians and the Israeli PM who came to their aid while Janvier fiddled. Scroll down to item 10, the last entry for SE Europe. http://www.b-info.com/places/Macedonia/republic/news/95-07/jul19.mak I’m not sure why we keep jumping from Bosnia to Kosovo; the new “hierarchical” paradigm of US/EU military cooperation was already mostly in place by the time of the latter, largely as a result of the catastrophic, avoidable events of the former. Israel and the Balkan Muslims: not sure of the relevance of this, either; I brought in Sharon solely as an epithet tuned to jar the European ear. But here’s a newswire from the 1995 era, concerning the Bosnians and the Israeli PM who came to their aid while Janvier fiddled. Scroll down to item 10, the last entry for SE Europe. http://www.b-info.com/places/Macedonia/republic/news/95-07/jul19.mak

]]> By: ginger http://crookedtimber.org/2004/03/06/binding-gulliver/comment-page-1/#comment-20474 ginger Mon, 08 Mar 2004 07:29:22 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1198#comment-20474 <i>"powerless in their own back yard"</i> Joshua, I believe that's a copyrighted phrase. Not sure who you should cite as the copyright owner, but a copyright note is not to be omitted anyway. <i>suspicion that our NATO allies were callously pro-Serb</i> Hmm? Oh they were so pro-Serb that Blair wanted to send in ground troops, and the Americans had to tell him to calm down... But if you're looking for the country that had more perplexities not so much about the need to stop the massacres but about the opportunity to grant Kosovo independence by dealing with the KLA terrorists, it's Israel - just to quote at random, from <a href="http://slate.msn.com/id/25826/">Slate</a>: <blockquote>Early in the bombing, Sharon warned that an independent Kosovo could become the heart of a "Greater Albania" that would be a staging ground for Muslim terrorism. Netanyahu quickly disavowed Sharon's remarks, but Sharon had scored points with the far right, where anti-Muslim sentiment abounds. Israeli media have been full of unsubstantiated reports that the Kosovo Liberation Army is funded by Iran, Afghanistan, Osama Bin Laden, and Hezbollah. </blockquote> As it turns out, those reports were not so unfounded, and Sharon's position was not entirely a matter of "courting the far right wing and anti-Muslim sentiment" either. Kosovo is now ethnically clean of Serbs, and the same mujahedeens that fought in Afghanistan also went to aid the mujahedeens (NB: not regular Muslims, but the jihadists) in both Bosnia and Kosovo. And that's one item that never bothered NATO, either its US or European members. In fact, there were reports (half-unsubstantiated) that the muhajedeens in Kosovo had been helped just like the ones in Afghanistan had. So maybe you got your memories of the subject a bit mixed up there. “powerless in their own back yard” Joshua, I believe that’s a copyrighted phrase. Not sure who you should cite as the copyright owner, but a copyright note is not to be omitted anyway. suspicion that our NATO allies were callously pro-Serb Hmm? Oh they were so pro-Serb that Blair wanted to send in ground troops, and the Americans had to tell him to calm down… But if you’re looking for the country that had more perplexities not so much about the need to stop the massacres but about the opportunity to grant Kosovo independence by dealing with the KLA terrorists, it’s Israel – just to quote at random, from Slate:
Early in the bombing, Sharon warned that an independent Kosovo could become the heart of a “Greater Albania” that would be a staging ground for Muslim terrorism. Netanyahu quickly disavowed Sharon’s remarks, but Sharon had scored points with the far right, where anti-Muslim sentiment abounds. Israeli media have been full of unsubstantiated reports that the Kosovo Liberation Army is funded by Iran, Afghanistan, Osama Bin Laden, and Hezbollah.
As it turns out, those reports were not so unfounded, and Sharon’s position was not entirely a matter of “courting the far right wing and anti-Muslim sentiment” either. Kosovo is now ethnically clean of Serbs, and the same mujahedeens that fought in Afghanistan also went to aid the mujahedeens (NB: not regular Muslims, but the jihadists) in both Bosnia and Kosovo. And that’s one item that never bothered NATO, either its US or European members. In fact, there were reports (half-unsubstantiated) that the muhajedeens in Kosovo had been helped just like the ones in Afghanistan had. So maybe you got your memories of the subject a bit mixed up there.

