Comments on: Kto kogo ?

By: bryan

bryan — Thu, 27 May 2004 18:10:44 +0000

’ I was not talking about a time period between handover and withdrawal, but rather conditions along a continuum between occupation/military government and withdrawal. Contrary to what John says in the post, this is worth taking seriously. ’ okay well I’ll rephrase: In fact, my eyes must be getting tired but I can’t find the part where John makes any kind of assertion about the timeperiod between occupation and withdrawal.

By: Doug

Doug — Thu, 27 May 2004 10:48:44 +0000

Bryan, I think I liked it better when you were just snarking, without having to pretend that you weren’t. Nevertheless, I was actually thinking about Afghanistan pre-invasion, i.e., Taliban Afghanistan (not so much state-sponsored terrorism as a terrorism-sponsored state) and pre-Taliban Afghanistan. Somebody better versed in the history can say whether warlordism is the historical norm there, or whether there is a better period that could be a positive reference point. I realize this line of thinking could not be discerned from what I wrote, hence the extra post. Will have to chime in with giles in noting that John says the only sovereignty worthy of the name is that which agrees with his political p.o.v. As John says above, he’s trying to avoid making a general assertion about sovereignty, but I think he’s making the partisan point that giles notes. Finally, I think bryan’s eyes were tired, because I was not talking about a time period between handover and withdrawal, but rather conditions along a continuum between occupation/military government and withdrawal. Contrary to what John says in the post, this is worth taking seriously. Or at least as seriosly as a blog can manage.

By: BadTux

BadTux — Thu, 27 May 2004 01:42:41 +0000

$20 billion dollars in “aid” are only going to American contractors, and so far have resulted in little more than whitewashed schools and a few repaired oil pipelines. The Iraqis may very well be willing to forego further such “aid” in favor of doing the work themselves using their oil revenue. As one noted liberal noted, Iraqi oil could generate $50 billion to $100 billion in revenues over two or three years. “We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon,” he told a House committee in March 2003. Of course, the actuality is far less than what that dastardly liberal Paul Wolfowitz lied to Congress about in March 2003, but still, their oil revenues are nothing to sniff at. 2 million+ barrels a month at current oil prices is not peanuts. -E

By: Thomas

Thomas — Wed, 26 May 2004 06:14:16 +0000

John, I’m not sure why you believe that there will inevitably be conflict between the US and the new Iraqi government. Do you forget that the US will continue to provide, so long as it is satisfied with developments, $20 billion in aid for reconstruction? Do you suppose the US would continue those payments if it weren’t allowed some autonomy? Do you think the Iraqi government would restrict autonomy at the risk of the $20 billion? I don’t think there’s likely to be much conflict between the two. And, as far as I can tell, you haven’t offered any reason to think that the lack of conflict will be the death of the new Iraqi government. As it is, there’s plenty of reason to think that both the US and Iraq will do whatever is necessary to keep the other happy, and there’s little reason to think that the Iraqi regime will pay a political price for the eventual accomodations necessary on both sides. I think this is a question that can be avoided for quite some time—two or three years even, though I don’t expect it will take that long to work things out.

By: Giles

Giles — Wed, 26 May 2004 05:01:23 +0000

the invasion of Kosovo, IC, Haiti and Sierra Leone were presented as a “liberation”/ ethical foreign policies. But that aside, no army ever gives up autonomy – even UN peacekeepers generally adopt a take it or leave attitude e.g. Pakistan, Bangladesh in Somalia, Sierra Leone. So again I think your hurdle is too high. If they can’t have autonomy, they would simply leave and I don’t think that there is anyone else is prepared to go in and keep the peace on a non autonomous basis – so the US is the best option we’ve got. Anyway the idea of withdrawl/soverignty seems to be a gradualist approach which I think makes sense; shock approaches have usually failed and would most definitely fail in Iraq now. Not a good idea.

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Wed, 26 May 2004 03:01:28 +0000

Given that the invasion was presented as a “liberation”, I’d suggest that more appropriate comparators might be France or perhaps Italy. But in any case, my point is not that some level of sovereignty is desirable in itself, but that, in the particular circumstances that apply in Iraq, this question can’t be evaded for long. Continued autonomy for the occupying forces would be a disaster, not because it would violate some abstract norm, but because it would guarantee the failure of the whole enterprise. Blair can see this, obviously.

By: Giles

Giles — Wed, 26 May 2004 02:23:38 +0000

Perhaps an appropriate measure then would be to measure Iraqi sovereignty after 30/6 against countries in similar siutations. So do we think Iraqis will have more soveriegnty than a) Kosovo today b) Haiti today c) Germany/Japan in say 1947/8 d) Ivory Coast today e) Gaza today f) Sierra Leone today I’d say yes to all of the above (except perhaps Haiti and IC), which is some acheivement considering that the US have only occupied Iraq for about a year – compared to Kosovo which has been reconstructed for the last 7.

By: Giles

Giles — Wed, 26 May 2004 02:23:22 +0000

By: Tom T.

Tom T. — Wed, 26 May 2004 02:11:05 +0000

Regardless of any substantive merits, Lenin’s statement seems to be losing some of the cited virtue of succinctness, if it has to be as heavily annotated as it has been thus far.

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Tue, 25 May 2004 23:12:53 +0000

In response to giles and others, I’m not asserting that sovereignty is inherently indivisible and that Leninist power politics are always applicable. Rather I’m saying that the situation in Iraq is such that this is the case. anatoly, I had it as you did, then changed because other sources seemed to give the kgo transliteration, but I’ve changed it back. As regards your translation, whatever the literal meaning, the one I give makes more sense as a claim regarding what politics is about.

By: Carlos

Carlos — Tue, 25 May 2004 23:07:41 +0000

Doug, I don’t really understand your point. Sure, there are different states of sovereignty ranging from absolute to nonexistent, but if you look at the criteria employed in that project (which is a pretty low level) you’ll see that the future Iraki government will probably fail that test. So, yes, sovereignty is squishy, but only up to a point, and Irak will be at that point. Of course there are arrangements out there with even less sovereignty than that, but they are usually forced by fear of an enemy or other cause and they are really the exception. Right now, the Iraki population doesn’t look very well disposed to this kind of diminished sovereignty and it will probably become a problem.

By: bryan

bryan — Tue, 25 May 2004 22:36:26 +0000

It is indeed easier to snark than discuss if statements seem more snark worthy than discussion worthy. It can also be that certain statements seem so absurd to one that they prompt snarkiness because it is difficult to consider that they could in any way be honestly made. Case in point: “Parenthetically, Germans, for one, have never voted to pool sovereignty. They have voted for various governments that have had pooling sovereignty as part of their policy. If you think that’s an airtight argument for voting to pool sovereignty, I give you the WTO. ” Well although one could with reference to games theory invalidate any form of modern democracy(not saying you do this, just noting it could be done) I pretty much go with normative understandings of democracy which suggest that if you vote for a government which has a policy of x then you have voted for x, of course if you vote for a government that has a policy of not-x and it implements x then you have not voted for x. A propos your example of the WTO, the WTO I’m betting does not loom as large in the minds of the voters of most democratic nations as the EU looms in the minds of EU nations. Not even near. That is the kind of example that makes me itch to snark, but I understand it is not helpful. ‘Getting out a globe and thinking about all the countries demarcated so bravely in solid colors shows how many states have to answer’ I’m sorry but this means nothing to me, indeed it strikes me as a form of misdirection. you want sovereignty in Iraq, but what is sovereignty, look at this globe, the globe however has not been acknowledged by me as an arbiter of what constitutes sovereignty. What has been acknowledged as the arbiter of what constitutes sovereignty? Well, probably the earlier referenced quotes about controlling violence and who does what to whom and so forth. Then you say: “it’s beyond dispute that numerous states have severe limits on their sovereignty, and that over the last five to ten years, a number of states (Liberia, Somalia, Congo, Afghanistan) ” again, I feel like snarking because I feel like I am being subjected to a very cunning form of trollery here, the mention of Afghanistan, which has had it’s sovereignty reduced in the same way that Iraq has had its reduced – by being attacked by the U.S – does not seem to me a good argument for why Iraq can still be a sovereign nation while taking orders from the U.S. The snark would be, oh yes, Only by being subjugated by the U.S can a middle eastern nation be free to pursue its own destiny. But of course there is another more essential argument here, which is that you indicate your example countries as ones without sovereignty as though this should indicate that sovereignty is a not understood quality. Funny ain’t it, we don’t know what sovereignty is, but in making your argument you refer to the quality all the time as though it does indeed have some well understood quality. By saying that these nations have no sovereignty worth the name it in no way invalidates that the sovereignty which Iraq will come to possess will likewise not be worth the name. “Contrary to John’s assertion, the question of what lies between military occupation and coalition withdrawal at the behest of whatever Iraqi authorities come next is worth taking very seriously indeed, because that will be an important post-June-30 question.” Oh hell, gotta snark: Of course the question of what lies between military occupation and coalition REFUSAL to withdraw at the behest of whatever Iraqi authorities come next is worth taking just as seriously as what happens after coalition refusal to withdraw. In fact, my eyes must be getting tired but I can’t find the part where John makes any kind of assertion about the timeperiod between handover and withdrawal.

By: Anatoly

Anatoly — Tue, 25 May 2004 22:35:36 +0000

Not to mention that it doesn’t mean “who can do what to whom?”, but rather something like “who [will defeat] whom?” Sheesh.

By: Anatoly

Anatoly — Tue, 25 May 2004 22:31:44 +0000

Two blunders in the title consisting of seven characters? It’s “kto kogo”, without the comma. And it’s pronounced kto-kaVO, in case anyone cares.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Tue, 25 May 2004 20:23:07 +0000

It’s an interesting question. But don’t we need to figure out the answer in Yugoslavia first? I mean, it isn’t clear to me what the status of Kosovo is, even now. I don’t know who can do what to whom, and yet no one is asking any questions about that arrangment of limited sovereignty within limited sovereignty. The sovereignty of Serbia, remember, was to be respected, at the same time it was violated, and Kosovars were to be given sovereignty, to the extent not inconsistent with the UN’s administration of the province and the sovereignty of the FRY. The UN’s power came, of course, from the loaded guns of Nato, not from the decisions of Kosovars or Serbians or even the UN. And of course the Nato action was taken without the consent or approval of the UN. First things, first. Let’s figure out the wars of the 90’s before we puzzle over the wars of the ‘00s.