]]> By: Joshua W. Burton http://crookedtimber.org/2004/03/06/binding-gulliver/comment-page-1/#comment-20473 Joshua W. Burton Sun, 07 Mar 2004 23:39:25 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1198#comment-20473 _watch the Dutch (foreseeably!) out-Shatilla Ariel Sharon_ ... _That analogy would only hold true if the Netherlands was an ally of the Bosnian Serbs, having invaded Bosnia in order to secure territorial and ideological goals, and being inherently hostile to Bosnian Muslim aims._ Two out of three, is the way it looks from this side of the Atlantic. (And "territorial and ideological goals" is a sufficiently farfetched description of Begin's/Sharon's/Gemayel's ill-fated campaign that no. 2 is also a wash in my view, but let's not go there today, if you don't mind.) As the noose contracted around those "safe zones", the suspicion that our NATO allies were callously pro-Serb, for basically Godfrey of Bouillon's reasons, was certainly in frame. The inquiry report, which used to be available at http://www.haverford.edu/relg/sells/srebrenica/srebrenica.html (link to French hearings now appears to be broken, sorry!) makes it clear that there was no shortage of military power, only a manifest absence of will, which also conveniently aligns itself with Europe's long prior refusal to let the Bosnian Muslims defend themselves. But let's forget the dark suspicions and innuendoes, and stipulate that Europe was powerless to protect the safe areas. Even at that reading, why should a nation with the will to support the (more-than-equally untenable) Berlin airlift, continue to yoke itself to allies who were powerless in their own back yard, and who _still_ show scant signs of remorse a decade later? watch the Dutch (foreseeably!) out-Shatilla Ariel Sharon … That analogy would only hold true if the Netherlands was an ally of the Bosnian Serbs, having invaded Bosnia in order to secure territorial and ideological goals, and being inherently hostile to Bosnian Muslim aims. Two out of three, is the way it looks from this side of the Atlantic. (And “territorial and ideological goals” is a sufficiently farfetched description of Begin’s/Sharon’s/Gemayel’s ill-fated campaign that no. 2 is also a wash in my view, but let’s not go there today, if you don’t mind.) As the noose contracted around those “safe zones”, the suspicion that our NATO allies were callously pro-Serb, for basically Godfrey of Bouillon’s reasons, was certainly in frame. The inquiry report, which used to be available at http://www.haverford.edu/relg/sells/srebrenica/srebrenica.html (link to French hearings now appears to be broken, sorry!) makes it clear that there was no shortage of military power, only a manifest absence of will, which also conveniently aligns itself with Europe’s long prior refusal to let the Bosnian Muslims defend themselves. But let’s forget the dark suspicions and innuendoes, and stipulate that Europe was powerless to protect the safe areas. Even at that reading, why should a nation with the will to support the (more-than-equally untenable) Berlin airlift, continue to yoke itself to allies who were powerless in their own back yard, and who still show scant signs of remorse a decade later?

]]> By: Doug http://crookedtimber.org/2004/03/06/binding-gulliver/comment-page-1/#comment-20472 Doug Sun, 07 Mar 2004 22:23:06 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1198#comment-20472 Henry, the transatlantic relationship can be at its worst point in 50 years (Kissinger's take) because there are no longer any structural limits to how bad it can be. Now that the Warsaw Pact and the USSR are no longer Over There, relations among the allies can get as bad as people want to make them. I think that's one reason things have gotten a little better in the last six months or so. In the run-up to Iraq, everyone got out of hand and no one had really come to grips with the fact that there isn't any bottom that things will automatically bounce off of. If France's role in the world is to limit US power - as some people in high positions there were known to say in late 2002 - then that role will carry costs, and damage to transatlantic cooperation is clearly one of them. As I said, both sides seem to have stepped back a bit because they have seen the abyss that it's possible to leap into. A change in tone under a Democratic president would also bring benefits. (Two minor items in parentheses: 1. The US veto of Caio Koch-Weser to head the IMF was just one example of US "arrogance" under Clinton. 2. Happy talk about Kyoto is a freebie for Kerry; the Senate had a 95-0 resolution against it, and there is no way in hell that Kerry would invest the political capital necessary to overturn that set of opinions. So he gets to score points against Bush while knowing he won't have to do anything about it. Hey, if you can't take cheap shots as an opposition candidate, what's the point?) Henry, the transatlantic relationship can be at its worst point in 50 years (Kissinger’s take) because there are no longer any structural limits to how bad it can be. Now that the Warsaw Pact and the USSR are no longer Over There, relations among the allies can get as bad as people want to make them. I think that’s one reason things have gotten a little better in the last six months or so. In the run-up to Iraq, everyone got out of hand and no one had really come to grips with the fact that there isn’t any bottom that things will automatically bounce off of. If France’s role in the world is to limit US power – as some people in high positions there were known to say in late 2002 – then that role will carry costs, and damage to transatlantic cooperation is clearly one of them. As I said, both sides seem to have stepped back a bit because they have seen the abyss that it’s possible to leap into. A change in tone under a Democratic president would also bring benefits. (Two minor items in parentheses: 1. The US veto of Caio Koch-Weser to head the IMF was just one example of US “arrogance” under Clinton. 2. Happy talk about Kyoto is a freebie for Kerry; the Senate had a 95-0 resolution against it, and there is no way in hell that Kerry would invest the political capital necessary to overturn that set of opinions. So he gets to score points against Bush while knowing he won’t have to do anything about it. Hey, if you can’t take cheap shots as an opposition candidate, what’s the point?)

]]>